his heart that Christ was the son of God and so received him as Christ entirely Argument 5. If it be a necessary Condition of our being baptized for the Remission of sin that we profess a belief in more then Christs Humiliation and merits then is it a necessary Condition of our actual Remission of sin that we really believe in more than Christs Humiliation and Merits But the Antecedent is certain For the Prescript Mat. 28.19 20 and the constantly used form of Baptism and the Texts even now mentioned 1 Pet. 3.21 Act. 8.37 do all shew it And I have more fully proved it in my Dispute of Right to Sacraments And the Consequence is undeniable And I think all will be granted Argument 6. If the Apostles of Christ themselves before his death were justified by believing in him as the son of God and the Teacher and King of the Church yea perhaps without believing at all in his Death and Ransom thereby then the believing in him as the son of God and Teacher and King conjunct with believing in his blood are the faith by which we are now justified But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is because it is utterly improbable that the addition of further light and objects for our faith should null the former and that which was all or so much of their justifying faith should be now no part of ours The Antecedent I prove Matth. 16.21.22 23. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his Disciples how that he must go unto Jerusalem and suffer many things of the Elders and chief Priests and Scribes and be killed and be raised again the third day then Peter took him and began to rebuke him saying Be it far from thee Lord this shall not be unto thee c. John 12.16 These things understood not his Disciples at the first but when Jesus was glorified then c. Luke 28. Then he took unto him the twelve and said unto them Behold we go up to Jerusà lem and all things that are written by the Prophets concerning the son of man shall be accomplished For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles and shall be mocked and spitefully intreated and spit upon and they shall scourge him and put him to death and the third day he shall rise again And they understood none of these things and this saying was hid from them neither knew they the things which were spoken Luke 24.20 21 22. The chief Priests and Rulers delivered him to be condemned to death and have crucified him but we trusted that it had been be which should have redeemed Israel and beside all this to day is the third day since these things were done and certain women also of our company made us astonished which were early at the Sepulchre O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his Glory vers 45. Then opened be their understanding that they might understand the Scripture John 20.9 For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead By all this it is plain that the Disciples then believed not Christs death or Resurrection Yet that they were justified is apparent in many Texts of Scripture where Christ pronounceth them clean by the word which he had spoken John 15.3 and oft called them blessed Mat. 5. 16.17 Luke 6. And he saith that the Father loved them John 16.27 They were branches in him the living Vine and exhorted to abide in him John 15 5 6 7. And that they were Believers is oft exprest and particularly that they Believed in him as the son of God and trusted it was he that should redeem Israel that is by Power and not by Death and that they took him for their Master and Teacher and the King of Israel some of them desiring to sit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom and striving who should be the greatest about him John 16.27 The Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me and have believed that I came out from God John 1.49 Nathaniel answered and saith unto him Rabbi thou art the son of God thou art the King of Israel Here was the saving faith of the Disciples Matth. 16.16 Simon Peter answered and said Thou art Christ the son of the living God Object But was it possible for them to be justified without the blood of Christ Answ No as to the Fathers acceptance his blood even then before it was shed was the meritorious cause of their Justification But they were justified by it without the knowledge or belief of it thought not without faith in Christ as the son of God the Messiah the Rabbi and the King of Israel Which also shews that faith did not then justifie them in the new Notion of an Instrumental cause apprehending the purchasing cause or that the effects of Christs several acts were not diversifyed according to the several acts of faith to those as Objects I hope all that have Christian Ingenuity will here understand that I speak not this in the least measure to diminish the excellency or necessity of that act of faith which consisteth in the believing on Christ as crucified or in his blood and Ransom Or that I think it less necessary then the other to us now because the Disciples then were justified without it I know the case is much altered and that is now of necessity to Justification that was not then But all that I endeavour is to shew that we are justified by the other acts of faith as well as this because it is not likely that those acts should not be now justifying in conjunction with this by which men were then justified without this Argument 7. If the satisfaction and merits of Christ be the only Objects of the justifying act of faith then according to their own principles they must on the same reason be the only obiects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith But the satisfaction and merit of Christ are not the only Objects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith therefore not of the justifying To this Mr. Blake answereth by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit and four terms in the Syllogism as in other terms I had expressed it And saith We look at Christ for justification as satisfying Iustice and meriting pardon and remission not as meriting sanctification Repl. But this is his mis-understanding of plain words The term Meritor was not equivocal but the General comprehending both effects And that which he nakedly affirms is the thing which the Argument makes against Here it is supposed as a granted truth that we can be no more sanctified then justified without Christs blood and merits and so the scope of the Argument is this Christ as a Ransom and a Meritor of sanctification is not the only object of the sanctifying act of faith therefore by
and drinking his blood intended not the exclusion of the spirit that quickneth I am therefore Resolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Christ as the object of that faith which is the Condition of Justification And I think this full comprehensive faith is safer then the groundlesly distinguishing faith and this Doctrine more agreeable to the Scriptures Mr. Blake Fourthly Our faith must look on Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his Obedience as a servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before God as righteous Rom. 5.19 by the obedience of one many are made righteous Repl. First I grant the whole but it s nothing to our Question It s a strange error that runs through so many Arguments that they should be impertinent to the question You should have concluded that Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which in terminis is the conclusion that you undertook to prove whereas all that this Argument will conclude is that our faith must look at Christs obedience for Righteousness c. which I have said no more against then you have done Secondly But if Only be implyed as adjoyned to obedience then it will exclude his suffering as suffering in that formal respect and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience Thirdly And by this Argument you destroy what you not only mantained but resolved to stick to in the last that is that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for justification and that you are resolved to look no further then Christs Priestly office alone For Obedience extendeth further then blood-shed therefore if we are justified by Christs whole obedience then by more then his blood Yea you will be put hard to it to prove that all Christs obedience was offered by him as a Preist to his Father It belongs to a Subject a Servant a Son to obey but obedience is far from being proper to a Priest Fourthly If you intend the Major exclusively as to all other considerations of the object I still deny it as false Our faith even as the condition of Justification must look at Christ not only to obtain Righteousness by him but also to subject our selves to his Teaching and Government and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy Fifthly Yea the Minor it self is false if you imply the exclusive Only For we obtain Righteousness and are justified before God effectively by Christ as King first by constitution and secondly by sentence as well as meritoriously by Christ as Priest Mr. Blake Fifthly That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the Sacrifice of of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust c. Repl. Still the same error an Ignoratio Elenchi I grant the whole but the conclusion's wanting Did I ever deny that faith must eye and follow Christs death to bring us to God yea for Justification But you should have said by his death alone or you say nothing And when you prove that by his death alone Christ brings us to God you will do somewhat And yet if you did it would not follow that we are brought to God in Justification only by eying the cause of Justification as such Mr. Blake Sixthly As Christ freeth us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look to him for Justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittal from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Act. 13.8 but Christ freeth us from the cause in suffering as a Sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath Redeemed us c. Repl. First Only is again left out in the Major proposition and so I grant it But if it be implyed that faith must look to him for Justification only in that notion as he justifieth us yea only as he meriteth Justification then I deny it and you say nothing to prove it Secondly The exclusive of your Minor is a dangerous error Christ freeth us from the curse by Justifying us as a King and teaching and ruling and sanctifying us and not only by becoming a curse for us For if you here put in Only you plainly exclude all his Obedience as such and much of it materially for it is not a cursed thing to obey God The Law curseth for disobeying therefore Obeying is not the Curse nor is it materially a Curse to Love God and Trust him and be zealous for his Glory c. The whole office of Christ is imployed in freeing us from the Curse and when Paul saith he was made a Curse to free us he never said or thought that he did nothing else to free us for an hundred texts do tell us of more Thirdly And on the by I must say that I am not of your mind in the description of Justification for omitting the controversie whether Justification only free us from the Curse I do not believe that this curse is only the sentence of the Law of Moses If it were either you must prove that all the Gentile world that heard not of it was under the Law of Moses which abundance of most Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it or else that all these are under no curse for Justification to remove The Law of Nature was materially part of the Mosaical Law but the form denominateth So much to Mr. Blakes Arguments which are so little to the purpose that if the weight of the cause and the prejudice of some Readers did not call more earnestly for a Reply then any apperance of strength in them I had spared my self and the Reader this Labor But that Christ as Christ is the object of that faith by which as a Condition we must be justified and so that we are not justified only by believing in his blood but also by believing in him entirely as Jesus Christ our Lord and by becoming his Disciples or true Christians this is a truth that deserveth more then my Pen to defend it and that while God affordeth me time and strength I shall never desert Nov. 1656. A DISPVTATION OF JVSTIFICATION Whether any Works be any Conditions of it Conteining a necessary Defence of ancient Verity against the unnecessary Opposition of a very Learned Reverend and dearly Beloved Brother in his Treatise of Imputation of Righteousness and his Lectures on John 17. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster 1657. Whether Works are a Condition of Justification And so whether we are justified by Works as such a Condition THough we have said enough already on these Questions which for dispatch I joyn together yet seeing there are some that must needs have more or the same
of our sight to be our Saviour Soveraign by redemption and Husband even here in our native Country the match being moved to us by his Embassadors and imperfectly solemnized upon our cordial consent and giving up our selves to him by our Covenant but it shall be perfectly solemnized at the great Marriage of the Lamb. This is my faith of the nature of true justifying faith and the manner of its receiving Christ THE Reader must understand that after this I had a personal conference with this Dear and Reverend Brother wherein he still owned and insisted on the passiveness of Justifying faith viz. That it is but a Grammatical action or nominal and a physical or hyperpyhsical passion which also he giveth us again in the Treatise of Imputation of righteousness FINIS A DISPVTATION Proving the Necessity of a two-fold Righteousness to Justification and Salvation And defending this and many other Truths about Iustifying Faith its Object and Office against the confident but dark Assaults of Mr. Iohn Warner By Richard Baxter Acts 5.31 Him hath Gad axalted with his right hand a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sins Rom. 4.22 23 24 25. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was Imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we Believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our Justification LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether Besides the Righteousness of Christ Imputed there be a Personal Evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salvation Affirm THough it hath pleased a late Opponent Mr. Warner to make the Defence of this Proposition necessary to me yet I shall suppose that I may be allowed to be brief both because of what I have formerly said of it and because the Question is so easily decided and Christians are so commonly agreed on it For the right understanding of what we here maintain its necessary that I explain the Terms and remove confusion by some necessary distinctions and lay down my sense in some Propositions that make to the opening of this To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in several Languages that signifie Righteousness or Justification would be a needless loss of time it being done to our hands by so many and we being so far agreed on it that here lyeth no part of our present controversie The Form of Righteousness signified by the name is Relative as strait or crooked is For it is not the Habit of Justice by which we give every man his own that is the Subject of our Question but Righteousness in a Judicial or Legal sense 1. Righteousness is either of the cause or of the person Not that these are subjects actually separated but distinct the one being subordinate to the other The cause is the nearest subject and so far as it is just and justifiable so far the person is just and justifiable Yet the person may otherwise be just and justified when one or many causes are unjustifyable 2. Righteousness is denominated either from a Relation to the Precept of the Law or to the Sanction To be righteous in Relation to the Precept is to be conform to that Precept An Action or Disposition conform to the Precept is called a Righteous Action or Disposition and from thence the person being so far conform is called a Righteous person And so this Righteousness as to the positive precept is his obeying it and as to the prohibition it is his Innocency contrary to that guilt which we call Reatus culpae Righteousness as a Relation to the Sanction is either a Relation to the Commination and penal Act of the Law or to the promissory or Premiant Act. As to the former Righteousness is nothing but the Not-dueness of the punishment contrary to the Reatus poenae as it respects the execution and so A not being lyable to condemnation as it respects the sentence This is sometime founded in the persons Innocency last mentioned sometime on a free pardon or acquittance sometime on satisfaction made by himself And sometime on satisfaction by another conjunct with free pardon which is our case Righteousness as a Relation to the Promise or Premiant part of the Sanction is nothing but our Right to the Reward Gift or Benefit as pleadable and justifyable in foro Which sometime is founded in merit of our own sometime in a free Gift sometime in the merit of another conjunct with free Gift which is our case other cases concern us not This last mentioned is Righteousness as a Relation to the substance of the Promise or Gift But when the Promise or Gift or Testament or Premiant Law is conditional as in our case it is then there is another sort of Righteousness necessary which is Related to the Modus promissionis and that is The performance of the condition which if it be not properly called Righteousness Ethically yet civilly in a Judiciary sense it is when it comes to be the cause to be tryed and Judged whether the person have performed the condition then his cause is just or unjust and he just or unjust in that respect 3. Righteousness is either Vniversal as to all causes that the person can be concerned in or it is only particular as to some causes only and so but secundum quid to the person 4. A particular Righteousness may either be such as the total welfare of a man depends on or it may be of less and inconsiderable moment 5. When a cause subordinate to the main cause is Righteous this may be called a subordinate Righteousness But if it be part of the main cause it is a partial righteousness co-ordinate I will not trouble you with so exact a disquisition of the Nature of Righteousness and Justification as I judge fit in it self both because I have a little heretofore attempted it and because I find it blamed as puzling curiosity or needless distinguishing Though I am not of that mind yet I have no minde to be troublesome As for the term Justification 1. It either may signifie the Act of the Law or Promise or the sentence of the Judge or the Execution of that sentence For to one of these three sences the word may still be reduced as we shall have to do with it that is to constitutive or sentential or Executive Justification though the sentence is most properly so called To these Justification by Plea Witness c. are subservient 2. Justification is either opposed to a false Accusation or to a true 3. In our case Justification is either according to the Law of works or to the Law of Grace I think we shall at this time have no great need
false In the second sense it is every way false speaking of our Universal Righteousness In the third sense if spoken laxely de materia its false because of the exclusive Only And if spoken de ratione formalivel proxima 1. It s preposterous to put the Consequent before the Antecedent if you speak de ordine exequendi 2. And it is false For qua Justificans speaketh of Justification as the consequent or as an act and not of the Nature of Faith it self And therefore qua Justificans faith is nothing much less that act alone For it is not de esse fidei that the term speaks but of the consequent So that the Fides qua justificans est what ever act you mention is absurd and unsound For as non justificat quatenus est it a non est quatenus Justificat its Essence being pre-supposed But if you speak de ordine Intentionis viz. Faith as elected a means or condition of Justification is only a Believing in Christs sacrifice then Laxely Materially it would be True if it were not for the only But because of that it is false both de materia de ratione formali The nature of it is before its Office So 9. Faith as designed to this act or operation of Justifying looks on Christ as a Saviour This is Mr. Ws. Assertion But 1. justifying is not an act or operation of faith but of God on the Believer 2. But if you mean but constituting it the condition of Justification then 1. the wrong end is set first For it doth not look at Christ as it s made the condition but it s made the condition because being an Accepting of Christ its Apt for that Office So that Materially and Laxely it s thus true a Saviour comprehendeth Christs Kingly and Prophetical Offices and everlasting Priesthood in Heaven But this is nothing to the formal Reason of its Interest in Justification But lest you think that qua Justificans hath no proper place I further instance 9. Faith as justifying is distinst from faith as entitling to Heaven or other promised mercies This is true supposing Justification and the said Title to Glory to differ But this is but a denomination of the same faith from its divers consequents As my lighting a candle being one action is Actioilluminans ut causa moralis calefaciens quailluminans non est calefaciens So a womans marrying a Prince is an Honouring enriching act and qua honouring it is not enriching But it s the same entire undivided act or Antecedent Means or Condition that is thus variously denominated from several Benefits And thus Relations may give divers denominations to the same person the same man may be considered as a Father as a Physitian as a Subject c. So 10. FAITH WHICH IS AN EFFECTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF and AFFIANCE IN CHRIST AS CHRIST was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the Condition of Justification and Life because his Wisdom saw it fit for that Office and that fitness lyeth in its respect to the Object and Gods ends supposing we may assign Reasons or causes of Gods Will. By this faith so constituted the Condition we are actually JUSTIFIED AS T IS THE PERFORMED CONDITION OF GODS PROMISE This is the plain Truth in few and easie words By what is said you may see that when they say faith as Justifying is this or that it is both preposterous and the qua as distinct from the quae de ratione formali causally spoken is plainly false But in other cases Laxely and Materially the qua signifieth the same as the quae with the exclusion of other matter And when they have raised never so great a dust the Question is but this Whether we are justified by Believing in Christ as Christ or only in Christ as a Ransom and yet as a Ransom and as dying he purchaseth Sanctification as well as Justification Or. Whether faith in Christ as Christ or only faith in Christ as Purchasing Justification be the condition of our Justification Reader Having shewed the darkness of that Light that caused Mr. Ws. Exercitation and overthrown its Basis I shall put thee to no further trouble To my Reverend Brother Mr. John Warner Preacher of the Gospel at Christs Church in Hantshire Sir THough through the privacy of my habitation I never so much as heard of your name before your Book of the Object and Office of faith was in the Press yet upon tht perusal of it I confidently conclude that a zeal for God and that which you verily think to be his Truth hath moved you to this undertaking and doubtless you think that you have done God service by it I love your zeal and your indignation against Error and your tendernese of so great a point as that of Justification And could I find your Light to be answerable to your heat I hope I should also love and honour it Had you not taken me with the two Reverened Brethren whom you oppose to be the enemies of the person and Grace of the Lord Jesus or the followers of them as you say Epist pag. 6. I am perswaded you would not have either called us so or thought your self called to this assault And if I love Christ I must love that man that hateth me though mistakingly for the sake of Christ That principle within you that hath made Christ and Truth so dear to you that you rise up for that which seemeth to you to be Truth I hope will grow till you attain perfection in that world of Light that will end our differences I shall not go about to dèprecate your indignation for my plain expressions in this Defence when the nature of your matter did require them For I am not so unresonable as to expect that fair words should reconcile a good man to those that he takes to be enemies to Christ or to their followers But as I can truly say if I know what is in my heart that the Reading of your Book hath bred no enmity to you in my brest but only kindled a love to your zeal with a compassion of your darkness and a dislike of your so much confidence in the dark so it shall be my care as it is my duty to love you as a mistaken servant of Christ though you should take me for his greatest enemy And therefore being conscious of no worse affections to you I desire that Justice of you as to impute the ungratefull passages that you meet with to my apprehension of the badness of your cause and Arguments and a compassion to the poor Church that must be troubled and tempted and endangered by such gross mistakes and not to any contempt of your person with which I meddle not but as you are the Author of those Arguments In your Preface I find a Law imposed by you on your Answerer which I have not fully observed 1. Because I had written my Reply to your Arguments a considerable time before I saw your Preface
covenanting to be his as a faithfull spouse and Subject and first acknowledging what he hath done for her freedom and advancement then to take him for her Husband and Lord that hath done this to advance and free her And while she is faithfull to this marriage covenant in the performance she shall enjoy these Benefits but if she forsake him and choose another as with him she received her Dignity so with him she shall lose them all So that ex parte actus here is no room for your quatenus and distinguishing But now if the Question be intended not ex parte Actus or what is the condition on her part but only what is it in him that she receives for her Husband which doth deliver her Why then we say it is his Ransom his love and free mercy c. And if the Question be what is it in him that dignifieth her Why I say it is his Dignity and Riches of which she participateth together with the same his free mercy as the Impulsive cause And so she is Dignified by Receiving or marrying him quatenus a Prince rich and Honourable and not quatenus a Redeemer only and she is delivered by taking him as a Deliverer or Redeemer and not as an honourable Prince The meaning of all this is no more but that he doth not redeem her as a Prince nor dignifie her under the notion of a Redeemer and so on his part you may distinguish But yet as to the conditionality on her part there is no room for distinguishing at all For is not this all that Paul ayms at in speaking so oft of Faith in Relation to Christs death and Righteousness rather then to his Government to note what in Christ received doth justifie rather then what respect of our act of faith is the condition And may not this tend to an accommodation between us in this Point especially with those Divines that say Faith is taken Relatively when we are said to be Justified by it and it is said to be Imputed to us for Righteousness The Lord enlighten our dark understandings and give us love to the Truth and one another HAving done with this I proceed to your Additional Paper which I lately received and for which I am also really thankfull to you But the Answer needs not be long 1. You think the 66. Thes hardly reconcilable with the words cited out of pag 191 of that of Baptism Rom. 3.25 5.9 But I see not the least appearance of a contradiction Christ whom justifying Faith receives doth Redeem us by his blood and not chiefly by his Principality and he saves us as a Saviour and ruleth us as a Ruler c. But that faith which on our part is the condition of our interest in him his Benefits is the Believing in or receiving Christ as Christ or as he is offered to us in the Gospel as the Assembly in their Catechism well express it Davenant Culverwell Throgmorton Mr. Norton of New England Catech pag. 29. and many more say as I in this but I will not weary you with citations having been so tedious already But I am glad to feel you yielding to the Truth for it is a weighty Point as you seem in the next words where you say that Christs Death is the sole or chief object of Faith as Justifying If you yield once that it and his Priestly Office is not the sole Object I will never contend with you about their Precedency which is chief I have confessed to you that it is a fuller and ordinarily fitter phrase to say we are justified by faith in his blood then to say we are justified by faith in his Government because it pointeth out Relatively the causality in the Object and not only the conditionality in the Act. But I think when you respect the said condition especially that then it is the fittest speech to say we are justified by faith in Christ 2. YOur next are all of other Subjects The second is whether Luke 12.24 import not a denial of Title in Christ to Judge The answer is obvious 1. He had not that derived Title from men which was necessary to him that should exercise the place of a Magistrate 2. Christ speaks not of Soveraignty that he had but Magistracy which is distinct from Soveraignty as being the Executioner of Lawes which Soveraignty makes and being under the Law when the Soveraign qua talis is above them 3. His Interrogation may perhaps be no Negation 4. But the plain answer which I stick to is this Christ had not then a Title or Right to the actual exercise of his power as to divide Inheritances The General of an Army to ransom a Souldier that should dye for Treason doth agree with the King that he will put himself in the place of that common souldier for a months time and will do all his duty and will venture his life in some desperate service Now during this time while he is in the souldiers place the General hath not title to the Actual Rule c. as before he had not because he hath lost it but because it will not stand with the state and duty of a souldier which he hath voluntarily put himself in Yet at the same time his Lieutenant General and other Officers that have their Commissions all from him do Govern So here will it follow that because Christ had not Title by himself to exercise the place of a Ruler and Judge being then in the state of a servant that therefore now he hath not the Soveraignty 3. YOur third is from Col. 1.14 I suppose you mean the thirteenth But little know I how you would thence argue with any seeming strength Christ hath a threefold Kingdom The first where he most fully Ruleth is the souls of Believers It follows not that a man that is not of this Kingdom is not of Christs Kingdom at all The Kingdom of God is thus within us The second is The Church Visible This the Apostle here speaks of and of this Heathens are no members The third is The whole world of mankind whom he hath bought under his Dominion and to be at his Disposal Rom. 14.9 c. who are delivered into his hands and over-rued by him and he is their Rightfull King and will Judge them as their King and give them the reward of Rebellious Subjects that would not consent to his actual Rule Luke 19.27 c. and not only as Rebels against God as Creator If he be not their King they cannot be judged Rebels against him Yea the Law of Nature is now his Law by which he in part Ruleth them though they know him not many know not the true God who yet are partly Ruled by that his Law The Jews crucified their King though they were Infidels and knew him not to be their King To conclude this Subject I desire you but to consider whether there be any inconvenience appearing in the acknowledgement of Christs
