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
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
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
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
many Scriptures against you Put to your self it s enough to ask How can you constantly make Remission an Essential part of Justification and yet say that we cannot call it a state as we do Justification In your first Treat of Just Lect. 17. pag. 145. you say Prop. 4. Remission is not to be considered meerly as removing of evil but also as bestowing good It is not only ablativa mali but collativa boni a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious favours to us such as a Son-ship and a Right to eternal life as also peace with God and communion with him And why may we not say A state of Sonship or salvation as well as of Justification Treat ib. There is a Justification of the cause and of the person alwaies to be distinguished Answ There is no Justification of his cause which doth not so far justifie the person Nor any sentential Justification of the person but by justifying his cause Though his actions may not be justifiable yet when the cause to be tryed is Whether sinful actions be pardoned by Christ that cause must be justified if that man be justified Even as Accusations are not charged upon the person without some cause real or pretended Treat pag. 152. Not only Bucer who is known to place Justification both in Imputed righteousness and Inherent thereby endeavouring a Reconciliation with the Papists But Calvin li. 3. cap. 17. sect 8. To this purpose also Zanchy Answ Why then might not I have had as fair measure as Lud. de Dieu Bucer Calvin Zanchy especially when I go not so far And yet I take my self beholden to Guil. Rivet for helping me to some scraps of Phil. Codurcus who drives at this mark as you say Bucer doth though I cannot yet get the Book it self Treat pag. 158. O this is excellent when a man is amazed and in an holy manner confounded at his holiness as well as at his offences Answ So you before say they must be ashamed of their Righteousness as well as their sins I do not well understand these distinctions Nothing in all the world confoundeth me so much as the imperfection of my Holiness But I dare not think that imperfection to be no sin left I must think the perfection to be no duty and so come to works of supererrogation and Evangelical Counsels And Holiness considered in it self and not as sinful and imperfect is amiable in my eyes and I know not how to be ashamed of it without being ashamed of God that is its object and exemplar and heaven that is the state of its perfection Treat ib. Set some few even a remnant aside comparatively the whole Christian world both Doctors and people learned and unlearned fasten on a Justification by works Answ I hope not so many as you fear or affirm First all the Doctors and people of your judgement do not And if you thought those so exceeding few among Christians you would not take me for so singular as you do 2. None of the truly sanctified are such as you here affirm 3. The multitude of groundless presumers of Free Grace are not such And truly though I doubt Justiciaries are too common I do not think that such Presumptuous ones are so small a Remnant 4. The Libertines and Antinomians and many other Sects of their mind are none of this great number 5. I will yet hope for all this that you cannot prove it of the Doctors and people of half the Christian world Their hearts God knows And I will not yet believe that in their Doctrine about Justification by works the Greek Churches the Armenians Jacobites Copti's Abasineâ— c. do fasten on such dangerous sands or differ so much from you 6. I heard as eminent Divines as most I know some yet living in a publick meeting say that Bishop Vsher and Mr. Gataker affirmed that the Papists did not fundamentally differ from us in the Doctrine of Justification Treat pag. 167. By all these subtile Distinctions men would be thought Answ Your scope in that page seems to be against any distinguishing whatsoever about works in this proposition We are justified by faith and not by works If so that we must not run to any distinction but say that in every motion or sense Works are excluded and do justifie in none then I profess it is past my uttmost skill to justifie you for accusing Althamer as you do for saying Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum Yea if he had upon the reading of Mat. 12.36 risen higher and said Mentiris Christe in caput tuum For sure he that saith By thy words thou shalt be justified Or by works a man unjustified and not by faith only can no way possibly be excused from that crime if no distinction may verifie his words but they must then be taken as absolutely false which I will not be perswaded of Treat pag. 219. Serm. 23. Observ That even the most holy and regenerate man is not Iustified by the works of grace which he doth This truth is the more diligently to be asserted by how much the error that confronts it is more specious and refined and maintained by such abettors whose repute is not so easily cast off as the former we spake of Now you come purposely I perceive to deal with me I confess the repute of Abettors doth much to bear up opinions through the world even