made partakers of Christ and his Righteousness by a meer resultancy from the Promise of the Gospel 5. Who denyeth that we have Faith and Repentance before Justification Object 3. But according to this Doctrine we are justified before we are justified For he that is Righteous is constituted just and so is justifiable in Judgement which is to be justified in Law Answ Very true But we are as is said made just or justified but with a particular and not an universal Righteousness which will not donominate the person simply a Righteous or justified person we are so far cured of our former Infidelity and Impenitency that we are true penitent Believers before our sins are pardoned by the Promise and so we are in order of nature not of time first justifiable against the false Accusation that we are impenitent Vnbelievers before we are justifiable against the true accusation of all our sins and desert of Hell He that by inherent Faith and Repentance is not first justifiable against the former false charge cannot by the blood and merits of Christ be justifiable against the latter true accusation For Christ and Pardon are given by the Covenant of Grace to none but penitent Believers Object 4. By this you confound Justification and Sanctification for inherent Righteousness belongs not to Justification but to Sanctification Answ Your Affirmation is no proof and my distinguishing them is not confounding them Inherent Righteousness in its first seed and acts belongs to Sanctification as its Begining or first part or root And to Justification and Pardon as a Means or Condition But Inherent Righteousness in its strength and progress belongs to Sanctification as the Matter of it and to our final Justification in Judgement as part of the means or condition but no otherwise to our first Justification then as a necessary fruit or consequent of it Object 5. By this means you make Sanctification to go before Justification as a Condition or means to it when Divines commonly put it after Answ 1. Mr. Pemble and those that follow him put Sanctification before all true Justification though they call Gods immanent eternal Act a precedent Justification 2. The case is easie if you will not confound the verbal part of the controversie with the Real What is it that you call Sanctification 1. If it be the first special Grace in Act or Habit so you will confess that Sanctification goeth first For we repent and believe before we are pardoned or justified 2. If it be any further degrees or fruits or exercise of Grace then we are agreed that Justification goeth before it 3. If it be both begining and progress faith and obedience that you call Sanctification then part of it is before Justification and part after All this is plain and that which I think we are agreed in But here I am invited to a consideration of some Arguments of a new Opponent Mr. Warner in a book of the Object and Office of Faith What he thought it his Duty to oppose I take it to be my Duty to defend which of us is guided by the light of God I must leave to the illuminated to judge when they have compared our Evidence Mr. W. I now come to shew that both these kinds of Righteousness Legal and Evangelical are not absolutely necessary to Justification I do not undertake the Negative and will endeavour to prove it by these demonstrations Argument 1. If things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascribed to the sme person or action then both these kinds of Righteousness are not absolutely necessary to make up our Justification But things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascribed to the same person or actions Therefore The sequell is thus proved by Paul If it be of works it is no more of Grace if of Grace then it is no more of works What are therefore these two kinds of Righteousness but contradictory to each other And therefore it seemeth illogical Theologie to predicate them of the same person or act c. 12. pag. 154. Answ Reader I crave thy pardon for troubling thee with the Confutation of such Impertinencies that are called Demonstrations It is I that have the bigger part of the trouble But how should I avoid it without wrong to the Truth Seeing would you think it there are some Readers that cannot discern the vanity of such Arguings without Assistance 1. What a gross abuse is this to begin with to conclude that these two sorts of Righteousness are not necessary to make up our Justification when the Question was only whether they are necessary to our Justification Making up expresseth the proper causality of the constitutive causes matter and form and not of the efficient or final much less the Interest of all other means such as a condition is So that I grant him his conclusion taking Justification as we now do Our Faith or Repentance goeth not to make it up And yet on the by I shall add that if any man will needs take Justification for Sanctification or as the Papists do comprehensively for Sanctification and Pardon both as some Protestant Divines think it is used in some few Texts in that large sense our Faith and Repentance are part of our justifying Righteousness But I do not so use the word Though Philip Codurcus have writ at large for it 2. I deny his Consequence And how is it proved By reciting Pauls words Rom. 116. Which contain not any of the terms in the question Paul speaks of Election we of Justification though that difference I regard not Paul speaks of works and we speak of Evangelical Faith and Repentance In a word therefore I answer The works that Paul speaks of are inconsistent with Grace in Justification though not contradictory but contrary what ever Mr. W. say but Faith and Repentance are not those works and therefore no contrariety is hence