Justification as believing in him as Priest it being the backwardness of nature to the acceptance of Christs Government and Doctrine that is a special Reason why faith is made the condition of that pardon which Nature is not so backward to accept 12. The Reasons to be assigned why faith in Christ is made the condition of Justification is 1. The will of the free Donor 2. The fitness of faith to that Office as being suited to Gods Ends and to Christ the Object and to mans necessitous estate Not only because it is the Receiving of Righteousness but for all these Reasons together in which its aptitude doth consist and its Aptitude to the Honour of the Redeemer and free Justifier is the principal part of its Aptitude it being impossible that God should prefer man as his ultimate and before himself 13. Though the Reason why Faith is made by God the condition of our Justification must partly be fetcht from the Nature of Faith which some call its Instrumentallity in apprehending Christ yet the Reason why we are Justified by Faith must be fetched from the Tenour of the Promise and Will of the Promiser So that though the Remote Reason be that Aptitude of Faith which is the Dispositio material yet the formal neerest Reason is because God hath made it the condition of the Gift which shall suspend the efficacy till performed and when performed the benefit shall be ours 14. As Faith hath its denomination from some one or few acts which yet suppose many as concomitant and consequent So those concomitant and consequent Acts have their answerable place and Interest in the foresaid Conditionality as to our part in Christ and Justification 15. And therefore it was not the Apostles meaning to set Faith against these concomitant acts as Repentance hope in Christ desire of Christ love to Christ c. and to exclude these under the notion of Works but contrarily to suppose them in their order 16. The burdensome works of the Mosaical Law suppoed to be such as from the dignity and perfection of that Law would justifie men by procuring pardon of sin and acceptance with God are they that the Jews opposed to Christs Righteousness and Justification by Faith and which Paul disputeth against and consequently against any works or acts or habits of our own opposed to Christ or this way of free justification by him 17. The not loosing our Iustification and Title to Christ and Life hath more for its condition then the first Reception or Possession hath And so hath the final Iustification at judgement if men live after their first believing 18. Justification at judgement being the Adjudging us to Glory hath the same conditions as Glorification it self hath Reader In these Eighteen Propositions thou mayst fully see the Doctrine that I contend for which also in my Confession Apologie and this Book I have expressed And now I will shew you somewhat of the face of the Doctrine which the Dissenters commonly do propugne but not so largely because I cannot open other mens Doctrine so freely and fully as I can do my own 1. They agree with me that Christs Righteousness is the meritorious or material cause of our Iustification though some add that it is the formal cause I suppose it is but a mistaken name 2. They agree that Christ and pardon and Life are Given us by the Gospel-Promise 3. They yield that an entire Faith in Christ as Christ is the condition of our Right to his entire Benefits 4. But they say that the Acts of Faith in thier procurement of the Benefits have as divers an Interest as the Acts of Christ which Faith believeth 5. And they say that it is some one act or two or some of them that is the sole justifying act though others be compresent 6. This Iustifying act some call the Apprehending of Christ as a Sacrifice some Affiance or Recumbency or Resting on him as a Sacrifice for sin or as others also on his active Righteousness or an Apprehension of Christs Righteousness or as others A perswasion that his Promise is true or an Assent to that truth or as others an Assurance or at least a Belief fide Divinâ that we are justified 7. They say that the neerest Reason of our Iustification by this faith is because it is an Instrument of our Iustification or of our Apprehending Christs Righteousness And so that we are justified by Faith as an Instrumental efficient cause say some and as a Passive Receiving Instrument say others 8. They say that there being but two wayes of Iustification imaginable by faith or by works all that desert the former way if they despair not of Iustification fall under the expectation of the latter And I grant that Scripture mentioneth no third way 9. Therefore say they seeing that Pauls Iustification by Faith is but by the act before mentioned whoever looketh to be justified in whole or in part by another act as by Faith in Christ as Teacher as King by desiring him by Hoping in him by Loving him by disclaiming all our own righteousness c. doth seek Iustification by Works which Paul disputes against and so set against the only true Iustification by Faith 10. Yea and they hold that whoever looks to be Iustified by that act of faith which themselves call the Iustifying act under any other notion then as an Instrument doth fall to justification by works or turn from the true Iustification by Faith By these unwarrantable Definitions and Distinctions and additions to Gods Word A lamentable perplexity is prepared for mens souls it being not possible for any living man to know that he just hits on the justifying Act and which is it and that he takes in no more c. and so that he is not a Legalist or Jew and falls not from Evangelical Iustification by faith in Christ So that Iustification by faith in Christ as Christ considered in all essential to his Office is with them no Iustification by faith in Christ but justification by Works so much disowned by the Apostle the expectants of which are so much condemned I have gathered the sum of most of the Dissenters minds as far as I can understand it If any particular man of them disown any of this let him better tell you his own mind For I intend not to charge him with any thing that he disowns The Lord Illuminate and Reconcile all his people by his Spirit and Truth Amen The CONTETS Disputation 1. Quest WHether we are justified by believing in Jesus Christ as our King and Teacher as well as by believing in his blood Aff. pag. 1. The state and weight of the Controversie p. 2 c. Ten Propositions for fuller explication p. 10 c. Argument first p. 13 Argu. 2. p. 14 Argu. 3. p. 19 Argu. 4. p. 24 Argu. 5. p. 27 Argu. 6. p. 28 Argu. 7. p. 30 Argu. 8. p. 31 Argu. 9. p. 35 Argu. 10. p. 38 defended against Mr. Blak's assault
hereabout are such as if they were held practically and after the proper sense of their expressions would be a great hinderance to salvation if not plainly hazard it And therefore the question is not to be cast by as needless or unprofitable It is so neer the great matters of our Redemption Justification and the nature of faith that it is it self the greater And if Amesius say true that truths are so concatenated that every Error must by consequence overthrow the foundation then it must be so in this The consequents shall be mentioned anon in the Arguments where it will be more seasonable And in great matters it is not a contemptible Error which consisteth but in mis-naming and mis-placing them It is a very great help to the clear and full understanding of Truths to have right Notions and Methods And the contrary may prove dangerous to many others when the particular Patrons of those mistakes may be in no danger by them For perhaps their first Notions may be righter than their second and they may not see the consequents of their mistakes and yet when such mistakes in terms and methods shall be commended to the world other men that hear and read their words and know not their hearts and better apprehensions are like enough to take them in the most obvious or proper sense and by one disorder to be led to more and to swallow the Consequents as well as the misleading Premises And therefore I must needs say that this point appeareth of such moment in my eyes that I dare not desert that which I confidently take to be the Truth nor sacrifice it to the honor or pleasure of man For the explication of the terms it is needless to say much and I have neither time for nor mind of needless work By Justification here we mean not either Sanctification alone or sanctification and remission conjunct as making up our Righteousness as the Papists do though we deny not but sometime the word may be found in Scripture in some such sense For thus it is past controversie that our justification that is our sanctification as to all that followeth faith is as much if not much more from our belief in Christ as Teacher and King as from our belief in him as a Ransome But by Justification we mean that Relative Change which Protestants ordinarily mean by this word which we need not here define The Preposition By when we speak of being justified by faith is not by all men taken in the same sense First Sometime it s used more strictly and limitedly to signifie only an efficiency or the Interest of an Efficient cause And thus some Divines do seem to take it when they say that we are justified by faith in Christs blood and Righteousness and not by faith in him as a Teacher or a Lord which occasioneth the Papists to say our difference is wider then indeed it is For the word By hath an ambiguity and in their sence we yield their Negative though not their Affirmative in the last-mentioned conclusion Secondly Sometime the word By is used to signifie a Conditionality or the Interest of a condition only in special And thus we take it when we explain our selves in what manner it is that we are justified by faith and by these questioned acts in particular And therefore those Protestants that dispute against us who are for the Affirmative do if I understand them deny only the propriety of the phrase which we use but not the thing or sense which we express by it for they grant that these acts of faith are Conditions of our Justification when they have never so much disputed that we are not justified by them and so a small syllable of two letters is much of the matter of their controversie Thirdly sometime this word is used to signifie the Interest of any other cause as well as the Efficient and that either generally or especially of some one This Paper is white By the whiteness as the formal cause we are moved to a godly life By God and salvation as the final cause c. Fourthly Sometime the term By is taken yet more largely and fitly enough for all or any Means in General or the interest of any means in the attainment of the End And so it comprehendeth all Causes even those Per accidens and Conditions as well as Causes and all that doth but remove impediments And in this comprehensive sense we take it here in the Question though when we come to determine what is the special Interest of faith in Justification I take it in the second sense Take notice also That I purposely here use this phrase we are Justified by Believing or by Faith rather than these justifying faith or Faith doth justifie us And I here foretell you that if I shall at any time use these last expressions as led to it by those with whom I deal it is but in the sense as is hereafter explained The Reasons why I choose to stick to this phrase rather then other are First Because this only is the Scripture phrase and the other is not found in Scripture that I remember It is never said that Faith doth justifie us though it be said that we are justified by faith And if any will affirm that I may use that phrase which is not found in Scripture he cannot say I must use it And in a Controverted case especially about such Evangelical truths the safety of adhering to Scripture phrase and the danger of departing from it is so discernable and specially when men make great use of their unscriptural phrases for the countenancing of their opinions I have the more reason to be cautelous Secondly Because the phrases are not alwaies of one and the same signification The one is more comprehensive then the other if strictly taken To be justified by faith is a phrase extensive to the Interest of any Medium whatsoever And there are Media which are not Causes But when we say that Faith doth justifie us or call it justifying Faith we express a Causality if we take the word strictly Though this last phrase may signifie the Interest of a bare Condition yet not so properly and without straining as the former The Reverend Author of the seond Treatise of Justification is of the same mind as to the use of the terms but he conjectures another reason for the Scripture use then I shall ever be perswaded of viz. that it is because Credere is not Agere but Pati to Believe is to Suffer and not to Act that it is a Grammatic all Action but Physically a Passion Though I think this no truer then that my brains are made of a looking glass and my heart of marble yet is there somwhat in this Reverend mans opinion that looks toward the truth afar off For indeed it intimateth that as to Causality or Efficiency faith is not Active in the justifying of a sinner but is a meer condition or
being the condition For against faith it self being any Condition you may equally argue Its the ungodly that are justified But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification is not to be called ungodly Ergo c. But if you take ungodliness as you do for unadequate holiness to the Law I deny your Minor Can no man but the Perfectly obedient perform the condition of pardon in the Gospel Treat ib. So that this is very considerable that all those whom God justifieth he justifieth them not for any thing they have of their own or any conditions they have performed but as such who are sinners in a strict examination and so deserve condemnation and therefore no works of grace are looked upon Answ I have answered this fully in Colvinus 1. Though Protestants oft say that God saveth men for their obedience and Scripture use the term because oft yet I am willing to yield to you that men be not saved nor justified for any thing of their own or for any conditions But yet he would not justifie them without the performance of some conditions but would condemn them for the non-performance even with a special condemnation distinct from that which is for their sins against the Law 2. Colvinus was the first man and you are the second that ever I read to my remembrance saying that God justifieth men as sinners A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia If as sinners then all sinners are justified If not as performers of any Condition then not as Believers These things want proof Treat ib. Lastly that all works are excluded is evident by the Apostles allegation out of David who makes mans blessedness to be in this that God imputeth righteousness without works Answ 1. This is sufficiently answered in the former 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Righteousness comes not only on the Circumcision whence you may see what works he means 3. Your selves expound the foregoing term ungodly of men that have not adequate holiness though sincere therefore you must so take this equipollent term without works for without that adequate holiness but it follows not that therefore it s without any humane act 4. Yet still I grant this also that its without any humane act considered as the matter of a Legal righteousness or as opposite to Christ or co-ordinate with him but not without any humane act as subordinate to Christ and as the matter of that Evangelical righteousness which is required in this Constitution Repent and Believe the Gospel viz. sincerely Treat pag. 223. And indeed it is at last confessed that its faith only that makes the contract between God and the soul that good works are not required to this initial consenting unto Christ so as to make him ours but in the progress This is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words That the first Justification is only by faith but the second by good works Answ How would you have your Reader understand these two insinuations 1. Have I so oft asserted that which you call my Confession and put it into an Index of distinctions least it should be over-lookt and told you as much so long ago in private writings and do you now come out with an Its at last confessed I hope you would not intimate that ever I denyed it or that ever I wrote Book of that subject wherein I did not expresly averre it But then that you think not better of me then I deserve I must tell you that when I still excluded works from our begun Justification it was external Obedience and not Repentance nor those acts of faith even the Receiving Christ as Lord and Teacher which those that oppose me call works 2. If you take it but for an argument to convince such as I that the Papists hold it Ergo c. I must complain that it is uneffectual But if you intend it for another effect on other persons viz. to affright them with the sound of so horrid a name or drive them away by the slink of it then you may possibly attain your ends But you should have attempted it only by truth Is it true that this is that in effect which the Papists affirm in other words Yea is it not a notorious truth that it is quite another thing which the Papists affirm in somewhat like words 1. The world knows that the Papists by the first Justification mean the first infusion of renewing special grace 2. And that by the second Justification they mean the adding of further degrees of Sanctification or actuating that which before was given 3. That they hold faith justifieth in the first Justification constitutivè 4. And that works or holiness justifie constitutivè in the second Justification even as Albedo facit album vel doctrina indita facit doctum On the other side I have told you often privately and publikely that 1. By Justification I mean not Sanctification nor any Physical but a Relative change 2. That by first and second I mean not two states or works but the same state and works as begun and as continued 3. That faith justifieth neither constitutivè inhaerenter nor as any cause but as a Receiving Condition 4. And that works of external obedience are but a dispositive condition and an exclusion of that ingratitude that would condemn And now judge on second thoughts whether you here speak the words of Truth or Equity Treat ib. Against this general exclusion of all works is opposed ver 4. where the Apostle saith To him that worketh the Reward is of debt from whence they gather that works only which are debts are excluded Answ I never used or heard such a collection All good works are debts to God but our collection is that works which are supposed by men to make the reward of Debt and not of Grace are excluded Treat But if this be seriously thought on it makes strongly against them for the Apostles Argument is à Genere if it be by works it s of Debt therefore there are not works of Debt and works of no Debt Answ 1. If the Apostle argue à Genere then he argueth not from an Equivocal term and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus 2. And the Apostles Genus cannot be any thing meerly Physical because his subject and discourse is moral and therefore it is not every act that he excludeth 3. Nor can it be every Moral Act that is his Genus but only Works in the notion that he useth the word that is All such Works as Workmen do for hire who expect to receive wages for the worth or desert of their works I shall therefore here confute your assertion and shall prove that All works do not make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and consequently that Paul meaneth not either every Act or every Moral Act here but only works supposed Rewardable for their value What you mean by Works of Debt and Works not of Debt I
peformed per nudam resultantiam without any other Act to produce it And this is most properly called Justificatio constitutiva activa 2. When the Gospel hath by Gift constituted us Righteous then next in order it doth declare or pronounce us Righteous and vertually acquit us from Condemnation This is by the like silent moral interpretative Action only as the other And perhaps may be most fitly called the imputing of Righteousness or esteeming us Righteous as Piscator And for the latter Justification at Judgement the Action is Christs publique pleading and sentencing us Acquitt which is an Action both Physical and Moral in several respects 4. Now if we enquire after the Patient or rather the Object of these several Acts we shall quckly find that the Man is that Object but that Faith is any Patient here is past my apprehension For the first Act of God by the Gospel giving Christ and his Merit to us it is only a moral Action Though the writting and speaking the Word at first was a Physical action yet the Word or Promise now doth moraliter tantùm agere And therefore it is impossible that Faith should be Physically passive from it For Passion being an effect of Action it must be a Physical proper Action which produceth a physical Passion I will not stand to make your Assertion odious here by enquiring what Physical effective Influx Contact c. here is which should manifest Faith to be physically Passive I know in the Work of effectual vocation the Soul is first passive but that is nothing to our Question whether Faith be passive in Justification Do but tell me plainly quid patitur fides and you do the Business But what if you had only said that Faith is morally passive and not physically I answer It had been less harsh to me though not fit nor to the point For 1. Gods Justification nor Donation of Christ is not properly of or to Faith for then Faith should be made righteous and justified hereby but to the person if he Believe 2. Besides if you should confess only a moral Passiveness which is somewhat an odd phrase and notion and is but to be the Object of a moral Action it would spoil all the common arguments drawn from the physical nature of Faith and its sole excellency herein in apprehending receiving c. and thereby justifying And you would bring in all other Graces to which the same Promise may as well be said to be made 3. The Truth I have and further shall manifest to be this that as it is not to faith or any other act that Righteousness is given but to the person on condition he Believe so this condition is no passion but an action or divers actions This will fully appear in the Theological Reasons following In the mean time I need not stand on this because you express your self that Faith is physically pasâ—ive Indeed you add or hyperphysically but though I meet with some Philosophers that use in such cases to give hyperphysice as a tertium to overthrow the sufficiency of the â—istinction of physice moraliter yet I suppose that is none of your meaning who know that even Intellectus dum efficit intellectionem voluntas volitionem sunt causae physicae ut Suarez 1. Tom. disp 17. § 2. p. 260. and so Schibler and many more yea and that our Divines conclude that Gods action on our souls in conversion is first Physical which yet may be as truly and fully called hyperphysical as our Faith Now for the second action of the Gospel declaring or pronouncing the Believer righteous and so de jure acquitting him It is much more beyond my reach to conceive how faith can in respect of it be passive For 1. Besides that it is a moral action as the former and so cannot of it self produce a physical passion 2. It doth not therein speak of or to faith pronouncing it just and acquitting it but of and to the Believer So that if Faith were physically passive in the former yet here it is impossible 3. If you say that it is physically or morally passive in regard of the latter full Justification by sentence at Judgement you would transcend my capacity most of all To say faith is the Patient of Christs judiciary publique sentence is a sentence that shall never be an article of my Faith and is so gross that I conjecture you would take it ill if I should take it to be your meaning therefore I will say no more against it Now you know that this is as you say in your Lect. the most compleat Justification and which I most stand upon and therefore if your arguments fail in respect of this they yield me almost all I expect Next I will tell you my Reasons Theological why I believe not that justifying faith as such is passive 1. All Divines and the Scripture it self hath perswaded me that Christ and the Promises are the Object of this Faith but a Passion hath no Object but a subject c. Therefore according to you Christ c. is not the object of it which is contrary to all that I have heard or read 2. I have read Divines long contending which is the Act of justifying faith qua talis And some say one and some another but all say one or other or many Now you cut the knot and contradict all in making it at least quatenus Justificans no Act at all but a Passion unless you will say it is a passive act which I dare not imagine And doubtless these Divines shew by their whole speech that by Actus Fidei they mean Actus secundus vel Actio and not Actus primus vel entetativus vel accidentalis sive ut informans sive ut operativus sed ipsa operatio 3. I am truly afraid lest by entertaining this opinion I should strike in not only with the Antinomians who cannot endure to hear of any conditions of life of our performing but even with the Libertines who tell me to my face that man is but Passive and as the soul Acts the body so Christ in them moveth the soul to Good and Satan to evil while they are meerly Passive and therefore the Devil shall be damned for sin who committeth it in them and not they for who will bite the stone or beat the staff or be angry at the sword c. 4. Else you must depress the excellent grace of faith below all other in making it meerly Passive while others are active For doubtless life and excellency is more in Action then Passion 5. If believing be only suffering then all Infidels are damned only for not suffering which is horrid 6. Scripture frequently condemneth wicked men for Action for Rebellion Refusing Rejecting Christ Luke 19.27 They hate him and say we will not have this man reign over us c. and this is their unbelief If they resisted the Holy Ghost only Passivè non Activè then it would be
reign is part of that faith which justifies Even willingness of his Reign as well as to be pardoned justified and saved from Hell by him or else few among us would perish For I never met with the man that was unwilling of these 3. And then it will easily appear Whether your Doctrine or mine be the more safe 1. Yours hath the many inconveniences already mentioned It maketh man his own justifier or the causa proxima of his own Justification and by his own Act to help God to justifie us for so all instruments do help the principal cause And yet by a self-contradiction it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth and so no vertue or grace Yea I think it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God Many such wayes it seemeth to wrong the Father and the Mediator 2. And it seemeth also to wrong mens souls in point of safety both by drawing them so to wrong God and also by laying grounds to encourage them in presumption For when they are taught that the receiving of Christs righteousness or of Christ for justification or the confident expectation of pardon or resting on Christ for it or a particular perswasion of it c. Is justifying faith and when they find these in themselves as undoubtedly they may will this much or else they cannot presume Is it not easie then to think they are safe when they are not As I said I never yet met with the man that was not willing to be Justified and saved from Hell by Christ and I dare say Really willing and but with few that did not expect it from Christ and trust him for it Now to place Justifying faith only in that which is so common and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made essential to faith as Justifying is strange For knowing that the godly themselves have fowly sinned and that no man can perish that hath Justifying faith how can they choose but presume when they find that which is called Justifying faith undoubtedly in themselves And to tell them it is not sincere or true because they receive not Christ also as King and Prophet and yet that such receiving is no part of justifying faith This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without it self a strange Truth in a signal concomitant and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant sign when he certainly feeleth the thing it self Will not such think they may sin salva fide When as if they were rightly taught that justifying saving faith as such is the receiving of Christ for Saviour and Lord and so a giving up themselves both to be saved and guided by him then they would find that faith in Christ and sincere obedience to Christ have a little neerer relation and then a man might say to such a presumer as I remember Tertullian excellently doth De poenitent Operum pag. mihi 119. Caeterum non leviter in Domixum peccat qui quum amulo ejus Diabolo poenitentiâ renunciasset hoc nomine illum Domino subjecisset rursus â—undem regressusuo erigit exultatione ejus seipsum facit ut denuo malus recuperata praeda sua adversus Dominâ—m gaudeat Nonne quod dicere quoque periculosum est sed ad adificationem proferendum est dâ—abolum Domino praeponit Comparationem enim videtur egisse qui utrumque cognoverit judicato pronunciasse â—um meliorem cujus se rursus esse maluerit c. Sed aiunt quidam satis Deum habere si corde animo suspiciatur licet actu minus fiat itaque se salvo metu Fide peccare Hoc est salva castitate Matrimonia violare salva pietate parenti venenum temperare sic ergo ipsi salva venia in Gehennans detrudentur dum salvo metu peccant Again your Doctrine seemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are justified and shall be saved and how can they know that who know not whether they have faith and how can they know that when they know not what justifying saith is and how can they know what it is when it is by Divines involved in such a cloud and maze of difficulties some placing it in this act and some in that and some in a Passive instrumentality which few understand If any man in the world do For the Habit of faith that cannot be felt or known of it self immediately but by its acts for so it is concluded of all Habits Suarez Metap T. 2. disp 44 § 1. pag 332. and instead of the act we are now set to enquire after the passion and so in the work of examination the business is to enquire how and when we did passively receive righteousness or justification or Christ for these which let him answer for himself that can for I cannot But now on the other side what inconvenience is there in the Doctrine of faith and justification as I deliver it As it is plain and certain saying no more then is generally granted so I think it is safe Do I ascribe any of Christs honour in the work to man No man yet hath dared to charge me with that to my knowledge and no considerate man I believe will do it I conclude that neither faith nor works is the least part of our legal righteousness or of that righteousness which we must plead against the accuser for our justification which is commonly called by Divines the matter of our justification The Law which we have broken cannot be satisfied nor God for the breach of it in the least measure by our faith or obedience nor do they concur as the least degree of that satisfaction But we must turn the Law over wholly to our Surety Only whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the said justification and salvation I say these conditions must needs be performed and that by our selves and who dare deny this and I say that the performance of these conditions is our Evangelical righteousness in reference to that Covenant as Christs satisfaction is our legal Righteousness in reference to that first Covenant or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteousness if we had so obeyed And for them that speak of inherent Righteousness in any other sense viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works rather then as a true conformity to the Law or Covenant of grace I renounce their Doctrine both as contradictory to it self and to the truth and as that which would make the same Law to curse and bless the same man and which would set up the desperate Doctrine of Justification by the works of the Law For if men are righteous in reference to that Law then they may be so far justified by it Nor do I ascribe to works any part of the office or