with them that speak most against implicit faith But you need not despair of casting off the repute of them you mention Mr. Robertson and Mr. Crandon can teach any man that will learn that lesson Treat ib. The Question is not Whether we are Iustified by works though flowing from grace as meritorious or efficient of Justification This the Opinionists we have to deal with do reject with indignation To make Works either merits or efficient causes of our Iustification before God they grant it directly to oppose the Scriptures yea they seem to be offended with the Orthodox as giving too much to faith because it s made an Instrument of our Iustification therefore they are to be acquitted at least from gross Popery Answ This is one passage which I understand by your Preface to you Sermons on John 17. you lookt for thanks for and I do freely thank you for it for the world is such now as that I must take my self beholden to any man that doth injure me with moderation and modesty But you might have done that justice to us Opinionists as to have put any causes at all instead of efficient causes when we had so often told you the Orthodox that we disclaimed all true causality and then your Reader would have been ready to hope that we are free also from the finer Popery as well as the gross But since I have heard of late times what it is that goes under the name of Antichristianity and Popery even with many that are able to call themselves Orthodox and others that dissent from them worse then
in other places between faith and any thing of ours that he admits of no medium 2. He instances in Abrahams works and excludes them now were Abrahams works works done by the meer strength of the Law Did not Abrahams Obedience and other works flow from Grace Were Abrahams works in opposition to Christ Yet even these are excluded 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the opposition justifying covering all is wholly attributed unto God 4. The Assertion is universal The Apostle saith without works in general ver 6. And he works not ver 5. Lastly By the testimony he brings from the Psalmist that blessedness is where sin is not imputed whrere it is forgiven These reasons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the act of Justification though not from the person justified 3. You say how then saith James true But I ask if there be justifying works how saith Paul true But again James saith true for this faith which in respect of its act ad intra doth only justifie yet it works ad extra The old Assertion is fides quae viva not quo viva You speak of a seeming Antilogie among the orthodox in this reconciliation but though all go not eadem semiâ—â yet they do eadem viâ against works under any notion whatsoever in the act of Justification 4. You argue that faith as an Instrument is excluded Thus Bellarmine also apprehendere est opus therefore faith is excluded But non sequitur Faith is passive in its Instrumentality and although to believe be a Grammatical action its verbum activum yet its physicâ—n or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 passive A man by believing doth not operari but recipere As videre audire are Grammatical actions but Physical or natural passions now you cannot say thus of the exercises of other Graces this is the seeming strength of your Exceptions For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which is a fifth Exception As for your discourse whether Paul disputes what is our Righteousness or upon what terms it is made over to us it doth not much matter for indeed Paul speaks to both those only inclusively or collaterally as you say but that which he chiefly intends is to shew in what manner we are justified whether by believing or working and these he makes two immediate opposites not granting any tertium You speak of Faith taken relatively for Christs Righteousness but how can you find out such a figure for faith in your sence unless you will acknowledge Love or Obedience relatively for Christs Righteousness Indeed those that hold Faiâ—h instrumentally receiving the whole righteousness of Christ and no other Grace they often speak of faith taken relatively but so cannot you who hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other actions of sence will as well heal the wounded Christian You say you acknowledge the Assemblies definition of resting or receiving you cannot take in that sence as they declare it as the Scripture words which are Metaphorical do imply for its the resting of a burdened soul upon Christ only for Righseousness and by this Christs Righteousness is made over to us and it s a receiving of Christ as the hand embraceth any Object now you make the Righteousness of Christ made over to us in any other exercise of Grace as well as this So that although you would willingly seem not to recede from others yet you plainly do and although you think your Assertions are but more distinct explications yet they are indeed destructive Assertions to what our Divines do deliver neither may you while you intend to dispute exactly build upon some homiletical or popular expression in any mans book You reply to a second part in my Letter whether a godly man dying may be affected according to your position and thereupon you instance in Hezekiah Paul and that no man can dye