proved Here is nothing therefore but a rash Assertion of Mr. W. to prove these two sorts of Righteousness contradictory Be judge all Divines and Christians upon earth Did you ever hear before from a Divine or Christian that imputed and inherent Righteousness or Justification and Sanctification or Christs fulfilling the Law for us and our believing the Gospel and repenting were contradictory in themselves Do not all that believe the Scripture believe that we have a personal Righteousness a true Faith and Repentance and must fulfill the Conditions of the Promise and that in respect to these the Scripture calls us Righteous as is before proved Mr. W. 2. If the person justified is of himself ungodly then Legal and Evangelical Righteousness are not both absolutely necessary to our Justification But the person justified considering him in the act of justifying is so therefore The Sequel is undenyable because he who is ungodly is not Legally Righteous and that the person now to be justified is ungodly is express Scripture Rom. 4.5 But to him that worketh not but believeth in him that just fieth the ungodly
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
Marriage-consent then may we not as well say Marriage causeth Marriage as to say Marriage causeth Love Answer No. For 1. That Love which it causeth is the following acts of Love 2. And the name of Love is most usually given only to the Passion which is in the sensitive but not usually to the meer Velle the elicite act of the rational appetite I have been the more prolix on this because it serves also for answer to other of your Objections especially the third 2. You object Gospel-Precepts are many if not all the same with the moral Law if justified then by obedience to them are we not justified by the works of the Law c. Answer 1. James yields the whole 2. If you speak of our Justification at first by which of guilty and lyable to condemnation we become recti in curia or are acquit I then yield all that you seek here viz. that we are not justified by works 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned mistake of my meaning as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works 4. We are not justified by works of the Law if you mean the Law of works or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt which are the works that Paul speaks of 5. That which you call the moral Law viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue taken Division without the sanction viz the Promise or the Commination is not the Law but one part of the Law and the other part viz. the sanction adjoined if diversified makes it two distinct Laws though the Duty commanded be the same The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam is not the same with that which should command a sick man to drink some for a cure 6. That our Justification is continued on condition of our sincere obedience added to our faith I maintain with James 7. Will you answer your own objection and you tell me what to answer Faith is a duty of the moral Law if we are justified by faith then we are justified by a work of the Law I know you will not evade as those that say Faith is not a work but a Passion nor as those that say we are justified by it not as a work but as an Instrument for I have heard you disclaim that If you say it is not as a work but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end then you say as I do both of faith and secondarily of works For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation or of the final Justification or of our present Justification as continued vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam recaptam as Conr. Bergius saith I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured on but lately an acute Disputant with me maintains that faith is not conditio moralis vel ex voluntate constituentis but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei But I think I shall easily and quickly disprove this opinion Rababs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace and not of the old Law of works In a word As there is a two fold Law so there is a two fold Accusation and Justification when we are accused as breakers of the Law of works that is as sinners in common sort and so as lyable to the penalty thereof then we plead only Christs satisfaction as our Righteousnes and no work of our own But when we are Accused of final non-performance of the conditions of the New Law that is of being Rejectors of Christ the Mediator we are justified by producing our faith and sincere obedience to him The former Paul speaks of and James of the latter You may see Divines of great Name saying as I in this as Mead Deodate on James the 2. but most fully Placaus in Thes Salmuriens Thes de Justific c. To your third Objection That Faith Repentance Hope and Love as before explained are distinguished I easily yield you But where you say Faith and Love have different Objects therefore one is no essential part of the other I answer That faith in Christ and Love to the Saints which your Texts mention have different Objects I soon confess But faith in Christ as it is the first Act of the Will and love to Christ have one and the same Object beyond all doubt Your fourth I wholly yield if you speak of faith strictly or as it Justifieth and not in a large improper sence Your fifth is grounded on the forementioned mistake of my meaning And there needs no further answer but only to tell you that though sincere obedience to all Christs Lawes be a part of the condition of our Justification as continued and consummate at Judgement yet it follows not that every particular duty must be done no more then that Adam must obey every particular Law before he were