Justification as believing in him as Priest it being the backwardness of nature to the acceptance of Christs Government and Doctrine that is a special Reason why faith is made the condition of that pardon which Nature is not so backward to accept 12. The Reasons to be assigned why faith in Christ is made the condition of Justification is 1. The will of the free Donor 2. The fitness of faith to that Office as being suited to Gods Ends and to Christ the Object and to mans necessitous estate Not only because it is the Receiving of Righteousness but for all these Reasons together in which its aptitude doth consist and its Aptitude to the Honour of the Redeemer and free Justifier is the principal part of its Aptitude it being impossible that God should prefer man as his ultimate and before himself 13. Though the Reason why Faith is made by God the condition of our Justification must partly be fetcht from the Nature of Faith which some call its Instrumentallity in apprehending Christ yet the Reason why we are Justified by Faith must be fetched from the Tenour of the Promise and Will of the Promiser So that though the Remote Reason be that Aptitude of Faith which is the Dispositio material yet the formal neerest Reason is because God hath made it the condition of the Gift which shall suspend the efficacy till performed and when performed the benefit shall be ours 14. As Faith hath its denomination from some one or few acts which yet suppose many as concomitant and consequent So those concomitant and consequent Acts have their answerable place and Interest in the foresaid Conditionality as to our part in Christ and Justification 15. And therefore it was not the Apostles meaning to set Faith against these concomitant acts as Repentance hope in Christ desire of Christ love to Christ c. and to exclude these under the notion of Works but contrarily to suppose them in their order 16. The burdensome works of the Mosaical Law suppoed to be such as from the dignity and perfection of that Law would justifie men by procuring pardon of sin and acceptance with God are they that the Jews opposed to Christs Righteousness and Justification by Faith and which Paul disputeth against and consequently against any works or acts or habits of our own opposed to Christ or this way of free justification by him 17. The not loosing our Iustification and Title to Christ and Life hath more for its condition then the first Reception or Possession hath And so hath the final Iustification at judgement if men live after their first believing 18. Justification at judgement being the Adjudging us to Glory hath the same conditions as Glorification it self hath Reader In these Eighteen Propositions thou mayst fully see the Doctrine that I contend for which also in my Confession Apologie and this Book I have expressed And now I will shew you somewhat of the face of the Doctrine which the Dissenters commonly do propugne but not so largely because I cannot open other mens Doctrine so freely and fully as I can do my own 1. They agree with me that Christs Righteousness is the meritorious or material cause of our Iustification though some add that it is the formal cause I suppose it is but a mistaken name 2. They agree that Christ and pardon and Life are Given us by the Gospel-Promise 3. They yield that an entire Faith in Christ as Christ is the condition of our Right to his entire Benefits 4. But they say that the Acts of Faith in thier procurement of the Benefits have as divers an Interest as the Acts of Christ which Faith believeth 5. And they say that it is some one act or two or some of them that is the sole justifying act though others be compresent 6. This Iustifying act some call the Apprehending of Christ as a Sacrifice some Affiance or Recumbency or Resting on him as a Sacrifice for sin or as others also on his active Righteousness or an Apprehension of Christs Righteousness or as others A perswasion that his Promise is true or an Assent to that truth or as others an Assurance or at least a Belief fide Divinâ that we are justified 7. They say that the neerest Reason of our Iustification by this faith is because it is an Instrument of our Iustification or of our Apprehending Christs Righteousness And so that we are justified by Faith as an Instrumental efficient cause say some and as a Passive Receiving Instrument say others 8. They say that there being but two wayes of Iustification imaginable by faith or by works all that desert the former way if they despair not of Iustification fall under the expectation of the latter And I grant that Scripture mentioneth no third way 9. Therefore say they seeing that Pauls Iustification by Faith is but by the act before mentioned whoever looketh to be justified in whole or in part by another act as by Faith in Christ as Teacher as King by desiring him by Hoping in him by Loving him by disclaiming all our own righteousness c. doth seek Iustification by Works which Paul disputes against and so set against the only true Iustification by Faith 10. Yea and they hold that whoever looks to be Iustified by that act of faith which themselves call the Iustifying act under any other notion then as an Instrument doth fall to justification by works or turn from the true Iustification by Faith By these unwarrantable Definitions and Distinctions and additions to Gods Word A lamentable perplexity is prepared for mens souls it being not possible for any living man to know that he just hits on the justifying Act and which is it and that he takes in no more c. and so that he is not a Legalist or Jew and falls not from Evangelical Iustification by faith in Christ So that Iustification by faith in Christ as Christ considered in all essential to his Office is with them no Iustification by faith in Christ but justification by Works so much disowned by the Apostle the expectants of which are so much condemned I have gathered the sum of most of the Dissenters minds as far as I can understand it If any particular man of them disown any of this let him better tell you his own mind For I intend not to charge him with any thing that he disowns The Lord Illuminate and Reconcile all his people by his Spirit and Truth Amen The CONTETS Disputation 1. Quest WHether we are justified by believing in Jesus Christ as our King and Teacher as well as by believing in his blood Aff. pag. 1. The state and weight of the Controversie p. 2 c. Ten Propositions for fuller explication p. 10 c. Argument first p. 13 Argu. 2. p. 14 Argu. 3. p. 19 Argu. 4. p. 24 Argu. 5. p. 27 Argu. 6. p. 28 Argu. 7. p. 30 Argu. 8. p. 31 Argu. 9. p. 35 Argu. 10. p. 38 defended against Mr. Blak's assault
act it self and therefore it is not faith as faith that is as it is an apprehension of Christ or recumbency on him that Justifyeth nor yet as an Instrument thus acting The nature of the act is but its aptitude to its office or justifying Interest and not the formal cause of it Proposition 6. No work or act of man is any true proper cause of his justification as Justification is commonly taken in the Gospel neither Principal or Instrumental The highest Interest that they can have is but to be a condition of our Justification and so a Dispositio moralis which therefore some call cansa dispositiva and some causa sine qua non and it s indeed but a Nominall cause and truly no cause at all Proposition 7. Whatsoever works do stand in opposition to Christ or disjunct from him yea or that stand not in a due subordination to him are so far from Justifying even as conditions that they are sins which do deserve condemnation Proposition 8. Works as taken for the Imperate Acts of Obedience external distinct from the first Radical Graces are not so much as conditions of our Justification as begun or our being put into a Justified state Proposition 9. Repentance from dead works denying our our selves renouncing our own Righteousness c. much less external Obedience are not the receptive condition of our Justification as faith is that is Their nature is not to be an actual Acceptance of Christ that is they are not faith and therefore are not designed on that account to be the Condition of our Justification Proposition 10. God doth not justifie us by Imputing our own faith to us in stead of perfect Obedience to the Law as if it were sufficient or esteemed by him sufficient to supply its place For it is Christs Righteousness that in point of value and merit doth supply its place nor doth any work of ours justifie us by satisfying for our sins for that 's the work of Christ the Mediator Our faith and love and obedience which are for the receiving and improving of him and his Righteousness and so stand in full subordination to him are not to be made co-partners of his office or honor Affirm Proposition first We are justified by the merits of a perfect sinless Obedience of Christ together with his sufferings which he performed both to the Law of nature the Law of Moses and the Law which was proper to himself as Mediator as the subject obliged Proposition 2. There is somewhat in the nature of faith it self in specie which makes it fit to be elected and appointed by God to be the great summary Condition of the Gospel that it be Receptive an Acceptance of Christ is the nature of the thing but that it be a condition of our Justification is from the will and constitution of the Donor and Justifier Proposition 3. There is also somewhat in the nature of Repentance self-denyal renouncing all other Saviours and our own righteousness desiring Christ loving Christ intending God and Glory as our end procured by Christ confessing sin c. which make them apt to be Dispositive Conditions and so to be comprized or implyed in faith the summary Receptive condition as its necessary attendants at least Proposition 4. Accordingly God hath joyned these together in his Promise and constitution making faith the summary and receptive Condition and making the said acts of Repentance self-denyal renouncing our own righteousness disclaiming in heart Justification by the works of the Law and the renouncing of all other Saviours also the desiring and loving of Christ offered and the willing of God as our God and the renouncing of all other Gods and so of the world flesh and devil at least in the resolution of the heart I say making these the dispositive Conditions which are ever implyed when faith only is expressed some of them as subservient to faith and perhaps some of them as real parts of faith it self Of which more anon Proposition 5. The Gospel promiseth Justification to all that will Believe or are Believers To be a Believer and to be a Disciple of Christ in Scripture sense is all one and so is it to be a Disciple and to be a Christian therefore the sense of the promise is that we shall be justified if we become true Christians or Disciples of Christ and therefore justifying faith comprehendeth all that is essential to our Discipleâ—ship or Christianity as its constitutive causes Proposition 6. It is not therefore any one single Act of faith alone by which we are justified but it is many Physical acts conjunctly which constitute that faith which the Gospel makes the condition of Life Those therefore that call any one Act or two by the name of justifying faith and all the rest by the name of works and say that it is only the act of recumbency on Christ as Priest or on Christ as dying for us or only the act of apprehending or accepting his imputed Righteousness by which we are justified and that our Assent or Acceptance of him as our Teacher and Lord our desire of him our love to him our renouncing other Saviours and our own Righteousness c. are the works which Paul doth exclude from our Justification and that it is Jewish to expect to be justified by these though but as Conditions of Justification these persons do mistake Paul and pervert the Doctrine of Faith and Justification and their Doctrine tendeth to corrupt the very nature of Christianity it self Though yet I doubt not but any of these acts conceited meritorious or otherwise as before explained in the Negative if men can believe contradictories may be the matter of such works as Paul excludeth And so may that one act also which they appropriate the name of justifying faith to Proposition 7. Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a condition of our continuance in a state of Justification or of our not losing it And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord at our departure hence Proposition 8. Our Faith Love and Works of Love or sincere Obedience are conditions of our sentential Justification by Christ at the particular and general Judgement which is the great Justification And so as they will prove our Interest in Christ our Righteousness so will they materially themselves justifie us against the particular false Accusation of being finally impenitent Unbelievers not Loving not obeying sincerely For to deny a false accusation is sufficient to our Justification Proposition 9. As Glorification and Deliverance from Hell is by some called Executive pardon or Justification so the foresaid acts are conditions of that execution which are conditions of Justification by the sentence of the Judge Proposition 10. As to a real inherent Justice or Justification in this life we have it in part in our Sanctification and Obedience and in the life to come we shall have it in perfection So much for the
Cartwright cont Rhem. in loc For if the Reward should be given according to works God should be a Debtor unto man But it is absurd to make God a Debtor to man 2. He speaketh not of that Reward that ignorant men challenge to themselves but of the Reward that God should in justice give if men had deseerved it by their works 12. Hemiâ—gius even a Lutheran supposeth the Argument to be thus Imputatio gratuita non est operantis merces justitia credentis est imputatio gratuita ergo justitia credentis non est operantis merces Major probatur per contrarium Merces operanti id est ei qui aliquid operibus promeretur datur ex debito Probatio haec per concessionem Rhetoricam intelligenda est Nequaquam enim Paulus sentit quod quisquam ex debito fiat justus revera sed quae sit natura rerum indicat Imputare est aliquid gratia conferre non ex debito tribuere Merces proprie est quod debebatur ex merito hoc est Debiti solutio Yea in his blow at the Majorists he confesseth the truth 8. Evertitur corum dogma qui clamant opera necessaria ad salutem quae salus cum à Justificatione separari nequit non habet alias causas aut merita quam ipsa Justificatio Hoc tamen fatendum est quod opera necessariò requirantur in Justificatis ut iter intermedium non ut causa aut merita 13. Mich. Ragerus a Lutheran in loc Imputatio fidei opponitur imputationi ex merito imputatio fidei fit secundum gratiam E. fides in negotio Justificationis non consideratur ut opus morale quid enim per modum operis imputatur secundum debitum meritoriè imputatur Et qui operatur sive operans renatus sit sive non dummodo eâ intentione operetur ecque fine ut mercedem reportet opera sua censorio Dei judicio opposita velit 14. In like manner Georg Calixtus a Lutheran in loc pag. 26.28 c. To these I might add many other Protestant Expositors and the votes of abundance of Polemical Divines who tell the Papists that in Pauls sense it s all one to be justified by works to be justified by the Law and to be justified by merits But this much may suffice for the vindication of that Text and to prove that all works do not make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace but only meritorious mercenary works and not those of gratitude c. beforenamed Treat ibid. The second Argument may be from the peculiar and express difference that the Scripture giveth between faith and other graces in respect of Justification So that faith and good works are not to be considered as concurrent in the same manner though one primarily the other secondarily so that if faith when it s said to Justifie doth it not as a condition but in some other peculiar notion which works are not capable of then we are not Justified by works as well as faith Now it s not lightly to be passed over that the Scripture still useth a peculiar expression of faith which is incommunicable to other graces Thus Rom. 3.25 Remission of sins is through faith in his blood Rom. 4.5 Faith is counted for Righteousness Rom. 5.1 Galatians â— 16 c. Answer First This is nothing to the Question and deserves no further answer The Question is not now whether faith and works justifie in the same manner that 's but a consequent rightly explained of another thing in question your self hath here made it the question whether Works be Conditions of Justification And that which I affirmed is before explained I grant that if faith justifie not as a condition but proxime in any other respect then Faith and Repentance c. justifie not in the same manner so that the sameness of their Interest in the general notion of a condition supposeth faith to be a condition but if you can prove that it is not I shall grant the difference which you prove Now it is not our question here whether faith be a condition or an Instrument but whether other works as you choose to call them or humane acts be conditions Secondly Scripture taketh not faith in the same sense as my Opposers do when it gives it the peculiar expressions that you mention Faith in Pauls sense is a Belief in Jesus Christ in all the respects essential to his person and office and so a hearty Acceptance of him for our Teacher Lord and Saviour Saviour I say both from the guilt and power of sin and as one that will lead us by his word and spirit into Possession of eternal Glory which he hath purchased So that it includeth many acts of Assent and a Love to our Saviour and desire of him and it implyeth self-denial and renouncing our own righteousness and all other Saviours and a sense of our sin and misery at least Antecedents or concomitants and sincere Affiance and Obedience in gratitude to our Redeemer as necessary consequents And this faith is set by Paul in opposition to the bare doing of the works of Moses Law and consequently of any other works with the same intention as separated from Christ who was the end and life of it or at least co-ordinate with him and so as the immediate matter of a legal Righteousness and consequently as mercenary and valuable in themselves or meritorious of the Reward This is Pauls faith But the faith disputed for by my Opponents is the Act of recumbency or Affiance on Christ at Justifier or Priest which they call the Apprehension of Christs righteousness and this as opposed to the Acceptance of Christ as our Teacher and King our Husband Head c. further then these contain his Priesthood and opposed to Repentance to the love of our Saviour to denying our own righteousness confessing our sins and confessing Christ to be our only Saviour Thankfulness for free grace c. all which are called works by these men and excluded from being so much as Conditions attending faith in our Justification or Remission of sin The case may be opened by this similitude A Physitian cometh to a populous City in an Epidemical Plague There is none can scape without his help he is a stranger to them and they have received false informations and apprehensions of him that he is but a mountebank and deceiver though indeed he came of purpose in love and compassion to save their lives having a most costly receipt which will certainly cure them He offereth himself to be their Physitian and freely to give them his Antidote and to cure and save them if they will but consent that is if they will take him for their Physitian and thankfully take his medicine His enemies disswade the people from believing in him and tell them that he is a Deceiver and that if they will but stir themselves and work and use such dyet and medicines as they tell them of