For it fell out that I first saw your Book without the Epistle and Preface 2. Because I thought it fittest to follow the Method that my Subject and the Readers â—â—dification did require 3. Yet did I once purpose to have answered all that was of moment in your Book against the Truth but upon trial I found your Reasons so inconsiderable that weariness interrupted me and put an end to my Reply and withal I grew confident that my labour would be to little purpose For I dare venture any Judicious Divine upon your Book without the help of a Reply And for the rest it is not replying that will serve turn but either prejudice will hold them to the side that they have taken or else they will think him in the right that hath the last word when they have read mine they will think that I am in the right and when they have again read yours they will think that you carry the cause and when they read my Reply again they will say you were mistaken but usually they will go with the party that is in greatest credit or hath most interest in them or advantage on them But yet I think you will find that none of your strength against me is neglected For I can truly say that when I think not meet to Answer all that a man hath said I never pass by that which I take to be his strength but purposely call out that and leave that which I think is so grosly weak as to need no answer So much of your ten Demands or Laws as I apprehended necessary I have here answered supposing what I had said of the same points in my first Disputation which I saw no Reason too often to Repeat I am none of those that blame you for too much of the Metaphysicks but rather mervail that you feared not lest your Metaphysical Reader will wrong you by mis-applying your cited Schegkius contrary to your better opinion of your self and take both your Schegkius and your Scaliger for Prophets that could speak as if they had read your Book and been acquainted with your arguings But it seems you are not the first of that way By your Arguments in your Preface I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause to prove that there are divers acts of Faith whereas I am so far from denying it that I am ready to demonstrate that even the faith by which we are Justified is liker to have twenty acts then one only but many certainly it hath Your first Argument is from the different objects because the Objects specifie the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute But 1. This is no proof that one act only is it that we are justified by 2. Where you add that Justifying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter you beg the Question and assert no light mistake But where you add in its act of Justifying you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error which leadeth you to the rest by naked affirmations Faith hath properly no justifying act Justificare est efficere Faith doth not effect our Justification we are justified by faith indeed but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect but Accept when offered If you â—â—nâ— see so plain a Truth in its Evidence yet observe by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals course that its a passive instrumentality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively you must mean only effective non formaliter a denying subjection to him as Lord. You err so great but so rare an error that I suppose it needless to confute it All Christians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed that Believing in Christ as Prophet and King is a real part of faith and that unbelief or rejecting him as Prophet and King is a real part of unbelief Your second Argument is from the different subjects where you give us two such palpable Fictions that its a wonder you can make your self believe them much more that you should lay so great a stress on such absurdities The first is that the Act of Faith is in several faculties and you elswhere give us to understand that it is one Physical Act that you mean And do you think in good sadness that one single Physical act can be the act of both the faculties The second is that the fear love and obedience to Christ as King is but in the Will But 1. That Readers do you expect that will take an Assertion of Fear-Love and Obedience in stead of an assertion concerning Faith Were you not comparing faith in Christ as King with faith in Christ as Priest only And why speak you not of faith in one part of your comparison as well as in the other Your conclusion now is nothing to the Question 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Christ as King is not in both faculties as well as Faith in Christ as Priest or sacrifice did you think that any man of ordinary understanding would ever believe you without any proof or that ever such a thing can be proved Your third Argument is Because they are in a different time exerted the one that is Faith as Justifying being precedaneous to the other and to other Graces Answ Wonderfull Is that man justified that believeth not in Christ as the King and Prophet of the Church Do you believe this your self why then an Infidel is justified by Faith The ' Belief in Christ as a Sacrifice or Priest only is not the Christian faith it is not faith in Christ properly because it is not faith in Christ as Christ For Christ as Priest only is not Christ A Heart only is not Corpus humanum A Body only is not a Man where there are three essential parts one of them is not the Thing without the rest The name Jesus Christ signifieth the office as well as the person It is essential to that Office that he be Prophet and King And hereby you shew that you do not only distinguish but divide For where there is a distance of time between the Acts there is a division Do you think that we are Christs enemies or followers of them unless we will believe you that a man is Justified by Believing in Christ only as a Priest or Ransom or in his Righteousness before ever be believe in him as King and Lord and so as Teacher c. If I had said that you are Christs enemy for such Doctrine
which think you had had the fairer pretence for his censure But I am far from saying so or thinking it I know that the Assent to the essential Articles of Christianity containeth many Acts and that our Consent and Affiance are many Physical Acts as the parts of Christs Office are many Objects But yet I do not think but am certain that all these physical Acts concur to make up that Moral Aâ— which is called Christian or saving or Justifying Faith and that he that believeth not in Christ as to all that is essential to Christ is no Christian And a man is not justified by Faith before he is a Christian And truly Sir men that are loth to flie from the Light and that love the Truth and diligently seek it as heartily if not as happily as you must yet needs tell you that if you produce your Mormolucks an hundred times and cant over and over a Papist a Socinian an Arminian and an Arminian a Socinian and a Papist their understandings will never the more be perswaded to embrace your Delusions though you should say that the Kingdom of God doth consist in them Your fourth Argument is that There is a difference in Nature Efficacy Energy and Operation therefore the Acts are not the same Answ 1. I maintained the conclusion that faith hath different Acts before ever I heard of your name and have no reason now to denie it 2. The difference of Nature I grant you between many Acts of faith but what you mean by the Efficacy Energy and Operation be that knows can tell for I cannot But still desire you to know that I deny faith to have any efficient operation in justifying us or that it is an efficient cause of our Justification especially it s no Physical efficient you add a strange proof of your Assertion viz. For faith as Justifying makes a mystical Union and relative change on the person but faith as working and sanctifying produceth a moral union with Christ c. Answ 1. Faith as justifying doth only Justifie and produce no Vâ—ion the same faith as uniting is the means of Vnion 2. The question is of Faith in Christ as Priest and faith in Christ as Prophet and King also And you talk of faith as justifying and as working and sanctifying A small alteration 3. What Mystical Relative Union is that which is not a Moral Union 4. Faith in Christ as Christ and not as a Ransom only is the means of our Justification And you give us nothing like a proof of the contrary restriction In the same Preface you tell the world of as threefold Artifice that we use the first is to set up a second Justification Ans Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean If the name 1. cite the words where we use that Name 2. If it answer the subject you may bear with the name If it be the Thing then tell us what Religion that it that denyeth 1. a Justification by sentence at Judgement 2. Gods continual justifying us to the Death 3. And his particular pardoning or justifying us from the guilt of renewed particular sins 4. And that faith is not only in the first act but through all our lives the means of our Justification Or justifying faith is more then one instantaneous Act or a man ceaseth not to have justifying faith after the first Act or moment Tell us who those be and what Religion they are of that deny all these that Christians may be acquainted with them if they be worthy their acquaintance Our second Artifice is to require Works only as Gospel-Conditions Answ Would you have us say more of them or less If less I have said enough of it in the second Disputation Our third Artifice is To include works in the Definition of Justifying faith making it a receiving of Christ as Saviour Lord and Law-giver to Justification as also confounding our consummate Salvation or Glorification with our Justification Ans Gross untruths contrary to large and plaine expressions of my mind in several Volumes if you mean me as you know I have reason to judge 1. I ever took works to be a fruit of faith and no part of it unless you take the word Faith improperly and laxely unless by Works you mean Acts And you take faith for such a work your self that is an Act. 2. I expresly distiguished what you say I confound Consummate Sanctification or Glorification and consummate Justification But yet as I do in the Definition include Consent to Christs Lordship though not Obedience that 's only implyed to be a necessary consequent so I still say that much of your Justitication is yet to come And if your Religion teach you to say that you will be beholding to Christ for no more Justification so doth not mine And whereas you cite some that say that all our sins are pardoned in our first believing as if I had questioned any such thing I must tell you that I easily grant it that every sin is then forgiven and so far as that Justification is perfect but what have you yet said to prove 1. That we are never justified be faith but in that one instant 2. That we need no particular Justification from particular sins that after shall be committed 3. Nor no sentential Justification at Judgement which Mr. Burgess will tell you is the chief You and others use to say that that at Judgement is but Declarative But 1. It is no common Declaration but a Declaration by the Judge 2. And the Sentence doth more then meerely declare for it doth finally decide acquit and adjudge to Glory 3. And methinks this Declarative should be no term of Diminution but of Aggravation with those that still use to say that Justification is a judicialâ— Term. Alas That these matters among the friends of Christ and Truth should need so many words Some more I had to say to you but you may find it in the Preface to these Disputations I only add that if indeed it be true which you write to that Honourable person to whom you dedicate your Labors viz. That the Subject of your Discourse is so excellent and necessary to be known and that He who is Ignorant of the Object and Office of Faith doth neither know what he believeth nor how he is justified I should think it is high time that you call your Vnderstanding once more to an account and review the Fabrick that you have built on a qua justificans not understood or upon a specificative quatenus where there is no such thing And if you think me unfit to be hearkned to in this as being one of the men of perverse minds that there you mention its more worthy your industry to seek the advice of the learned Oxford Divines herein then that they should be sought to approve and midwife such a Book into the world and its likely that their Charity will provoke them to be serviceable to you in this though I
commanded in the Law and Abrahams work was a sacrificing or offering a work of the Ceremonial Law ver 21. 3. Repentance is obedience to one Gospel Precept yet Faith and Repentance are distinguished Mar. 1.15.6 1. Love Faith Hope are three 1 Cor. 13.13 1. Tim. 1.5 2 Thes 1.3 faith and Love have different Objects Col. 1.4 Phil. 5. 1 Thes 1. ◠Therefore not the same nor one an Essential part of the other 4. Obedience is a sign to prove faith Jam. 2.18 and therefore not an Essential part 5. If Faith include obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an Essential part then actual faith includes actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an essential part and if the Act of faith Justifie men at Age not the Habit and receiving Christ as King as immediatly Justifie as believing in Christ as Saviour then a person of Age is not Justified without actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts and this may be not till Death if then and so no Justification in this Life 6. If Faith justifie as immediatly by receiving Christ as King as by receiving him as Saviour then it justifies by receiving Christ as Judge Matth. 25.34 as Law-giver Avenger of his enemies and so a man is justified By receiving Christs Judging Punishing Condemning Commanding Avenging as well as saving by his Death which is contrary to Rom. 3.25 5.9 7. The Scripture makes the object of justifying faith Christs Death Resurrection Blood Rom. 3.25 10.9 Gal. 2.20 21. Nowhere Christs dominion Ergo. Subjection to Christ as King is not an essential part 8. The object of Faith is nowhere made to be a Gospel Precept such as forgiving others using Sacraments c. nor Christ as commanding but the Declaration of the Accomplishments of Christ and the counsel of God in him 1 Cor. 15.1 c. Rom. 1 16 17. Gal. 3.8 Ergo Obedience is not an Essential part 9. If it be an essential part then either Genus or Difference for no other Essential parts belong to a quality or Action not the Genus that 's Assent Aph. p. 254.274 when the object is a Proposition when it is an Incomplex term Trust is the Genus not the Difference that 's chiefly taken from the object Keker syst Logic. l. 1. sect 2. c. 2. can Defin. Accid 5.7 Obedience may make known Faith as a sign but not as a part it s at least in order of Nature after the cause is afore the effect the Antecedent before the Consequent and faith is such Heb. 11.8 c. 10. If Faith be a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ then it should be Love Joy Hope Understanding Will Memory Fear But this is not to be said Ergo. It is alleadged 1. Faith must be the Act of the whole soul else part should receive him part not Answ Faith is expressed by the Metaphor of Receiving Joh. 1.12 Col. 2.6 And he is Received by the Receiving of his Word Joh. 12.48 1 Thes 2.13 which is Received by Assent 2. The whole soul receives Christ though by other Graces besides faith 2. Acts 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Answ The term Whole notes not every inward faculty but as after sincerely not feignedly as Simon Magus So Illyricus 3. Faith is called Obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 1 Pet. 1.22 4.17 2 Thes 1.8 Gal. 3.1 5.7 Heb. 5.9 But the Gospel commandeth All thus to obey Christ as Lord forgive others love his people bear what sufferings are Imposed diligently use his Means and Ordinances confessing bewailing sins praying for pardon sincerely and to the end Answ Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeyng Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ but be it granted Faith is called obeying of Christ or the Gospel doth it follow that it is obedience in doing those named Acts It may be obedience by Assent to the Doctrine of Christ that he is the Messiah died for sins c. commanded 1 Cor. 15.3 1 Joh. 3.23 which the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do rather Import then the other Acts mentioned The Gospel and Truth are restrained to the Doctrine of Christs coming dying c nowhere applyed that I know to the Precepts of forgiving others suffering death receiving the Lords Supper c. 4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called faith Gal. 3.12 23 25. Answer Neither of these places make faith the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant nor any place else In Gal. 3.12 It s said the Law that is the Covenant of the Law is not of Faith i. e. doth not assign Life to Faith in Christ Faith Gal. 3 23 25. is put saith Piscat for the time of the Gospel or Christ say others or the Doctrine of Faith By Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justification in this life is fulfilled not concerning every Benefit of the new Covenant Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins forgiving others doing good to the Saints of entering into Life 5. The Gospel reveals not Christs offices as separate Ergo. They mnst be so believed Answ The conclusion is granted but proves not faith to justifie in receiving Christ as King 6. It offers Christ as King and so must be received Answer the same 7. Scripture nowhere tieth Justification to the receit of him as priest only Ar. The contrary is proved from Rom. 3.25 5.9 8. Commonly Christ is called our Lord and Saviour Answ True But we are justified by his blood 9. If we receive him not as a King then not as an entire Saviour Answ True Yet Justification is by his death 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 2.21 Rom. 3 25 and 59. 10. Christ is not received truly if not entirely as King Answ True But this proves not that obedience is an essential part of faith or that subjection to Christ as King justifies as immediatety as receiving him as Saviour 11. The exalting of his proper Kingly office is a Principal End of Christs dying Psal 2. Rom. 14.9 Answ True But it follows not that either Obedience is an Essential part of faith or subjection to Christ as King justifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or Priest Yours in the Truth I.T. Sir IT s to be considered 1. Whether these words answer to Valedict orat at B. pag. 191. Nothing but the satisfaction of Christ is that which our Divines call the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness which we must plead to Acquit us in Judgement And it is said Rom. 3.25 through faith in his Blood and Rom. 5.9 by his Blood Do not prove Christs Death either the sole or chief Object of faith as Justifying and how this stands with Aphorism of Justification Thes 66. and its Explication 2. Whether the words Luk. 12.14 import not a disclaiming or denial of a Title to judge and so your answer be not insufficient pag. 276. which seems to suppose a Title and only a Suspension of Exercise in that state of Humiliation 3.
also of the objec as an offered good besides the understandings Assent to the Truth of the word which offereth it The former is by the Apostle oft distinguished from Love and is said to work by Love as the lively acts of the understanding produce answerable motions in the will But the later is that faith which justifieth to wit The Receiving of an offered Christ And this comprizeth both the Act of the Understanding and Will as almost all Protestant Divines affirm But both these acts together are called Faith from the former which is most strictly so called because the great difficulty then lay in Believing the Truth of the Gospel and would do still if it were not for the advantages of Credit Education Custom c. therefore the whole work is thence denominated though yet the compleating of the work be in the Will and the Understandings Act but preparatory thereto 2. You must also distinguish between Love to Christ the Mediator and the Grace of Charity in general as it is extended al so to God as Creator to Saints to all men c. And between that first act of Love which is in our first receiving of Christ and the love which we afterwards exercise on him and so I answer you 1. That as the Apostle distinguisheth between Faith Hope and Love So do I. 2. Faith taken strictly for assent to Divine Testimony produceth love in every one of the forementioned senses of the word Love 3. Justifying faith comprizing the wills acceptance produceth both the grace of Charity as it is exercised on other objects and also the following acts of it towards Christ the Mediator And so I acknowledge that Faith worketh by Love and that Love is not faith But yet whether Love be not in some sense essential to justifying faith if you speak only of Love to Christ and that not as a distinct grace but as it is comprized in our Acceptance of him at first I shall leave to your consideration when you have first resolved these things 1. Whether justifying faith be not an act of the Will as well as the Understanding Few but Papists deny it and not all of them 2. Whether Christ himself be not the object of it Few Protestants will deny it 3. Whether Good be not the object of the Will and so Christ be not willed as Good None doubts of it 4. Whether this willing be not the same as Loving as love is found in the rational appetite Sure Aquinas saith so no man that I know contradicting it 5. Whether you can call Affiance or any other act of the will justifying faith excluding this willing or not principally including it For 1. This is the Wills first act towards it object and will you say that Love goes before justifying faith and so before Justification and such a Love as is distinct from justifying faith as being no part of it How then is Love the fruit of faith and as Divines say a consequent of Justification Yet it is beyond all doubt that this Velle or Love to Christ goes before Affiance on him or any other act of the Will vide Aquin. 1.2 Q. 23. a. 33. Et. 1. Q. 20. a. 1 Et Tolet de anima l. 3. cap. 9. Q. â—7 28 Et Ames contra Gravinchou pag. 16. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding assent and subsequent Affiance in Christ should be conditions of our Justification and yet the Velle Christum oblatum that Willing which we call Consent Election or Acceptance which goeth between assent and Affiance should be excluded as no part of this condition 3. Especially considering that Affiance contains divers acts whereof one is of the Irascible of the sensitive and so is but an imperate act of the Will and less noble then that elicite Act which I plead for as well as Posterior to it and if Aquin. be not out in his Philosophy when he so oft saith that fiducia is spes roborata then our Divines make Hope to justifie Yet for all this I have not espoused this saying that Love to Christ is Essential to justifying faith nor will contend with any man that thinks it unmeet if we agree in the things of moment I hate to quarrel about words Nor do I think it a meet phrase to say we are justified by Love though in the sense before mentioned I think it true because it is but a part or affection as it were of that reception by which we are justified and stands not in so full a relation to the object received And yet if I had said none of all this I see not that I need any more then to deny your consequence as being wholly ungrounded For it followeth not that if it be an essential part that therefore it must have the Denomination of the whole yea though the whole be said to work by that part The Brain and Heart are essential parts of the Body and yet not to be called the Body and it is more proper to say that the body works by the Brain or Heart or that the vegetative soul doth work by the natural heat and Spirits then to say the Body worketh by the Body or the vegetative soul by it self I will explain all together in my usual Similitude which is Dr. Prestons or rather Pauls A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon and also to be made a Queen if she will but take the Prince for her Husband Now here put your Questions 1. Is Love any part of the Condition of her Pardon and Dignity Answer Yes An essential part for Consent is of the Essence of it and Love is essential to true consent to receive any offered good Not love as it is a Passion but as it is an act of the rational Appetite which is but Velle And Eligere Consentire Acceptare are nothing else but a respective Willing 2. But it is not Love as a Vertue in general or as exercised on any other object which is this essential part of the Condition but only love to him whom she marrieth And so her first love is necessary to her Pardon and Dignity as begun and her continued love and marriage-faithfulness is necessary to them as they are to be continued supposing the Prince to know the heart as Christ doth Qu. 2. Is it then a meet phrase to say that she is pardoned and dignified by loving such a Prince Answ It hath some Truth in it but it is not a fit speech but rather that it is by marrying him because Love is but a part or as it were an Affection of that Marriage Covenant or consent which indeed doth dignifie her Love may be without marriage but not Marriage cordially without Love So in our present case justifying faith is the very Marriage Consent or Covenant with Christ It is therfore fitter to say we are justified by it then by love because the former expresseth the full condition the latter not Qu. 3. If love be an essential part of the
it is not by Assent properly or fully that we receive Christ So Amesius ubi supra § 19. Crediturus etiam porro cum ex miseriae sensu omnimoâ—ae liberationis cum in se tum in aliis defectu necesse habeat se dedere Deo in Christo tanquam Servatori sufficienti fideli Deditionem istam facere non potest ullo modo per Assensum Intellectus sed per Consensum Voluntatis And indeed I think this Dedition or self-delivery to be part of Faith and that the covenanting in heart with God in Christ is the very justifying faith taking him for ours and giving up our selves to him as his and the external Covenanting is the profession of Faith and that Baptism is the marriage-solemnization and engaging sign and means 6. That Act which cannot be discerned in a Saint in it self from what may be in the wicked is not the receiving of Christ fully or properly which justifies But the Act of Assent to the Truth of the Gospel as it is in a Saint cannot in it self be discerned from what may be in the wicked Therefore the Act of Assent is not the Receiving of Christ which justifies The Major is hence evident In that justifying faith being the condition of our Justification must needs be the great Mark to know by whether we are justified or no But if it could not be known to be sincere it self in vain is it made a Mark to know our state by yea or a Condition almost when a man can never tell when he performeth it The Minor I have endeavoured to prove in an Additional Chap. to the third part of my Book of Rest to which for brevity I refer you Dr. Stoughton I have there shewed you saith as I Aâ—esius saith Medul l. 1. c. ◠§ 4. quaÌ„vis fides praesuppmat semper notitiaÌ„ Evangelii nulla tamen datur in quoquaÌ„ cognitio salutifera ab illa quo in quibusdam non salvandis reperitur diversa nifâ— consequenter ad actum istuÌ„ voluntatis ab ipso dependens Job 7.17 and 8.31.32 1 John 2.3 I doubt not but in the Intensness of Degree there is a difference between the Intellectual acts as Knowledge and Assent in a Saint and a wicked man but if any think that they are in themselves discernable I would he would tell me one Mark of the difference In their different Effects on the Will I know they are discernable 7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith and receiving of Christ doth make him ours and so justifie then you must acknowledge that other Graces justifie as well as faith yea not secondarily only but as Principally as Faith But that you will be loth to do The consequence will not be avoided but by shewing that there is a twofold receiving of Christ and that one justifieth and the other not which when you have proved from Scripture I will yield but then at least I shall gain this that receiving Christ justifies not properly ex natura actus sed ex voluntate Ordinantis and if I get that I get the main part of the cause in controversie 8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Act of the Will But Affiance is judged by the same Divines to be the justifying Act Therefore they judge that the justifying Act and consequently the Reception of Christ belongs to the Will 9. The Velle or Elicite act of the Will which I insist on is the very first Act and goes before Affiance as it denotes any other Act of the Will Therefore either this Velle must be the justifying Faith and Reception of Christ or else they must say that there is a saving reception of Christ that goes before the justifying or Reception which sure they will not grant that make that Faith the actus primas vitae spiritualis 10. Lastly The opinion seems to me so Improbable without and against reason and so dangerous that God doth assign one only Act of the soul to the Office of justifying especially the act of assent that I dare not entertain it without proof It is improbable that in a Moral Political Theological Matter the Holy Ghost should speak as if it were in the strictest discourse of Physicks It is improbable that God should speak to man in such a Moral discourse so as no men use to speak and therefore so as men could not without a further explication understand Doth he that speaks of receiving a man to be our Husband King Master c. mean it of one only Act though I know Consent is the chief Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of such Receiving Doth he mean that any one single Act is that Condition Much less Assent Or is there any likelyhood that when other Acts do receive the same Object Christ in a way of as high honouring him that yet God should confine Justification to one Act setting by all the rest Yea when the rest are acknowledged to be part of the Condition and Receiving as Lord to be the fides quae I know God is not bound to give man a Reason of his Laws but yet he usually doth it and we must take heed of asserting that to be Gods Law which appears unreasonable till we can prove what we say Yea what a dangerous loss will Christians then be at who will hardly ever be able to find out this single Act what it is and when they have it And he that knows how quick Spirits are in their actings and withall how little able we are to observe and discern them perhaps many doubt whether you can find a name for any single act of a soul or know when it is one Act and when many In the forementioned Instance A woman is condemned for Treason the Prince writeth to her that he hath dearly paid her Ransom will not only deliver her but also make her his Queen if she will Believe this and Receive him accordingly If now the Lawyers should dispute the case what single act it was that she was Delivered and Dignified by whether an act of the Intellect only or of the Will only whether Assent only or Affiance Yea whether agendo vel patiendo as many here do would not men think that learning made them dote And I would entreat you to consider whether it were Gods Design in the Gospel to advance any one Act of mans soul above the rest and so to honour it or rather to advance the Lord Jesus whom faith Receiveth as Mr. Gataker tels Salâ—marsh Many speak dangerously in over-magnifying their own faith when they should magnifie Christ whom it relates to I know the great thing that sticks with some is that the Scripture oft seems to describe faith by the Act of Assenting But consider so it doth in other places by Trusting Resting Taking Receiving Coming Eating and Drinking which Metaphors must needs signifie acts of the Will c. which shew that it is not any single