actually just It is sufficient that there be no other defect in our Obedience but what may stand with sincerity The same Precept may command or make Duty to one and not to another and so be no Precept as to him A man that lives but an hour after his conversion is bound sincerely to obey Christ according to his Law but he is not bound to build Churches nor to do the work of twenty years Christ may be received as King and is in the same moment in which he is received as Justifier and in that reception we covenant to obey him and take him for our Lord to the death but not to obey him on earth when we are dead for we are then freed from these Lawes and come under the Lawes of the Glorified To your sixth I answer The Texts alledged have no shew of contradicting the Point you oppos se One saith we are justified by his Blood But doth it thence follow therefore not by Believing in him or receiving him as King are we made partakers of it His Blood is the Purchasing cause but we enquire after the condition on our part The other Text saith through faith in his Blood But 1. it saith not only in his Blood 2. And his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of his Justifying us for by his blood he bought all into his own hands For to this end he Died Rose and Revived that he might be Lord of Dead and Living Rom. 14.9 It may be therefore through faith in his Blood as the chief part of the satisfaction and yet necessarily also through faith in himself or the Reception of himself as the Christ 3. Yet doth the Apostle most conveniently say through faith in his blood rather then through faith in his Dominion or Government because when he speaks of Faith he speaks Relatively not as some understand it by Faith meaning Christ but using the name of that Act which fitliest and fulliest relates to its Object and so intending the Object more
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
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
Covenant made to Christ upon the Gospel invitation And thus it is expiated by Christ 4ly Or as it hath respect to the Gospel commination so as to make a man the object of the actuall curse of this New Covenant or the person to whom its proper penalty is become actually due as every sin made the penalty of the first Law actually due to us This is it that I have said that Christ doth not expiate and none but this Some Divines say the Gospel hath no proper curse or commination penalty I am past doubt that it hath even non-liberation a privation of all the salvation offered them and the Remedilesness of their state c. and I have oft opened this and proved that only final Impenitency and Infidelity or the finall non-performance of the conditions of life are thus peremptorily threatned and make a man the Subject of the proper actual curse of this Law of Grace And if after all explications you will still carry it in confusion or intimate that men hold intolerable Doctrine omitting their explications and by generals making that theirs which they disclaim our next reply shall be patience or if you think indeed either that the Law of Grace doth oblige any under the penalty of remediless non-liberation besides the finally Impenitent and Unbelievers or that Christ dyed to expiate any mans predominant final Impenitency or Unbelief I will not trouble you with any other consutation then a denyal of it Treat p. ibid. Repentance is not an ingredient to our Justification as faith is Repentance qualifieth the Subject but faith immediatly receiveth it Answer The Word Ingredient is more ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of discussing But your assigned difference I ever did allow And yet must we voluminously differ when I have told you that I allow it But then I add that this difference is in the nature of the acts and in their aptitude to their office But in the general nature of being Conditions of pardon which is the nearest reason of their interest they agree though upon several reasons they are made conditions Treat We are not justified by the Habit of faith but by the Act. Answer I said so too in my Aphorisms But the reasons of a learned man Dr. Wallis in his friendly animadversions have perswaded me that it is unsound Treat p. 129. It is asserted that Justification called in Titulo or virtual is nothing but the Grant of it in the Gospel But I see not how that can be called our Justification Answ First That which is asserted is first That the Gospel is the Instrument justifying Secondly That the moral act of the Gospel-Grant and Gods Will by it is Justification in sensu activo Thirdly That the Relation resulting there-from is our passive Justification Secondly Can you see how a Princes pardon under his hand-writing can be the Instrument of a Traitors pardon and how the moral or civil Action of that Instrument and of the Prince by it can be active pardon and how the Relation effected by it can be passive pardon If you can see it there you may see it here And if you cannot many a one can Treat It is the sign or Instrument declaring it not justification it self An. Who ever said and where that passive Justification yea or active is the Gospel it self or the sign The Letter is the sign The actual signification of Gods will thereby is the justifying act The Relation thence resulting on us is our passive Justification These have been oft recited Treat As the grant or promise of our Sanctification is not our Sanctification Answ Good reason The difference is not to you unknown Sanctification passive being a Physical effect must have a Physical cause and therefore a bare moral cause cannot produce it But pardon or justification being but a Relative effect may be produced per nudam resultantiam à