with comfort without the evidence of these works But is this the state of the question with us Do you think that I deny a godly life to be a comfortable testimony and a necessary qualification of a man for pardon You cannot think that you speak to the point in this But here is the question Can a godly man dying think the Righteousness of Christ is made his by working or believing Is it repent and Christs Righteousness is by this made yours and rest in Christ Certainly the dying Christian is in agonies directed to this resting on Christ to the eying of this brazen Serpent not to be found in any thing but the Righteousness by faith It s an act of Dependance not of Obedience that interests us in Christs Righteousness It s that puts on the robes of Christ that our nakedness may not appear And that is very harsh still which you express to expect the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your se lf through Gods workings I am unwilling to parallel this with some passages that might be quoted out of unsound Authors but that I am confident howsoever your Pen-writes you have a tutissimum est to rest only upon Christs Righteousness and that by bare resting and beleiving you look for a Righteousness As Philosophers say we see or hear intus recipiendo not extra mittendo otherwise Bellarmine argues consonantly enough that Love would justifie as well as faith but we say that Faith doth pati Love doth agere Not but that faith is an active grace only in this act it is meer recipient Sir I have not time nor paper to answer those many questions the most of which I conceive impertinent to this business and your Explication of your self how imperfections in our Graces are done away and yet the conditions of righteousness is to me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I cannot go any further What I have written with much love and respect to you I should account it a great mercy to be instrumental to bring you to the right way again If there be so much Joy for reducing a wandring sheep be not offended if I say there will be much more for an erring shepheard though I hope at last your error may prove in words rather then in sence with heartly brotherly love I have written this and so let it be received from your fellow-labourer who honours Gods gifts in you and is also sensible of his own infirmities and proneness to err Dear Sir IF you doubt of the truth of my bodily infirmity it is because you neither know my body nor mind The dispute at Bewdley as it was almost at home so I had the choice of the time and such strength vouchsafed from God which I cannot again expect much less promise my self I told you I have some lucida intervalla perhaps a few hours in a moneth but if upon such uncertainty I should draw you to a journey and then ten to one fail you I should be injurious But seeing you so far and freely condiscend
it tell you that this is usual with moral causes that they may have all their absolute Entity and vim agendi long before they produe their effects and may be Actu primo etsi non secundo effectum producente in being long before The Law that determineth of your right to your Possession or that doth give a Reward to every man that killeth a wild hurtfull beast or that condemneth every man that murdereth or committeth Felony c. was in Being before those persons were born perhaps And yet it did not hoc agere it did not Praemiare Punire Praecipere c. as to this man before A pardon from a Prince to a Traytor on condition doth not perform the moral act of his discharge till he perform the condition though it were in being before The like I may say of a Testament or Deed of Gift But what need many words in a case where the Truth is so obvious If some moral causes may be causes and Agere moraliter or produce their effects even before they are naturally in Being much more may they suspend it and so produce it long after they are in Being Causae enim moralis ea ratio est ut etiam cum non est actu sit efficax modò habe at ut loquuntur in scholis esse cognitums inquit Rivetus Disput 13. de satisfact Christi pag. 282. Next you say Yea it is the same though none were actually justified Answer This requires no other answer then what is given to the former It is the same Physice considerata vel in Entitate naturali But the moral action of pardoning and justifying is not the same nor is at all A conditional Pardon Deed of Gift Testament c. doth not at all pardon or Give till you perform the condition For it is the proper nature of a condition to suspend the act of the Grant so that till it be absolute or equal to Absolute it is not Actual Remission Justification c. The reason of all this is because these Laws Testaments or Promises are but the Law-makers Testators or Donors Instruments and therefore act when and how he pleases and it is his pleasure that they should act no otherwise then as is aforesaid and as in the Tenor of them he shall express Next you add To be justified notes a passion which presupposeth an Action transient not immanent or only Gods purpose to justifie Answer 1. So far as the Reception of a Relation may be called a Passion this is true And no doubt you are in the right that it is not Actus immanens But now What transient Act it is I remember very few Divines that once tell us but only in