and Goodness to be all one and the Understanding and Will for all one takes also Assent and Affiance for all one but I shall go on the supposition that his singular opinion is commonly disallowed however the Scotists and many others deny the real Distinction of Faculties The common Vote of Protestant Divines is that Faith is in both Faculties the Intellect and Will and hath for its object the Entity of Christs person and the Verity of the Gospel and the goodness of Christ and his benefits offered which Faith accepteth Davenants Words are plain and true Determ Qu. 38. pag. 174. In actu fidei justificantis tota anima se convertit ad causam justificantem And qu. 37. pag. 166. Fides illa quam Scriptura agnoscit habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis Intellectus Neque nobis absurdum sed valde consentaneum videtur actum illum quo tota anima purificatur justificatur ad totam animam pertinere ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium in voluntate complementum Argument 1. The Object of this Faith is both Truth and Goodness Therefore it is the act both of the Intellect and the Will That Truth is the Object of it is evident 1. In that the Metaphysical Verity of Christs person is the Object of it or else Christ were not the Object of it 2. In that the moral Verity of the Gospel 1. as revealing Christ 2. as promising pardon is the object of it as is confest and the Scripture doth so plentifully declare that it were superfluous to cite the words That goodness is the object of it appeareth 1. In that Christ as Redeemer Mediator Saviour is the object of it and that is Christ as necessary and good to us It is Christ for our forgiveness Justification and Salvation and so under the formal notion of good 2. In that it is a Promise as a Promise Testament Grant or Deed of Gift that is the Object by it And it is Essential to these to be good to us as well as True and the Truth is but for the good 3. In that it is Pardon Justification and Life eternal finally that are the object of it which as such and as offered to us are good If I thought these things needed proof I would give you more Argument 2. The Scripture revealeth to us that this Faith is the Act both of the Intellect and the Will therefore it is so That it is the act of the Intellect is so plain in Scripture that I should accuse my self of wearying you with needless work if I should go about to prove it The Papists are right enough in thus much and Dr. Downame de Justific and against Pemble in Append. to Covenant of Grace hath proved it at large That it is an act of the Will our Divines have fully proved against the Papists in many a full Discourse 1. From the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie Affiance and such an Affiance as is the act of the Will as well as of the Intellect 2. Because the Scripture often putteth Willing as equipollent to Believing in Revel 22.17 Whosoever Will let him take the water of Life freely where Willing and Taking are both acts of the Will and the faith in question so in other places 3. The Scripture calleth it by the name of Receiving Christ Joh. 1.12 Col. 2.6 which is the Acceptance or consent of the Will 4. The Scripture often makes Faith to be the Internal covenanting and closure of the heart with Christ which is the act of the Will and therefore it perswadeth with the Will to this end and accuseth men as unwilling and calleth them Refusers Neglecters Slighters Rejecters Despisers of Christ that are Unbelievers privatively I trouble you not to cite the Texts as being needless and done by many Besides that as in the former Argument the Promise Christ Pardon Life and other good things as good are frequently made the Object of Faith Argument 3. The Veracity of God is the formal Object of Faith But the Veracity of God is his Goodness or participateth at least as much of his Goodness as of his Wisdom and his Power therefore the Goodness of Good is the formal Object of Faith and consequently it is an act of the Will God cannot lye because he is perfectly good wise and Powerfull Object But say some Papists All these acts that you mention here are Love and not Faith Faith doth but assent and Love consenteth or accepteth Answ 1. Do you not your selves call it fides formata charitate And why then may not we call it faith 2. The Scripture calleth it Faith in the phrases formentioned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and therefore it is Faith 3. Though sometimes in other cases the Apostle distinguish Faith Hope and Love yet when he speaketh of Faith as justifying and as the form of a Christian he comprehendeth Love to Christ as Saviour in it and a confidence in him such as in common Language we call Hope As Love signifieth the Passion of the soul it may be a consequent but as it is but the velle Christum beneficia oblata so it is faith it self as Maccovius and Chamier have truly told the Papists It was a faith in Christ though beginning to sink that 's expressed Luk. 24.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But we trusted that it had been he that should have redeemed Israel Our Translators have put we Trusted for we Hoped because they thought the signification the same or else they would not sure have done it And when the Apostle saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 11.1 If we may denominate the act from the Object we may see that he there makes Faith and Hope to be co-essential And when Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ our Hope it seems hope there is but an act of Faith And so 2 Cor. 1.10 1 Tim. 4.10 To Hope in God or Christ or put our Hope in him seemeth to me all one as to put our Trust in him for future Mercy which is Faith To which is opposed 1 Tim. 6.17 putting our Hope in riches so 1 Cor. 15.19 to have Hope in Christ so the Septuagint Psal 42.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hope in God is a Complication of Faith and Hope in one word and translated by us Trust in God 4. Though the Willing Consent or Acceptance of an offered Benefit have truly somewhat of Love in it yet Love is not the proper name of that Act. Every Volition is not usually called Love Prop. 3. It is not not only God the Father nor only Christ the Redeemer nor only the Promise nor only pardon or Righteousness or Heaven that is the object of that faith which Paul opposeth to works in Jusification Argument 1. If many or all these art so linked together that to believe one of them as revealed in Scripture is to believe more or all then it
as that any acts of our own must interpose but they are in eodem instanti and differ only in order of nature In sum we prove a promise of pardon to all that receive Christ himself and believe in him If any will affirm the necessity of any other act before we can be justified it is incumbent on them to prove it This was the substance of my Answer to which the Reverend Bishop said no more whether satisfied or not I cannot tell But I thought meet to recite his Judgement both because it comes so neer the matter and because I know not of any other that saith the same or so much of seeming strength against us Against all these seven particular Opinions I am now to defend the Thesis when I have first told you in certain distinctions and propositions how much I grant and what I deny which I shall in short dispatch And here I need but to rehearse what I have said already to Mr. Blake pag. 3.4 or to give you some short account of my thoughts to the same purpose First We must not confound Justification by Constitution or Guift and justification by the Sentence of the Judge and the Execution of that sentence which are three distinct things Secondly We must not confound Justification with the assurance or feeling of Justification Thirdly We must distinguish between our first Justification from a state of sin and our daily Justification from particular Acts of sin Fourthly Between that which is necessary on Christs part and that which is necessary on our part to our Justification Fifthly Between Christs purchasing our Justification and his actual justifying of us Sixthly Between these two senses of the phrase justified by Fatih viz. as by an efficient Cause or as a meer Condition Seventhly Between the Causality of faith in the Physical effects of sanctification on the soul and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promise in our Justification Proposition 1. Ex parte Christi We easily grant that it is not his Teaching or Ruling us but his Ransome and Obedience that are the Meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation Proposition 2. Therefore if Christ did justifie us per modum objecti aprehensi in the nearest sense as the Belief of sacred Truths doth make a Qualitative impression on the soul in our Sanctification and the exciting and acting of our Graces then I should confess that it is only that Act of Faith which is the apprehension of this Object that doth help us directly to the benefit of the Object Proposition 3. But it is not so For the Object justifieth us causally by way of Merit and Moral procurement and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promise conveying to us Justification and partly Justification conveyed by that Promise not to speak now of other benefits and the Promise conveyeth Justification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift or a Pardon to a Traytor Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver and the Promise or deed of Gift being the Immediate Instrumental efficient Cause of it as it is signum voluntatis Donatoris our Belief or Apprehension qua talis cannot justifie us nor have any nearer or higher interest in our Justification then to be the Condition of it as it is a free Gift And therefore the Condition must be judged of by the will of the Donor expressed in his Promise and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeableness to the Object in this or that respect Proposition 4. Yea Even ex parte Christi though he Merit Justification by his Ransome and Obedience yet he actually justifieth us as King of his Church and that in regard of all the three sorts or parts of Justification He giveth it constitutively by his Promise as Lord and Legislator and Benefactor on these terms of Grace He sentenceth us Just as our Judg and he executeth that sentence as a Just Judge governing according to his Laws So that if Faith did justifie ex natura rei which they call its Instrumentality I see not yet but that the apprehension of Christ as Lord and Judge must justifie us because the Object apprehended doth thus justifie us Proposition 5. I easily grant that in our Sanctification or the exciting and exercise of our Graces the case standeth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Justification This Interest of the Act must be judged of by the Object apprehended For it is not the Belief of a Promise that feareth us but of a Threatning nor the Belief of a Threatning that Comforteth us but of a Promise For here the Object worketh immediately on our minds per modum objecti apprehensi But in Justification it is not so where God is the Agent as a Donor and there can be nothing done by us but in order to make us fit Subjects and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as such but Relative by a Fundamentum which is without us in the Gospel and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition without which it will not be done Proposition 6. Accordingly I easily grant that the Sense or Assurance of Justification in our Consciences is wrought by the Object as an Object Because this Assurance is a part of our Sanctification But that Object is not directly Christs Ransome but the Promise through his blood and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promise Proposition 7. I easily grant that Faith in Christ as Lord or Teacher of the Church is not the Instrumental efficient Cause of our Justification They need not therefore contend against me in this But withall I say that faith in his Priest-hood is not the Instrumental efficient Cause neither though I allow it to have a nearer Physical Relation to the Ransome which meriteth our Justification Proposition 8. Though there is a greater shew of Reason to assert the Interest of the single Belief in Christs Priest-hood for a particular Pardon then for our first general Pardon yet indeed it is but a shew even there also For it is not only the applying our selves to his blood or Ransome but it is also the applying our selves to whole Christ to make up the whole breach that is the Condition of our particular Pardon so far as a particular Act of saith is a Condition which though it be not a Receiving Christ for Union with him as we did in the beginning yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et secundum quid and a renewed Consent to his whole Office and adhesion to him as our special remedy for recovery from that fall by freeing us both from the guilt and stain of Sin Proposition 9. It is undoubtedly the duty of every Sinner in the sense of his guilt and misery to fly to the Ransome of Christs blood and the Merit of his Obedience as the satisfaction to Gods Justice and the Purchaser of our Justification And he that doth not this how willing soever he may seem
him is the means of Receiving all 1 John 5.11 12. God hath given us eternal life and this life is in his son He that hath the son hath life and he that hath not the son hath not life So that accepting Christ as Christ makes him ours by way of condition and then our life of Justification and sanctification is in him and comes with him Coming to Christ as Christ is the sole undivided condition of Life John 5 40. Ye will not come to me that ye may have Life Yet here I must crave that Ingenuous dealing of the Reader that he will observe once for all and not expect that I should on every call recite it that though I maintain the unity of the condition not only in opposition to a separating division but also to a distributive division of Conditions yet I still maintain these three things First that quoad materiale Conditionis that faith which is the condition doth believe all the essential parts of Christ office distinctly and so it doth not look to his Exaltation in stead of his Humiliation nor è Contra but looks to be Ransomed by him as a sacrifice and meritoriously justified by his Merits and actually justified by him as King Judge and Bnefactor c. And that it eyeth also distinctly those Benefits which salvation doth essentially consist in at least And it takes Christ finally to Justifie Adopt Sanctifie Glorifie c. distinctly But still it s but one condition on which we have Title to all this Secondly That I maintain that in the Real work of sanctification the several acts of faith on several objects are distinct efficient causes of the acting of several Graces in the soul The Belief of every attribute of God and every Scripture truth hath a several real effect upon us But it is not so in Justification nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation for there our faith is not a true efficient cause but a Condition and faith as a condition is but One though the efficient acts are divers The Belief of several Texts of Scripture may have as many sanctifying effects on the soul But those are not several conditions of our Title thereto God saith not I will excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text. In the exercise of Grace God worketh by our selves as efficient causes but in the Justifying of a sinner God doth it wholly and immediately himself without any Co-efficiency of our own though we must have the disposition or Condition Thirdly I still affirm that this One undivided condition may have divers appellations from the Respect to the Consequent benefits for I will not call them the effects This one faith may be denominated importing only the Interest of a condition a justifying faith a sanctifying faith an Adopting faith a saving faith preserving faith c. But this is only if not by extrinsick denomination at the most but a Virtual or Relative distinction As the same Center may have divers denominations from the several lines that meet in it Or the same Pillar or Rock may be East West North or South ad laevam vel ad dextram in respect to several other Correlates Or plainly as one and the same Antecedent hath divers denominations from several Consequents So if you could give me health wealth Honor Comfort c. on the condition that I would but say One Word I thank you that one word might be denominated an enriching word an honouring word a comforting word from the several Consequents And so may faith But this makes neither the Materiale nor the Formale of the Condition to be divers either the faith it self or condition of the Promise Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general and of Gods imposed Condition in specicial enough to perswade us that the benefit dependeth usually as much or more on some other act as on that which accepteth the benefit it self then we have reason to judge that our Justification dependeth as much on some other act as on the acceptance of Justification but the Antecedent is true as I prove First As to Covenant Condition in general it is most usual to make the promise consist of somwhat which the party is willing of and the condition to consist of somewhat which the Promiser will have but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to And therefore it is that the Accepting of the benefit promised is seldome if ever expresly made the Condition though implicitly it be part because it is supposed that the party is willing of it But that is made the express condition where the party is most unwilling So when a Rebel hath a pardon granted on condition he come in and lay down arms it is supposed that he must humbly and thankfully accept the pardon and his returning to his allegiance is as truly the condition of his pardon as the putting forth his hand and taking it is If a Prince do offer himself in maraiage to the poorest Beggar and consequently offer Riches and Honors with himself the accepting of his person is the expressed condition more then the accepting of the riches and honors and the latter dependeth on the former If a Father give his son a purse of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him or ask him forgiveness of some fault here his kneeling down and asking him forgiveness doth more to the procurement of the gold then putting forth his hand and taking it Secondly And as for Gods Covenant in specie it is most certain that God is his own end and made and doth all things for himself And therefore it were blasphemy to say that the Covenant of Grace were so free as to respect mans wants only and not Gods Honor and Ends yea or man before God And therefore nothing is more certain then that both as to the ends and mode of the Covenant it principally respecteth the Honor of God And this is it that man is most backward to though most obliged to And therefore its apparent that this must be part yea the principal part of the condition Every man would have pardon and be saved from hell God hath promised this which you would have on condition you will yield to that which naturally you would not have You would have Happiness but God will have his preeminence and therefore you shall have no Happiness but in him You would have pardon but God will have subjection and Christ will have the honour of being the bountifull procurer of it and will be your Lord and Teacher and Sanctifier as well as Ransom If you will yield to one you shall have the other So that your Justification dependeth as much on your Taking Christ for your Lord and Master as on your receiving Justification or consenting to be pardoned by him Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Christ himself and the benefits
If you consent not to this you then must maintain that this Covenant excludeth not Infidels from salvation the term only being not implyed in the promise of pardon to Believers But if you grant all this as sure you will then it is most evident that Believing is taken in the same sense in the promise and in the threatning For no man breathing can tell me either how a Promise to one kind of faith can imply a threatning against the want of another kind or act of faith or else what that other faith must be that is so implyed if not the same And if it be the same faith that is implyed which is a most evident truth then it will follow that if I prove the Threatned unbelief to be a Rejecting of Christ as King the faith then that is made the condition of the promise must be the accepting of him as King as well as Priest But I have proved that not believing in Christ as King is part of the unbelief that is specially threatned werth condemnation therefore believing in him as King is part of that faith which hath the promise or is the Condition of Justification But saith Mr. Blake I further answer Rejecting Christ as King is a sin against the moral Law which damns Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required than a sinner may be saved Repl. For my part I know no Law but moral Law It s a strange Law that is not Moral as it is a strange Animal that is not quid Physicum But yet I partly understand what some others mean by the phrase Moral Law but what you mean I cannot tell for all your two volumns And it s to small purpose to dispute upon terms whose sense we be not agreed in nor do not understand one another in And you must better agree with yourselves before you agree with me I cannot reconcile these speeches Mr. Blake of the Covenant pag. 111. I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Mr. Blake here pag. 563. Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required that a sinner may be saved I am confident you will allow me to think you mean somewhat more ex parte nostri and not only ex parte Christi And can that somewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it And yet I find you sometimes seeming offended with me for telling you I understand you not But I further answer you The rejecting of Christ as King is no further a sin against the Moral Law then the accepting him as King is a duty of the Moral Law Will you not believe this without a Dispute when you are told by Paul that where there is no Law there is no transgression and elsewhere that sin is a transgression of the Law And need not stand to prove that the same Law which is the Rule prescribing duty is the Rule discovering sin even that sin which is the Privation of that duty I desire no Readers that will not receive these things without any more arguing Mr. Blake adds Vnbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemn further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be yeur judgement as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the new Law as you call it to an act of oblivion And an act of oblivion saves many but condemns none Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ But this is a truth that you must not so easily take out of our hands Though having had occasion to speak largely of it elsewhere I shall say but little now First Again I know no Commandment that is not moral But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly as delivered by Moses or as written in Nature I am not of your mind nor ever shall be To be void of the belief of these Articles of the faith that this Jesus is the Christ that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried Rose again the third day ascended into Heaven sitteth in our nature at the right hand of God gave the Holy Ghost to his Apostles to confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel with many more doth condemn further then as it is a breach either of the Mosaical or Natural Law yea in some respects as it is no breach of those Laws And yet the same sin materially may be a breach of several Laws and condemned by several Secondly you very much mistake my judgement here if you think it the same with yours Nor will the mention of an act of oblivion justifie your mistake I suppose an Act of oblivion may possibly have a Penalty anexed as that all that stand our and accept not of this pardon by such a year or day shall be remediless and lyable to a greater Penalty And I think if no Penalty be named there is one implyed For my part I am satisfied that the Remedying Law or the Law of Grace hath its special Threatning when I so often read it He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and unless ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins And I take it to differ from the Threatning of the law of works thus First In the matter of the condition which is not sin in general any sin but a special sin viz. the final rejecting the Remedy that is Refusing to turn to God by faith in Christ Secondly In the Penalty First The Gospel Penalty is Non-liberation from the curse of the Law Not to be forgiven or saved This had been but a Negation and not Penal if there had been no Christ and Gospel But it is a privation and penal now because by a special sin we forfeit our hopes and possibilities Secondly As to the degree I find it will be a far sorer punishment Heb. 10.29 The Law of greatest Grace doth threaten the greatest punishment Thirdly And doubtless in Hell Conscience will have a special kind of Accusations and self-tormentings in reflecting on the refusals of the remedy and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant which is a punishment that was never threatned by the Covenant of works Fourthly And there will be a Privation of a greater Glory then ever was promised under the Law of works Fifthly As also of a special sort of eternal felicity consisting in loving the Redeemer and singing the song of the Lamb and being his members c. Thirdly And as there are these five differences in the Penalty besides that of the Condition of it so is there a considerable modal difference in the consummation it self viz. that of the Law of works was
again I shall yield so far to their Importunity as to recite here briefly the state of the Controversie and some of that evidence which is elsewhere more largely produced for the truth And First We must explain what is meant by Works and what is meant by Justification what by a Condition and what by the Preposition by here when we speak of Justification by works And then we shall lay down the truth in several propositions Negative and Affirmative It seems strange to me to hear men on either side to speak against the Negative or Affirmative of the Question and reproach so bitterly those that maintain them without any distinction or explication as if either the error lay in the terms or the terms were so plain and univocal that the Propositions are true only on one part what sense soever they be taken in No doubt but he saith true that saith that Works are the Condition of Justification and he saith as true that saith they are not if they take the terms in such different senses as commonly Disputers on these Questions do take them And its past all doubt that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law and that it is not of Works but of Grace and it s as certain that a man is justified by works and not by faith only and that by their Words men shall be justified and by their Words they shall be condemned Gods word were not true if both these were not true We must therefore necessarily distinguish And first of Works First Sometime the term Works is taken for that in general which makes the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Meritorious works Or for such as are conceited to be thus meritorious though they be not And those are materially either Works of perfect obedience without sin such as Adam had before his fall and Christ had and the good Angels have or else Works of obedience to the Mosaical Law which supposed sin and were used in order to pardon and life but mistakingly by the blind Unbelievers as supposing that the dignity of the Law did put such a dignity on their obedience thereto as that it would serve to life without the satisfaction and merit of Christ or at least must concur in Co-ordination therewith Or else lastly they are Gospel duties thus conceited meritorious Secondly But sometime the word Works is taken for that which standeth in a due subordination to grace and that first most generally for any moral virtuous Actions and so even faith it self is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fiduciall act of faith or less generally for external acts of obedience as distinct from internal habitual Grace and so Repentance Faith Love c. are not Works or for all acts external and internal except faith it self And so Repentance Desire after Christ Love to him denying our own Righteousness distrust in our selves c. are called Works Or else for all Acts external and internal besides the Reception of Christs Righteousness to Justification And so the belief of the Gospel the Acceptance of Christ as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption with many other acts of faith in Christ are called works besides the disclaiming of our own Righteousness and the rest before mentioned Secondly As for the word Justification it is so variously taken by Divines and in common use that it would require more words then I shall spend on this whole Dispute to name and open its several senses and therefore having elsewhere given a brief schem of them I shall now only mention these few which are most pertinent to our purpose First Some take Justification for some Immanent Acts of God and some for Transient And of the former some take it for Gods eternal Decree to justifie which neither Scripture calleth by this name nor will Reason allow us to do it but improperly Sometime it s taken for Gods Immanent present Approbation of a man and Reputing him to be just when he is first so constituted And this some few call a Transient Act because the Object is extrinsick But most call it Immanent because it makes no Alteration on that object And some plead that this is an eternal act without beginning because it is Gods essence which is eternal and these denominate the Act from the substance or Agent And other say that it begins in time because Gods Essence doth then begin to have that Respect to a sinner which makes it capable of such a denomination And so these speak of the Act denominatively formally respectively Both of them speak true but both speak not the same truth Sometime the word Justification is taken for a transient Act of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrinsick object And so first It s sometime taken by some Divines for a Conditional Justification which is but an act that hath a tendency to that change and this is not actual Justification Secondly Sometime it is taken for actual Justification and that is threefold First Constitutive Secondly Sentential thirdly executive First Constitutive Justification is first either in the qualities of the soul by inherent holyness which is first perfect such Adam once and the Angels and Christ had secondly or Imperfect such as the sanctified here have Secondly Or it s in our Relations when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory This is an act of God in Christ by the free Gift of the Gospel or Law of Grace and it is first The first putting a sinner into a state of Righteousness out of a state of Guilt Secondly Or it is the continuing him in that state and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular sins Secondly Sentential pardon or Justification is first by that Manifestation which God makes before the Angels in heaven Secondly at the day of Judgement before all the world Thirdly Executive Justification viz. the execution of the aforesaid sentence less properly called Justification and more properly called pardon consisteth in taking off the punishment inflicted and forbearing the punishment deserved and giving possession of the happiness adjudged us so that it is partly in this life viz. in giving the spirit and outward mercies and freeing us from judgements And thus sanctification it self is a part of Justification and partly in the life to come in freeing us from Hell and possessing us of Glory Thirdly As for the word Condition the Etymologists will tell us that it first signifieth Actionem condendi and then Passionem qua quid conditur and then qualitatem ipsam per quam condere aliguis vel condi aliquid potest hinc est pro statu qui factus est rem condendo deinceps pro omni statu quem persona vel res aut causa quoquo modo habet aut accipit But we have nothing to do with it in such large acceptions in which all things in the world may be called Conditions Vid. Martin in Nom. They