fundamento 2. But suppose God had made a promise of Sanctification on condition of faith would not the Right to Sanctification have resulted immediately from this promise the condition being performed And that Right hath the same Relative nature as constitutive Justification and pardon it self hath Treat And as on the contrary our condemnation while we abide in sin or Gods anger against the sinner is not the threatning promulged but that which comes from God himself Answ 1. Our Condemnation per sententiam Judicis is not the thing in question not yet the explication of it but our constitutive condemnation And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law whoever said so but activè it is the action of the Law passivè sumpta it is the Relative effect of the Law 2. From your own Argument reverst I unresistibly make good my Cause against you Condemnation active is the Laws act and condemnation Passive is the Laws immediate effect therefore Justification is alike produced by the Promise or Gift in the Gospel The Antecedent is proved Iohn 3.18 he that believeth on him is not condemned for the Obligation is dissolved but he that believeth not is condemned already Which must be by some Law it being before Judgement and Execution 2 Cor. 3 9. The Law in its delivery is called the ministration of condemnation and that of the Gospel the ministration of righteousness Iam. 2.9 men are said to be convinced of the Law as transgressors Though Paul confute the false conceits of Justification by the Law yet he took them for no unfit phrases to speak of the Law working wrath Rom. 4.15 The curse of the Law Gal. 3.13 And saith Whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law Rom. 3.19 When the Law comes sin reviveth and we die Rom. 7.8 9. therefore we are said to be delivered from the Law Rom. 8.2 Gal. 3.13 Rom. 7.6 And Gal. 3.21 If there had been a Law given which could have given life righteousness should have been by the Law Hence then is mention of being Iustified by the Law Gal. 5.4 and mens being debtors to the Law Gal. 5.3 And somewhat this way is implyed by Nicodemus Iohn 7.51 doth our Law judge any man before c. In a word what more common among Divines then to say the Law curseth or condemneth sinners And then it is not abhorrent from the nature of a Law of Grace an act of Oblivion to absolve and justifie sinners Treat Neither then could we say that we are justified by Christ given to us but by the proposition laid down in the Scripture whereas all say that the objectum quod of our faith is ens incomplexum not the promise of Christ but Christ himself promised Answ It s no impossible thing to be justified both by Christ and by the Promise There is no ground to suppose co-ordinates to be contraries Why may not Christ given us justifie us as the meritorious cause and a principal efficient and his Gospel-grant as his Instrument And accordingly each of them may be the
to punishment that obligation which is not cannot be taken off nor that man pardoned that was never guilty Your Question occasioneth me to be unmannerly in opening these easie things to you that I doubt not knew them sure twenty years ago and more Though I confess I had not the clear apprehensions of them seven years ago What ever I was then thought by others I confess I was ignorant and am glad that God hath in any measure healed my ignorance though with the loss of my reputation of being Orthodox Where you add that conditions have a moral efficiency either you mean all or some if all or if this whereof we are in speech though I am loth to contest with you in Philosophy yet I must confess I never read so much in any Author nor can force my self to believe it Causa sine qua non est causa fatua It is as Schibler and others a meer Antecedent The word Moral is ambiguous but if you mean it as I conjecture you do for an efficiency interpretative in sense of Law as if the Law would ascribe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition I utterly deny it in the present case or if you mean that our fulfilling the conditions hath an efficiency on God to move him to justifie us as an impulsive procatarctick cause I not only deny it but deny that any such cause is properly with God or hath efficiency on him nor can it have the operation of the final cause which some call moral seeing it is none of Gods end nor can any thing move God but God nor be his end but himself If you mean by moral efficiency any thing else which is indeed no efficiency I stick not on meer words Sir I should not have presumed to expect so much labour from you as to write a sheet for my satisfaction had I not perceived that others expect much more to less purpose and that your letters express that hereafter you intend more If you deny me your answer to this I will trouble you no more And because I would have your labour as short as may be I shall only desire your answer to these few Questions which I ground on both your Letters because the clear resolving of these will be the readiest way to satisfie me Quest 1. Hath the Covenant of Grace which promiseth Justification and Glorification any condition on our parts or none If it have Quest 2. What are the Conditions Is not Love and Obedience part of the Condition Quest 3. Must not those Conditions be fulfilled by our selves or hath Christ fulfiâ—led them by himself for any man Quest 4. If we must fulfill him why may not a dying man look on them Or what mâ—â—â— Paul to rejoyce in the testimony of his Conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had his conversation c. And that he had fought a good fight and finished his courâ—â— c. And that in all good conscience c. and Hezekiah Remember Lord that I have walked before thee c. Quest 