general say It is a Transient Act. Now you and I that have adventured to enquire do happen to be both singular from others and differing between our selves only Mr. Rutherford and some few others I find saying oft that we are pardoned and justified by the Gospel by which they seem to mean as I But for your way of Justification by a sentence before the Angels as I never met with any that judged that to be our Justification by Faith so as I have said it seems to me very groundless and strange And then if yours stand not mine only must for any thing that is yet discovered that I have seen for I know of none that tells us of any third Your next Objection is the same before answered that God 's Promise to justifie is only a declaration what he will do and therefore a man is not by Covenant without a further Act justified but justifiable Answer Grotius de satisfact will tell you that Promises give right to him to whom they are made and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed though threatnings may But if these were only Promises that God will by another Act do this or that for us then it were to the purpose that you say but that you cannot prove Nor needs there any other Act but the moral Action of the Instrument it self to change our Relations here Et frustra fit pro plura c. Indeed an Act of ours Believing must come in before the effect but you and I are agreed that this is but conditional and not effective These Promises therefore being also Gods Law Testament of Christ Deed of Gift Covenant c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to pass by some other Action but they do confer a Right or make due the benefit or relation and so effect it only the Author is pleased to suspend the effect of his Instrument till we perform the Condition As if by a Lease or Deed of Sale there be some Office or Dignity made over to you or some command in Army or Court or Country or by a Law a Foraigner be Naturalized or Enfranchized on such or such a Condition This Lease or Deed or Law doth not only foretel but effect the thing You add that Justification is a Court-term importing an Act of God as Judge whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge but Rector Answer 1. If by a Court-term you also mean a Law-term verbum forense or judiciarium in the full sense I agree with you But if you confine it to the sentence as pronounced I require Proof as also proof of any such sentence before Judgement particular or general A Rector is either Supremus or Subaliernus A Judge is either supreme above all Laws as being the Law-giver or sub lege God is both Rector and Judge only in the first senses and by judging he Ruleth and Rector is but the Genus whereof Judex is a species As Rector supremus God is the Legislator and so acteth and justifieth by his Laws Grants c. as Judge he sentenceth and absolveth those that were first made just A man is accused for killing another in fight at the command of the Soveraign Power Is it not as fit and proper a saying to say The Law doth justifie this man for so doing against all Accusers as to say The Judge will justifie him Nay Is it not more ordinary And in a sort the Supream or Soveraign may be said to be though in a different sense justified as well as an Inferior when yet the said person in Supremacy hath no Judge nor is to have any by Law and so cannot be justified by sentence God will be justified in his sayings c. as he hath in a sort bound himself by his own Laws that is signified his Resolution to observe them so in the sense of these Laws his works are now just and shall be hereafter so be manifested but not by any sentence of a Superior But this I confess differeth from our Justification Next you say You know not whence it should be that Angels should judge us righteous and rejoice therein but by a sentence passed in Heaven Answer If you think and prove that Angels cannot know us to be righteous then I will not affirm that
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
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
enacting of the Grant and still is his Will that this his Grant or Deed of Gift should moraâ—iter agere â—ffecius hos vel illos producore at such a distance upon such and such conditions The Act and Effect of the Law or Testament is the Act and Effect of the Legislator and Testator whose Instrument it is But the said Law or Testament doth not efficaciter agere or produce these effects tâ—â— the time that the conditions are performed for it is the Nature of a Moral condition to be added for the suspension of the Effect or event of the â—rant c. till it be performed Therefore the Rector Donor or Testator doth not efficaciter agere till then And therefore he acteth by that his Instrument then or not at all If you give by Deed or by Willâ— such and such portions to some Children at such a term of Age and to others when they marry The full actual Right is by a meer Resultancy as from the Instrument but by an Act of Will as from you but really from neither before the Term or condition performed This is a most obvious Truth 2. And as easie is the Answer to your second If the Covenant justifie without any other Act then it adopts sanctifieth Glorifieth without any other Answer In the Propositions against Mr. Bedford you might have seen this