Word of Answ 1. We say not that Jams calls them a condition therefore we add not to him as his 2. Every Exposition and application is an addition of another sort but not as of the same 3. I use not the active phrase that Works justifie agreeing so far with you who note a difference between these sayings Faith justifieth and we are justified by faith for all that Mr. Blake despiseth the observation which perhaps he would scarce have done if he had known that you had being guilty of it also 4. Scripture supposeth Grammer Logick Physicks c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part If James tell you that we are justified by works he doth not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a verb and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a noun and so of the rest but he warranteth you to say so without any unjust addition supposing that Grammer so call them If the Scripture say that God created the Heavens and the earth it doth not say here in terms that God was the efficient cause but it warranteth you to say so If it say that Christ dyed for us and was a Sacrifice for our sins and hath obtained eternal redemption for us yet it saith not that he is the meritorious cause or the material cause of our Justification But it will warrant you to say so without the guilt of unjust additions If you may say as a Grammarian and a Logitian when you meet with such words in Scripture These are Paronyma and these Synonyma and these Homonyma and this is an universal that a singular that a particular and that an indefinite this is an efficient cause that a material formal or final this is a noun that a verb the other a participle or an adverb I pray you then why may not I say when I read in Rom. 10.9 that If thou confess with thy mouth and believe in thy heart c. that If is a conjunction conditional Is this adding to the Scripture unjustly If I did when ever I read that we are justified by faith collect thence that faith is an Instrumental cause as if by were only the note of an Instrument then you might have accused me of unwarrantable addition or collections indeed Lastly If you have a mind to it I am content that you say by the unscriptural names or additions as you speak of nouns pronouns verbs antecedents consequents efficient or material causes c. and I will lay by the name of a condition as you do of an Instrument and we will only use the Scripture phrase which is If you forgive men your Father will forgive you if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive we are justified by faith without the works of the Law A man is justified by works and not by faith only By thy Words thou shalt be justified Every man shall be judged according to his works c. Let us keep to Scripture phrase if you desire it and you shall find me as backward as any to lay much stress upon terms of Art Having gone thus far I shall in brief give you a truer reconciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us 1. They debate different questions 2. And that with different sorts of persons 3. And speak directly of different sorts of works 4. And somewhat differ in the sense of the word Faith 5. And somwhat about the word Justification 6. And they speak of works in several Relations to Justification 1. The Question that Paul disputed was principally Whether Justification be by the works of the Mosaical Law and consequently by any mercenary works without Christ or in Co-ordination with Christ or any way at all conjunct with Christ The question that James disputed was Whether men are justified by meer believing without Gospel-Obedience 2. The persons that Paul disputed against were 1 The unbelieving Jews that thought the Mosaical Law was of such perfection to the making of men righteous that there needed no other much less should it be abrogate Where specially note that the righteousness which the Jews expected by that Law was not as is commonly imagined a righteousness of sinless obedience such as was required of Adam but a mixt Righteousness consisting of accurate Obedience to the Mosaical Law in the main course of their lives and exact sacrificing according to that Law for the pardon of their sins committed wherein they made express confession of sin so that these two they thought sufficient to justifie and lookt for the Messias but to free them from captivity and repair their Temple Law c. And 2. Paul disputed against false Teachers that would have joyned these two together the Righteousness of Moses Law and Faith in Christ as necessary to life But James disputed against false Christians that thought it enough to salvation barely to believe in Christ or lived as if they so thought its like misunderstanding Pauls Doctrine of Justification as many now do 3. The works that Paul speaks of directly are the services appointed by Moses Law supposed to be sufficient because of the supposed sufficiency of that Law So that its all one with him to be justified by the Law and to be justified by works and therefore he ofter speaks against Justification by the Law expresly and usually stileth the works he speaks of the works of the Law yet by consequence and a parity of Reason he may well be said to speak against any works imaginable that are set in opposition to Christ or competition with him and that are supposed meritorious and intended as Mercenary But James speaks of no works but Obedience to God in Christ and that as standing in due subordination to Christ 4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Justification Paul means our Assent to all the essential Articles of the Gospel together with our Acceptance of Jesus Christ the Lord as such and affiance in him that is To be a Believer and so to have faith is with Paul to be a Disciple of Christ or a Christian Though sometime he specially denominates that faith from one part of the object the promise sometime from another the blood of Christ sometime from a third his obedience And in other cases he distinguisheth Faith from Hope and Charity but not in the business of Justification considering them as respecting Christ and the ends of his blood But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion such as the Devils themselves had 5. Paul speaks of Justification in its whole state as begun and continued But James doth principally if not only speak of Justification as continued Though if by works any understand a disposition to work in faith or conjunct with it as Dr. Iackson doth so his words are true of initial Justification also 6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned Paul speaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal personal Righteousness
Law therein your self Whether you will read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am indifferent being no friend to either I thought it a greater novelty to say Faith justifieth only or primarily as an Instrument then to say it justifieth as the Condition which the free Lawgiver hath promised Justification upon I knew it was no novelty to say we must have a personal Righteousness besides that imputed And I took it to be as old as the Gospel to say that this consisteth in Faith and sincere Obedience I called it Evangelical because I trembled to think of having an inherent Righteousness which the Law of works will so denominate What you say of the Efficacy of Obedience and Faith I disclaim both as never coming into my thoughts I acknowledge no efficiency as to Justification in either but a bare conditionality I aver confidently that I give no more to works then our Divines ordinarily do viz. to be a secondary part of the Condition of the new Covenant and so of Justification as continued and consummate and of Glorification only if I err it is in giving less to Faith denying it to be the Instrumental Cause of Justification but only a condition My Definition of Faith is the same in sense with Dr. Prestons Mr. Calverwell Mr. Throgmorton Mr. Norton of new England in his Catechism c. O how it grieveth me to dissent from my Reverend Brethen Some report it to be a pernitious Book others overvalue it and so may receive the more hunt if it be unsound Truly Sir I am little prejudiced against your Arguments But had rather return into the common road then not if I could see the Light of truth to guide me I abhor affected singularity in Doctrine therefore I intreat you again to defer no longer to vouchsafe me the fruit of one hours labour which I think I may claim from your Charity and the Interest God hath given one member in another and you shall hereby very much oblige to thankfulness Jan. 22. 1649. Your unworthy fellow-servant Richard BAXTER To my Reverend and very much valued friend Mr. Preacher of Gods Word at These present Dear Sir I Received your letter and I returned some Answer by Mr. Bryan viz. that now the daies growing longer and warmer I shall be glad to take occasion to confer with you mouth to mouth about those things wherein we differ for I conceive that to be a far more compendious way then by letters wherein any mistake is not so easily rectified I shall therefore be ready to give you the meeting at Bremicham any Thursday you shall appoint that may be convenient with your health that so by an amicable collation we may find out the truth In the mean while I shall not wholly neglect your request in your letter but give you an hint at one of those several Arguments that move me to dissent from you which although it be obvious yet such Arguments as most men pitch upon have the greatest strength and that is the peculiar and proper expressions the Scripture giveth to faith in the matter of Justification and that when the Doctrine is purposely handled as Paul in his Epistle to the Romans attributing it so to faith as it excludes not the presence but the co-operation of any other He doth so include faith as that he doth exclude all works under any notion for Abraham was then godly and abounded in other Graces yet the Apostle fastens his Justification upon this in so much that if a man would have desired the Apostle to make a difference between faith and other Graces it could not have been done more evidently As for the Apostle James your sence cannot be admitted to reconcile them but rather makes that breach wider the one saith a Justification without works you make Faith as well as works though one primarily whereas the Orthodox both against Papists and Arminians and Socinians do sweetly reconcile them By the hint of this I see a Letter cannot represent the vigor of an Argument I shall only add one thing we may hold Opinions and dispute them speculatively in Books but practically and when we come to dye we dare not make use of them I know not how a godly man at his death can look upon his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him though the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ be acknowledged the procuring cause The Papists also verbally come to that refuge For how come the Imperfections in the Conditions to be pardoned and conditions have a moral Efficiency Raptim But of these things more fully when I see you The Lord preserve you an Instrument in his Church and direct and sanctifie all your parts and abilities for his Glory Feb. 13. Your loving Brother in the Lord To his very loving and much respected Friend Mr. BAXTER Minister of Gods Word at Kederminster these be delivered Sir FOr the expressions of your love in your two Letters and your offer to meet me for conference I return you hearty thanks But I told you of my weakness which is so great that I am not able to travel nor to discourse to any purpose if I were with you a few words do so spend me except when I have a little ease which fals out perhaps once in a moneth for a few hours unexpected therefore I am resolved to importune you once again and if you now deny me to cease my suit It is expected at London Cambridge c. that you write a confutation and you intimate your purpose to do so hereafter which I will not disswade you from so I might but see your Arguments that before I dye I might know whether I have erred and not dye without repenting or recanting and if I err not that I might shew you my grounds more fully And if you deny this request to one that hath so even unmannerly importuned you and yet purpose to do it when I can neither be the better for it nor defend my self you walk not by that Rule as I thought you did nor do as you would be done by But for my part I have done my endeavour for information and so have satisfied my own conscience For what should I do There is none in this Country that will attempt a convincing of me by word or writing nor for ought I hear gainsay and you are the nearest from whom I may hope for it In your last you overpass all the particulars almost touched in your former and pitch on Justification by works Where you mention Pauls attributing it to Faith to which I have answered and have no Reply 1. Where you say Paul excludes the Co-operation of any other I answer So do I. And of Faith too I deny the operations as effective 2. When you say he excludes works under any notion I answer 1. Would I could see that proved 2. Then how can James say true 3. Then he excludes faith under the notion of an
Instrument 4. And Repentance under the notion of a preparative or condition 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation or efficiency of works I yield as before 6. Paul expresly excludes only the works of the Law that is such as are considered in opposition to Christ or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works and not such as Christ himself enjoyneth in subordination to himself so they keep that place of subordination 7. Pauls Question is What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law And this he saith is no Works under any notion no not Faith but only Christs Righteousness and so faith must be taken relatively for certainly it is Christ and not Faith that is that Righteousness Is not this all that our Divines say or require and so say I over and over But Paul doth not resolve there what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his so directly but collaterally 8. Or if you say he do yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification I say it is without not only the operation but the presence of works which is more then you say 9. Or whether he speak of begun or continued Justification I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward as of debt and not of Grace As a man that works to yearn wages as Paul plainly saith Rom. 4.4 To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace but of Debt These works I disclaim as sinfull in their ends But obeying the Gospel or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us should rule over us and running that we obtain and fighting the good fight of faith and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him and improving our Talent and enduring to the end and so doing good works and laying up a good foundation against the time to come I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement or the continuance of it here Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls sense as before but not works in this sense or in James his sense When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better and answered what I have said in that 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force For first you say the one saith a Justification by faith without works you make Faith as well as works c. Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works but without the works of the Law And I have shewed you what he means by works Rom. 4.4 2. I say no more then James that a man is justified by works and not by faith only I believe both these Scriptures are true and need no reconciling as having no contradiction in the terms And yet I speak not so broad usually as James doth Where you say that the Orthodox do sweetly reconcile them I know not who you mean by the Orthodox For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them Piscator and Pemble have one Interpretation and way of Reconciliation Calvin Paraeus and most Divines another Camero confuteth the best esteemed and hath another Brochmond with most of the Lutherans have another Jac. Laurentius Althemor and many more tell us of divers which of these you mean by the Orthodox I know not But if you exclude all those from the Orthodox that say as I say in this you will exclude as Learned Divines and well reputed of as most Europe hath bred viz. excellent Conrad Bergius Ludov. Crecius Johan Crocius Johan Bergius c. Who though they all dispute for Justification by faith without works understanding it of the first Justification for most Divines have taken Justification to be rigidly simul semel till Dr. Downam evinced that it is a continued Act yet they both take works for meriting works that respect the reward as of Debt and they say that otherwise Obedience is a Condition or cause as they make it of continuing or not losing Justification once attained And is not that to say as much as I And many more I can name you that say as much And you approve of Mr. Bals book which saith that works or a purpose to walk with God do justifie as a passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification You add that we may dispute c. but you know not how a godly man at his death can look on his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him c. Which speech seems strange to me I confess if I be so I am ungodly For I have been as oft and as long in the expectation of death as most men and still am and yet I am so far from being afraid of this that I should live and dye in horror and desperation if I could not look upon the conditions of the Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my self through goes workings If by our Graces you mean Habits I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant For what you say of the Papists you know how fundamentally almost they differ from me in this confounding the Covenants Righteousness c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my self I would shew wherein For your question How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned You know I have fully answered it both in the Aphorisms and Appendix And I would rather you had given me one discovery of the insufficiency of that answer then asked the Question again Briefly thus Guilt is an obligation to punishment as it is here to be understood Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation or Guilt and Punishment All Punishment is due by some Law According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience c. deserve punishment and Christ hath satisfied that Law and procured forgiveness of these imperfections and so acquit us from Guilt and punishment The new Law or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers and so not to the imperfection of our Faith Love Obedience where they are sincere And where the Law threatneth not Punishment there is no obligation to Punishment or Guilt on the party from that Law and so no work for Pardon Imperfect believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly and it condemneth none for imperfection of degree where there is sincerity No man is ever pardoned whom the new Law condemneth that is final Unbelievers or Rejecters of Christ So that Christ removeth or forgiveth that obligation to punishment which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfections And for the Law of Grace where it obligeth not