5. Can a man have any assurance ordinarily that death shall not let him into â—ell who hath no assurance that he hath performed these conditions and how should he have it Can he know that all shall work to him for good though he know not whether he love God or that there is no condemnation to him though he know not that he is in Christ and walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit Quest 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to salvation but as meer figures then is not the Antinomian Doctrine true that we may not Act for Salvation Q. 7. What do you mean your self when you write against those that deny Repentance to be a Condition to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness but a sign Lect. 20. of Justification And when you say that Scripture limits Justification and Pardon only to those Subjects that are so and so qualified p. 171. where you instance in Repentance Confession Turning Forgiving others c. and make faith an Instrumental cause but say there are many qualifications in the Subject p. 172. And what mean you when you say p. 210. In some gross sins there are many conditions requisite besides humiliation without which Pardon of sin cannot be obtained where you instance in Restitution Besides those p. 148 149 150. Is it not safe when a man hath prerformed these conditions to look on them either living or dying Or what do you say less then I do here I know you are none of the men of contention and therefore will not recant your own Doctrine in opposition to me And if you did not mean that these are conditions of Pardon and Justification when you say they are who can understand you If those gross sins be in the unjustified you will not say that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Justification I know that you give more to faith and so to man then I do viz. to be the Instrument of his own Justification which I will not contend against with any that by an improper sense of the word Instrument do differ only in a term but what do you give less to Repentance and the rest then I do you say they are conditions and I say no more Qu. 8. And what do the generality of our Divines mean when they say that Faith and new Obedience are our conditions of the Covenant As I have cited out of Paereus Scharpius Willet Piscator Junius Aretius Alstedius who saith the condition of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith and partly Evangelical Obedience or Holiness of life proceeding from faith in Christ Distinct Chap. 17. p. 73. And Wendeliâ— the like c. If it be said that they mean they are conditions of Salvation but not of Justification Then Quest 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Justification at Judgement which you have truly shewed is more compleat then this Justificatio viae and our Glorification have different conditions on our part and so of our persevering Justification here Quest 10. And whether it be any less disparagement to Christ to have mans works to be the conditions of his Salvation then to be the bare conditions of his ultimate and continued Justification Seeing Christ is a Saviour as properly as a Justifier and Salvation comprizeth all Quest 11. What tolearable sense can be given of that multitude of plain Scriptures which I have cited Thes 60. For my part when I have oft studyed how to forsake my present Judgement the bare reading of the 25 of Matthew hath still utterly silenced me if there were no more Much more when the whole Gospel runs in the like strain Quest 12. Is not the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righteous that is not guilty of non-fulfilling or not obliged to punishment or guilty as from that same Law or Covenant And doth
us also to whom it shall be imputed if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead So Jam. 2.23 Gal. 3.6 If any say that by Faith in all these Texts is meant Christs righteousness and not Faith I will beleive them when I take Scripture to be intelligible only by them and that God did not write it to have it understood But that Faith is imputed or accounted to us for Righteousness in a sense meerly subordinate to Christs righteousness by which we are justified I easily grant As to Satisfaction and Merit we have no righteousness but Christs but a Covenant and Law we are still under and not redeemed to be lawless and this Covenant is ordained as the way of making over Christ and his meritorious righteousness and life to us and therefore they being given or made over on Covenant-terms there is a personal performance of the conditions necessary and so that personal performance is all the righteousness inherent or propiae actionis that God requireth of us now whereas by the first Covenant perfect Obedience was required as necessary to life So that in point of meer personal performance our own Faith is accepted and imputed or accounted to us for Righteousness that is God will require no more as necessary to Justification at our own hands but that we believe in the righteousness of another and accept a Redeemer though once he required more But as to the satisfying of the Justice of the offended Majesty and the meriting of life with pardon c. So the Righteousness of Christ is our only Righteousness But nothing in Scripture is more plain then that Faith it self is said to be accounted to us for Righteousness and not only Christs own righteousness He that will not take this for proof must expect no Scripture proof of any thing from me Eph. 4.24 The new man after God is created in righteousness Many other Texts do call our first Conversion or state of Grace our faith and repentance and our sincere obedience by the name of Righteousness 2. And then that it may and that most fitly