dispelled For Adoption I yield the whole But know you not that as there is great difference between changes Relative and Qualitative so the later results not from a meeâ— Fundamentum c. but is effected by a Physical Operation It is Jus ad rem it is Right or Duness which is the proper immediate product or quasi effect resulting from and given by the Law or the like Instrument and not the natural thing it self Now in these Relations either the Right and the thing it self are the same or else the difference so small that it is next to undiscernable and must needs both in eâ—dem instanti result as afore said But in Physical changes thete is a greater difference between the Right and the Benefit The Benefit cannot as the Right doth proceed per â—ndam resultantiâ—â— If you give your Son 100. l. by a Deed of Gift this giveth him the Right immediately but not the Thing There must be a Physical Act to that But Pardon to a Malefactor is given by a written Pardon or Grant from whence the Right to it and the Benefit it self do immediately result being indeed but one thing except my understanding be too gross to distinguish them If therefore you had said as you should that Right to Glory and to Sanctity so far as that Covenant giveth it are bestowed without any other Act except finall Judgement which is necessary to full Justification as well as Glory I should yield you all 3. To your third That the Covenant justifies but conditionally therefore not actually I answered before for it was one of your former Arguments Conditio est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit saith Cujacius And as Mynsinger saith Neque actio neque obligatio ulla est antequam conditio eveniat quia quod est in conditione non est in obligatione Schol. in Justit p 52â— So that it is the Nature of the condition to suspend the effect but not to make the cause to be no cause Indeed if the Condition be never performed then it destroyes or prevents the effect and so the Instrument doth not agere And why but because it was the Will of the Agent that it should act so and on such terms or else not so that the non-performance doth not undo what the Instrument did nor doth it disoblige the Author but it manifesteth that he was never obliged they are Grotius words I conclude therefore that when the condition is performed then the Instrument or conditional Grant doth begin verè agere donarâ— and the Agent by it but till then it doth not properly act or effect at all Is not your Testament that gives your Legacy because it gives conditionally Or must there be some other Act to make it an absolute proper Gift 4. Your fourth also is one of those which you have in the Beginning where I have answered it The Covenant you say is an Act past and so not continued and so the Justification by it past and not continued c. Answer The Physical Act of Legislation or Covenant granting is past but this only makes it an Instrument able and fit to produce such and such effects and not actually to produce them at that present when it is conditional But the Moral action of this Law or Covenant is not past but continued The Law or Covenant is not out of Date And therefore it continueth still to justifie The making of our Laws are Acts past by Parliaments long ago and so not continued Will you therefore conclude that the Moral Agency or Efficiency of these Laws is past and therefore they do not condemn or justifie I know no ground that can bear your conclusions except with Rishworth Dialog and such other of the more impudent Papists one should vilifie the Scripture and say that they were only Miscellaneous occasional writings and never intended to be Gods Law or our Rule of Faith and Life but I believe you will never come to that Surely David frequently stileth the old Scriptures that were in his Times Gods Law And why many Divines should strike in with some Lutheranâ— Error in denying the Gospel or New Scripture to be properly Christs Law and so inveigh against those that call it the New Law I know no Reason but that the ignis fatuus of contention and prejudice misleadeth them O happy Disputers that are not carried head-long into extreams by the spirit of Contradiction What more proper to the reformed Religion as such then to honour the Scriptures And how do these men vilifie them and rob them of their highest honor that deny them to be the Laws of God yea deny this to the Gospel it self Is not Christ the Law-giver Isa 33.22 Psal 60.7 and 108.8 and the King Must not the Law go out of Zion Isa 2.3 And is not that the Law and Testimony to which we must seek Multitudes of Scriptures and most of the Fathers that ever I read do call the Gospel Christs Law or the new law 2. To your second Exception against my approving a speech of Dr. W. I ans 1. Do I need to tell you how unlike this saying of Dr. Wards is to that of the Council of Treâ—t You know by Justification they mean principally Sanctification But the Dr. saith not that these are preparatives to Justification Sure you could not seriously suspect me to join with the Papists when they speak of one Subject and I of another The acts of that Session will tel you more differences between them and me then is worth the while to repeat and you know how largely Chemmitius endeavours
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