not every man that is saved so fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant and so is Evangelically righteous The condition is not Believe and obey perfectly but sincerely Quest 13. If there be no such thing as a personal Righteousness necessary to salvation besides imputed Righteousness 1. What is the meaning of all those Scriptures cited Thes 22. that say there is 2. And of our Divines that say there is inherent Righteousness And 3. What real difference between the godly and the wicked the saved and damned Quest 14. Have you found out any lower place for Love and Obedience then to be bare conditions if you acknowledge them any way conducible to final Justification or Salvation If you have what place is it and how called and why hath it not been discovered unto the world To say they are qualifications of the Subject is too general and comprizeth qualifications of different Natures and it shews not how they are conducible to the said ends and why a man may not be saved without qualifications as well as with them if God have not made them so much as conditions Quest 15. Seeing I ascribe not to Evangelical Obedience the least part of Christs Office or Honor nor make it any jot of our legal Righteousness where then lies the error or danger of my Doctrine Quest 16. Do not those men that affirm we have an inherent Righteousness which is so pronounced properly by the Law of works accuse the Law of God for blessing and cursing the the same man and action And how can that Law pronounce a man or his action righteous which curseth him and condemneth him to Hell for that same Action It makes me amazed to think what should be the reason that Divines contest so much that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently righteous which they know condemns them rather then the Law of Grace or new Covenant which they know absolveth them that sincerely perform it When all Divines acknowledge an inherent Righteousness and that the Law of Works is fulfilled by none and that it pronnunceth none righteous but the fulfillers and when the condition of the new Covenant must be performed by all that will be saved and when the Holy Ghost saith that it was by faith and so pronounced and measured by the Law of faith that Abel the second Righteous man in the world offered the excellent Sacrifice and by it obtained witness that he was righteous God testifying of his gift c. Heb. 11.4 Quest 17. Do not those Divines that will affirm that our inherent Righteousness is so called from its imperfect conformity to the Law of works and that it is the Law that pronounceth them righteous lay a clear ground for Justification by works in the worst sense for if the Law pronounce their works and them properly righteous then it justifieth them and then what need have they at least so far of Christ or Pardon yea and what Law shall condemn them if the Law of Works justifie them At least do they not compound their Righteousness as to the law of Works partly of Christs satisfaction and partly of their own Works Quest 18. Whether you should not blame Dr. Preston Mr. Norton Mr. Culverwel Mr. Throgmorton c. for laying by the good sound definition of Faith as you call it as well as me And is it not great partiality to let the same pass as currant from them which from me must be condemned And why would you agree to such a corrupt definition being one of the Assembly when theirs in the lesser Catechism and indeed both is in sence the very same with mine And why may not I be judged Orthodox in that point when I heartily subscribe to the National Assemblies Definition viz. that Faith is a saving Grace whereby we receive and rest on Christ alone for Salvation as he is offered to us in the Gospel Qu. 19. Do I say any more then the Assembly saith in the preceding Question What doth God require of us that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin Answ God requireth of us to escape the said wrath and curse c. Faith in Jesus Christ repentance unto life with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption And is not Justification one benefit And is not final Justification a freeing us from that Curse Quest 20. Which call you the good sound definition of Faith When our famous Reformers placed it in Assurance Camero and others in perswasion such as is in the understanding others in Assent as Dr. Downam c. Others in a Belief of Gods special Love and that sin is pardoned Others in Affiance or Recumbency Others in divers of these Some as Mr. Ball calling it a fiducial Assent Others an obediential Affiancce Did not each of these forsake that which by the former was accounted the good sound Definition And why may not I with Dr. Preston Mr. Wallis c. say it is an Acceptance or consent joyned with Assent or with the Assembly and the rest say it is a receiving which is the same in a more Metaphorical term Quest 21. If you judge as Melanchton John Crocius Davenant Amesius c. that Faith is in both faculties how can you then over-leap the Elicite Acts of the will which have respect to means Eligere consentive uti Quest 22. If the formal reason of justifying faith lie in a Belief or Perswasion that Christ will pardon and save us or in an Affiance or resting on him or Trusting to him only for Salvation or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour meerly to justifie and save from Hell Why then are not almost all among us justified and saved when I scarce meet with one of an hundred that is not unfeignedly willing that Christ should pardon and justifie and save them and do verily trust that Christ will do it and the freer it is the better they like it If they may whore and drink and be covetous and let alone all the practise of Godliness and yet be saved they will consent If it be said that they rest not on Christ for Justification sincerely I Ans. They do it really and unfeignedly and not dissemblingly which as we may know in all probability by others so we may know it certainly by our own hearts while unregenerate So that it is not the natural but the moral Truth that is wanting And what is that And wherein is the Essential formal difference between a wicked mans resting on Christ for Justification and a true Believers To say it is seen in the Fruits is not to shew the Essential difference Quest 23. If resting on Christ for Justification be the only condition of final Justification What is the reason that Perkins Bolton Hooker Preston Taylor Elton Whately and all the godly Divines also yet living do spend most of their labour to bring men to obey Christ as their Lord
then some other and but propter aliud quasi conditio conditionis and if you say so of Repentance c. we should not disagree You say In other things I come off and so mollifie my assertions that you need not contend Answ 1. I would you had told me wherein I so come off For I know not of a word If you mean in that I now say obedience is no condition of our first attaining justification but only of the continuance of it c. I said the same over and over in my book and lest it should be over-lookt I put it in the Index of distinctions If you mean not this I know not what you mean 2. But if explication of my self will so mollifie and prevent contending I shall be glad to explain my self yet further Yea and heartily to recant where I see my error For that which you desire I demonstrate that its By love and Through love c. I have answered before by distinguishing of the sense of By and Through and in my sense I have brought you forty plain Texts in my book for proof of it which shew it is no new Doctrine To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you say that Abrahams justification is the pattern of all others I conceive that an uncouth speech strange to Scripture for phrase and proper sense though in a large sense tolerable and true Certain I am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we are justified by faith without the works of the Law but as certain that our faith must differ from Abrahams even in the essentials of it We must believe that this Jesus is he or we shall dye in our sins which Abraham was not required to believe Our faith is an explicite Assent and Consent to the Mediators Offices viz. that he be our Lord and Saviour and a Covenanting with him and giving up our selves to him accordingly But whether Abrahams and all recited in Heb. 11. were such is questionable Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern seems to be it that occasioned Grotius to give that wretched definition of faith Annot. in loc that it is but a high estimation of Gods power and wisdom and faithfulness in keeping his promises c. yet I know he came short also of describing that faith which he lookt on as the pattern My first answer was that I exclude also any effective co-operation to which you say Why do we strive about words c. I see that mens conceivings are so various that there is no hopes that we should be in all things of one mind Because I was loth to strive about words therefore I distinguished between causality and conditionality knowing that the word By was ambiguous when we are said to be justified By faith c. now you take this distinguishing to be striving about words to avoid which you would bring we back to the ambiguous term again Whereas I cannot but be most confident that as guile is most in Generals so there would be nothing else between us but striving about words if we dispute on an unexplained term and without distinction Do you indeed think that to be an efficient cause of our justification and to be a bare condition is all one or do you think the difference to be of no moment You say I do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Answ 1. You should have said Let the sense or way of justifying be what it will for sure the difference between an efficient cause and a condition is more then in the expression or else I have been long mistaken 2. I do not exclude God justifying Christ justifying the Word justifying c. and yet to distinguish between the way that these justifie in and the way in which faith justifies I take to be no striving about words but of as high concernment as my salvation is worth 3. Either you mislike my phrase or my sense if the phrase then you mislike the word of God which saith a man is justified by works and not by faith only If the sense then you should not fall upon the phrase and then to distinguish and explain is not to strive about words 4. If I do bring faith and obedience neerer in justification then others it is not by giving more to works then others but by giving less to faith And if in that I err you should have fallen on that and shewed it and not speak still as if I gave more to works then you I am sure I give less to man and therefore no less than you to Christ I perceive not the least disadvantage herein that I lye open to but only the odium of the phrase of justification by works with men that are carried by prejudice and custome 5. I will not quarrel about such a word but I like not your phrase of Faith justifying and works justifying for it is fitter to introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them then to say We are justified by faith and by works which are only the Scripture phrase and signifie but a conditionality To that you say out of Phil. 3.9 I believe Paul doth most appositely oppose the righteousness which is by faith to that which is by the Law But then 1. He means not By faith as an instrument of justification 2. Nor by faith which is but a meer affiance on Christ for justification or only as such 3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge Repentance Obedience c. 4. But to say that righteousness or justification is by love or by obedience c. Without adding any more is not a convenient speech as it is to say that righteousness is by faith 1. Because the speech seems to be of the first receiving of righteousness wherein obedience or works have no hand 2. Because faith having most clear direct relation to Christ doth most plainly point out our righteousness to be in him 3. Because faith as it is taken in the Gospel is a most comprehensive grace containing many acts and implying or including many others which relate to Christ as the object also Even obedience to Christ is implyed as a necessary subsequent part of the condition seeing faith is an accepting of Christ as Lord and King and Head and Husband as well as a justifier 5. Yet Scripture saith as well as I that Christ shall justifie us By his knowledge and we shall be justified by our words and by works and me thinks it should be no sin to speak the words of God except it be shewed that I misunderstand them It is not so fit a phrase to say that a poor ignoble woman was made rich and honorable by her Love or Obedience or Marriage faithfulness and conjugal actions as to say it was by marriage with such a Noble man or consent to take him to be her husband For the marriage consent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affection action and faithfulness Yet are these last
as flat conditions of her continuing her enjoyments as the marriage Covenant was of first obtaining them To my second Answer you shew that Paul excludes works under any notion 1. From his opposition between faith and works where you say I contradict Paul and give a tertium To which I answer to distinguish of Pauls terms and explain his meaning in his own words is not to give a tertium or contradict but this is all that I do I distinguish of the word Works sometime it is taken more largely for Acts or Actions and so James takes it sometimes more strictly for only such Actions as a Labourer performeth for his Wages or which make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt So Paul tells you that he understandeth or useth the term Rom. 4.4 usually therefore calling them Works of the Law Now he that excludes Works only under this notion doth not therefore exclude them under every notion Where you add that Pauls opposition is between Faith and any thing of ours I answer 1. Is not Faith ours as much Love c 2. Are not Knowledge Words Works ours by all which God saith we are justified 3. There is no such Scripture where Paul makes any such opposition but only he renounceth his own Righteousness which is of the Law Phil. 3.8 9. and any thing of our own that may be called Works in the stricter sence Your second is because Paul excludes Abrahams works c. Answer 1. You make my tertium to be works that are of Grace and here again works that flow from Grace and say Abrahams were not by meer strength of the Law But these are no words of mine nor is it candid to feign them to be mine but that I impute it to your haste I believe you remembred so well the words of Andradius Bellarmine and other Papists that they dropped from your pen in haste in stead of mine nor is my sence any whit like theirs for I speak not of the efficient cause of works Nature or Grace nor the meer command requiring them when I speak of Law and Gospel but the full entire Covenant or Law consisting of all its parts and so making our Acts the conditions of the Punishment or Reward as I have opened over and over in my Book 2. You ask Were Abrahams works in opposition to that c Answer 1. Paul excludes also works in co-ordination with Christ and so do I. 2. Yea and works supposed to be subordinate to Christ which are not capable of a real subordination 3. but not such as are truly subordinate from being such conditions as is before said 4. You seem to me to mistake Paul much as if he took it for granted that Abraham had such works which Paul disputeth against but could not be justified by them Whereas I doubt not to say that Paul contrarily supposeth that Abraham had no such Works which make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace and therefore could not be justified by them Your third Argument is because imputing covering all is wholly attributed to God Answer I doubt not but that God is the only Principal efficient Cause and his Promise or Covenant the Instrumental therefore I cannot think as others that man is the efficient Instrumental by believing or that Faith is such But what Is all therefore attributed to God Even the performance of the Conditions on mans part Or are there no such conditions which man must perform himself or perish God only covereth sin imputeth Righteousness c. but to none who have not performed the Conditions Is Believing attributed to God or is it an act of man Or is it excluded When will you prove the Consequence of this Argument Your fifth Argument is because the Assertion is universal without works in general Answer 1. Doth not the Apostle contradict you by expounding himself in the very next verse before those you cite Rom. 4.4 That by works he means not simply good Actions as James doth but such as make the reward to be of debt and not of Grace Indeed such works are universally excluded 2. Therefore he excludes the very presence of works and saith to him that worketh not c. ver 5. But the presence of good actions you say is not excluded Your last Argument seems to me the same with the fourth and it forceth me to admire that you should think the consequence good Blessedness is when sin is forgiven therefore no work or good act performed by man is the condition of forgiveness either as begun or continued or consummate If this be not your consequence you say nothing against me if it be I assure you it is not in my Power to believe it nor to discern the least shaddow of probability of truth in it nor to free it from the charge of being the grossest Antinomianism si pace tui ità dicam And here I must needs tell you also my utter disability to reconcile you with your self for you before say they are media ordinata and here you say They are excluded under any notion As if to be a medium were no notion or the medium did nothing in or to the very justifying of the person To my next Answer If works be excluded under any notion then James his words cannot be true that we are justified by works You reply If there be justifying works how saith Paul true I answer This is a most evident Petitio principii It is undeniable that James includeth works under some notion and that Paul excludeth them under some other notion now therefore I might well ask How saith James true else Because my supposition cannot be denyed But you suppose that Paul excludeth works under any notion which is the very Question and is denyed When you ask how saith Paul true Paul saith true because he speaks of works strictly taken as is by himself explained James could not say true if works under every notion as you say be excluded Next you come to reconcile them by expounding James where you say Faith which in respect of its Act ad intra only justifies yet it works ad extra fides quae viva non qua viva I answer What 's this to the Question The Question is not whether Faith work Nor whether Faith justifie Nor what Faith justifieth But in what sence James saith we are justified by works and not by Faith only You answer by a direct contradiction to James if I can reach the sence of your Answer saying It is by Faith only and that not as it liveth c. So dare not I directly say it is not by works when God saith it is but think I am bound to distinguish and shew in what sence works justifie and in what not and not to say flatly against God that we are not justified by works under any notion but only by the Faith which worketh A denyal of Gods Assertions is an ill expounding of them To what you say of the