Either you ask this question as of a penitent Believer or the finally impenitent Vnbeliever If of the former I say First All his sins Christs righteousness pardoneth and covereth and consequently all the failings in Gospel duties Secondly But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Christ pardoneth not because he is not guilty of it he hath none such to pardon but hath the personal righteousness of a performer of the conditions of the Gospel And for the finally impenitent Infidels the answer is because they rejected that Righteousness which was able to satisfie and would not return to God by him and so not performing the condition of pardon have neither the pardon of that sin nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them If this Doctrine be the avoiding the good known way there is a good known way besides that which is revealed in the Gospel And if this be so hard a point for you to receive I bless God it is not so to me And if it be far more easie to maintain one single righteousness viz. imputed only it will not prove so safe as easie If one righteousness may serve may not Pilate and Simon Magus be justified if no man be put to prove his part in it and if he be how shall he prove it but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift Treat pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of Justification which it self needeth Justification But good works being imperfect and having much dross cleaving need a Justification to take that guilt away Answ First Again hearken all you that have so long denyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all Here is an Argument to maintain your cause for it makes as much against faith as any other acts which they call works for faith is imperfect also and needs Justification a pardon I suppose you mean I had rather talk of pardoning my sins then justifying them or any imperfections what ever Secondly But indeed it s too gross a shift to help your cause The Major is false and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can see Faith and Repentance are considerable First As sincere Secondly As imperfect They are not the conditions of pardon as imperfect but as sincere God doth not say I will pardon you if you will not perfectly believe but If you will believe Imperfection is sin and God makes not sin a condition of pardon and life I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could seem a sufficiennt reason for this Proposition that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon It s true that in the same respect as it needs a pardon that is as it is a sin it can be no condition But faith as faith Repentance as Repentance is no sin Treat ibid. It s true Justification is properly of persons and of actions indirectly and obliquely Answ The clean contrary is true as of Justification in general and as among men ordinarily The action is first accusasable or justifiable and so the person as the cause of that Action But in our Justification by Christs satisfaction our Actions are not justifiable at all save only that we have performed the condition of the Gift that makes his righteousness ours Treat pag. 233. This question therefore is again and again to be propounded If good works be the condition of our Justification how comes the guilt in them that deserveth condemnation to be done away Is there a further condition required to this condition and so another to that with a processus in infinitum Answ Once may serve turn for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it But if so again and again you shall be answered The Gospel giveth Christ and life upon the same condition to all This condition is first a duty and then a condition As a duty we perform it imperfectly and so sinfully for the perfection of it is a duty but the perfection is not the condition but the sincerity Sincere Repentance and faith is the condition of the pardon of all our sins therefore of their own Imperfections which are sins Will you ask now If faith be imperfect how comes the guilt of that Imperfection to be pardoned is it by a further condition and so in infinitum No it is on tht same condition sincere repentance and faith are the conditions of a pardon for their own Imperfections Is there any difficulty in this or is there any doubt of it Why may not faith be a condition as well as an Instrument of receiving the pardon of its own Imperfection I hope still you perceive that you put these questions to others as well as me and argue against the common Judgement of Protestants who make that which is imperfect to be the condition of pardon Repent and be baptized saith Peter for the remission of sin Of what sin is any excepted to the Penitent Believer certainly no It is of all sins And is not the imperfection of faith and repentance a sin The same we say of sincere obedience as to the continuance of our Justification or the not losing it and as to our final Justification If we sincerely obey God will adjudge us to salvation and so justifie us by his final sentence through the blood of Christ from all the imperfections of that obedience what need therefore of running any further towards an infinitum Treat ibid. The Popish party and the Castellians are so far convinced of this that therefore they say our good works are perfect And Castellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly Answ It seems they are partly Quakers But they are unhappy souls if such an Argument could drive them to such an abominable opinion And yet if this that you affirm be the cause that Papists have taken up the doctrine of perfection I have more hopes of their recovery then I had before nay because they are some of them men of ordinary capacities I take it as if it were done already For the Remedy is most obvious Understand Papists that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience to Christ in Truth and not in Perfection that is the Condition of your final Justification at Judgement and you need not plead for perfection any more But I hardly believe you that this is the cause of their error in this point And you may see that if Protestants had no more Wit then Papists they must all be driven by the violence of your Argument to hold that Faith and Repentance are perfect And seeing you tell us of Castellio's absurdity I would intreat you to tell us why it is that you pray for pardon your selves either you take Prayer to be Means to obtain pardon or you do not If not then 1. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon 2. And then if once it be taken for no means men cannot be blamed if they use it but accordingly But if you
some to be the Conditions of life And if you believe not this I refer you to Mr. Blake who will undertake to prove more 2. But your assertion is groundless I said not that they are works of the Law What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gospel duty Do I call the duty a work of the Law because I say the Law condemneth the neglecters of it 3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion and against that which you dispute against Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers when the Gospel hath commanded faith Have I so much ado to perswade the men of your party that the Gospel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty and that it is truly a Law which the Lutherans have taught too many and now do you think that its only the Gospel that Curseth impenitent unelievers and that maketh punishment due for the remnant of these sins in penitent Believers Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and self-contradiction Treat ib. But above all this is not to be endured that Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the New Covenant and that there is no such breach but final impenitency For are the defects of our Repentance faith and love in Christ other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace our unthankfulness unfruitfulness yea sometimes with Peter our grievous revolts and apostacies What are those but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest though they do not dissolve it But it is not my purpose to fall on this because of its impertinency to my matter in hand Answ I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preached Reader I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour bare-faced To which end besides what is said before understand 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him 3. A violation of Gods constitution Believe and be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions which left us under a non-liberation for that time and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was executed 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant or Law of Grace as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment These are my usual limitations and explications And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all these under the general name of Covenant-breaking 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine and like to make Congregations blessed that our defects of repentance unfruitfulness and unthankfulness c. are such violations of the Law of Grace or the Conditions of the Gospel as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment That is in plain English to say We shall all be damned Treat ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Justification then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts and troubles whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perversness from the fore-named Doctrine but the very Genius of it tends thereunto For if a Condition be not performed then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed As in faith if a man do not believe he cannot say Christ with his benefits are his Thus if he have not works the Condition is not performed but still he continueth without this benefit But for works How shall I know when I have the full number of them Whether is the Condition of the species or individuums of works Is not one kind of work omitted when it s my duty enough to invalidate my Justification Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all seeing that one is required as a Condition Answ Your Argument is an unproved Assertion not having any thing to make it probable 1. Belief in Christ as Lord and Teacher is Works with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he believeth in Christ as King and Prophet and is his Disciple as well as when he believeth in him as Priest 2. Repentance is Works also with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he Repenteth as well as when he believeth 3. Do you not give up the Protestant cause here to the Papists in the point of certainty of salvation We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is sincere And how why by its fruits and concomitants and that we take Christ for Lord as well as Saviour or to save us from the power of sin as well as the guilt And is it now come to that pass that these cannot be known What not the signs by which faith it self should be known and therefore should be notiora This it is to eye man and to be set upon the making good of an opinion 4. Let all Protestants answer you and I have answered you How will they know when they Repent and Believe when they have performed the full of these believed all necessary Truths Repented of all sins that must be Repented of Whether it be the species or individual acts of these that are necessary Will not the omission of Repentance for one sin invalidate it Or the omission of many individual acts of faith are not those acts conditions c. Answer these and you are answered 5. But I shall answer you briefly for them and me It s no impossible thing to know when a man sincerely believeth repenteth and obeyeth though many Articles are Essential to the Assenting part of faith and many sins must be Repented of and many duties must be done God hath made known to us the Essentials of each It is not the Degree of any of them but the Truth that is the Condition A man that hath imperfect Repentance Faith and Obedience may know when they are sincere notwithstanding the imperfections Do you not believe this Will you not maintain it against a Papist when you are returned to your former temper what need any more then to be said of it 6. Your Argument makes as much against the making use of these by way of bare signs as by way of Conditions For an unknown sign is no sign to us 7. And how could you over-look it that your Argument
Word of Answ 1. We say not that Jams calls them a condition therefore we add not to him as his 2. Every Exposition and application is an addition of another sort but not as of the same 3. I use not the active phrase that Works justifie agreeing so far with you who note a difference between these sayings Faith justifieth and we are justified by faith for all that Mr. Blake despiseth the observation which perhaps he would scarce have done if he had known that you had being guilty of it also 4. Scripture supposeth Grammer Logick Physicks c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part If James tell you that we are justified by works he doth not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a verb and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a noun and so of the rest but he warranteth you to say so without any unjust addition supposing that Grammer so call them If the Scripture say that God created the Heavens and the earth it doth not say here in terms that God was the efficient cause but it warranteth you to say so If it say that Christ dyed for us and was a Sacrifice for our sins and hath obtained eternal redemption for us yet it saith not that he is the meritorious cause or the material cause of our Justification But it will warrant you to say so without the guilt of unjust additions If you may say as a Grammarian and a Logitian when you meet with such words in Scripture These are Paronyma and these Synonyma and these Homonyma and this is an universal that a singular that a particular and that an indefinite this is an efficient cause that a material formal or final this is a noun that a verb the other a participle or an adverb I pray you then why may not I say when I read in Rom. 10.9 that If thou confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart c. that If is a conjunction conditional Is this adding to the Scripture unjustly If I did when ever I read that we are justified by faith collect thence that faith is an Instrumental cause as if by were only the note of an Instrument then you might have accused me of unwarrantable addition or collections indeed Lastly If you have a mind to it I am content that you say by the unscriptural names or additions as you speak of nouns pronouns verbs antecedents consequents efficient or material causes c. and I will lay by the name of a condition as you do of an Instrument and we will only use the Scripture phrase which is If you forgive men your Father will forgive you if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive we are justified by faith without the works of the Law A man is justified by works and not by faith only By thy Words thou shalt be justified Every man shall be judged according to his works c. Let us keep to Scripture phrase if you desire it and you shall find me as backward as any to lay much stress upon terms of Art Having gone thus far I shall in brief give you a truer reconciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us 1. They debate different questions 2. And that with different sorts of persons 3. And speak directly of different sorts of works 4. And somewhat differ in the sense of the word Faith 5. And somwhat about the word Justification 6. And they speak of works in several Relations to Justification 1. The Question that Paul disputed was principally Whether Justification be by the works of the Mosaical Law and consequently by any mercenary works without Christ or in Co-ordination with Christ or any way at all conjunct with Christ The question that James disputed was Whether men are justified by meer believing without Gospel-Obedience 2. The persons that Paul disputed against were 1 The unbelieving Jews that thought the Mosaical Law was of such perfection to the making of men righteous that there needed no other much less should it be abrogate Where specially note that the righteousness which the Jews expected by that Law was not as is commonly imagined a righteousness of sinless obedience such as was required of Adam but a mixt Righteousness consisting of accurate Obedience to the Mosaical Law in the main course of their lives and exact sacrificing according to that Law for the pardon of their sins committed wherein they made express confession of sin so that these two they thought sufficient to justifie and lookt for the Messias but to free them from captivity and repair their Temple Law c. And 2. Paul disputed against false Teachers that would have joyned these two together the Righteousness of Moses Law and Faith in Christ as necessary to life But James disputed against false Christians that thought it enough to salvation barely to believe in Christ or lived as if they so thought its like misunderstanding Pauls Doctrine of Justification as many now do 3. The works that Paul speaks of directly are the services appointed by Moses Law supposed to be sufficient because of the supposed sufficiency of that Law So that its all one with him to be justified by the Law and to be justified by works and therefore he ofter speaks against Justification by the Law expresly and usually stileth the works he speaks of the works of the Law yet by consequence and a parity of Reason he may well be said to speak against any works imaginable that are set in opposition to Christ or competition with him and that are supposed meritorious and intended as Mercenary But James speaks of no works but Obedience to God in Christ and that as standing in due subordination to Christ 4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Justification Paul means our Assent to all the essential Articles of the Gospel together with our Acceptance of Jesus Christ the Lord as such and affiance in him that is To be a Believer and so to have faith is with Paul to be a Disciple of Christ or a Christian Though sometime he specially denominates that faith from one part of the object the promise sometime from another the blood of Christ sometime from a third his obedience And in other cases he distinguisheth Faith from Hope and Charity but not in the business of Justification considering them as respecting Christ and the ends of his blood But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion such as the Devils themselves had 5. Paul speaks of Justification in its whole state as begun and continued But James doth principally if not only speak of Justification as continued Though if by works any understand a disposition to work in faith or conjunct with it as Dr. Iackson doth so his words are true of initial Justification also 6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned Paul speaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal personal Righteousness
judgement of the Orthodox that they go eadem via et si non eadem semita I answer you may understand your distinction as you please but I have shewed the difference some understand it of justification before God others before men c. And if you please to make the way wide enough you may take me among the Orthodox that go eadem via if not I will stand out with James When you say they exclude works under any notion in the act of justification I answer 1. Your self include them as antecedents and concomitants thought I do not 2. I have shewed before that in the act c. is ambiguous If you mean as Agents of Causes so do I exclude them If you mean as conditions required by the new Law to the continuing and consummating our justification I have shewed you that Divines do judge otherwise My next answer was If works under any notion be excluded then faith is excluded You reply 1. Thus Bellarmine c. Answ I knew indeed that Bellarmine saith so But Sir you speak to one that is very neer Gods tribunal and therefore is resolved to look after naked truth and not to be affrighted from it by the name either of Bellarmine or Antichrist and who is at last brought to wink at prejudice I am fully resolved by Gods grace to go on in the way of God as he discovereth it to me and not to turn out of it when Bellarmine stands in it Though the Divels believe I will by Gods help believe too and not deny Christ because the Divels confess him You say Non sequitur I prove the consequence If all works or acts be excluded under any notion whatsoever and if faith be a work or act then faith is excluded But c. Ergo c. By the reason of your denyal I understand and nothing that you deny but that faith is a work or act which I never heard denyed before and I hope never shall do again The common answer to Bellarmine is that faith which is a work justifieth but not as it is a work Which answer I confess to be sound and subscribe to it But then according to that faith which is a work justifieth under some notion suppose it were under the notion of an instrument though not under the notion of a work But you go another way and say 1. Faith is passive in its instrumentality and though to believe be a grammatical action its verbum activum yet its physicè or huper physice passive A man by believing doth not operari but recipere As videre audire are Grammatical actions but physical or natural passions c. Answer 1. These are very sublime Assertions quite past the reach of my capacity and of all theirs that I use to converse with and I dare say it is no Heresie to deny them nor can that point be neer the foundation that stands upon such props which few men can apprehend 2. What if Faith were passive in its Instrumentality Is it not at all an Act therefore If it be Then that which is an Act or Work is not excluded under the notion of a passive Instrument and so not under every notion I speak on your grounds But because you told me before that I should have spent my self against this Instrumentality of Faith if I would hit the mark I will speak the more largely to it now And 1. Enquire whether videre audire be only Grammatical Actions as you call them and natural passions 2. Whether Believing be so only verbum activum but Physically passive And so to Believe is not agere but pati or recipere 3. Whether faith be passive in its Instrumentality 4. Whether the same may not be said as truly of other Graces 5. Whether Faith be any proper Instrument of our Justification 6. If it were Whether that be the primary formal Reason of its justifying vertue 7. Whether your Opinion or mine be the plainer or safer And for the first I should not think it worth the looking after but that I perceive you lay much upon it and that Philosophers generally suppose that the Sence and Intellect in this are alike and for ought I discern it is such a Passiveness of the Intellect that you intend and therefore we may put all together and enquire whether videre intelligere be only Passions And here you know how ill Philosophers are agreed among themselves and therefore how slippery a ground this is for a man to build his Faith upon in so high point as this in hand you know also that Hippocrates Galen Plato Plotinus with the generality of the Platonists are directly contrary to you you know also that Albertus Magnus and his followers judge sensation to be an action though they take the potentia to be passive You know also that Aquinas with his followers judge the very potentia to be active as well as passive passive while it receiveth the species and active Dum per ipsam agit sensationem producit And Tolet saith that this is Scotus his sentence 2. de Anima q. 12. Capreol ferè communis I know Aquinas saith that intelligere est quoddam pati but he taketh pati in his third wide improper sense as omne qu d exit de potentia in actum potest dici pati 1. q. 79 a. 2. C. And no doubt every second cause may be said to suffer even in its acting as it receiveth the Influx from the first which causeth it to act but it will not thence follow that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videre intelligere est for maliter pati I cannot think that you deny the intellectum agentem and you know that generally Philosophers attribute Action to the possible Intellect and that Jandun Apollina c. do accordingly make an Agent and patient sence and if the reception of the species were formaliter visio intellectio which I believe not yet how hardly is it proved that the Organ and Intellect are only passive in that reception Yea how great a controversie is it what the sensible and intelligible species are Yea and whether there be any such thing Whether they be an image or similitude begotten or caused by the Object as Combacchius and most which yet Suarez c. denyeth And whether they stick in the air and have all their Being first there as Magyrus and other Peripateticks Or whether their Being is only in the eye as some later Or whether it be Sir Ken. Digbyes Atomes or number of small bodies which are in perpetual motion I doubt not you know that Ockam and Henricus quod lib. 4. q. 4. reject all species as vain and make the Intellect the only active proper cause of intellection And Hobs of late in his book of humane Nature saith that visible and intelligible species is the greatest Paradox in the world as being a plain Impossibility And indeed it is somewhat strange that every stone and clod should be
at all but only the species or Idea of them 3. And how oft hath Bellarmine been called Sophister for supposing we mean such an apprehension Therefore I will not dare to think that you mean this 4. And if you did yet I have shewed how uncertain it is that this intelligere is only or formally pati 2. But if you mean not this simple apprehension as sure you do not then how is it possible to imagine the understanding should be passive in it Did ever man that writ of Philosophy once think that the soul did componere dicidere ratiocinari judicare patiendo non agendo I think no man When Tolet disputeth utrum ixtelligere sit pati he saith Advertendum est quod sermo est de apprehensione nam de compositione Jud elo non est dubium apud omnes Tol de anima p. 166. I will not therefore suppose you to differ in your Philosophy from all men What Act of the understanding you will make to be part of Justifying faith I know not For I find Divines are very little agreed in it But the most make Assent to be the only Act of the understanding though some add notitia and of them some make it Essential to justifying Faith and others but as a common prerequisite Act. Now if it were Assensus Noeticus yet it is impossible it should be formally a Passion but much more impossible when it is Assensus dianocticus vel discursivus as is most evident it is and our judicious Rob. Baronius truly teacheth Philos Theol. Anâ—il Exerc. 3. Art 16. Most Divines place the chief Essence of Faith in fiducia but then they are as ill agreed what to mean by fiducia Pemble would fain perswade us that to Believe the Truth of a particular Promise is to trust on the performance of it to me and that the Assent of Faith which is given to such a Promise is properly called fiducia or Trust But this is grounded on his singular opinion that Truth and Goodness are all one c. Baronius pag. 232. tels us of a four-fold fiducia The first he makes to be but a confident Assent to the Truth of the Promise and a firm sure Perswasion of the Remission of my own sins and of my Salvation The second is a Resting on Gods Goodness alone c. He placeth the justifying vertue only in the first which yet containeth but partly Assent which we plead against the Papists usually not to be the justifying Act and partly a particular Perswasion or Belief of Pardon which is properly no Faith but that commonly called Assurance Now this kind of fiducia is but the Assent we have spoken of and is beyond all dispute no meer Passion but an Act of the Understanding 2. But most Divines make that fiducia which is an act of the Will to have the chief hand in this work of justfiying though Baronius is so confident that it is not an act of Faith but an Effect and Consequent that he takes it for a thing so manifest that it needeth no proof p. 234. And Dr. Downam hath brought not a few nor contemptible Arguments to the same purpose against Pemble Append. to Covennat of Gr. Yet though we have found it in the Will yet it is hard to find what act of the Will they mean If it be an Elicit Act it must first either respect the End and then it is either velle intendere vel frui But sure fiducia is none of these and if it were it is more sure that at least the two first are not Passions and I think not the last though it be nothing to the present point Or else 2. It must respect the Means and then it must be Eligere Consentire vel Vti in which joined to Assent I take justifying Faith to consist But it is both evident that none of these is fiducia and if they were that none of these are passions or passive So that hitherto we are to seek for this Passive Faith Or else it is an Imparate Act and then we are in a wood to seek among so many that there is little hope of finding it The Truth seems to me to be beyond dispute that fiducia is no one single Act though one word but a composition of many implying or containing the Assent of the understanding the Election of the Will especially much of Hope and Adventurousness in the Irascible of the Sensitive together with a suspension of some acts And if we are justified by this Recumbency or Fiducia I shall believe we are justified as well by Hope as any thing for that takes up most here as Dr. Downam ubi supra proveth And who ever said that in all or any of these the Soul is Passive and not Active Indeed Hope and Venturousness are Passions but in another sense as Keckerm and Tolet ubi supra have well opened it s in respect of their quasi materiale I am content to stand or fall by the vote of Philosophers giving you 100 to one whether the Formality of these motions of the Will lie in Passion or Action And if they are Acts. whether they can be the Subjects of Passion and so be passive Acts So that yet I cannot find out your passive Faith 3. But yet further if Faith be passive Physically let us find out first what is the Agent 2. What the Action 3. What the Patient or Object 4. What is the Terminus ad quem 1. I doubt not but it is agreed that the Agent is God for it is he that justifieth 2. The terminus or res motu facta is two-fold 1. Justification in sensu legis commonly called constitutive Justification passive 2. Publique Justification by plea and sentence at Judgement passive 3. The Action must be therefore two-fold or two Actions according to the two-fold Terminus Yea in the former we may if we accurately consider it find out a two-fold Action and Terminus though the difference be narrow In which we are to consider 1. Of the Instrument 2. Add the nature of the Actions 1. The Instrument is the word of Promise or Grant in the Gospel for if you know any other way of Gods justifying or any immediate Act of God herein which is Transient I would it were revealed what Act it is Herein I have Mr. Rutherford saying as I over and over against the Antinomians 2. The Action therefore can be no other then a moral Action as a Lease or Bond or written-Law may be said to act Now the Gospel performeth to our first Justification a two-fold Action 1. It doth as a Deed of Gift bestow Christ and his Merits on men so it be they will Believe This Action doth not immediately and directly constitute them Righteous for Righteousness being a Relation must have its Foundation first laid This Act therefore of Donation which some call Imputation doth directly lay the Fundamentum whence the Relation of Righteous doth immediately arise when the Condition is