be called an Evangelical righteousness I will not trouble the Reader to prove lest I seem to censure his understanding as too stupid It s easie to try whether our Faith and Repentance our Inherent Righteousness do more answer the Precepts and Promise of Christ in the Gospel or those of the Law of works 3. And that this is a personal righteousness I have less need to prove Though it is Christ that purchased it and so it may be called the righteousness of Christ and the Spirit that worketh it in us yet it s we that are the Subjects and the Agents as to the act It being therefore past doubt that 1. The thing it self is existent and necessary 2. That righteousness is a fit name for it 3. All that remains to be proved is the Use of it Whether it be necessary to Justification and Salvation And here the common agreement of Divines except the Antinomians doth save us the labour of proving this for they all agree that Faith and Repentance are necessary to our first Justification and that sincere obedience also is necessary to our Justification at Judgement and to our Salvation So that here being no conteoversie I will not make my self needless work Obejct 1. But faith and repentance are not necessary to Justification qua justitia quaedam Evangelica under the notion of a righteousness but faith as an Instrument and repentance as a qualifying condition Answ 1. We are not now upon the question under what notion these are necessary It sufficeth to the proof of our present Thesis that a personal Evangelical Righteousness is necessary whether quâ talis or not 2. But the plain truth is 1. Remotely in respect of its natural Aptitude to its office faith is necessary because it is a Receiving Act and therefore fitted to a free Gift and an Assenting Act and therefore fitted to a supernatural Revelation And hence Divines say It justifieth as an Instrument calling its Receptive nature Metaphorically an Instrument which in this sense is true And Repentance is necessary because it is that Return to God and recovery of the soul which is the end of Redemption without which the following ends cannot be attained The Receptive nature of Faith and the dispositive use of Repentance may be assigned as Reasons Why God made them conditions of the Promise as being their aptitude thereto 2. But the nearest reason of their Interest and Necessity is because by the free constitution of God they are made conditions in that Promise that conferreth Justification and Salvation determining that without these they shall not be had and that whoever believeth shall not perish and if we repent our sins shall be forgiven us So that this is the formal or nearest Reason of their necessity and interest that they are the conditions of the Covenant so made by the free Donor Promimiser Testator Now this which in the first instant and consideration is a condition is in the next instant or consideration a true Evangelical Righteousness as that Condition is a Duty in respect to the Precept and as it is our Title to the benefit of the Promise and so is the Covenant-performance and as it hath respect to the sentence of Judgement where this will be the cause of the day Whether this Condition was performed or not It is not the Condition as imposed but as performed on which we become justified And therefore as sentential Justification is past upon the proof of this personal Righteousness which is our performance of the condition on which we have Title to Christ and Pardon and eternal life even so our Justification in the sense of the Law or Covenant is on supposition of this same performance of the Condition as such which is a certain Righteousness If at the last Judgement we are sententially justified by it as it is quaedam justitia a Righteousness subordinate to Christs Righteousness which is certain then in Law-sense we are justifiable by it on the same account For to be justified in point of law is nothing else then to be justifiable or justificandus by sentence and execution according to that Law so that its clear that a personal Righteousness qua talis is necessary to Justification and not only quo talis though this be beyond our Quest on in hand and therefore I add it but for elucidation and ex abundanti Object 2. If this be so then men are righteous before God doth justifie them Answ 1. Not with that Righteousness by which he justifieth them 2. Not Righteousness simply absolutely or universally but only secundum quid with a particular Righteousness 3. This particular Righteousness is but the means to possess them of Christs Righteousness by which they are materially and fully justified 4. There is not a moments distance of time between them For as soon as we believe and repent we are
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
to a Teacher as to Christ and his Ministers and of Scholars to their Master who useth both Argument and Authority is fully and fitly expressed in those words The word Gospel is principally spoken of the Doctrine of Good tidings or Mercy by Christ but sure not only of the Historical or Declaratory part but also yea principally of the Promise or Offer but the whole New Covenant or Law of Christ for so it is and so the Ancients unaminously call it containing Precepts and Threatnings also is called his Testament Covenant Gospel being so denominated from the more excellent part Heb. 7.18.19 22. The Testament of Jesus is opposed to the Commandments of the Law and called Better therefore it comprizeth Christs Commands proper to him And is it not Christs whole Law which is of force when he is dead and called his Testament Heb. 9.17 And when the Apostle saith They were made able Ministers of the New Testament doth he mean only of the History or the