reign is part of that faith which justifies Even willingness of his Reign as well as to be pardoned justified and saved from Hell by him or else few among us would perish For I never met with the man that was unwilling of these 3. And then it will easily appear Whether your Doctrine or mine be the more safe 1. Yours hath the many inconveniences already mentioned It maketh man his own justifier or the causa proxima of his own Justification and by his own Act to help God to justifie us for so all instruments do help the principal cause And yet by a self-contradiction it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth and so no vertue or grace Yea I think it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God Many such wayes it seemeth to wrong the Father and the Mediator 2. And it seemeth also to wrong mens souls in point of safety both by drawing them so to wrong God and also by laying grounds to encourage them in presumption For when they are taught that the receiving of Christs righteousness or of Christ for justification or the confident expectation of pardon or resting on Christ for it or a particular perswasion of it c. Is justifying faith and when they find these in themselves as undoubtedly they may will this much or else they cannot presume Is it not easie then to think they are safe when they are not As I said I never yet met with the man that was not willing to be Justified and saved from Hell by Christ and I dare say Really willing and but with few that did not expect it from Christ and trust him for it Now to place Justifying faith only in that which is so common and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made essential to faith as Justifying is strange For knowing that the godly themselves have fowly sinned and that no man can perish that hath Justifying faith how can they choose but presume when they find that which is called Justifying faith undoubtedly in themselves And to tell them it is not sincere or true because they receive not Christ also as King and Prophet and yet that such receiving is no part of justifying faith This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without it self a strange Truth in a signal concomitant and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant sign when he certainly feeleth the thing it self Will not such think they may sin salva fide When as if they were rightly taught that justifying saving faith as such is the receiving of Christ for Saviour and Lord and so a giving up themselves both to be saved and guided by him then they would find that faith in Christ and sincere obedience to Christ have a little neerer relation and then a man might say to such a presumer as I remember Tertullian excellently doth De poenitent Operum pag. mihi 119. Caeterum non leviter in Domixum peccat qui quum amulo ejus Diabolo poenitentiâ renunciasset hoc nomine illum Domino subjecisset rursus â—undem regressusuo erigit exultatione ejus seipsum facit ut denuo malus recuperata praeda sua adversus Dominâ—m gaudeat Nonne quod dicere quoque periculosum est sed ad adificationem proferendum est dâ—abolum Domino praeponit Comparationem enim videtur egisse qui utrumque cognoverit judicato pronunciasse â—um meliorem cujus se rursus esse maluerit c. Sed aiunt quidam satis Deum habere si corde animo suspiciatur licet actu minus fiat itaque se salvo metu Fide peccare Hoc est salva castitate Matrimonia violare salva pietate parenti venenum temperare sic ergo ipsi salva venia in Gehennans detrudentur dum salvo metu peccant Again your Doctrine seemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are justified and shall be saved and how can they know that who know not whether they have faith and how can they know that when they know not what justifying saith is and how can they know what it is when it is by Divines involved in such a cloud and maze of difficulties some placing it in this act and some in that and some in a Passive instrumentality which few understand If any man in the world do For the Habit of faith that cannot be felt or known of it self immediately but by its acts for so it is concluded of all Habits Suarez Metap T. 2. disp 44 § 1. pag 332. and instead of the act we are now set to enquire after the passion and so in the work of examination the business is to enquire how and when we did passively receive righteousness or justification or Christ for these which let him answer for himself that can for I cannot But now on the other side what inconvenience is there in the Doctrine of faith and justification as I deliver it As it is plain and certain saying no more then is generally granted so I think it is safe Do I ascribe any of Christs honour in the work to man No man yet hath dared to charge me with that to my knowledge and no considerate man I believe will do it I conclude that neither faith nor works is the least part of our legal righteousness or of that righteousness which we must plead against the accuser for our justification which is commonly called by Divines the matter of our justification The Law which we have broken cannot be satisfied nor God for the breach of it in the least measure by our faith or obedience nor do they concur as the least degree of that satisfaction But we must turn the Law over wholly to our Surety Only whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the said justification and salvation I say these conditions must needs be performed and that by our selves and who dare deny this and I say that the performance of these conditions is our Evangelical righteousness in reference to that Covenant as Christs satisfaction is our legal Righteousness in reference to that first Covenant or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteousness if we had so obeyed And for them that speak of inherent Righteousness in any other sense viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works rather then as a true conformity to the Law or Covenant of grace I renounce their Doctrine both as contradictory to it self and to the truth and as that which would make the same Law to curse and bless the same man and which would set up the desperate Doctrine of Justification by the works of the Law For if men are righteous in reference to that Law then they may be so far justified by it Nor do I ascribe to works any part of the office or
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
his faith is counted for righteousness Answ 1. I suppose the Reader understandeth that the Legal or rather Pro-legal Righteousness that I plead for is Christs Merits and Satisfaction made over to us for the effects and that the personal Evangelical Righteousness is our believing and repenting Now that these are both necessary this very Text proveth which he citeth against it For the necessity of Christs meritorious Righteousness he will not deny that it is here implyed and the necessity of our own faith is twice exprest To him that believeth his faith is counted for righteousness If it be the Being of Faith that this Brother would exclude it is here twice exprest If it be only the naming it a righteousness That name also is here exprest How could he have brought a plainer evidence against himself 2. To his Argument I distinguish of Vngodliness If it be taken for an unregenerate impenitent unbeliever then I deny the Mâ—nor at least in sensu composito A person in the instant of Justification is not an unbeliever This Text shameth him that will affirm it But if by Vngodly be meant Sinners or persons unjustifyable by the works of the Law who are legally impious then I deny the consequence of the Major Do I need to tell a Divine that a man may be a sinner and a penitent Believer at once The Syriack and Ethiopick translating the word sinners do thus expound the Text and it s the common Exposition of most judicious Divines It is not of the Apostles meaning to tell you that God justifieth impenitent Infidels or haters of God but that he justifieth sinners legally condemned and unworthy yet true Believers as the Text expresseth 3. If any reject this Exposition and will take ungodly here for the Impenitent then the other Exposition solveth his Objection viz. They were Impenitent and Unbelievers in the instant next foregoing but not in the instant of Justification For faith and Justification are in the same instant of time 4. Rather then believe that God justifieth Infidels contrary to the text I would interpret this Text as Beza doth some other as speaking of Justification as comprehending both Conversion and Forgiveness even the conferring of Inherent and Imputed Righteousness both and so God justifieth Infidels themselves that is giveth them first faith and Repentance and then forgiveness and eternal life in Christ 5. But I wonder at his proof of his Sequel Because he who is ungodly is not legally righteous what is that to the Question It is Legal righteousness in Christ that Justification giveth him Therefore we all suppose he hath it not before But he is personally Evangelically Righteous as soon as he Believes so far as to be a true performer of the Condition of Justification and then in the same instant he receiveth by Justification that Righteousness of Christ which answereth the Law Mr. W. If nothing ought to be asserted by us which ever-throws Apostolical writings then the necessity of a two-fold righteousness ought not to be asserted But Ergo. The Sequel is proved by this Dilemma Apostolical writings are utterly against a two-fold Righteousness in this work therefore to assert both these kinds is to overthrow their writings For to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by works of the Law if the righteousness of Faith were not sufficient And certainly if both were required as absolutely necessary it would argue extream ignorance in Paul if he should not have known it and as great unfaithfulness if c. Answ Either this Writer owns the two-fold Righteousness that he disputeth against or not If he did not he were an Infidel or wretched Heretick directly denying Christ or Faith For Christ is the one Righteousness and faith the other If he do own them as I doubt not at all but he doth is it not good service to the Church to pour out this opposition against words not understood and to make men believe that the difference is so material as to overthrow the Scriptures But to his Argument I deny the consequence of the Major and how is it proved forsooth by a Dilemma which other folks call an Enthymeme Of which the Antecedent That Apostolical writings are against a two-fold righteousness is proved by this Writers word A learned proof I into which this Disputations are ultimately resolved It is the very work of Pauls Epistles to prove the necessity of this Two-fold Righteousness unless you will with the Papists call it rather two parts of one Righteousness Christs merits and mans faith one in our surety the other wrought by him in our selves But saith he to what purpose did Paul dispute against Justification by the works of the Law If the Righteousness of faith were not sufficient I answer you 1. Because no man hath a personal legal Righteousness But Paul never disputed against a legal Righteousness in Christ or his fulfilling the Law or being made a curse for us Do you think he did 2. A Righteousness of faith is sufficient for it signifieth this two-fold righteousness 1. That righteousness which faith accepteth which is of Faith because proclaimed in the Gospel and is the object of Faith and yet it is legal in that it was a Conformity to the Law and satisfaction to the Law-giver 2. Faith it self which is a particular subservient Evangelical Rigeteousness for the application and possession of the former And now was here a fit occasion to speak reproach fully of Paul as extream ignorant or unfaithful or immanis sophista and all because he would not deny either Christ or Faith Sure Paul hath let us see by revealing both that he was neither ignorant unfaithfull nor a Sophister Mr. W. 4. If both Legal and Evangelical righteousness were thus required to the purpose of justifying then it must be because the Evangelical is of it self insufficient But For if Christs righteousness be insufficient to Salvation he were not a sufficient Saviour and if the Righteousness of Faith in him were of it self insuffient Answ By this time I am tempted to repent that I medled with this Brother If he live to read over a reply or two he may possibly understand them that he writes against He will prove that a Legal Righteousness is not necessary because Christs righteousness which is it that I called legal is sufficient It s sufficient alone therefore not Necessary Am not I like to have a fair hand think you of this Disputer To his Argument once more I distinguish Evangelical righteousness it twofold 1. That which the Gospel revealeth and offereth and this is Christs righteousness therefore called Evangelical but also Legal because it answered the rule of the Law of works and its ends 2. That which the Gospel hath made the Condition of our part in Christ and his righteousness and this is Faith it self Both these are sufficient to Justification but Faith is neither sufficient nor is Faith without Christs legal righteousness And Christ is sufficient Hypothetically but
will not be effectual to our Justification without Faith and repentance But perhaps this Writer means only to shew his offence against my naming Christs righteousness legal If that be so 1. I have given in my reasons because there can be no better reason of a name then from the form and the form of Christs righteousness being relative even a conformity to the Law of works and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption I thought did sufficiently warrant this name 2. The rather when I find not only that he is said to fulfill the Law and all righteousness and be made a curse for us but also to be righteous with that righteousness which is denyed of us which can be none but a legal or prolegal righteousness 3. But yet if the name Legal be all I could easily have given this Brother leave to differ from me about a name without contention and methinks he might have done the like by me Mr. W. Object But what if works and faith were both of them applyed to procure our Justification Answ This Objection yet further shews that the Author understands me not if it be me as I have reason to judge that he writeth against for he supposeth that its works that I call a legal Righteousness when I still tell him it is Christs satisfaction and fulfilling the Law of which our faith or works are no part but a subordinate particular Evangelical Righteousness Mr. W. 5. If both these kinds of Righteousness were absolutely necessary then where one of them is wanting in a person there can be no Justification of that person But Ergo. For where was any Legal Righteousness of the good thief on the Cross condemned for legal unrighteousness Answ I deny your minor The converted thief had a legal righteousness hanging on the next Cross to him even Christ that then was made a curse for him and was obedient to the death of the Cross I begin to be a weary in writing so much only to tell men that you understand me not Mr. W. 6. If legal Righteousness be thus necessarily to be joined with our Evangelical Righteousness to Justification then there must be two formal causes of Justification Answ I deny your consequence If the formal cause consist in remission and imputation as you say then Christs meritorious righteousness is none of the Form but the Matter And if besides that Matter a subservient particular righteousness of faith be necessary as the condition of our Title to Christ this makes not two forms of this Justification 2. And yet I grant you that it infers a subservient Justification that hath another form when you are made a Believer or justified against the false charge of being no Believer or penitent this is not remission of sin but another form and thing Mr. W. 7. That which maketh void Christs death cannot be absolutely necessary to Justification But legal righteousness makes void his Death Gal. 2.21 Answ It s a sad case that we must be charged with making void Christs Death for saying that he is legally Righteous by satisfying and fulfilling the Law and that this is all the legal righteousness that we have I am bold therefore to deny the Minor yea and to reverse it on you and tell you that he that denyeth Christs legal Righteousness denyeth both his death and obedience The Text Gal. 2.21 speaks not of the Law as fulfilled by Christ but by us Righteousness comes not by our keeping the Law but it came by Christs keeping it yet so that the Gospel only giveth us that righteousness of his Mr. W. 8. That which concurs with another efficient must have both an aptitude and Confluence to produce the effect but the Law and consequently Legal righteousness hath no aptitude to give life Gal. 3.2 Answ This is Disputing enough to make one tremble and loath Disputing Is there no aptitude in Christs legal Righteousness to give us life The Law doth not give us righteousness but it denominateth Christ righteous for fulfilling it and the Law-giver for satisfying and to that it had a sufficient aptitude The Text Gal. 3.2 saith truly that the Law giveth not life but first it speaks of the Law as obeyed by us and not by Christ that fulfilled it Secondly And indeed its speaks of Moses Law and not directly of that made with Adam Thirdly And it denies not that Christ fulfilling it may give us life though the Law it self give us none so that all this is besides the business Mr. W. 9. That Doctrine which doth most exalt the Grace of God ought to be admitted before that which doth least exalt it But the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone as our Gospel-righteousness doth most exalt his Grace and the other less Ergo. Answ Still misunderstanding Doth the Doctrine of faith alone without Christ advance Grace That 's no faith You do not think so that which denyeth Christ or faith denyeth Grace Mr. W. 10. That opinion which considereth a person under a two-fold Covenant at the same time ought not to be admitted But to require both Legal and Evangelical Righteousness is to consider him under the Covenant of works and Grace I conclude therefore that two sorts of righteousness are not necessarily required to our Justification Answ How far we are or are not under the Covenant of works I will not here trouble you by digressing in this rambling Dispute to enquire But to your Minor I say this opinion considereth man only under the curse of the Law till Christ take it off him by being made a curse for us and making over the fruit of his merits and suffering to us Mr. W. 2. As for the Subjects of these kinds of Righteousness I thus declare 1. That Jesus Christ and he alone who was truly endued with Legal righteousness who as he was made under the Law so he did not destroy but fulfill it and if he had not been the subject of Legal righteousness in himself he could not have been the Author of Evangelical Righteousness to us Answ Here after all these Arguments I have all that granted me that I contend for supposing the Imputation or Donation of Christs Righteousness to us whether in se or in â—ffectis I now dispute not You have here his full confession that Christ had a legal Righteousness Let him but grant the imputation of this and then it s ours And then I have granted him that it may be also called Evangelical in another respect Mr. W. pag. 166. I think it to be no incongruity in speech or Paradox in Divinity to say that Christs Legal righteousness is our Evangelical righteousness 1 Cor. 1.30 2 Cor. 5.21 Jer. 23.8 Answ Sure we shall agree anon for all the ten Arguments Here 's all granted but the name as to us Many and many a time I have said that Christs Righteousness made ours is Legal in respect to the Law that it was a conformity to and which it answereth for us but