soul on Christ for Righteousness I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance but it is as Perkins Dr. Downam Rob. Baronius c. say a fruit Of faith strictly taken rather then faith it self but if you take faith in a larger sence as the Gospel not seldom doth and against which I am no adversary so Affiance is part of faith it self But that it is the whole of that faith I shall never believe without stronger Arguments where you say Its the receiving Christ as the hand embraceth any Object I answer 1. I am glad you here grant Christ himself to be the Object 2. If you mean as verily as the hand c. So I grant it if a moral receiving may be properly said to be as true as a physical But if you mean By a Physical Contact and Reception as the hand doth c. then I am far from believing that ever Christ or our Assembly so meant or ever had so gross a thought Where you say I take it not the in sence as the Scripture words imply I answer When I see that manifested I shall believe it When it is said John 1. He came to his own and his own received him not 1. Is it meant they took him not in their hands or received not his Person into their houses the later is true But 1. Only in a second place but their hearts were the first Receptacle 2. Else those were no Unbelievers where Christ never came in person And that had no houses 3. And that receiving cannot belong to us that never saw him nor to any since his Ascension 2. Or is it the Intellective Reception of his species I trow not I have said enough of that before 3. Or is it a moral Reception of him as thus and thus related volendo eligendo consentiendo diligendo pardon this last it is but the qualification of the rest consequenter fidendo I think this is it If you can find a fourth way you will do that which was never done to my knowledge and then you will be a Novellist as well as I. For your next expressions I answer to them that you do truly apprehend that I am loth to seem to recede from others and as loth to do it but magis amica veritas And I cannot believe what my list nor like those that can By which you may truly know that I do it not out of affectation of singularity as he knoweth that knoweth my heart nor intend to be any instrument of division in the Church And if my assertions are destructive of what others deliver it is but what some men and not what all deliver Not against the Assembly nor many learned Divines who from several parts of the Land have signified to me their Assent besides all those great names that appear for me in print But you tell me that I may not build on some Homilitical popular expressions in any mans books Answer Let me again name to you but the men I last named and try whether you will again so entitle their writings The first and chief is Dr. Preston who was known to be a man of most choice notions and so Judged by those that put out his books and his credit so great in England that he cracks his own that seeks to crack it And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Auditory at least as your Lectures and yet you defend your own expressions Yea it is not once nor twice not five times only but almost through all his Books that Dr. Preston harpeth upon this string as if it were the choisest notion that he intended to disclose Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as justifying and Dr. Preston was no homiletical Definer I can produce the like Testimony of Dr. Stoughton two as great Divines in my esteem as most ever England or the world bred Another is Mr. Wallis Doubtless Sir no homiletical popular man in Writing nor could you have quickly bethought you of an English Book that less deserves those attributes His words are these I assent not to place the saving Act of faith either with Mr. Cotton as his Lordship cites him in the laying hold of or assenting to that Promise c. nor yet in a particular application of Christ to my self in assurance or a believing that Christ is mine c. But I choose rather to place it in an act of the Will then in either of these forenamed acts of the Vnderstanding It is an Accepting of Christ offered rather then an Assenting to a proposition affirmed To as many as received him c. that is to them that believe in his name John 1. God makes an Offer of Christ to all else should not Reprobates be condemned for not accepting of him as neither the Devils are because he was not offered to them Whosoever will let him come and take of the water of life freely Rev. 22.17 Whereupon the believing soul replies I will and so takes him When a Gift is offered to me that which maketh it to be mine is my Acceptation c. If you call this taking of Christ or confenting that Christ shall be my Saviour a Depending a Resting or relying on Christ for salvation if you speak of an act of the Will it is all one for Taking of Christ to be my Saviour and committing my self to Christ to be saved is the same Both of them being but a consenting to this Covenant I will be your God and you shall be my People c. And if you make this the saving Act of faith then will Repentance so far as it is distinct from Faith be a consequent of it Confidence also c. Thus Mr. Wallis is clear that the Nature of Faith is the same that I have affirmed and in no popular Sermon but in his Truth tryed pag. 94 95. And on these grounds he well answers Bellarmines Dilemma which else will be but shiftingly answered The next is Mr. Norton of New England a man judged one of their best Disputants or else they would not have chose him to encounter Apollonius And will you call his very Definition of Faith in an accurate Catechism an homiletical popular expression What then in the whole world shall escape that censure His Words are Quest What is justifying Faith Answ It is a saving grace of the Spirit flowing from Election whereby the soul receiveth Jesus Christ as its Head and Saviour according as he is revealed in the Gospel I subscribe to this Definition from my heart The next cited was Mr. Culverwell not in any popular Sermon but in a solid well approved Treatise of Faith and not in common passages but his very definition of faith pag. 13.17 and after all concludes pag. 19. Thus we see that the very nature of faith consisteth in the true Acceptation of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel The next I cited about the Definition of faith was Mr. Throgmorton who in his accurate Treatise of Faith and not in any
popular Sermons and that many times over doth make Faith to be the receiving Christ for Prophet and only Rabbi to be his Disciples and as the only Way and Truth and also as King Head Husband Priest c. and by this we are made Partakers of him and all his benefits pag. 6.29.31.82 c. And for the great point that you stick at of Justification I will repeat the words of two of those Authors which I have named And 1. Of learned Conr. Bergius in whom you shall have the Testimony of the Augustane Confession Luther Meutzer c. included both about the nature and extent of Faith about works Legal and Evangelical about Justification as begun and as continued and the distinct conditions and about the concurrence of Obedience c. Praxis Cathol dissert 7. pag. 973. c. § 41. Nec tamen negat quisquam fidem esse Obedientiam in sano sensu ex Rom. 1.5 6.17 10.16 16 26. 2 Thess 1 8. Act. 5.3 2. Heb. 5.9 1 Pet. 1.2 14 22. 1. Fides est obedientia quatenus ejus actus proprius respondet praecepto Evangelii Crede in dominum Jesum c. Ideo enim ut Calvinus aâ—t ad Rom. 1.5 nomine obedientiae insignitur quod Dominus per Evangelium nos vocat nos vocanti per fidem respondemus Et sic fides ut loquitur Apol. August Conf. in resp ad Arg. pag. 125. est Obedientia erga Evangelium quae cum Obedientia mandatorum legis minime confundi debet Nam ut recte Meutzerus in exeg August Conf. â—ct 4 cont Phot. in 15. Quantum ab Evangelio Lex distat tantum haec obedientia ab illa disterminatur 42. 2. Est etiam fides obed entia quantenus per Synecdochen Metonymicam significat totum cultum à fidelibus praestiâ—um radicem una cum fructibus c. Nota enim est consuetudo sermonis ut inquit Apol. Conf. August de impl leg pag. 87. quod interdum eodem verbo causam effectus complectimur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ita accipi potest fides Heb. 13.7 and 12.1 2. Rom. 1.8 1 Thess 1.8 Ier. 7.28 43. Nec dubium est cum dicitur hoc est mandatum ut credamus Diligamus 1 John 3.23 sicut in praecepto Diligendi habitus charitatis fructus atque Opera ad quae habitus ordinatur mandata sunt itâ— etiam in praecepto credendi habitum fidei fructus ejus nobis mandatos esse Vnde cum ipsa etiam charitas inter fructus sit fidei sit ut tota doctrina Christiana aliquando verbum vel pradieatio fidei tota Religio Christiana tota oeconomia novi Testamenti fides praecipue appelletur Gal. 1.23 1 Tim. 4.6 Gal. 5.6 and 3.23 So he proceeds and alledges Luther taking faith in that large sense including charity and obedience and by Works meaning actiones factas cum opinione meriti cum expectatione justificationis vitae aeterne tanquam mercedis debitae Serm. de mis li. de libert Christiana Tom. 2. Wit f. 4.5 Tom. 5. com in Zach. 2.8 aed Gal. c. 2. f. 300. Et ultra p. 977. Cum dicitur sine operibus legis excluduntur 1. Opera factaâ—n veritate obedientiae legalis ac meriti proinde per innocentiam cui detur Merces citra remissionem peccati imputationem secundum gratiam Rom. 4.3 s Quia causatus est Apostolus toto capite 1 2. s Talem Obedientiam à nemine haberi sed omnes sub peccato esse c. 2. Excluduntur etiam opera facta cum opionione verae obedientia legalis ac meriti per innocentiam quia haec ipsa sunt etiam peccata mendacia merentia poenam Phil. 3.7 3. Excluduntur etiam opera facta cum opinione meriti sine obedientia innocentia legals aut ex qualicunque imperfecta aut particulari obedientia cui aliqualiter detur Merces citra imputationem secundum gratiam c. So that this is all the exclusion of Works that he acknowledgeth and shews that Bellarmine is driven to this which he approveth § 44. Ex dictis hisce tribus modis primo modo excluduntur vera opera legis ita ut non adsint licet diberent adesse primo creationis jure posterioribus autem duobus modis excluduntur praesumpta pera ita ut non debeant adesse sed caveri potius Et omnibus hisce modis opponitur inter se Lex operum per quam relinquitur gloriatio homini Lex Fidei per quam excluditur Gloriatio Rom. 3.27 Afterwards one sense in which he saith Fides sola justificat is this sola est fides quaten us opponitur legis operum obedientiae cujus veritas in nullo est hominum opinio autem in nullo debet esse significat contrà obedientiam legis Fidei sen praecepti non de operando expectando vitam ut mercedem debitam citra imputationem secundum gratiam sed de credendo in Christum accipiendo Retinendo vitam gratiae expectando vitam gloriae ut donum mere gratuitum per imputationem secundum gratiam in Christo quem praeposâ—it Deus placamentum in sanguine ipsius And afterward Ex dictis facile intelligitur nibil his repugnare Augustinum qui praecipue nobis opponitur cum docet excludi tantum ab Apostolo opera facta sine fide spiritu Christi hoc est sine viva fide promissionis abnegatione meriti proprii sicut Bellarm. supradocebat excludi opera quibus id quod redditur est merces non gratia opera vero facta cum fide Spiritu Christi ad illam movente non excludi Num neque nos ea excludimus ne sint aut debeant esse sed distinguit etiam Lutherus opera legis opera Christi in nobis per fidem operantis viventis per omnia Additque haec non posse magis omitti quam ipsam fidem nec esse minus necessaria quam fides in li. de vot mon. â— 2. Wit f. 281. But the chief thing I intend is in the next words At quemadmodum caeterae actiones significatae per fidem quasi materiaiiter Synecdochicè per se directè non ordinantur ad amicitiam Dei salutem proprie Efficiendam as he mistakingly thinks faith is sed vel ad fidem cui quequo modo prosunt vel ad amicitiam Dei salutem saltem non amittendam ita neque Justificabunt salvabunt proprie directe Proderunt tamen ad utrumque quatenus sunt 1. vel dispositiones ad fidem ut Pareus 2. Effectus c. 3. Quatenus per illa excludimus cavemus peccata ingratitudinem quae omnino vera causa amittendae Justitiae salutis futura essent qualem causam removentem probibeus appellare ad causas per accidens referre solent Omnis enim arbor quae non c.
12 though it do not properly cleanse the hands yet it plucks off the Gloves and makes them bare for washing and Godly sorrow with its seven Daughters 2 Cor. 7.11 are clensing things Dr. Stoughton Righteous mans plea for Happ Serm. 6. pag. 32. Faith comprehends not only the Act of the Vnderstanding but the Act of the Will too so as the Will doth embrace and adhere and cleave to those Truths which the understanding conceives and not only embracing meerly by Assent to the Truth of it but by closing with the Good of it What is that but loving tasting and relishing it As faith in Christ is not only the Assenting of a mans mind that Christ is the Saviour but a resultancy of the Will on Christ as a Saviour embracing of him and loving esteeming and honouring him as a Saviour The Scripture comprehends both these together and there is a rule for it which the Rabbins give for the opening of the Scripture viz. Verba sensus etiam denotant affectus as Jo. 17.3 This is eternal life to know thee c. It is not bare Knowledge the Scripture means but Knowledge joined with affections You see Dr. Stoughton took Love to be full as near Kin to Faith as I do Many the like and more full in him I pass I cited in my Append. Alstedius Junius Paraeus Scharpius Aretius Ball c. making Faith Obedience Gratitude Conditions of the new Covenant who saith not the same If all these be homiletical and popular I much mistake them which yet I cite not as if no words might be found in any of these Authors that seem to speak otherwise but to shew that I am not wholly singular Though if I were I cannot help it when I will On the next Q. Whether a dying man may look on his Faith and Obedience Duty as the condition of the N. Cov. by him performed You would perswade me that I cannot think that I speak to the point in this but you are mistaken in me for I can mistake more then that comes to and indeed I yet think I spoke as directly to the question in your terms laid down as was possible for I changed not one of your terms but mentioned the Affirmative as your self expressed it If you did mean otherwise then you spoke I knew not that nor can yet any better understand you Only I can feel that all the difference between you and me must be decided by distinguishing of Conditions but you never yet go about it so as I can understand you You here ask me Whether I think you deny a godly life to be a comfortable Testimony or necessary qualification of a man for pardon Answer 1. But the Question is not of the significancy or Testimony nor yet of all kind of qualification that is an ambiguous term and was not in the Question but of the conditionality 2. You yield to the term Condition your self elsewhere and therefore need not shun it 3. Qualifications and Conditions are either physical and remote of which I raise no question so the Essence of the soul is a condition and so hearing the Gospel is a natural Condition of him that will understand it and understanding is a natural Qualification of him that will believe it For ignoti nulla fides But it is another sort of conditions you know that we are in speech of which I have defined and Mr. Gataker before cited viz. Moral legal conditions so called in sensu forensi vel legali when the Law of Christ hangs our actual Justification and salvation on the doing or not doing such a thing Yet do I very much distinguish between the Nature and Uses of the several Graces or Duties contained in the conditions for though they are all conditions yet they were not all for the same reason or to the same use ordained to be conditions but repentance in one sence as preparatory to faith and Faith 1. Because it honoureth Christ and debaseth our selves 2. Because it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered is the most convenient means to make us Possessors without any contempt of the Gift with other reasons that might be found So I might assign the reasons as they appear to us why God hath assigned Love to Christ and sincere Obedience and forgiving others their several parts and places in this conditionality but I have done it in my Aphorisms but then all these are drawn from the distinct nature and use of these duties Essentially in themselves considered which is but their Aptitude for the place or conditionality which they are appointed to and would of themselves have done nothing without such appointment So that it is one question to ask Why doth Faith or Works of Obedience to Christ Justifie To which I answer Because it was the pleasure of God to make them the conditions of the Covenant and not because of their own nature directly and it s another Question Why did God choose Faith to the Precedency in this work To which I answer 1. Properly there is no cause of Gods actions without himself 2. But speaking of him after the manner of men as we must do it is because Faith is fitter then any other Grace for this Honor and Office as being both a high honouring of God by believing him that 's as for Assent and in its own Essential nature a hearty thankfull Acceptance of his Son both to be our Lord which is both for the Honor of God and our own good and our Saviour to deliver and glorifie us and so is the most rational way that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured happiness without either our own danger if a heavier condition had been laid upon us or the dishonour of the Mediator either by diminishing the estimation of the favour if we had done any more to the procuring it our selves or by contempt of the Gift if we had not been required and conditioned with so much as thankfully and lovingly to accept it And then if the Question be Why God hath assigned sincere Obedience and Perseverance therein to that place of secondary Conditionality for the continuance and consummation of Justification and for the attaining of salvation I answer Not because they have any such Receptive nature as faith but because Faith being an Acceptance of Christ as Lord also and delivering and resigning up the soul to him accordingly in Covenant this Duty is therefore necessarily implyed as the thing promised by us in that Covenant and so in some sence greater then the covenanting it self or the end of it and Christ never intended to turn man out of his service and discharge him from Obedience but to lay on him an easier and lighter yoak and burden to learn of him c. and therefore well may he make this the condition of their finding Ease and Rest to their souls Mat. 11.28 29. For for this end he dyed that he might be Lord Rom.
Evangelical as declared and given by the Gospel But the thing in question you now fully confess Mr. W. pag. 171. That we our selves are not the subjects of Evangelical righteousness I shall endeavour to prove by thesâ— Arguments 1. If our Evangelical righteousness be out of us in Christ then it is not in â—â— consisting in the habit or Acts of faith and Gospel obedience but it is out of us in Christ Answ We shall have such another piece of work with this point as the former to defend the truth against a man that layeth about him in the dark 1. I have oft enough distinguisht of Evangelical righteousness The righteousness conform to the Law and revealed and given by the Gospel is meritoriously and materially out of us in Christ The righteousness conform to the Gospel as constituting the condition of life He that believeth shall not perish Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out This is in our selves materially and not out of us in Christ Mr. W. 2. If satisfaction to Divine Justice were not given or caused by any thing in us but by Christ alone then Evangelical righteousness is in Christ alone But Ergo without blood no remission Answ Your proof of the consequence is none but worse then silence Besides the satisfaction of Justice and remission of sin thereby there is a subservient Gospel righteousness as is proved and is undeniable Mr. W. 3. If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves then perfect righteousness is in our selves But that 's not so Ergo. Answ Still you play with the ambiguity of a word and deny that which beseems you not to deny that the fulfilling of the condition Believe and Live is a Gospel-righteousness particular and subservient and imperfect The Saints have an Inherent righteousness which is not Legal therefore it is Evangelical If you say it s no righteousness you renounce the constant voice of Scripture If you say it is a Legal righteousness imperfect then you set up Justification by the works of the Law the unhappv fate of blind opposition to do what they intend to undo For there is no righteousness which doth not justifie or make righteous in tantum and so you would make men justified partly by Christ and partly by a Legal righteousness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evangelical righteousness without any cause in the world but darkness jealousie and humorous contentious zeal Yea more then so we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for were we judged by it And yet will you say that faith or inherent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical Mr. W. 4. If Evangelical righteousness were in ourselves and did consist either in the habit or act of faith and new obedience then upon the intercision of those acts our Justification would discontinue But Answ If you thought not your word must go for proof you would never sure expect that we should believe your Consequence For 1. What shew is there of reason that the intercision of the act should cause the cessation of that Justification which is the consequent of the Habit which you put in your Antecedent The Habit continueth in our sleep when the acts do not 2. As long as the cause continueth which is Christs Merits and the Gospel-Grant Justification will continue if the condition be but sincerely performed For the Condition is not the cause much less a Physical cause But the condition is sincerely performed though we believe not in our sleep I dare not instance in your payment of Rent left a Carper be upon mâ— back but suppose you give a man a lease of Lands on condition he come once a moneth or week or day and say I thank you or in general on condition he be thankful Doth his Title cease as oft as he shuts his lips from saying I thank you These are strange Doctrines Mr. W. 5. If Evangelical righteousness were in our selves and faith with our Gospel obedience were that righteousness then he who hath more or less faith or obedience were more or less justified and more or less Evangelically righteous according to the degrees of faith and obedience Answ I deny your Consequence considering faith and repentance as the Condition of the Promise because it is the sincerity of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition and not the degree and therefore he that hath the least degree of sincere faith hath the same title to Christ as he that hath the strongest 2. But as faith and obedience respect the Precept of the Gospel and not the Promise so it is a certain truth that he that hath most of them hath most Inherent Righteousness Mr. W. 6. That opinion which derogates from the Glory and Excellency of Christ above all Graces and from the excellency of Faith in its Office of justifying above other Graces ought not to be admitted But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteousness in the habit act or Grace of faith and Gospel obedience derogates from both Christ and Faith Answ Your Minor is false and your proof is no proof but your word Your similitude should have run thus If an Act of Oblivion by the Princes purchase do pardon all that will thankfully accept it and come in and lay down arms of Rebellion it is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to say I accept it I stand out no longer and therefore it is mine If you offer to heal a deadly sore on condition you be accepted for the Chyrurgion doth it derogate from your honour if your Patient say I do consent and take you for my Chyrurgion and will take your Medicines Your proof is as vain and null that it derogates from faith What that Faith should be this subservient Righteousness Doth that dishonour it Or is it that Repentance is conjoyned as to our first Justification and obedience as to that at Judgement When you prove either of these dishonourable to faith we will believe you but it must be a proof that is stronger then the Gospel that is against you We confess faith to be the receiving Condition and repentance but the disposing Condition but both are Conditions As for Phil. 3.9 Do you not see that it is against you I profess with Paul not to have a righteousness of my own which is of the Law which made me loth to call faith and repentance a legal righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Faith you see is the means of our Title to Christs Righteousness And if you deny faith it self to be any particular Righteousness you must make it a sin or indifferent and contradict the Scriptures And presently contradicting what you have been arguing for that Evangelical Righteousness is not in us and we are not the Subjects of it You profess pag. 178. That Inherent Righteousness is in us It seems then either Inherent righteousness is not righteousness or it is
Lord. But such an accepting of him is not properly or in the account of God or in it self Faith or obedience Ergo. The Minor I prove if purposes intentions or verbal professions to believe or obey are not properly faith obedience then such an accepting is not faith or obedience The Minor proved That which is or may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience Bu Ergo. Answ The Lord pardon the hardness of my heart that hath no more compassionate sense of the miseries of that poor Church and the dishonour of God which such Disputes as this proclaim by Arguments as fit to be answered by Tears as by words 1. A little before he was proving Argument 12. that none could call Christ Lord but by the Spirit and therefore this act was after Justification And now he proveth that its common to Hypocrites Reprobates 2. Here he delivereth me from all the trouble and fallacy that the distinction of fides quae Justificat and fides qua Justificat hath been guilty of For if the act that we dispute about be no faith at all then it is not the fides quae And yet he often is upon the Qua Justificans himself forgetting this 3. Had I but delivered such a Doctrine as this what should I have heard Justifying faith hath three Parts ASSENT CONSENT and AFFIANCE which also have several acts or parts according to the divers essential parts of the Object ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rest as all acts of the Intellect are to those of the Will CONSENT is the same which we here call ACCEPTING which is but the meer VOLITION denominated from its respect to the offer and thing offered This as it is in the will the commanding Faculty so is it as it were the Heart of Faith the first act being but to lead in this and AFFIANCE the third being commanded much by this or depending on it For as it is seated in the Affections so far it is distinct from this Velle or CONSENT Now when ever we name Faith by any one of these three acts as the Scripture doth from every one we include them all though to avoid tediousness we stand not to name all the parts when ever by one word we express the whole And all these Acts have whole Christ in all the essentials of his Person and office for their object Now that this faith in Christ as Lord or accepting him should be said and that by a Christian Divine and that in the Reformed Church to be no faith at all to say nothing of his denying it to be obedience is no matter of honour or comfort to us How oft doth the Scripture expresly mention faith in our Lord Jesus Christ Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord Col 2.6 with other equipollent terms But I will not offer to trouble any Christian Reader with Arguments for such a Truth 4. But yet the man would be thought to have Reason for what he saith and to his proof I further answer 1. Purposes Intentions and verbal Professions were none of the terms or things in question but Accepting or Believing in Christ as Lord Teacher c. These are but concomitants the two first and the last a consequent 2. Is it the Act Accepting that this Brother disputeth against or is it the Object Christ as Lord as being none of the faith by which we are justified If it be the former 1. What Agreement then hath this Argument with all the rest or with his question 2. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture that calleth Faith a Receiving of Christ and maketh it equipollent with Believing in his Name John 1.11.12 Col. 2.6 3. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the Protestant Faith that maketh Christ himself as Good to be the Object of faith to be embraced or chosen or accepted by the will as well as the word as True to be Assented to by the understanding But if it be the Object that he meaneth then what force or sense is there in his Argument from the terms Purposing Intending Confessing Let him name what Act he please so it respect this Object and if it be an Act of faith indeed it s all one as to our present Controversie If he take Consent willing or Accepting of Christ to be no act of Faith let him name any other that he will own for I would quarrel as little as may be about words or impertinent things and let that be it 4. And how could he choose but see that his Argument is as much against Accepting Christ as Priest as against Accepting him as Lord to Justification No doubt but a man that had the common Reason to write but such a book as this must needs see this if he regard what he said And therefore I must take it for granted that his Argument is against both alike even to prove that Accepting of Christ as Lord or as Saviour is no faith or obedience at all But the Reader will hardly believe till he weigheth it that a waking man would reason thus upon such a Question as this in hand 5. Consenting that Christ shall be my Lord and Teacher and Head doth imply a consent and so a Purpose of future obeying learning and receiving from him And so consenting that Christ shall be my Righteousness Intercessor and Justifier doth imply a Purpose of Trusting in him for the future And yet this consent in both cases is Justifying faith 6. And its dolefull Doctrine were he a true Prophet to all Gods Church that Purposes and Intentions to believe and obey are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates For though there are superficial uneffectual purposes and Intentions in them as there is an uneffectual faith in them yet if no Purposes and Intentions will prove men Saints then nothing in this world will prove them Saints For the Evidences of Grace are more certain to him that hath them in the Heart then in the outward Actions And in the Heart the very new Creature lyeth much in these two Desires themselves will prove true Grace Much more when they rise to setled Purposes Why else did Barnabas exhort the young beginners that with purpose of Heart they should cleave unto the Lord as intimating that their stability lay in this And Intentions are the very Heart of the New man For Intention is that act that is exercised about the End which is God himself Intendere finem is no more then Velle vel Amare Deum It is the Love of God above all And if this be common to Hypocrites and Reprobates what a case are we in then I hope I have given you a sufficient account of the Impertinency and vanity of Mr. Warners fifteen Arguments To which he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians Arminians and I know not who to assure you that we his new Adversaries do joyn with that company and plead their cause And he that