Precept of faith and not of Love Hope Repentance c. Let his preaching witness as the Expositors 2 Cor. 3.6 Or let Christ in giving them their Commission tell you what that New Testament is Mat. 28. Go Disciple all Nations c. teaching them to observe all things what ever I command And not to strive about words you know that New Law of Christ which is called his Testament Covenant Gospels c. hath all the Precepts in it which you mention Is it not Precepts as well as Narrations which Mark calls the Gospel Mar. 1.1 Was it not the Gospel which Christ and the Apostles preached And they preached Repentance and Faith and so commanded Duty If a man loose his Life for publishing or obeying Christs Precepts doth not the Promise belong to him Mar. 8.35 and 10 29 Or is that Promise to them only that suffer for the Declarative part only Is the Gospel that must be published among all Nations the History only Mar. 13.10 Was the Precept of Accepting Christ loving him in sincerity and obeying him c. no part of that Gospel to which Paul was separated Rom. 1.1 in which he served in Spirit ver 9. of which he was not ashamed ver 16. and which he was put in trust With 1 Thess 2.2 4. Was it only the Declaration of Christs Death Resurrection c. which is the Gospel according to which mens secrets must be judged Rom. 2.16 or according to which the Jews are enemies Rom. 11.28 compared with Luk. 19.27 Is not it larglyer taken 2 Cor. 8.18 And subjection to the Gospel implies it preceptive 2 Cor. 9.13 Peters withdrawing and separating from the uncircumcision and fearing the Jews and dissembling and Barnabas with him was A not walking according to the Truth of the Gospel Gal. 2.14 The false Apostles preached another Gospel and the Galathians turned to another Gospel when the former preached and the later received the Doctrine of the Necessity of being circumcised and keeping Moses Law Gal. 1.6 7. so that the word Testament and Gospel includes Laws or Precepts of Duty 4. To that of the sense of Gal. 3.12.23 about the largest extent of the word Faith it being as I said of so small moment I intend not to insist on it My meaning is but this that some other Graces are intended reductively and the chief named for all But by your answer I understand 1. That you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant which concession shall satisfie me what ever you think of the sense of the Word of these Texts 2. but the rest of your Ans I am unsatisfied in You say by Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justificaiion in this Life is fulfilled not concerning every benefit of the New Covenant Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins forgiveing others doing good to the Saints of entering into Life Repl. 1. You know that not Wotton and many great Divines of England only but of the most famous Transmarine do take Justification and Remission to be one and the same thing I have received Animadversions from divers learned Divines lately on these Aphorisms and three or four of them blame me for making any difference between Justification and Remission though I make as little as may be And can you think then that Remission and Justification have several conditions If they are not wholly the same yet doubtless the difference is exceeding small and rather notional then real The same Commination of the Law doth both condemn and oblige to punishment Remission is a discharge from the Obligation to Punishment and Justification is a discharge from the condemnation So much then as that Obligation to Punishment differs from the Laws condemnation which is nothing or so little as it is not obvious to be discerned so much doth Remission differ from Justification Yea even those Divines that in pleading for the interest of the active Righteousness to Justification do to that end make Justification to have two parts yet one of them they say is Remission of sin as the other is the Imputation of Righteousness And I pray how then can these two parts of the same Justification have two divers conditions so as one is appropriated to one and excluded from the other I remember no reformed Divines but they either make Justification and Remission to be all one or Remission to be part of Justification or else to be two Relations or other effects immediately and at once in order of time if not of nature resulting or proceeding from the same foundation materially or other cause Though Gataker and Bradshaw make them to differ it is but in this narrow and almost unconceivable way but in time to concur I must therfore differ from you in this that they have divers conditions and wait for your proof of it But it seems you will give us leave to say A man is not pardoned by faith only And yet he is justified by faith only and that as a condition Faith then it seems can do the whole but not one half as some judge or can do and not do the same thing as others 2. But do you think that Repentance is not necessarily Antecedent to Justification as well as to Remission If you say No the current of the Gospel Doctrine will confute you which usually putteth Repentance before Faith and those Divines that say it followeth after it do yet make them concur in order of time But if Repentance do necessarily precede Justification as I doubt not but you will yield then let me know to what purpose or under what notion or respect if not as a Condition Can you find any lower place to give it 3. But if you should mean that Faith and Repentance are the condition of our first Justification and Remission but afterwards only of our Remission I Answer 1. According to your Judgement who take Justification to be one act transient once only performed and
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