not Evangelical but Legal or it is in us and not in us Had you only pleaded that we are not justified by it as a Righteousness I should have answered you as before on that point Not as a Legal Righteousness nor an Evangelical Righteousness co-ordinate with Christs but as a fulfilling of the Condition of that Promise which gives us Christ and Pardon and Life by which performance of the Condition the Benefit becomes ours by the Will and Grant of the free Donor and we are no longer impenitent Infidels but just and justifiable from the false charge of being such and so of not having part in Christ It s one thing to be accused of sin as sin And another thing to be accused of the special sin of not accepting the Remedy and so of having no part in Christ and his Righteousness From the later we must have a real Faith and Title to Christ which must materially justifie us but from the former even from all sin that ever we are guilty of Christs Righteousness only justifieth us materially and meritoriously and our faith is but a bare condition A Confutation of the Error of Mr. Warners 13th Chapter about Justification and the interest of Obedience therein HE begins with a false Intimation that we revive the Papists first and second Justification and he that will believe him may take his course for me I crave only liberty for my self to believe that it is not all one to have Justification begun and continued and that Justification by the sentence of the Judge is not of the same kind with Justification Legal by the Donation of the Gospel If I may not have this Reverend Brothers leave to believe these matters I will believe them without his leave And that the Papists have such friends among us as those that make the world believe that such things as these are Popery I will also lament though such Disputers give not their consent His Endeavours to overthrow that Doctrine of mine which he nameth of second Justification begin pag. 223. where he argueth 1. from Rom. 5. 1 2 3. That the beginning and end is ascribed to faith Answer It s all granted faith is it that we are justified by to the last We are agreed of this inclusively But the Question is what 's the Exclusion Not believing in Christ as Lord and Master nor loving him but the works that make or are supposed to make that Reward to be of debt and not of Grace His second proof is from Phil. 3.7 8. To which I answer We are of Pauls mind but not of yours 1. He counted all as loss and dung that stood in opposition to or competition with Christ and so would I do by faith and love it self should they be so arrogant 2. Paul expresly nameth the works that he excludeth that is the Righteousness which is of the Law or in Legal works And do we make any doubt of this No nor of those works that materially are Evangelical for if they are formally Evangelical they cannot be set up against Christ their very nature being to subserve him Once for all remember this Argument Those works that are commanded by God in the Gospel are not excluded by God in the Gospel in that nature and to the use for which they are commanded But faith in Christ Jesus the Lord and Saviour an entire faith and Repentance towards God and love to him are commanded by God in the Gospel in order to the pardon of sin and the continuance of these with sincere Obedience are commanded as means of our continued pardon and as a means of our final Justification at Judgement Therefore none of these are excluded by the Gospel from any of these uses or ends He citeth also Act. 15. and Heb. 2.9 and Rom. 1.17 to as much purpose as the rest Pag. 228. He begins his Arguments The first is Because in vain are additions of numbers without which any thing may be done But without addition of works the act of justifying is perfect Ergo. Answer 1. As if the Question were of the Act of justifying and not of Justification passively taken Gods act hath no imperfection when yet it maketh not a perfect work 2. It s but spleen and partiality to harp upon the term works still to seduce your Readers to believe that I am for such works as Paul denyeth I use not the phrase of Justification by works nor think it fit to be used unless rarely or to explain such texts of Scripture as do use it or terms equipollent 3. Justification is neither perfect nor real without a faith in Christ as Head and Husband and Lord and Teacher and Intercessor as well as a Sacrifice for sin Nor is it perfect or true without repenting and loving Christ 4. Justification is so far perfect at first as that no sin past or existent is unpardoned But it is not so perfect but that 1. Many future sins must have renewed pardon 2. And means is to be used by us believing again at least for that end 3. And the continuance of pardon is given us but conditionally though we shall certainly perform the condition 4. And the most perfect sort of Justification by sentence at Judgement is still behind Are these things doubtfull among Divines or Christians That the Church must be thus molested by such disputing volumes against it to make the Papists and other enemies believe we hold I know not what Read the many Arguments of learned Sandford and Parker de Descensu and Bp. Vsher de Descensu to the Jesuite by which they prove that all separated souls as separated are under penalty and that Christs soul as seperated was so and then tell us whether your fancy of absolutely perfect Justification at the first will hold or not I wonder that men should so little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven a sinner in flesh and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God and should dream of such perfection short of heaven the place of our perfection His second Argument is Faith and works are here contrary If of Faith then not of works Answer It s true of the works that Paul excludes but not of the works that you exclude For Faith in Christ is Works with such as you save only that act that resteth on his satisfaction for righteousness And repentance and love to Christ and denying our own righteousness are works with you And all these are necessarily subservient to Christ and Grace and therefore not contrary Augustine and after him the School-men put it into their most common definition of Grace that its a thing qua nemo male utitur And as to efficiency it s certainly true Grace doth not do any harm And if I may presume to tell Augustine that objectively Grace may be ill used yet perhaps he might reply not qua talis without contradiction In good sadness Is it not a strange thing for a man in his wits to expect to be
causes of our Justification For you say Faith is a Total cause and there can be but one Total Cause unless you lose the honor of your Philosophy 2. Faith is no proper cause at all 3. Did you not see what must needs be answered you That Faith is interrupted as well as Obedience and yet no intercision of our Justification When we sleep we do not at least alway act faith no more then obedience if so much And the habit of both continueth together sleeping and waking And if you should give over love and sincerity of obedience you would cease to be justified His last Argument is Because for sins after Conversion we must have recourse only by faith to Christ as our Advocate Answer 1. That speaks only of renewed pardon for particular sins but not of our Justification at Judgement nor the non-omission here 2. We must have recourse to Christ with Repentance and esteem and self-denial and desire c. as well as that act of faith which you plead for as the total cause And when you would set Zanchy against Zanchy you do but mis-understand him He saith truly with Paul that neither in whole or part are our own works such as Paul speaks of our Righteousness that is to answer the Law as Paul mentioneth or any way to merit or satisfie or stand in co-ordination with Christ But Zanchy never thought that Repentance and Faith in Christ as Head and Lord and Desire and Gratitude c. might be no means or Conditions of any sort of Justification or of that which we assert them to be means of I would answer much more of this Disputation but I am perswaded the judicious Reader will think I have done him wrong in troubling him with this much See pag. 298 299. how he answereth the Objection that pardon is promised to Repentance c. I will not disparage the Readers understanding so much as to offer him a Confutation of that and much more of the Book Only his many Arguments on the Question of my first Disputation I must crave your Patience while I examine briefly and I will tire you with no more Mr. W. pag. 411 412. I will rally up my Arguments against the foresaid Definition of Faith to be an accepting of Christ as Lord and Saviour proving that Christ only as Saviour and Priest offering himself up to the death of the Cross for our sins is the proper Object of justifying Faith as justifying Argument 1. If the Faith of the Fathers under the old Testament was directed to Christ as dying Priest and Saviour then also the Faith of Believers now ought so to be directed But. Ergo. Answ 1. I grant the whole and never made question of it But what kin is the conclusion of this Argument to that which you had to prove unless Only had been added Did we ever deny that Faith must be directed to Christ as Priest 2. A Saviour is a term respecting our whole Salvation and so Christ saveth by Teaching Ruling and judicial justifying as well as dying 3. The Fathers faith did not respect Christ as dying or satisfying only which you should prove but cannot Mr. W. Argument 2. If Christ as dying and as Saviour do satisfie Gods Justice and pacifie a sinners conscience then as dying and Saviour he is the Object of justifying Faith But Ergo. Answ The same answer serveth to this as to the last The conclusion is granted but nothing to the Question unless Only had been in 2. Christ as obeying actively and Christ as Rising and as interceding and as judging as King doth also justifie us Rom. 5.19 Rom. 4 24 25. Rom. 8.33.34 Mat. 12.37 and 25.34 40. Peruse these Texts impartially and be ignorant of this if you can 3. And yet the Argument will not hold that no act of faith is the condition of Justification but those whose object is considered only as justifying The accepting of Christ to sanctifie us is a real part of the condition of Justification Mr. W. Argument 3. If Christ as Lord be properly the Object of fear then he is not properly the Object of Faith as justifying But Ergo. Answ 1. If Properly be spoken de proprio quarto modo then is Christ properly the Object of neither that is he is not the object of either of these Only 2. But if properly be opposed to a tropical analogical or any such improper speech then he is the Object as Lord both of fear and faith and obedience c. 3. The deceit that still misleads most men in this point is in the terms of reduplication faith as justifying which men that look not through the bark do swallow without sufficient chewing and so wrong themselves and others by meer words Once more therefore understand that when men distinguish between fides quae justificans and qua justificans and say Faith which justifieth accepteth Christ as Head and Lord but faith as justifying taketh him only as a Priest The very distinction in the later branch of it qua justificans Is 1. Either palpable false Doctrine 2. And a meer begging of the Question 3. Or else co-incident with the other branch and so contradictory to their assertion For 1. The common Intent and meaning is that Fides quae credit in Christum justificat And so they suppose that Faith is to be denominated formally justificans ab objecto qua objectum And if this be true then fides qua fides justificat For the object is essential to faith in specie And so in their sense fides quae justificans is but the implication of this false Doctrine that haec fides in Christum crucifixum qua talis justificat Which I never yet met with sober Divine that would own when he saw it opened For the nature and essence of faith is but its aptitude to the office of justifying and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo promittendi that assigneth it its office The nature of faith is but the Dispositio materiae but it s nearest interest in the effect is as a condition of the Promise performed 2. But if by the quâ justificans any should intend no more then to define the nature materially of that faith which is the condition of Justification then the qua and the qua is all one and then they contradict their own Assertion that fides quâ justificans non recipit Christum ut Dominum 3. If the quâ should relate to the effect then it would only express a distinction between Justification and other Benefits and not between faith and faith For then quâ justistcans should be contradistinct only from qua sanctificans or the like And if so it is one and the same Faith and the same acts of faith that sanctifie and justifie As if a King put into a gracious act to a company of Rebels that they shall be pardoned honoured enriched and all upon condition of their thankfull acceptance of him and of this act
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
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
p. 40 Whether the Law of Grace condemn any and how p. 44 45 The Distinction of sides quae justificat quâ justificat considered p. 46 c. MR. Blak's first Argument answered p. 53 Argument 2. answered p. 55 Argument 3. p. 57 Argument 4. p. 63 Argument 5. and 6. p. 64 Disputation 2. Quest WHether works are a condition of condition of Justification and so whether we are justified by works as such a condition The terms Works and Justification explained p. 70 71 The Term Condition explained p. 72 The Truth laid down in several Propositions p. 75 Negative and Affirmative The main Proposition proved p. 79 c. Quest Can Christ be Instrumental in justifying p. 84 Quest Did Christ expiate the sins that by the Gospel men are obliged to punishment for p. 86 Of Repentance and the habit of Faith in Justification p. 85 86 Quest Doth the Gospel justifie us p. 86 87 88 89 Other points briefly discussed p. 90 The Opponents stating of the Question p. 94 95 96 Divers unjust charges repelled p. 97 to 101 The Opponents Thesis and Arguments p. 101 102 How Abraham was justified debated to p. 110 All works make not the Reward to be not of Grace proved by six Arguments p. 111 to 115. And by Expositors p. 115 c. His second Argument from the difference put between faith and other Graces in Justification p. 118 The case of faiths Interest opened by a similitude p. 120 His third Argument considered Our first Justification how different from the following p. 122 123 His fourth Argument of self Righteousness and causal conditions p. 124 c. His Fifth Argument Works are the fruits therefore not the condition p. 128 His sixth Argument p. 132 His seventh Argument Of a twofold Righteousness or Justification p. 133 His eight Argument that cannot be a condition of Justification which it self needeth Justification p. 136 Answered Paul judgeth them dung p. 140 How justifying faith belongs to the Law and the difference between the Law and Gospel p. 142 More of Christs suffering for the violation of the new Covenant p. 146 His ninth Argument we fill men with doubts p. 147 Answered His tenth Argument p. 149 Of the reconciling of Paul and James p. 150. c. Letters that past between this Reverend Brother and me p. 157 In which is discussed the Argument from Abrahams Justification And in the last Letter these questions 1. Whether videre audire be only Grammatical actions and Physical Passions p. 194 c. 2. Whether Believing be only so and credere only pati p. 198 3. Whether Faith be passive in its Instrumentality p. 207 4. Whether the Opponents way make not other Graces as proper Instruments of Justification p. 211 5. Whether Faith be a proper Instrument of Justification p. 212 6. Question If Faith be an Instrument whether it justifie primarily and proxime as such or as an apprehension of Christ or Righteousness p. 214 7. Question which is the more clear safe and certain Doctrine p. 220 Repentance whether excluded p. 227 Of Faith relatively taken p. 228 Of the Assemblies Definition of faith p. 230 The Judgement of some Divines p. 233 c. whether a dying man may look on his own Acts as the Conditions of the Covenant performed p. 241 c. Further Explications p. 244. c. Disputation 3. Quest WHether Besides the Righteousness of Christ imputed there be a personal evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salvation Affir p. 259 Distinctions and Propositions Negative and Affirmative for explication p. 260 c. Proved p. 266 Objections answered p. 269 c. Mr. Warner's Arguments confuted p. 273 to 285 Mr. Warner's 13th chap. confuted about Justistcation and the Interest of Obedience c p. 286 Master Warner's Arguments answered by which he would exclude Christ as King c. from being the Object of justifying faith p. 293. c. The other chief passages in his Book considered p. 305 c. His distinction of fides quae qua p. 308 c. His Preface answered in an Epistle p. 313 MR. John Tombe's his friendly Animadversions on my Aphorisms with a Discussion of them p. 322 Justification in Law-title by the Promise fully vindicated p. 332 c. Whether Justification be a continued Act or but one Act. p. 341 c. Whether Faith comprize Love Subjection or other Graces at large p. 345 c. Whether Faith be only in the Intellect or also in the Will p. 354 c. Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as Lord c. p. 358 It is Faith and not only Love or other Graces by which the Will receiveth Christ p. 361. c. The Gospel is a Law p. 369 c. Repentance necessary to Justification p. 370 c. How Faith justifieth p. 377 Whether Christ had a Title on Earth to Rule p. 379 Of Christs universal Dominion and Redemption p. 380 More of the Justification by the Gospel-Promise p. 384 Of Preparatives to Justification p. 387 What Paul excludeth as opposite to faith in Justification p. 391 392 Of Intercision of Justification and the guilt of particular sins p. 393 c. Disputation 4. Quest WHether the Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification be one only Physical Act of the Soul Or Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of Faith be the works which Paul excludeth from Justification Neg. p. 399 The Question opened and it s proved that this Faith is not one only Act. 1. Either Numerically 2. Or of an inferior Genus so as to be of one only Faculty Nor only God the Father Christ Promise Pardon Heaven c. the Object 3. Nor in specie specielissima proved by many Arguments ERRATA PAge 6. line 23. read that 1. p. 13. l. 10. r. quae Christum p. 14. l. 9. r. promitentis I. 22. r. hath p. 18. l. 3. r. as this l. 34. r. proof of p. 19. â— 24. r. be the. l. 34. r. â— p. 21. l. 17. r. that be is p. 24. l. 35. r. thus p. 29. l. 13. r. though p. 32. l. 32 r. must be p. 39. l. 6. r. with p. 44. l. 1. r. I need p. 45. l. 30. r. Commination P. â—2 l. 11. r. as p. 55. l 26. r. nostri l. 32. r. exclusion p. 64. l. 30. r. Curse p. 74. l. 8. r. capitibus p. 81. l. 13. r. no. l. 20. r. All. p. 85. l. 6. blot out against p. 87. l. 22. r. that is l. 21. r. execution p. 88. l. 12. read there p. 94. l. 10. r. notion p. 95. l. 3. r. u. l. 9. r. your p. 99. l. 19 r. as mediate it p. 119. l. 36. r. as p. 135. â— 5. r. that he hath not p. 136. l. 18. r. Christ p. 139. l. 13. r. a means page 152. l. 17. r. been p. 166. l. 38. r. we may p. 168. r. Gods p. 170 l. 17. r signs p. 175. l. 15. r. divers p. 178. l. 19. r. be that works not p. 180.