they judge us so For I presuppose that that they know us to be so made by some Act before and therefore they judge us to be as we are And if they may know that we are Believers and know that the New Law justifieth all such then they may judge us to be justified without any sentence in Heaven even as they know when a sinner is converted and rejoice in it which doubtless they may know without a sentence in Heaven pronouncing us converted and Gods making them Instruments in conferring his Mercies may make them know You say that Constitutive Justification different from Declarative by sentence I do not find expressed under the term Justification it would be considered whether any other Act beside the sentence doth make a man just but giving of faith Answer These two things I shall prove to convince you because this is of some moment 1. That some Act there must be to constitute us just before or besides the sentence 2. That neither the sentence nor the giving of Faith doth first and properly constitute us Just 1. If we be not just before we are judged as just then Gods Judgement should not be according to Truth But Gods Judgment is according to Truth therefore we are just before we are so judged 2. He that hath Christ and the Benefits of his satisfactory Righteousness given him by the New Law Covenant Testament or Grant of Christ is hereby constituted righteous But every Believer hath Christ and the said benefits Given him in and by the Law or Covenant therefore he is thereby made or constituted Righteous And here by the way take notice that the New Law or Covenant hath two Offices the one to Bestow Right to the Benefit and hereby it makes Righteous The other to Declare and manifest openly and to be the Rule of publique Judgement and so it doth both actione morali proclaim believers righteous and Virtually sentence them so And therefore in Rom. 10.5 it is called the Righteousness which is of the Law And if the Old Law had a power of making Righteous if man could have performed the condition so also hath the New 2. And that the sentence doth not constitute us Just needs no proof It is the work of a Judge by sentence to clear the Guiltless and not to make them Guiltless Pardon indeed may do somewhat to it but that is not the action of a Judge as a Judge but as you before distinguished of a Rector in case of transgressing Lawes A Judge pronounceth men to be what they first are according to Law and not makes them to be righteous who are not He that saith to the wicked thou art Righteous Nations shall curse him people shall bhor him Pro. 24.24 He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the Just even they both are abomination to the Lord Prov. 17.15 If this were not so then we must believe that no man is justified before the day of particular or general Judgement till you have proved that God sentenceth at a Court of Angels And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous that is according to the Law of works effective I think you confess If I thought you did not it were very easily proved Faith being but the condition of our universal righteousness which the old Law requireth in its stead cannot be that Righteousness it self and some other efficient there must be of our Justification here Next you say Notwithstanding Christs Death and the Conditional Covenant afore faith a person is only justifyable Conditionalis nihil ponit esse Answ All this is very true but not any thing against me I like well what you say of Christs death because it is as Aquinas and our Davenant Vsher c. say but Causa universalis vel Remedium omnibus applicabile It is to prepare for and merit not directly to effect our Justification whatsoever the Antinomians dream But the Covenant or Testament is the very efficient Instrumental cause of Justification and its Action is Gods Action Yet its true that Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse that is till the condition be performed but then it becometh of equal force to an Absolute Gift and doth ponere in esse even the same Instrument doth it whose Action till then was by the Authors will suspended YOu next pass to another Point about Thes 59. whether Justification be a continued Act. And you say that being a Transient Act it cannot be well called a continued Act which imports a successive motion between the Terminus a quo and ad quem whereas this Act whether by sentence or Covenant is not such a motion c. Answ 1. All this may be true of a proper natural Action but you know that it is only a moral Action which I affirm to be continued and of this you know your Rule de motu holds not except you take Motus largely and improperly As passive Justification or the effect of the Justifying Act is but a Relation which is the weakest of Entities so doth it per nudam resultantiam arise which is by the weakest of Causalities The Act of God giving out and enacting this Law or Covenant at first was indeed a proper transient Act and is ceased but the moral Action of the Law thus enacted is continual The Law of the land which condemneth Delinquents and justifieth the obedient doth both by a continued moral Act. The Lease of your House or Lands gives you Title thereto by a continued moral Act. So that this which I assert is not Actus repetitus vel renovatus You add that You incline to think that there is but one Justification of a Person in this life though frequent Remission of sin Answ In that you judge as most of the Orthodox do And I have said nothing to the contrary I think also that as Scripture useth the phrase of oft-forgiving but seldom of oft-justifying so it is safest to speak as Scripture doth Yet as to the thing me thinks that as Remission and Justification do but respectively or very narrowly differ so in this case one may as truly be said to be repeated as the other that is As there is an universal Remission of all sin past upon our first true Believing which universal Remission is never iterated but continued so is there an Universal Justification of the person at the same time by which he is made just and in Law so esteemed pronounced or judged by being acquit from the condemning Power of the Law which for his sins past only was before in force against him And so if you look to such a Remission or Justification as wholly changeth the state of the person making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardoned and fully under guilt of all former sins or making him justified who was before unjustified and condemned in Law neither of these I think are iterated But then as you confess a frequently renewed pardon for following sins so I know no
reason but in the same sence there must be a frequent Justifying For as our Divines well conclude that sin cannot be pardoned before it be committed for then there should be pardon without Guilt for no man is Guilty of sin to come formally so is it as necessary to conclude that no man is justified from sin before it be committed that is from that which is not and so is not sin For then Justification should go before and without Legal Accusation and Condemnation For the Law accuseth and condemneth no man for a sin which is not committed and so is no sin It is said Acts 13. â—9 that by Christ we are Justified from all things from which we could not be justified by the Law of Moses Where as I desire you to observe that phrase of being Justified by the â—aw to shew it is an Act of the Law though sin maketh transgressors uncapable so you see it is a Scripture phrase to say we are Justified from sin And then either there must be some kind of particular Justification from particular sins after faith of the nature of our renewed particular Pardon or else what will become of us for them For sure if the Law be so far in force against the actions of Believers as to make and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Punishment as much as in it lyeth and so to need a frequent pardon for pardon is a discharge from Guilt which is an Obligation to punishment then it must needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation and so to Accuse and as much as in it lyes to condemn them and so they must need also a particular Justification But then according to my Judgement 1. There is a sure Ground said of both in the Gospel or new Law or Covenant 2. And the said New Law doth perform it by the same Power by which it did universally justifie and pardon them at the first There needeth no addition to the Law The change is in them And the Law is said Moraliter agerâ— quod antea non actum erat because of their new Capacity necessity and Relation As if your Fathers Testament do give you a thousand pound at his Death and twenty shillings a week as long as you live after and so much at your marriage c. here this Testament giveth you these new sums after the first without any change in it and yet by new moral Act for it was not a proper gift till the Term expressed or the condition performed and if that term had never come nor the condition been performed you had never had right to it so I concieve Gods Gospel Grant or Testament doth renew both our Remission and particular Justification If Satan say This man both deserved death by sining since he Believed as David must we not be justified from that Accusation And here let me ask you one Question which I forgot before about the first Point Seeing you think truly that Pardon is iterated as oft as we sin by what Transient Act of God is this done Doth God every moment at a Court of Angels Declare each sinner in the world remitted of his particular sin for every moment we commit them If you once-see a necessity of judging the New Covenant or Promise Gods Pardoning Instrument I doubt not but you will soon acknowledge as much about Justification And sure a Legal or written Instrument is so proper for this work that we use to call it A Pardon which a Prince writes for the acquitting of an offendor Besides the Gospel daily justifieth by continuing our Justification as your Lease still giveth you Title to your Land Mat. 12.37 is of more then the continuance of Justification even of Justification at Judgement THe next Point you come to about the Nature and Object of Faith you are larger upon through a mistake of my words and meaning I know not therefore how to Answer your Arguments till I have first told you my sence and better stated the Question Indeed that in pag. 11. of Rest I apprehended my self so obvious to misconstruction that I have corrected it in the second Edition which is now printed Yet 1. I spoke not of faith as Justifying but as the condition of Salvation which contains more then that which is the condition of our first justification 2. I neuer termed those Gospel-Precepts which are not in some way proper to the Gospel And for the next words That subjection to Christ is an Essential part of faith I confess I do not only take it for a certain Truth but also of so great moment that I am glad you have bent your strength against it and thereby occasioned me to search more throughly But then if you think as you seem to do that by Subjection I mean Actual Obedience you quite mistake me for I have fully opened my mind to you about this in my Aphoris that speak only of the subjection of the Heart and not of the Actual Obedience which is the practise of it I speak but of the Acceptation of Christ for our Lord or the Consent thereto and so giving up our selves to be his Disciples Servants or Subjects This I maintain to be an Essential part of justifying Faith in the strict and proper sense of that word It s true that de jure Christ is King of Unbelievers and so of them that acknowledge him not to be their King But in order of nature the acknowledging of his Dominion and consent thereto and so receiving him to be our King doth go before our obeying him as our King As a woman in marriage-Covenant taketh her Husband as one whom she must obey add be faithfull to But that taking or consenting goes before the said Obedience as every Covenant before the performance of it Yea though the same act should be both an acknowledgement of and consent to the Authority and also an obeying of it yet it is Quatenus a consent and acceptance of that Authority and not as it is an obeying of it that I speak of it when I ascribe Justification to it as faith in the common sense is certainly an act of Obedience to God and yet Divines say it justifie not as it is Obedience but as an Instrument So that by Heart-subjection to Christ I mean that act by which we give up our selves to Christ as his Subjects to be ruled by him and by which we take him for our Soveraign on his Redemption-title But when I judge the word Faith to be taken yet in a larger sense comprehending obedience I never said or thought that so it is the condition of our first Justification nor will I contend with any that thinks the word is never taken so largely it being to me a matter of smal moment Now to your Objections 1. YOU say Faith worketh by Love c. Answ 1. Faith is sometime taken strictly for a Belief of Gods word or an Assent to its Truth 2. Sometime more largely for the wills embracing
voca notatur certa absoluta persuasio de bono futuro sed quâ significat Electionem Apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei mediâ— ac in qou persausio expectatio talis fundatur Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia potentia Amicis ac opibus suis Psal 78.22 If therefore you understand by Affiance many Acts of which velle Christum oblatum called Acceptation quia volumus objectum ut oblatum and Election quia volumus medium hâ—s rejectis aliis or Consent quia volumnus ex alterius Promotione qui prius voluiâ— is the first and chief of those of the Will as Amesius doth then I am of your mind If you say that Velle vel Acceptare is not credere vel fidem babere in the common notation of the word I answer 1. It includes Velle as its principal Act in the common use of the word when its object is an Incompelx term but indeed it includeth more also 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affection we say but Will much more 3. I answer in the words of Amesius Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 2 3 Credere vulgo significat actum intellectus Assensum testimonio praebentis sed quoniam consequenter volunt as moveri solet extendere sese ad amplectenduÌ„ bonum it a probatum ideirco fides â—tiam hunc Voluntatis actum designat satis aptè quomodo hoc in loco necessario intelligitur Est enim receptio bond sub ratione boni intima unio cum codeÌ„ John 1.12 Hinc fides fertur in bonum qoud per istam fit nostrum est actus Electionis est actus Totius hominis qua actui Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt John 6.35 Yea further I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in sincerity there is Justification certainly consequent but the term Affiance contains some acts which Divines say do only follow Justification which also Amesi seems to acknowledge ibid. § 21. Quod vero fiducia dicitur fructus fidei verum est de fiducia prout respicit Deum in futurum est spes fâ—rma sed prout respicit Deum in Christo in praesentia se offerentem est ipsa fides Yea the same Amesius tells us Medul lib 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divina viz. 1. Notitia rei à Deo testatae 2. â—ffectio pia erga Deum quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius Testimonium 3. Assersus qui praebetur veritati test atae propter hanc affectionem erga Deum qui est ejus testis 4. Aquiescentia in Deum ad illud quod propâ—nitur consequendum 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius quae in Testimonio nobis exhibetur So that even this faith hath many acts Yea and he adds Primum horum est in intellectu sed non constituit fidem c. secundum quartum quintum sunt in voluntate constituunt fidem prout est virtus actus religionis Tâ—rtium viz. assensus est in intellectu sed prout movetur à voluntate neque est proprie fidei virtus sâ—d effectum So that this Doctrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very will 2. and makes the intellectual acts even assent to be but an effect of faith and not the vertue is far from yours though I scruple not to take in assent with the rest for all it is in the Intellect and if these be all in that faith which is a holy vertue much more must that which justifies contain as much And indeed to place justifying faith only in the intellect is somewhat strange for those that make it the principal Grace when Philosophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue For in the understanding are only intellectual Habits but moral vertues are all placed in the Will or sensitive appetite for that quarrel I will pass by whether they be only in the sensitive as Burgersâ—icius c. If any therefore wonder that I place faith in so many acts and yet make one the chief compleative Act I have yet further this most accurate Divine saying the very same as I. Perfectio autom fidei est in Electione aut apprehensione illa qua bonum Propositum fit nostrum Hinc fidei natura â—ptimè explicatur in Scriptura cum fideles diâ—untur adhaererâ— Dâ—o Jos 23.6 Act. 11.23 viâ—â— veritatis â—ligere Psal 119.30 31. Where you see also that by Affiance and Adhaesion Amesius principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is And indeed he that observeth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans salvation or damnation on his Will mainly so far as it may be said to depend on our own acts rather then on any acts of the understanding but only as they refer and lead to those of the Will might well wonder that justifying saving faith the great needfull act should be only intellectual and not chiefly in or by the Will as well as all the rest Ye will not come to me that ye may have life How oft would I and ye would not These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them c. Whoever will let him take or buy freely c. Still almost all is laid on the Will and yet is not Faith in the Will Assent may be compelled by evidence of Truth and so be unvoluntary And so a man may be a Believer thus against his Will and if this will serve men may be saved against their Wills I know some think it enough that the Will commands the understanding to believe But even thus saith Amesius Medul l. 2. c. they place the first principle in the Will Qui fidem collocant iu intellectu necessariam tamen fatentur esse aliquam motionâ—â— volâ—ntatis ad assensum illum praebendum quemadmodum iâ— fide humana voluntarium esse dicitur adhibere fidem alicui si vero à voluntate pendâ—at fides necesse est ut primuÌ„ principium fidei sit in voluntate â— 20 But this is only commanding the performance so it is thus no elicit act for Aquinas and others conclude that Voluntas est Principium determinans actus humanos quo ad exercitium actus intellectus autem quo ad actus specificationem But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Act that I assert And as I said this imperium voluntatis may possibly be wanting and belief be involuntary for the main Let me add but one more consideration for I perceive my tediousness If Infidelity as it is a Privation of saving faith and so is the condemning sin be in the Will as well as in the Intellect then faith must be in the Will too But Infidelity is in both Ergo. c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer assent is rather said to be willing then in the Will but that which is opposite to justifying faith is in the Will
his Word or himself as true therefore he must be Received by the Will as well as the Understanding for Goodness is the object of the Will Here you answer 1. by confessing that Faith is called a Receiving of Christ 2. by interpreting that speech He is Received by the receiving his Word which is received by Assent This is worth a fuller enquiry because the discovery of the proper Object of Faith will shew the proper Act. The Intellectual Act Assent hath for its Objectum formale the Veracity of God or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Testifying This is not it that we enquire after The material Object for we must use the Schools termes in this distinction though perhaps fitter might be found is 1. Proximius that is the moral Verity of the Testimony or Word 2. Vlterius the Metaphysical Verity of the Things signified as Christs Person God-head Incarnation Resurrection c. The former is but the means to the latter and for its sake and not for its self In regard of this act of Assent you may say as you do that Christ is Received by receiving his Word because the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded But then 1. These are yet two distinct Acts as the Objects are distinct 2. And this Intellectual Act is called a Receiving of the Truth Believed but imperfectly because it leads to that Act of the Will which in morality is more fitly and fully called a Receiving and therefore if Assent produce not that Acceptation or consent of the Will it cannot fitly it self be called a Receiving of Christ For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Species I suppose we neither of us speak The material Object of Justifying faith as it is in the Will is 1. Principal and Adaequate which is Christ himself 2. Subservient or Instrumental which is the Covenant Promise or testamentary Gift in by which Christ is offered and Given These are two distinct Acts as the Accepting of a Testament and of the Legacy of a Pardon written and the real Pardon thereby signified or of the Oath of Allegiance and of the Prince to whom we swear But because of the Relation between the one and the other Faith may be called a receiving of Christ or a receiving of the Gospel Yet so as still the proper principal Object is Christ and the Gospel but â—ediate as to him These are my thoughts Now if I am able to understand you your words import that in your Judgement Christ is received two wayes 1. by Faith and that is only by Assent and this is only by receiving his Word that is in Believing it to be True 2. By other Graces and those I think you refer to the Wills receiving Against this opinion I further alledge 1. Almost all Protestant Divines acknowledge faith to be the Act or rather Acts of both faculties even Dr. Downame not excepted and Caâ—â—ro himself speaks sometime darkly insomuch that Melancthon Joan Crâ—cius and many more make it the judgement of Protestants in opposition to Popery And so doth Amesius in Bellarm. Enerv. though he judge it as Camero not accurate in Mâ—dul l. 1. c. 3. sect 22. Yea he that though it must be but in one faculty chooseth to place it only in the Will and excludes Assent as being called faith quia parit fidem Excellent Davenant saith Insactu fidei justifit antis Totu Anima se convertit ad causam justificantem Determin Q. 38. pag. 174. And again Fides illa quam scriptura justificantem agnoscit habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis Intellectus Determin Q. 37. pag. 166 Again Neque nobis absurdum sed valde consentaneum videtur actum illum quo tota anima purificatur Justificatur ad Totam animam pertinere ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium in Voluntate complementum ibidem Again Quod Philosophantur Voluntatem Intellectum esse duas potentias reipsa distinctas dogma philosophicum est ab omnibus haud receptum Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentum minime idoneum Idem ibid. 2. Assent is not any full moral Receiving of Christ But faith which Justifieth is a full moral Receiving of Christ Job 1.12 therefore Assent alone is not the faith that justifieth I know there is a Metonymie in the word Receive because in strict speech in Physicks Recipere est pati But it is so usual and near that in morality it is taken for a proper speech to call the Acceptation of an offered good A Receiving 3. There is such a thing as the proper accepting of Christ required as of flat necessity to Justification and Salvation But this acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other Grace therefore it is taken for an Act of faith The Maj. I hope no Christian will deny For when Christ is offered to the world as their Saviour Redeemer Teacher King-Husband who can think that the accepting of him is not required yea even in the offer Not a physical Reception which some absurdly and dangerously dream of but a moral as when a people take a man for their King or Teacher or a woman takes a man for her Husband And for the Minor Receiving Christ offered is not usually expressed in the term Hope Joy Charity Repentance therefore it is included in the word Faith unless you can name some other Grace which it is usually expressed by 4. The Grace by which we are united to Christ is Faith But it is receiving Christ by which we are so united to him therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Christ I suppose none will deny that it is Christ himself that we must be united to by believing and not the Word or Promise and that it is receiving Christ which unites us to him is obvious both from the language of Scripture and the nature of the thing A People is united to their Prince as the head of the Republique and a Church to their Teacher and a woman to her Husband by the Wills consent or acceptance and not properly but only initially preparatorily imperfectly and improperly and if it be alone not at all by believing the Truth of their words Amesius saith Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 18 Fides etiam cum sit primus actus vitae nostrae qua Deo in Christo vivimus consistat necesse est in unione cum Deo quam nullo modo facere potest Assensus adhibitus veritati quae est de Deo 5. By faith it is that we give up our selves to be Christs Disciples Subjects Members For Scripture ascribes not this to other Graces usually or chiefly And to take him for our Saviour and Head and give up our selves as his redeemed and Members is all one work But it is not by Assent only chiefly or fully at all that we give up our selves to Christ as Disciples Members c. Therefore
Act. Again as I said the whole is denominated from the first leading and most difficult Act the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the persons to whom it was spoken Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Messias or Mediator must be Received Welcomed Honoured Loved submitted to but they could not Believe that Christ was he And this was foolishness to the Gentiles also as well as a stumbling-block to the Jews that one that lived and walked among them and seemed a poor contemptible man and at last was crucified should be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world I tremble sometimes to think if we had lived our selves in those times how hard it would have been even to us to believe so that when the great Difficult act is named the other Consent and Affiance are still implyed and included I will end with Amesius true observation to this purpose Medul l. 1. c. 3. Quamvis in scripturis aliquando Ascensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Christi vel per Assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam Joh. 11.25 26 27. § 20. The second Argument which you answer lyeth thus If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart then it is not only in the Understanding but in the Will also But the former is the words of Scripture Act. 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Ergo c. Here you answer that the whole heart notes not every inward faculty but as often sincerity To which I Reply 1. The word whole I yield to Illyricus signifies the sincerity which is usually expressed by Integrity but the word Heart signifies the subject and is commonly taken for the Will and oft for the whole soul Vnderstanding and Will as most Fathers Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point though the two former placed too much of it in the Assent but where and how oft do you find the word Heart used for the sole Intellect I pray shew the place 2. The proverbial speech with all the Heart is not used in Rom. 10.10 but only subject barely expressed with the Heart man believeth to Righteousness My third Argument as you place it was to another use which is of less moment As I judge Faith to be taken 1. sometimes more strictly for meer Assent to a Testimony so James takes it when he saith the Devils believe 2. And sometimes more fully for Assent and Acceptance or Consent so Paul takes it and so it Justifieth So 3. I suppose it is sometime taken most largely and improperly for the full performance of the conditions of the New Covenant If any deny this I have no mind to contend for it because it is but about a word and not the thing Your answer is twofold 1. that Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeying Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ I Reply That Obedience which containeth the Condition of salvation by Christ whereof Justification is a part must needs include Faith But the word Obedience Heb. 5 9 containeth the condition of salvation by Christ therefore it includes faith He is become the Author of Eternal salvation to all them that obey him Your second answer is It may be obedience by Assent that Christ is the Messiah died rose c. Repl. 1. If Obedience of meer Assent be not made the condition of Eternal salvation in Scripture then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned But the former is true therefore the latter 2. The first Assent to these Gospel Truths is not in a full proper sence called Obedience to Christ at all therefore not here to be so understood As subjection so obedience is a term of Relation on supposing the Authority of a Superior the acknowledgement of that Authority A command from that Superior and that the action be therefore done because so commanded Now the first Assent to or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Office and Soveraignty must needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a Soveraign I confess improperly a man may be said to obey when he yields to the Reason and perswasion of another but this wants the very form of obedience properly so called If it be true that the first Acceptance of Christ for our Soveraign as Redeemer by the Wills consent may be both the Reception of him for King and Obedience to him Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception first though in time it is both at once But the first Assent to Christs Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign And for the understanding the Text when I find Christ give the world a systeme of Precepts and tell them that he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him I dare not without Reason restrain that obedience in the sence of it to some one or two acts Especially when I find that he hath made the like promise on condition of other acts of ours besides Believing as in many Text I have shewed in those Aphor Take my yoke and burden c. Learn of me to be meek and lowly c. and I will ease you and ye shall find rest Forgive and ye shall be forgiven He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy with multitudes of the like And Rom. 10. that is called Faith ver 14 17. which is called obeying the Gospel ver 16. And if the Gospel do as directly and urgently command Consent as Assent yea if it command love to Christ as of equal necessity with both I have reason to think that in this large sence Faith includes it Why should obeying the Gospel and obeying the Truth be made Synonima's with Believing as it is one single Act when the Gospel commands many other Acts as of aequal necessity and excellency Let me argue thus ex concessis from your self and others Most Divines affirm that the proper Reason why Faith justifieth is its Relation to Christ because it is a Receiving of him it justifies Relative i.e. A Christ received Justifies but Mr. Tombâ—s confesseth that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith therefore other Graces justifie as well as Faith The Consequence is a Quatenus ad Omne What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import in their first signification is not to our business so much as in what sense they are commonly used No doubt they may signifie properly our yielding to perswasion improperly called Obeying but that they are put for proper Obeying usually in Scripture most Interpreters affirm You may therefore as well draw to your purpose the Latin Obedire because it is but quasi ob-audire Indeed the Obedience