by sentence in Judgement Thirdly The Execution of the former by actuall Liberation from penalty The last is oftener call'd Remission of sin the two former are more properly called Justification First As for the first of these I argue this If Christ do as King and Benefactor on supposition of his antecedent Merits Enact the Law of Grace or promise by which we are justified then doth he as King and Benefactor justifie us by Condonation or constitution For the Promise is his Instrument by which he doth it But the Antecedent is certain therefore so is the Consequent As the Father by Right of Creation was Rector of the new created world and so made the Covenant of Life that was then made so the Son and the Father by Right of Redemption is Rector of the new Redeemed world and so made the Law of Grace that gives Christ and Life to all that will believe As it is a Law it is the Act of a King As it is a Deed of Gift it is the Act of a Benefactor as it is founded in his death and supposeth his satisfaction thereby it is called his Testament In no respect is it part of his satisfaction or Humiliation or Merit itself but the true effect of it So that Christs merit is the Remote Moral Cause of our Justification but his granting of this promise or Act of Grace is the true natural efficient Instrumental Cause of our Justification even the Immediate Cause Secondly Justification by sentence of Judgement is undeniably by Christ as King For God hath appointed to Judge the World by him Act. 17.31 and hath committed all Judgement to him John 5.22 And therefore as Judge he doth justifie and Condemn This is not therefore any part of his Humiliation or Obedience by which he ransometh sinners from the Curse To deny these things is to deny Principles in Politicks Thirdly And then for the Execution of the sentence by actual liberation there is as little room for a doubt this being after both the former and the act of a Rector and not of a Surety in the form of a servant So that it is apparent that as the Merit of our Justification is by Christ in his Humiliation So our actual Justification in all three senses is by Christ as King And therefore Faith in order to Justification must accordingly respect him Secondly As the Teacher of the Church Christ doth not immediately justifie but yet mediately he doth and it is but mediately that he justifieth by his Merits The Gospel is a Law that must be promulgate and expounded and a Doctrine that must be taught and pressed on sinners till they receive it and believe that they may be justified And this Christ doth as the Teacher of his Church And Faith must accordingly respect him Thirdly The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was part of his exaltation by Power and Conquest and not of his Humiliation and yet we are justified by his Resurrection as that which both shewed the perfection of his satisfaction by which he entred upon that state of Glory in which he was to apply the benefits Fourthly The Intercession of Christ is a part of his office as he is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck but it is no part of his Humiliation or Ransome And yet we are justified by his Intercession And therefore Faith must respct it for Justification Let us now hear what The Scripture saith in these cases Mattthew 9.6 But that you may know that the Son of man hath Power on earth to forgive sins c. Here it is plainly made an Act of Power and not of Humiliation to forgive sins Mat. 11.27 28 29. All things are delivered unto me of my Father c. Come to me all ye that are weary c. so Mat. 28.18 19. compared with Mark 16.15 16. shew that it is an act of Christ exalted or in Power to pardon or grant the promise of Grace John 1.12 To give power to men to become the Sons of God must be an act of Power John 5.22 23 24. it is express of the sentence Acts 5.31 Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour for to give Repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins He forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour Act. 10.42 43. he is preached as the Judge of quick and dead and so made the Object of the faith by which we have Remission of sins Rom. 4.25 Who was delivered for our offences and raised for our justification And this Resurrection as is said was part of his Exaltation And the Apostle thence concludes as is aforesaid that this is the faith that is Imputed to us for Righteousness If we believe in him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead vers 26. Rom. 8.33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that died yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for us Here God and the Resurrection and Session at Gods right hand and the intercession of Christ are all made the grounds or causes of our Justification and not only Christs death Yea it is exprest by it is Christ that died yea rather that is risen c. 1 Cor. 15.1 2.3 4. The faith by which Paul tells them they were saved had Christs Resurrection for its object as well as his dying for our sins Phil. 3.8.9 10. Pauls way of Justification was first to win Christ and be found in him and so to have a Righteousness of God by faith in Christ whole Christ and not that of the Law that he might know the power of his Resurrection c. The true Nature of this faith is described 1 Pet. 1.21 Who by him do believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him Glory that your Faith and Hope may be in God 1 Pet. 3.21 The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth now also save us by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who is gone into Heaven and is on the right hand of God Angels and Authorities and Powers being made subject to him It is certain that the salvation of Baptism consisteth very much in Remission of sin or Justification In a word it is most evident in Scripture that merit and satisfaction are but the moral remote preparatory Causes of our Justification though exceeding eminent and must be the daily study and everlasting praise of the Saints and that the perfecting nearer efficient causes were by other acts of Christ and that all concurred to accomplish this work And therefore even ex parte Christi the work is done by his several acts though merited by him in his humiliation only And therefore it is past doubt on their own principles that faith must respect all in order to our Justification And the faith by which we are justified must be that of the Eunuch Acts 8.37 that believed with all
offered you that you take them thankfully lovingly humbly renouncing your own worth c. are necessary parts of the condition of your pardon There is as great a Necessity laid upon that part of the Condition which Christs honour lieth on and that in order to your Justification as of that part which directly respecteth your Salvation And me thinks common reason and ingenuity should tell you that it must be so and that its just and meet it should be so And therefore I may safely conclude ex natura rei that the taking of Christ for our â—eacher and Lord is as truly a part of the condition of our Justification and our Justification lieth as much upon it as the Affiance in Christs sufferings If you say But the efficiency is not equal though it be equally a Condition I answer Neither of them have any proper efficiency in justifying us unless you will unfitly call the Conditionality an Efficiency or the Acceptableness of believing in the sight of God an efficiency there is no such thing to be ascribed to our faith as to the effect of Justification But this belongs to another Controversie I know not what can be said more against this unless by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any proper Condition but only a priority and posteriority of Duties But the express conditional terms of the Covenant do put this so far out of doubt and I have said so much of it in other writings that I shall not trouble my self here with this sort of Adversaries Only to prevent their mistake I shall tell them this that in a condition there is somewhat Essential and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promise and therefore they are proper conditions and there is somewhat Accidental as First sometime that the thing be Vncertain to the Promiser This is not in Gods Conditions It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent Secondly That the matter of the condition be somewhat that is gainfull to the Promiser or otherwise have a merit or moral causality But this is separable In our case it is sufficient that it be somewhat that God liketh loveth or is pleasing to him though it properly merit not And the evident Reason why God hath made some Promises conditional is that his Laws and Promises may be perfectly suited to the nature of man on whom they must work and so may shew forth Gods Infinite Wisdom and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor As also that the Holiness of God may shine forth in his Word and it may be seen that he loveth Justice Holiness Obedience and not only the persons of men and so all his Attributes may be seen in their conjunction and the beauty that thence resulteth in the Glass of his Word Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet than the faith by which we are justified is the believing in him as King Priest and Prophet But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Only the Antecedent needs proof though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also Here note that by The condemning Vnbelief I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the special Commination of the Gospel Where I suppose first that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin Secondly And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace which is not simply for sin as sin but for one sort of sin in special that is the final rejection of the Remedy And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argument The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake The Antecedent I prove First from John 3.18 19 20 21. He that believeth on him is not condemned There 's the justifying faith But he that believeth not is condemned already There 's the condemning unbelief contradictory to the justifying faith Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God here is a special condemnation proved distinct from that by the Law of works And this is the condemnation that is the condemning sin or cause that light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather then light because their deeds were evil For every one that doth evil hateth the light c. The 19 verse describeth the Condemning unbelief and the 20. gives the reason of mens guiltiness of it And the unbelief described is a shunning or not coming to Christ as he is the Light to discover and heal their evil deeds So that if contradictories will but shew the nature of each other I think our controversie is here plainly resolved So is it in Psal 2.12 Kise the Son left he be angry and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little blessed are all they that put their trust in him The faith that saves from punishment saveth from Guilt The faith that saves from Guilt is justifying faith The faith here described is that which saves from punishment And the faith here described is kissing the Son which comprehendeth subjection and dependance and love and is the same for all that which is after called trusting in him So Luke 19.27 But those mine enemies which would not that I should raign over them bring hither and destroy them before me Unwillingness to have Christ raign over them is here made not a common but the special condemning sin called commonly Unbelief and so is the contrary to justifying faith So John 3.36 He that believeth on the Son this as all confess is justifying faith hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation the contradictory or contrary to justifying faith First because they are so directly opposed here denominatively that else the words would be equivocal and not intelligible Secondly Because the contrariety of effects also is added to put the thing past doubt The wrath of God abideth on him is contrary to justifying which takes the wrath of God off him especially considering that it is cursing comminatory obliging wrath that is principally meant the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation And that materially this unbelief thus opposed to justifying faith doth consist in contumacy rebellion or unperswadableness is plain in the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifie They that are contumacious or disobedient to the Son or unperswadable And 1 John 5.10 11 12. This faith and unbelief are opposed and the unbelief consisteth in not
believing the record that God hath given of his Son and that record is not only concerning Justification or the merit of it So 2. Thes 2.12 That all they might be damned who believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness So 2 Thess 1.8 9 10. That obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the description of the Vnbelievers opposed to them that believe ver 10. So Jo. 8.24 If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins which as to the act and effect is contrary to justifying faith And that I am he is not only that I am the Ransome but also that I am the Messiah and Redeemer So John 16.8 9. He willl reprove the world of sin not only in general that they are sinners but of this sin in specie because they believed not in me Many texts may be cited where justifying faith and condemning unbelief are described from acts of the understanding though the will be implyed as believing or not believing that Christ is the son of God c. which cannot possibly be restrained to his Ransom and Merit alone The Consequence cannot be denyed if it be but understood that this unbelief doth thus specially condemn not in general as sin or by the meer greatness of it but as the privation of that faith by which only men are justified For Privatives shew what the Positives are And if this unbelief did condemn only as a sin in general then all sin would condemn as it doth but that is false And if it condemned only as a great sin then first every sin as great would condemn as it doth and secondly it would be Derogatory to the preciousness and power of the Remedy which is sufficient against the greatest sins as great It remains therefore that as it is not for the special worth of faith above all other Graces that God assigned it to be the condition of Justification so it is not for a special greatness in the sin of unbelief that it is the specially condemning sin but as it is the Privation of that faith which because of its peculiar aptitude to that Office is made of such necessity to our Justification But saith Mr Blake This is like the old Argument Evil works merit condemnation therefore good works merit salvation An ill meaning damns our good meaning therefore saves Repl. First A palpable mistake Meriting and saving by merit are effects or efficiencies so plainly separable from the things themselves that the invalidity of the Consequence easily appears But in good sadness did you believe when you wrote this that he that argueth from the description or nature of a privation to the description or nature of the thing of which it is the Privation or that argueth from the Law of opposites and contradictions doth argue like him that argues from the moral separable efficiency or effect of the one to the like efficiency or effect of the other Secondly But understand me to argue from the effect it self if you please so it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of God I doubt not but the Argument will hold good As under the Law of works it was a good argument to say Not-perfect-obeying is the condemning evil therefore perfect-obeying is the justifying condition So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace to say Not-believing in Christ as King Priest and Prophet is the specially-condemning unbelief therefore believing in Christ as King Priest Prophet is the faith by which we are justified The main force of the reason lyeth here because else the Covenant were equivocating and not Intelligible if when it saith He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned it did speak of one kind or act of faith in one Proposition and of another in the other If when it is said He that believeth shall be justified from all things c. and he that believeth not shall be condemned if you believe you shall not come into condemnation but if you believe not you are condemned and the wrath of God abideth on you He that believeth shall be forgiven and he that believeth not shall not be forgiven I say if the Affirmative and Negative Propositions the Promise and the Threatning do not here speak of the same believing but divers then there is no hope that we should understand them and the language would necessitate us to err Now the Papists Argument ab effectis hath no such bottom Bad works damn therefore good works save For the Covenant is not He that doth good works shall be saved and he that doth bad works shall be condemned But he that obeyeth perfectly shall be justified and he that doth not shall be condemned Or if they argue from the threatning of the Gospel against bad works to the merit of good quoad modum procurandi it will not hold viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit therefore good works procure salvation by way of merit For there is not eadem ratio and so no ground for the Consequence Nor did I argue ad modum procurandi Rejecting Christ as King doth condemn by way of merit therefore accepting him as King doth save by way of merit This was none of my arguing But this Rejecting or not believing in Christ as King is part of that Vnbelief which is by the Law of Grace threatned with condemnation therefore accepting or believing in Christ as King is part of that faith which hath the Promise of Justification And so if a Papist should argue not ad modum procurandi but ad naturam actus effecti I would justifie his Argument Raigning sin Rebellion or the absence of Evangelical good works is Threatned by the Gospel with condemnation at Judgement therefore good works have the Promise of salvation or justification at Judgement And that I may and must thus understand the Condemning Threatning and the Justifying promise to speak of one and the same faith I am assured by this because it is usual with God in scripture to imply the one in the other As in the Law of works with perfect maâ— the promise was not exprest but implyed in the Threatning In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt die So in the Gospel the Threatning is oft implyed in the promise He that believeth shall not perish When the Lord saith The soul that sinneth shall die It implyeth that the soul that sinneth not shall not die And though we cannot say the like of the prohibition of Eating the forbidden fruit that is because the same Law did on the same terms prohibite all other sin as well as it And in the day that thou sinnest thou shalt die doth imply if thou sin not thou shalt not die So he that believeth shall be saved doth imply he that believeth not shall be condemned And so If thou believe thou shalt be justified implyeth If thou believe not thou shalt not be justified
If you consent not to this you then must maintain that this Covenant excludeth not Infidels from salvation the term only being not implyed in the promise of pardon to Believers But if you grant all this as sure you will then it is most evident that Believing is taken in the same sense in the promise and in the threatning For no man breathing can tell me either how a Promise to one kind of faith can imply a threatning against the want of another kind or act of faith or else what that other faith must be that is so implyed if not the same And if it be the same faith that is implyed which is a most evident truth then it will follow that if I prove the Threatned unbelief to be a Rejecting of Christ as King the faith then that is made the condition of the promise must be the accepting of him as King as well as Priest But I have proved that not believing in Christ as King is part of the unbelief that is specially threatned werth condemnation therefore believing in him as King is part of that faith which hath the promise or is the Condition of Justification But saith Mr. Blake I further answer Rejecting Christ as King is a sin against the moral Law which damns Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required than a sinner may be saved Repl. For my part I know no Law but moral Law It s a strange Law that is not Moral as it is a strange Animal that is not quid Physicum But yet I partly understand what some others mean by the phrase Moral Law but what you mean I cannot tell for all your two volumns And it s to small purpose to dispute upon terms whose sense we be not agreed in nor do not understand one another in And you must better agree with yourselves before you agree with me I cannot reconcile these speeches Mr. Blake of the Covenant pag. 111. I know no other Rule but the old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule and the only Rule Mr. Blake here pag. 563. Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required that a sinner may be saved I am confident you will allow me to think you mean somewhat more ex parte nostri and not only ex parte Christi And can that somewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it And yet I find you sometimes seeming offended with me for telling you I understand you not But I further answer you The rejecting of Christ as King is no further a sin against the Moral Law then the accepting him as King is a duty of the Moral Law Will you not believe this without a Dispute when you are told by Paul that where there is no Law there is no transgression and elsewhere that sin is a transgression of the Law And need not stand to prove that the same Law which is the Rule prescribing duty is the Rule discovering sin even that sin which is the Privation of that duty I desire no Readers that will not receive these things without any more arguing Mr. Blake adds Vnbelief if we speak properly doth not at all condemn further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment The privation of which you speak only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us which me thinks should be yeur judgement as well as mine seeing you are wont to compare the new Law as you call it to an act of oblivion And an act of oblivion saves many but condemns none Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ But this is a truth that you must not so easily take out of our hands Though having had occasion to speak largely of it elsewhere I shall say but little now First Again I know no Commandment that is not moral But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly as delivered by Moses or as written in Nature I am not of your mind nor ever shall be To be void of the belief of these Articles of the faith that this Jesus is the Christ that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead and buried Rose again the third day ascended into Heaven sitteth in our nature at the right hand of God gave the Holy Ghost to his Apostles to confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel with many more doth condemn further then as it is a breach either of the Mosaical or Natural Law yea in some respects as it is no breach of those Laws And yet the same sin materially may be a breach of several Laws and condemned by several Secondly you very much mistake my judgement here if you think it the same with yours Nor will the mention of an act of oblivion justifie your mistake I suppose an Act of oblivion may possibly have a Penalty anexed as that all that stand our and accept not of this pardon by such a year or day shall be remediless and lyable to a greater Penalty And I think if no Penalty be named there is one implyed For my part I am satisfied that the Remedying Law or the Law of Grace hath its special Threatning when I so often read it He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and unless ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins And I take it to differ from the Threatning of the law of works thus First In the matter of the condition which is not sin in general any sin but a special sin viz. the final rejecting the Remedy that is Refusing to turn to God by faith in Christ Secondly In the Penalty First The Gospel Penalty is Non-liberation from the curse of the Law Not to be forgiven or saved This had been but a Negation and not Penal if there had been no Christ and Gospel But it is a privation and penal now because by a special sin we forfeit our hopes and possibilities Secondly As to the degree I find it will be a far sorer punishment Heb. 10.29 The Law of greatest Grace doth threaten the greatest punishment Thirdly And doubtless in Hell Conscience will have a special kind of Accusations and self-tormentings in reflecting on the refusals of the remedy and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant which is a punishment that was never threatned by the Covenant of works Fourthly And there will be a Privation of a greater Glory then ever was promised under the Law of works Fifthly As also of a special sort of eternal felicity consisting in loving the Redeemer and singing the song of the Lamb and being his members c. Thirdly And as there are these five differences in the Penalty besides that of the Condition of it so is there a considerable modal difference in the consummation it self viz. that of the Law of works was
again I shall yield so far to their Importunity as to recite here briefly the state of the Controversie and some of that evidence which is elsewhere more largely produced for the truth And First We must explain what is meant by Works and what is meant by Justification what by a Condition and what by the Preposition by here when we speak of Justification by works And then we shall lay down the truth in several propositions Negative and Affirmative It seems strange to me to hear men on either side to speak against the Negative or Affirmative of the Question and reproach so bitterly those that maintain them without any distinction or explication as if either the error lay in the terms or the terms were so plain and univocal that the Propositions are true only on one part what sense soever they be taken in No doubt but he saith true that saith that Works are the Condition of Justification and he saith as true that saith they are not if they take the terms in such different senses as commonly Disputers on these Questions do take them And its past all doubt that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law and that it is not of Works but of Grace and it s as certain that a man is justified by works and not by faith only and that by their Words men shall be justified and by their Words they shall be condemned Gods word were not true if both these were not true We must therefore necessarily distinguish And first of Works First Sometime the term Works is taken for that in general which makes the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Meritorious works Or for such as are conceited to be thus meritorious though they be not And those are materially either Works of perfect obedience without sin such as Adam had before his fall and Christ had and the good Angels have or else Works of obedience to the Mosaical Law which supposed sin and were used in order to pardon and life but mistakingly by the blind Unbelievers as supposing that the dignity of the Law did put such a dignity on their obedience thereto as that it would serve to life without the satisfaction and merit of Christ or at least must concur in Co-ordination therewith Or else lastly they are Gospel duties thus conceited meritorious Secondly But sometime the word Works is taken for that which standeth in a due subordination to grace and that first most generally for any moral virtuous Actions and so even faith it self is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fiduciall act of faith or less generally for external acts of obedience as distinct from internal habitual Grace and so Repentance Faith Love c. are not Works or for all acts external and internal except faith it self And so Repentance Desire after Christ Love to him denying our own Righteousness distrust in our selves c. are called Works Or else for all Acts external and internal besides the Reception of Christs Righteousness to Justification And so the belief of the Gospel the Acceptance of Christ as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption with many other acts of faith in Christ are called works besides the disclaiming of our own Righteousness and the rest before mentioned Secondly As for the word Justification it is so variously taken by Divines and in common use that it would require more words then I shall spend on this whole Dispute to name and open its several senses and therefore having elsewhere given a brief schem of them I shall now only mention these few which are most pertinent to our purpose First Some take Justification for some Immanent Acts of God and some for Transient And of the former some take it for Gods eternal Decree to justifie which neither Scripture calleth by this name nor will Reason allow us to do it but improperly Sometime it s taken for Gods Immanent present Approbation of a man and Reputing him to be just when he is first so constituted And this some few call a Transient Act because the Object is extrinsick But most call it Immanent because it makes no Alteration on that object And some plead that this is an eternal act without beginning because it is Gods essence which is eternal and these denominate the Act from the substance or Agent And other say that it begins in time because Gods Essence doth then begin to have that Respect to a sinner which makes it capable of such a denomination And so these speak of the Act denominatively formally respectively Both of them speak true but both speak not the same truth Sometime the word Justification is taken for a transient Act of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrinsick object And so first It s sometime taken by some Divines for a Conditional Justification which is but an act that hath a tendency to that change and this is not actual Justification Secondly Sometime it is taken for actual Justification and that is threefold First Constitutive Secondly Sentential thirdly executive First Constitutive Justification is first either in the qualities of the soul by inherent holyness which is first perfect such Adam once and the Angels and Christ had secondly or Imperfect such as the sanctified here have Secondly Or it s in our Relations when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory This is an act of God in Christ by the free Gift of the Gospel or Law of Grace and it is first The first putting a sinner into a state of Righteousness out of a state of Guilt Secondly Or it is the continuing him in that state and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular sins Secondly Sentential pardon or Justification is first by that Manifestation which God makes before the Angels in heaven Secondly at the day of Judgement before all the world Thirdly Executive Justification viz. the execution of the aforesaid sentence less properly called Justification and more properly called pardon consisteth in taking off the punishment inflicted and forbearing the punishment deserved and giving possession of the happiness adjudged us so that it is partly in this life viz. in giving the spirit and outward mercies and freeing us from judgements And thus sanctification it self is a part of Justification and partly in the life to come in freeing us from Hell and possessing us of Glory Thirdly As for the word Condition the Etymologists will tell us that it first signifieth Actionem condendi and then Passionem qua quid conditur and then qualitatem ipsam per quam condere aliguis vel condi aliquid potest hinc est pro statu qui factus est rem condendo deinceps pro omni statu quem persona vel res aut causa quoquo modo habet aut accipit But we have nothing to do with it in such large acceptions in which all things in the world may be called Conditions Vid. Martin in Nom. They
come nearer our use of the word when they expound it by Moderatio Circumscriptio determinatio limitatio In Naturals the word Condition is oft used pro ratione formali per quam alicujus disciplina subjectum adaquatuÌ„ constitui solet As e. g. Physicus considerat corpus cum conditions mobilitatis Geometer considerat quantitatem cum conditions continuitatis Arithmaticus cum conditions disjunctionis Modicus considerat humanuÌ„ corpus cum conditions fâ—iâ— quatenus agretare sanari potest Sometimes also any quality or action which is sine qua non to an effect or event is in meer Naturals called a Condition as the dryness of the wood and the approximation of it to the fire c. are conditions of its burning the non-impedition of a more powerful Agent is a Condition of the efficacious action of every lower cause c. Many other acceptions of the word in Physicks by Zabarel Claudius Alberius and others you may see in Goclenii Lexic Philosoph in nom conditio But we are not in a Physical but a moral discourse and therfore must be understood according to the subject matter It is therfore a Civil or Legal Condition that we have to enquire after and must fetch our descriptions from Lawyers and not from Physicks and therefore it is but deceitful equivocation in some Opponents to fetch their opposition from Physical instances The Lawyers give us divers Definitions of Condition but for the most part they come all to one in sense Some say conditio est Lex adposita hominum actionibus eas suspendens Prat. Conditio say others est modus qui suspendit actum donec co existente confirmetur Vult in Instit de haere instit § 3. n. 6. Accursus faith Conditio est suspensio cujus de futuro effectus vel confirmatio pendet Bart. Conditio est futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditar Cuiacius Conditio est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit These are of conditions de futuro But those that are de praesenti vel de praeterito suspend not the obligation unless as they are yet futurae quoad cognitionem though not quoad esse and so the knowledge of a Right may be suspended They are commonly divided into Casuaeles Potestativas mixtas The moral operation of Conditions as such is not in causing the effect when performed but in suspending the effect till performed The reason of the appointing of them for such suspensions is various sometime it s because the person Giving promising or otherwise constituting the condition is uncertain of the event of the performance and would not have the effect come to pass without it But that 's not alwaies sometime though he might be sure of the event of performance yet if he that is to perform the Condition be uncertain it may make way for this constitution It is therefore a vain Plea of them that say God appointeth no conditions of his Promises because the event is not to him uncertain Saith Mat. Martin in nom Cond Defimri solet Dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto futuro ei opposito Sic sane apud homines quo futura non norunt sed Deus jub certis conditionibus etiam nobiscum agit at omnium eventuum ipse gnaâ—us pro infinita sua sap entia qua praevidet quid occur urum nobis quid nos amplexuri vel declinaturâ— simâ—s Confer Deut. 28 29 30 31. 32. Capitobus Commonly the reason of appointing Conditions is the desireabâ—ness of the thing to be performed conjoyned with some backwardness or possibility of backwardness in the person that is to perform it and therefore he is drawn on by the promise of that which he is more willing to receive But many other reasons there may be The first cause of the Condition is the Requirer whether he be Testator Donor Stipulator Legislator c. And so the Condition of the Law or Covenant of Grace is first Gods condition as the Imposer Secondly And its the condition of each Subject as obliged to perform it Thirdly And the condition of each professing Christian as having Promised the performance Fourthly And the condition of true Christians only as actual Performers of it The condition of the Gospel hath several respects according to the various respects of the Law that doth impose it It s the Condition of a free Gift for the Gospel is a free Gift of Christ and Life It is the Condition of a Promise because much of the Gospel benefits are future It is the Condition of a Testament because Christ dying did leave this to the Church as his last Will and it was confirmed by the death of the Testator It is the Condition of a premiant Law and Act of Grace and oblivion because God made it as Legislator and Rector of the world in order to the conducting of his people to their happines It is the condition of a Minatory Law in that it is a duty commanded on pain of death and for the avoiding of that death Fourthly The preposition by in our present question may signifie either the use and Interest of any Medium in General or else of a true cause constitutive or efficient So much of the terms Proposition 1. Since Adams fall it is impossible for man to be justified by a perfect sinless Obedience of his own except Christ only and consequently impossible for him to be justified by the Law considered in that form and tenor as it was given to Adam for all men are sinners and that Law will ustifie no sinner Proposition 2. By the works of the Mosaical Law no man can be justified And therefore the Jews seek Righteousness where it is not to be found while they think that pardon of sin and acceptance with God are to be obtained by the bare works of that Law while they overlook or reject Christ who is the end of that Law for righteousness to every Believer Specially now that Law is Abrogated or ceased it were a double error to expect Justification by its works Proposition 3. Much less can they be justified by the foresaid Law who in stead of fulfilling it do but falsely imagine that they fulfill it Proposition 4. No man can be justified by works properly meritorious because no man hath any such at all nor may we once imagine that we have any such works as Paul speaks of and the Jews thought they had which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Rom. 4.4 much less that we are justified by such even Gospel works and faith it self do not justifie on this account and a conceit that they are thus meritorious would but turn them into condemning sins Proposition 5. No act of mans no not faith it self can justifie as an act or work nor as This act in specie that is the nearest and formal reason of its justifying Interest must not be fetcht either from the General or special nature of the