neither a continued Act nor renewed or repeated neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed are any conditions of our Justification in this Life This may seem a heavy charge but it is a plain Truth For that Justification which we receive upon our first believing hath only that first Act of faith for its condition or as others speak its Instrumental cause We are not justified to day by that act of Faith which we shall perform to Morrow or a Twelvemonth hence so that according to your opinion and all that go that way it is only one the first Act of Faith which justifies and all the following Acts through our whole life do no more to our Justification then the works of the Law do I would many other Divines that go your way for it is common as to the dispatching of Justification by one Act would think of this foul absurdity You may add this also to what is said before against your opinion herein Where then is the Old Doctrine of the just living by faith as to Justification I may bear with these men or at least need not wonder for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Justification as continued when they will not admit faith it self Who speaks more against faith they or I When I admit as necessary that first act and maintain the necessity of repeated acts to our continued Justification and they exclude all save one Instantaneous act 2. And what reason can any man give why Repentance should be admitted as a condition of our first Justification and yet be no condition of the continuance of it or what proof is there from Scripture for this I shall prove that the continuance of our Justification hath more to its condition then the beginning though learned men I know gain-say it but surely less it cannot have 4. But why do you say only of Repentance that it is the condition of Remision and of forgiving others that it is the condition of entring into life Have you not Christs express words that forgiving others is a condition of our Remission if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will forgive you but if you forgive not men c. Nay is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveness I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorisms Wash you make you clean put away the evil of your doings c. then if your sins be as crimson c. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy And I would have it considered if Remission and Justification be either the same or so neer as all Divines make them whether it be possible that forgiving others and Reformat on or new Obedience should be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Act and not of Justification Doubtless the general Justification must be continued as well as the general pardon and a particular Justification I think after particular sins is needfull as well as particular pardon or if the name should be thought improper the thing cannot be denyed Judicious Ball saith as much as I yet men were not so angry with him Treat of Covenant pag. 20.21 A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification being the qualification of an active lively faith Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final Absolution if God give opportunity but they are not the cause of but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and Eternal bliss And pag. 21. This walking in the light as he is in the light is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Christs Righteousness or actual participants of his propitiation which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification taken for Remission of sins or actual approbation with God And pag. 73. Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that faith which justifieth So he 5. How will you ever prove that our Entering into Life and our continued remission or Justification have not the same conditions that those Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other Indeed the men that are for Faiths Instrumentality say somewhat to it but what you can say I know not And for them if they could prove Faith Instrumental in justifying co nomine because it receives Christ by whom we are justified they would also prove it the Instrument of Glorifying because it Receives Christ by and for whom we are saved and Glorified And so if the Instrumentality of Faith must exclude obedience from justifying us it must also exclude it from Glorifying us And I marvel that they are so loose and easie in admitting obedience into the work of saving and yet not of continuing or consummating Justification when the Apostle saith By Grace ye are saved by Faith and so excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Justification in particular 6. But lastly I take what you grant me in this Section and profess that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cause that I stand upon For as you grant 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant 2. That Repentance also is the condition of Remission which is near the same with Justification 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification which hath the same conditions with final and continued Justification 4. So you seem to yield all this as to our full justification at Judgement For you purposely limit the conditionality of meer faith to our Justification in this Life But if you yield all that I desire as you do if I understand you as to the last justification at Judgement then we are not much differing in this business For I take as Mr. Burges doth Lect. of Justification 29 our compleatest and most perfect Justification to be that at Judgement Yea and that it is so eminent and considerable here that I think all other Justification is so called chiefly as referring to that And me thinks above all men you should say so too who make Justification to lie only in sententiâ— judicis and not in sententia Legis And so all that go your way as many that I meet with do If then we are justified at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement by obedience as the secondary part of the condition of the Covenant which you seem to yield 1. We are agreed in the main 2. I cannot yet believe that our Justification at that Bar hath one condition and our Justification in Law or in this Life as continued another He that dyeth justified was so justified in the hour of dying on the same conditions as he must be at Judgement For 1. There are no conditions to be performed after death 2. Sententia Legis sententia judicis do justifie on the same terms Add to all
is not any one of them alone that is the object of that Faith which Paul opposeth to works But the Antecedent is true as is evident e. g. To believe in Christ is to believe the promise of the Gospel concerning Christ For there is no Belief without a word of revelation to believe So that here Christ and the Promise are necessarily conjunct and Christ and the Gospel History And to believe the Gospel with a Divine Faith is to Believe Gods veracity and to believe the Gospel because of Gods Veracity For this is the Objectum formale without which there is no faith So that Believing in God is essential to all Divine faith Also materially to Believe in Christ is to Believe in him as our Saviour to save us from the Guilt of sin even as to believe in a Physitian is to Trust on him to cure us of our Diseases So forgiveness of sin being an end essential to Christs Office it is essential to our Faith in Christ So also to believe in Christ as a Saviour is to believe in him as one that is able and willing to reconcile us and bring us to the favour of God And so God and his favour and Reconciliation with him are ends essential to the office of a Saviour as health is to the Physitians and therefore they are essential to our Belief in a Saviour The same may be said of eternal Life so that you may see that these have essential respects to one another and Christ cannot be believed in alone without the rest as co-essentials respectively in the object of our faith Nor can the Promise be believed without believing in the Promiser and Promised Argument 2. The Scripture most expresly maketh many such Objects of that faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification therefore so must we Rom. 3.22 24 25 26. There are expresly mentioned all these Objects of justifying faith 1. The Righteousness of God 2 The Person of Jesus Christ 3. Redemption by Christ and his propitiatory blood 4. Remission of sins past 5. God as a Justifier of Believers see the Text. Rom. 4 3 5.6 7 8 17 20 21 24 25 There are all these objects of Justifying faith expressed even when the work of Justification is described 1. God as Revealer and true 2. God as Justifier 3. Righteousness imputation of it forgiveness of sin not imputing it 4. God as Omniscent 5. God as Omnipotent 6. Jesus our Lord. 7. The death of Christ for our offences 8. The Resurrection of Christ for our Justification 9. God as the raiser of Christ from the Dead Read the words and you shall find them all expresly mentioned I think it superfluous to cite more Texts Prop. 4. The faith which Paul opposeth to works in the business of Justification is not any one single Physical act in Specie specialissima Nor was it ever the meaning of Paul to exclude all acts except some such one from Justification under the name of works For the proof of this it is done already if any one of the three former Propositions be proved To which I add Argument 1. from an instance of some other particulars If any or all the following particular Acts be such as are not to be reckoned with works then it is no one act alone that Paul opposeth to works But all or some of the following acts are such as are not to be reckoned with works excluded Ergo c. E. g. 1. An Assent to the truth of the Gospel in general as the Word of God 2. A belief on Gods Veracity in this exprest 3. An Assent to the Truth of the Word that telleth us that Christ is God 4. An Assent to the truth of the Article of Christs Manhood 5. An Assent to the Truth of the Article of his conception by the Holy Ghost and being born of a Virgin 6. And to the Article of his being born without original sin in himself 7. And to the Article of his sinless holy life 8. And to the Article of his actual death 9. And that this death was for our sins 10. And that God hath accepted it as a sufficient Ransom sacrifice or Attonement 11. And that he actually rose again from the dead and overcame death 12. And that he is the Lord and King of the Church 13. And that he is the Prophet and Teacher of the Church 14. And that he is ascended into Heaven and Glorified God and man 15. And that he is now our Intercessor Mediator with the Father 16. And that he hath purchased by his Ransom and given or offered in the Gospel the free pardon of sin 17. And that he hath also purchased offered us eternal life in Glory with God 18. And that its the members of Christ and of the Holy Catholick Church that shall partake of pardon and life by Christ 19. And that he will give us the Resurrection of life at last 20. And that he will judge the world I have omitted our special Belief in God the Father as Creator and in the Holy Ghost and have given you in these twenty Acts no more then what is contained in this one word I believe in Christ as Christ I think there is if any but few that are not essential to Faith in Jesus Christ as the Saviour And all these acts of assent are parts of the faith that is the means of our Justification and none of them part of the excluded works And besides all these there are as many acts of the Will as of the Intellect concurring in or to this very assent so that there 's twenty more For its plain that seeing the objects of all these are Good as well as True they being all Truths concerning our benefit and Salvation the Will it self in the Intellects assenting doth command it to assent and also doth place a certain Affiance in the Revealer which we call in English crediting or Giving credit to one we rest our selves upon his Truth As I said before Veracity is Gods Goodness and Veracity is the formal Object in every one of the other Acts about the material Object and therefore the Will must act upon Veracity and so have a part in assent it self not as assent but as a Voluntary assent and as an assent to Promises or Revelations of good to us There is goodness in the word of Revelation subordinate or in order to the good Revealed And so there is an act of the Will upon the good in the Word complicated with the Intellects Assent besides the following fuller act of the Will upon Christ and the benefits themselves And therefore there is a twofold Affiance 1. An Affiance in Gods Veracity as the Revealer 2. An Affiance in Christ the Mediator as the bestower accomplisher and actual Saviour or Deliverer according to his Office and Covenant The first is an act of the Will concurring with Assent And of this Pembles opinion is neer Truth though not fully it For here Affiance is as closely
I know not of one that 's not essential to Christianity And I think if we had Hereticks among us that denyed Christ to be conceived by the Holy Ghost we should scarce take them for Christians But that man that shall deny or not believe that Christ is God that he is Man that he was no sinner that he dyed and that for our sins and that he was a Sacrifice or Ransom for us and that he Rose again is Glorified and will judge us that he hath offered us a pardon of sin that there will be a Resurrection of the body and life Everlasting by this our Redeemer I cannot see how he can be a Christian And for the number of Articles â— left out much of the ancient Creed it self the Belief in God the Father Creator c. in the Holy Ghost the Article of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints of Christs burial Descent into Hell and more And yet do you think this too big to be essential to Christian Faith If so tell not any Heretick that denyeth any one of these that he denyeth an Essential Article of our faith But for the ignorant weak Christian I say 1. He knoweth all these Articles that I have named but 2. perhaps not with so ripe a manner of apprehension as is formed into mental words or which he can express in words to others I find my self in my studies that I have somtimes an apprehension of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an expression 3. And perhaps they are not Methodical and Distinct in their conceptions and cannot say that there are just so many Articles Every sick man can understand what it is to desire and accept of such a man to be his Physitian and herein he first verily desireth health and secondly desireth Physick as a means to Health and thirdly desireth the Physitian in order to the use of that means and fourthly therein doth take him to be a Physitian and fifthly to have competent skill and sixthly to be in some measure faithful to be trusted and seventhly doth place some confidence in him c. all this and more is truly in his mind and yet perhaps they are not ripened and measured into such distinct conceptions as that he can distinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language or doth observe then as distinct Conceptions in himself and whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not see many Objects though ab objectis the acts must be called many and divers is a Controversie among Philosophers and as I remember Pet. Hurtad de Mendoza affirmeth it But if you your selves will form all these into distinct conceptions and ask your Catechist his judgement of them its like he can mak you perceive at least by a Yea or Nay that he understands them all The new formed body of the Infant in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man and yet so small that you cannot so easily discern them as you may do the same parts when he is grown up to manhood So the knowledge of every particular Essential Article of faith is truly in the weakest Christian in the very moment of his conversion but perhaps it may be but by a more crude imperfect Conception that observeth not every Article distinctly nor any of them very clearly but his knowledge is both too dim and too confused And yet I must say that it is not only such as some Papists call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or knowledge As to believe only the General Revelation and the formal Object as that the Scripture is Gods Word and God is true or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article of faith is true while they know not what the Church or Scripture doth propound for this is not actual Christian faith but such a part as a man may have that is no Christian And yet some Papists would perswade us that where this much is there is saving faith though the person believe not yea or deny by the probable Doctrine of seducing Doctors some of the foresaid Essential Articles Argum. 11. If the terms Faith in Christ receiving Christ Resting on Christ c. are to be understood as Civil Political and Ethical terms in a moral sense then must we suppose that they signifie many Physical acts and not any one only But these terms are to be thus morally understood Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus Terms are to be understood according to the nature of the Subject and Doctrine But the Subject and Doctrine of the Gospel which useth these terms is Moral Political therefore the terms are agreeably to be interpreted The same term in Physick Law Mathematicks Soldiery Navigation Husbandry c. hath various significations but still it must be interpreted according to the nature and use of the doctrine Art or Science that maketh use of it The consequence of the Major is proved because it is the use of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret such phrases as containing divers Physical Acts. Marriage is one Civil act but it is many Physical Acts it containeth divers acts of the understanding concerning the Essentials of the Relation and divers acts of the Will in consenting thereunto and the outward words or signs of Consent for making the Contract So taking a man to be my King my General my Tutor Teacher Pastor Physician Master c. all signifie the acts of the Understanding Will and expressing Powers which the several parts of the Objects do require Argument 12. If there be many Acts besides Faith in Christ attendant on it and subservient to it which are none of the works which Paul excludeth and opposeth faith to then the Essential Acts of faith it self are none of those works But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances For a man to repent of sin to confess it to believe and confess that we are unworthy of any Mercy and unable to justifie our selves or make satisfaction for our sias and that we are in absolute necessity of Christ having no Righteousness Sanctification or Sufficiency of our own to take God for our Father reconciled in Christ and to Love him accordingly to forgive our Brethren from the sense of Christs forgiving us to shew our Faith by fruitfull works and words When Paul saith Rom. 4.4 5. To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace the meaning is not To him that repenteth to him that denieth himself and his own Righteousness to his Justification to him that confesseth his sin that loveth God as a reconciled Father in Christ c and when he saith To him that worketh not but believeth the meaning is not to him that loveth not God to him that repenteth not that forgiveth not others c. but believeth Object But yet it may be to him that thinketh not to be justified by or for these but by Faith Answer 1. Concomitants and Subordinates may not be set in opposition faith supposeth the Concomitancy and Subserviency of these in and to Justification 2. Believing in Christs Ransom may as well be excluded too if men think to be justified for so doing meritoriously 3. He that thinketh to be Justified by any work in that way which is opposed to Justification by Grace and Faith must think to be justified by the Merit of them or without a Saviour which all these Graces forementioned contradict 4. God saith expresly that we must Repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out and repent that we may be forgiven and if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and if we forgive we shall be forgiven and that by works we are justified and not by faith only and that by our words we shall be justified So that Pauls works which he opposeth faith to are neither Jame's works nor any of these particulars mentioned for these are made necessary conditions or means of pardon and of some sort of Justification such as Pauls works could not contribute to which were falsly imagined by the doers to make the Reward to be not of Grace but Debt Object There is but one faith Eph. 4.3 Answer But that One faith hath many Physical Acts or Articles There is but one true Religion but it hath many parts There is but one Gospel but that one contanieth many particular Truths COnsect 1. To be justified by Faith is to be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and not by any one part of that Faith excluding any of its Essential parts 2. To be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and so as Rising Teaching Pardoning Ruling Judging as well as satisfying i.e. as the Saviour that hath undertaken all this is not in Pauls sense to be justified by works therefore it is the true Justification by Faith 3. It is therefore unsound to make any one Act or part of Faith the fides qua Justificans and the other Essential parts to be the fides qua justificat when no more can be said of any but that it is fides ex qua justificamur and that may be said of all 4. Though Faith be an Acceptance of Christ and Life as offered in the Gospel so that its very Nature or Essence is morally Receptive which may tolerably be called its Metaphorical Passive Instrumentality yet are we not justified by it qua talis that is qua fides and so not quatenus Instrumentum tale Metaphoricum vel Acceptatio vel Receptio moralis but qua conditio Testamenti vel faederis prastita 5. Therefore it is not only the Acceptance of Righteousness by which we are justified much less the Affiance in Christ as dying only but the Belief in Christ as the Purchaser of Salvation and as the Sanctifier Guide and Teacher of our souls in order thereunto hath as true an Interest in our Justification as the believing in him for Pardon And so far as any other holy act doth modifie and subserve faith and is part of the Condition of Justification with it so far by it also we are justified FINIS
offered you that you take them thankfully lovingly humbly renouncing your own worth c. are necessary parts of the condition of your pardon There is as great a Necessity laid upon that part of the Condition which Christs honour lieth on and that in order to your Justification as of that part which directly respecteth your Salvation And me thinks common reason and ingenuity should tell you that it must be so and that its just and meet it should be so And therefore I may safely conclude ex natura rei that the taking of Christ for our â—eacher and Lord is as truly a part of the condition of our Justification and our Justification lieth as much upon it as the Affiance in Christs sufferings If you say But the efficiency is not equal though it be equally a Condition I answer Neither of them have any proper efficiency in justifying us unless you will unfitly call the Conditionality an Efficiency or the Acceptableness of believing in the sight of God an efficiency there is no such thing to be ascribed to our faith as to the effect of Justification But this belongs to another Controversie I know not what can be said more against this unless by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any proper Condition but only a priority and posteriority of Duties But the express conditional terms of the Covenant do put this so far out of doubt and I have said so much of it in other writings that I shall not trouble my self here with this sort of Adversaries Only to prevent their mistake I shall tell them this that in a condition there is somewhat Essential and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promise and therefore they are proper conditions and there is somewhat Accidental as First sometime that the thing be Vncertain to the Promiser This is not in Gods Conditions It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent Secondly That the matter of the condition be somewhat that is gainfull to the Promiser or otherwise have a merit or moral causality But this is separable In our case it is sufficient that it be somewhat that God liketh loveth or is pleasing to him though it properly merit not And the evident Reason why God hath made some Promises conditional is that his Laws and Promises may be perfectly suited to the nature of man on whom they must work and so may shew forth Gods Infinite Wisdom and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor As also that the Holiness of God may shine forth in his Word and it may be seen that he loveth Justice Holiness Obedience and not only the persons of men and so all his Attributes may be seen in their conjunction and the beauty that thence resulteth in the Glass of his Word Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet than the faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Only the Antecedent needs proof though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also Here note that by The condemning Vnbelief I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel Where I suppose first that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin Secondly And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace which is not simply for sin as sin but for one sort of sin in special that is the final rejection of the Remedy And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake The Antecedent I prove First from John 3.18 19 20 21. He that believeth on him is not condemned There 's the justifying faith But he that believeth not is condemned already There 's the condemning unbelief contradictory to the justifying faith Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God here is a special condemnation proved distinct from that by the Law of works And this is the condemnation that is the condemning sin or cause that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil For every one that doth evil hateth the light c. The 19 verse describeth the Condemning unbelief and the 20. gives the reason of mens guiltiness of it And the unbelief described is a shunning or not coming to Christ as he is the Light to discover and heal their evil deeds So that if contradictories will but shew the nature of each other I think our controversie is here plainly resolved So is it in Psal 2.12 Kise the Son left he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed are all they that put their trust in him The faith that saves from punishment saveth from Guilt The faith that saves from Guilt is justifying faith The faith here described is that which saves from punishment And the faith here described is kissing the Son which comprehendeth subjection and dependance and love and is the same for all that which is after called trusting in him So Luke 19.27 But those mine enemies which would not that I should raign over them bring hither and destroy them before me Unwillingness to have Christ raign over them is here made not a common but the special condemning sin called commonly Unbelief and so is the contrary to justifying faith So John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son this as all confess is justifying faith hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation the contradictory or contrary to justifying faith First because they are so directly opposed here denominatively that else the words would be equivocal and not intelligible Secondly Because the contrariety of effects also is added to put the thing past doubt The wrath of God abideth on him is contrary to justifying which takes the wrath of God off him especially considering that it is cursing comminatory obliging wrath that is principally meant the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation And that materially this unbelief thus opposed to justifying faith doth consist in contumacy rebellion or unperswadableness is plain in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie They that are contumacious or disobedient to the Son or unperswadable And 1 John 5.10 11 12. This faith and unbelief are opposed and the unbelief consisteth in not
believing the record that God hath given of his Son and that record is not only concerning Justification or the merit of it So 2. Thes 2.12 That all they might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness So 2 Thess 1.8 9 10. That obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the description of the Vnbelievers opposed to them that believe ver 10. So Jo. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins which as to the act and effect is contrary to justifying faith And that I am he is not only that I am the Ransome but also that I am the Messiah and Redeemer So John 16.8 9. He willl reprove the world of sin not only in general that they are sinners but of this sin in specie because they believed not in me Many texts may be cited where justifying faith and condemning unbelief are described from acts of the understanding though the will be implyed as believing or not believing that Christ is the son of God c. which cannot possibly be restrained to his Ransom and Merit alone The Consequence cannot be denyed if it be but understood that this unbelief doth thus specially condemn not in general as sin or by the meer greatness of it but as the privation of that faith by which only men are justified For Privatives shew what the Positives are And if this unbelief did condemn only as a sin in general then all sin would condemn as it doth but that is false And if it condemned only as a great sin then first every sin as great would condemn as it doth and secondly it would be Derogatory to the preciousness and power of the Remedy which is sufficient against the greatest sins as great It remains therefore that as it is not for the special worth of faith above all other Graces that God assigned it to be the condition of Justification so it is not for a special greatness in the sin of unbelief that it is the specially condemning sin but as it is the Privation of that faith which because of its peculiar aptitude to that Office is made of such necessity to our Justification But saith Mr Blake This is like the old Argument Evil works merit condemnation therefore good works merit salvation An ill meaning damns our good meaning therefore saves Repl. First A palpable mistake Meriting and saving by merit are effects or efficiencies so plainly separable from the things themselves that the invalidity of the Consequence easily appears But in good sadness did you believe when you wrote this that he that argueth from the description or nature of a privation to the description or nature of the thing of which it is the Privation or that argueth from the Law of opposites and contradictions doth argue like him that argues from the moral separable efficiency or effect of the one to the like efficiency or effect of the other Secondly But understand me to argue from the effect it self if you please so it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of God I doubt not but the Argument will hold good As under the Law of works it was a good argument to say Not-perfect-obeying is the condemning evil therefore perfect-obeying is the justifying condition So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace to say Not-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet is the specially-condemning unbelief therefore believing in Christ as King Priest Prophet is the faith by which we are justified The main force of the reason lyeth here because else the Covenant were equivocating and not Intelligible if when it saith He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned it did speak of one kind or act of faith in one Proposition and of another in the other If when it is said He that believeth shall be justified from all things c. and he that believeth not shall be condemned if you believe you shall not come into condemnation but if you believe not you are condemned and the wrath of God abideth on you He that believeth shall be forgiven and he that believeth not shall not be forgiven I say if the Affirmative and Negative Propositions the Promise and the Threatning do not here speak of the same believing but divers then there is no hope that we should understand them and the language would necessitate us to err Now the Papists Argument ab effectis hath no such bottom Bad works damn therefore good works save For the Covenant is not He that doth good works shall be saved and he that doth bad works shall be condemned But he that obeyeth perfectly shall be justified and he that doth not shall be condemned Or if they argue from the threatning of the Gospel against bad works to the merit of good quoad modum procurandi it will not hold viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit therefore good works procure salvation by way of merit For there is not eadem ratio and so no ground for the Consequence Nor did I argue ad modum procurandi Rejecting Christ as King doth condemn by way of merit therefore accepting him as King doth save by way of merit This was none of my arguing But this Rejecting or not believing in Christ as King is part of that Vnbelief which is by the Law of Grace threatned with condemnation therefore accepting or believing in Christ as King is part of that faith which hath the Promise of Justification And so if a Papist should argue not ad modum procurandi but ad naturam actus effecti I would justifie his Argument Raigning sin Rebellion or the absence of Evangelical good works is Threatned by the Gospel with condemnation at Judgement therefore good works have the Promise of salvation or justification at Judgement And that I may and must thus understand the Condemning Threatning and the Justifying promise to speak of one and the same faith I am assured by this because it is usual with God in scripture to imply the one in the other As in the Law of works with perfect maâ— the promise was not exprest but implyed in the Threatning In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die So in the Gospel the Threatning is oft implyed in the promise He that believeth shall not perish When the Lord saith The soul that sinneth shall die It implyeth that the soul that sinneth not shall not die And though we cannot say the like of the prohibition of Eating the forbidden fruit that is because the same Law did on the same terms prohibite all other sin as well as it And in the day that thou sinnest thou shalt die doth imply if thou sin not thou shalt not die So he that believeth shall be saved doth imply he that believeth not shall be condemned And so If thou believe thou shalt be justified implyeth If thou believe not thou shalt not be justified