putting us into a justified state And its works under any notion that you speak of and not only under the reduplication quà works Treat p. 221. First I shall instance in the great pattern and example of our Justification Abraham from whom the Apostle concludeth a Justification of all Believers in the like manner he was Now that Abraham was not Iustified by works or his working though a godly man the Apostle c. Answ 1. I distinguish between works in Pauls sense and works in Iames his sense And because you say so much against distinguishing of works before as deceitful I will first prove the necessity of distinguishing 1. Works in Pauls sense are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt Works in Iames his sense are not such therefore they are not the same Works in Pauls sense are actions as valuable offered to God and justifying by their value But works in Iames his sense are none such Proved The works that James speaks of must necessarily be done Works in Pauls sense we may not so much as imagine that we can do viz. such as make the Reward of Debt and not of Grace Though the matter of such works may be done which Justiciaries thus conceive of yet under such a notion no man may once imagine that he hath them 2. Works in Pauls sense are such as stand in competition with Christ or at least would be co-partners with him in a co-ordination But works in James his sense are none such but such as stand in a due subordination to Christ such undoubtedly there are And such James speaks of That Paul speaks of works as Competitors with Christ or as co-ordinate an hundred Texts will prove and the case is so plain that I think it not worth the insisting on seeing the impartial reading over the Epistles may satisfie 2. I distinguish of Justifying quoad modum procurandi or of the distinct Interests of mens actions therein signified in the preposition By. Paul speaks of Justification By works as by valuable deserving causes or procatarctike causes moving God to justifie us by their worth or by some true causality procuring it But Iames speaks of Works as supposing the perfect Satisfaction and Merit of Christ and that all that is valuable to the causal procurement of our Justification is to be found in him alone and therefore he leaves no causality herein to works but takes them as a meer condition which cease suspending when performed For the efficiency of a condition is only in suspending till performed And so Rebellion can suspend when the ceasing of that Rebellion by obedience doth not cause but only cease suspending Now I answer to your Minor that Abraham was not justified by works in Pauls sense but he was in Iames's sense unless you will own the saying which you chide Althamer for Though I must say that in his Conciliationes Loc. Script Althamer deals more mannerly with Iames. Abraham was not justified by works as making the Reward of debt and not of grace for he had no such works But Abraham was justified 1. By the act of faith as a condition therefore by an act under some notion I know of few Divines that deny that faith is a condition of Justification 2. However you confess your self that Abraham was Justified by faith as an instrument and you say that it was by the act of faith and not the habit And though you take this to be but a nominal act and really a Passion yet so do not others for herein you are more singular a thousand to one as far as I am able to understand then I am in the Doctrine which you charge with singularity 3. The faith that Abraham was justified by was not only a bare apprehension of Christs Righteousness but a receiving of Christ as Christ which is called Works by your party 4. It was either By or Because of his External Obedience that Abraham was justified Proved 1 By Iames 2.21 Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the Altar 2. From Gen. 22.12 16 18. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord for because thou hast done this thing and hast not with-held thy son thine only son that in blessing I will bless thee c. And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice But then I must add that this was none of Abrahams first Justification for he was just before this but it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God and a kind of sentential Declaration thereof by the voice of the Angel But a Justification it was and so James calls it Now let us hear your Replies Treat pag. 221. This cannot be a solid Answer 1. Because the Apostle speaketh generally of works in this description of Iustification though in other places he sometimes saith the works of the Law yet Abraham could not be Instanced in for such works c. When we read the Holy Ghost spake generally of all works who are we that we should limits it to some By their interpretation the believer should be opposed only to some kind of works and faith c. Answ 1. The ordinary strain of the Apostles speech being expressive of the works of the Law is Expository of the rest 1. Because a few passages must be usually expounded by many 2. And because a few much more abundance of limiting passages must expound those where the restriction is not expressed 2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Justifying as works but it follows not that therefore they are as you may say excluded under any Notion whatsoever 3. And why might not Abraham be instanced in Your proof is none 1. Is it not a good Argument Negative Abraham was not justified by works therefore we are not And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent Because he had no works that could justifie No nor those which were then trusted on to Justification 2. Doth not Paul shew that he speaks of these when he proves his assertion 1. Because Abraham was then in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 what 's that to Gospel obedience 2. Because the Law was long after the promise and was not then given Gal. 3.17 3. Paul maketh it all one to be justified by works and to be justified by the Law as abundance of passages shew A multitude of particular Texts do expresly shew that it is a Legal Iustification only that he speaks of and that he directly intendeth only Legal works I will now instance but in one viz. Rom. 4.13 compared with Gen. 22.18 For the promise that he should be heir of the world was not to Abraham and his seed by the Law but through the righteousness of faith Now compare with this the words of the promise it self And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed because thou hast obeyed my voice So ver
16 17. Because thou hast done this thing c. 4. It s not easie to conceive how any man can expect a Legal or Pharisaical Iustification by Evangelical works without a gross contradiction For example to be justified Legally by Evangelical faith desire love thanks joy self-denyal confession c. are all palpable contradictions And such a mans faith must be thus exprest I expect to merit Iustification legally by believing in Christ as the sole Meriter of my Iustification and salvation or by desiring Christ or by loving Christ as the sole Meriter of my salvation Or by thanking him or rejoycing in him as the Sole-meriter of my salvation Or I expect legally to merit Iustification by denying that I can merit it by any righteousness of my own or by confessing that I deserve damnation by my sins or by praying or seeking for salvation by free gift as merited only by Christ All these are palpable contradictions and no man can hold both that knoweth what he doth 5. Yet I will suppose that though no man can so trust to his works for legal Justification that are apprehended by him as Formally Evangelical yet perhaps he may do it by some works that are Materially Evangelical and fancied by him to be what they are not And so I still say that though it were Legal works that Paul did directly dispute against yet consequentially and indirectly he disputeth against works commanded only in the Gospel if men will do them to Legal ends and fancy them to be of the value legally to justifie them 6. I will therefore suppose some men to be so unreasonable as to expect a Legal Justification by their believing or confessing that Christ only can Legally justifie them and not themselves and so I will grant you that Paul doth consequentially exclude all works even Evangelical works from Justification But though he exclude all works yet not in every notion nor doth he exclude All interest of All works in our Justification All works as valuable offerings he excludes and so as meritorious not only in point of Commutative Justice but also in point of Legal worth and Legal Justice as the Pharisees supposed them meritorious All works he excludes from all proper Causality But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interest at all in subordination to Christ Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Interest in our Pardon in sub-ordination to Christ If you say No not any you contradict God and your self and all the Christian world If you say Yea but they justifie not qua works you say nothing to the controversie For I have over and over as loud as you professed that they justifie not formaliter as works If you say they have any Interest 1. Tell us better what it is 2. And then you confute your general assertion There 's no Christian that I know but will confess that the Gospel works have the interest of Declaring signs in our final Iustification And few will deny that Repentance hath the interest of a necessary qualification or condition to our first Justification Now would you perswade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Interest or opposeth faith to it If not against the signal interest of works then not against all Interest therefore if Pauls general exclusion will consist with your signal Interest then I shall maintain that it will consist with the fore-explained Conditional interest I will not therefore be guilty of your charge of limiting the Holy Ghost If he spake of all works I will believe he means All works But 1. If he over and over near an hundred times at least explain himself as speaking of the Law I will not shut my ears against that explication And 2. I will grant it is also all Evangelical Works at least by consequence But I need not therefore grant that because he excludeth All Work therefore he excludeth All kind of Interest of all works but only that sort which he disputeth against Besides all this I must distinguish of Justification Legal and Evangelical respective to the promises and threatnings of the Law and Gospel which do differ No works at all did justifie Abraham from the charge of the Law Thou art a sinner as being the Righteousness of the Law and the matter of that Justification Nor will any works at all so justifie us But it doth not follow that therefore no works will justifie a man from the false accusation of being an Impenitent Unbeliever and so having no part in Christ whose Righteousness must stop the mouth of the Law Or that no works are the matter of the righteousness required in this Constitution He that believeth shall be saved Repent that your sins may be blotted out Which are here required as the condition of our freedom from the Law by the righteousness of Christ In a word Paul bestows a large dispute to prove that no works of ours do answer the expectation of the Law and so cannot justifie us themselves from its Accusation It s an ill consequence that therefore Paul proveth that no works of mans do answer the special constitution or condition of the Gospel Repent and Believe in Christ c. and so are not the Condition of our interest in that perfect righteousness of Christ which is the only valuable cause of our foresaid Justification Treat 222. Again that works of all sorts are excluded is plain if you consider the Object of Iustification who it is that is here said to be justified and that is the ungodly By the ungodly is one meant that hath not a sufficient and adequate holiness so that Abraham though regenerated yet as to Iustification is ungodly he cannot stand before God or endure if all his imperfections be enquired after Now certainly he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification cannot be called ungodly for he doth all that is required Answ 1. Again I grant all works excluded but not in all their relations nor are all their Interests in Justification excluded 2. This Argument I should not have expected from you You confess that by ungodly is meant such though Regenerate and holy that have not an adequate holiness Adequate To what to the Law or to the constitution of the condition in the Gospel Marvel not if I deny the Consequence of your Argument and if I be unable to digest your reason for it You say He that fulfilleth the Condition of Iustification cannot be called ungodly But what Condition I confess he that fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly nor be unjustifiable by that Law But he that performeth the Gospel-Condition of liberation may be called ungodly in the sense you now mentioned that is unjustifiable immediatly for his works by the Law or one that hath not an holiness adequate to the Law Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly I suppose you clearly see that your Argument makes as much against any Condition of Justification in us as against works
sin then I did but nominally and hypocritically take him for my Saviour To take him for my Teacher and become his Disciple importeth my Learning of him as necessary to the benefit And in humane contracts it is so Barely to take a Prince for her husband may entitle a woman to his honours and lands But conjugal fidelity is also necessary for the continuance of them for Adultery would cause a divorce Consent and listing may make a man your Souldier but obedience and service is as necessary to the Continuance and the Reward Consent may make a man your servant without any service and so give him entertainment in your family But if he do not actually serve you these shall not be continued nor the wages obtained Consent may enter a Scholar into your School but if he will not Learn of you he shall not be continued there For all these after-violations cross the ends of the Relations Consent may make you the subject of a Prince but obedience is necessary to the continuance of your Priviledges All Covenants usually tye men to somewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends The Covenant-making may admit you but it s the Covenant-keeping that must continue you in your priviledges and perfect them See more in my Confess pag. 47. 3. But I further answer you that according to the sense of your party of the terms faith and works I deny your consequence For with them Faith is Works And though in Pauls sense we are not at all justified by works and in Iames his sense we are not at first justified by works Yet in the sense of your party we are justified by works even at first For the Accepting of Christ for our King and Prophet is Works with them and this is Pauls faith by which he and all are justified Repentance is works with them And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon The Love and Desire of Christ our Saviour is works with them but this is part of the faith that Paul was justified by The like I may say of many acts of Assent and other acts Treat Lect. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is justified by fulfilling a Condition though he be thereunto enabled by grace yet he is just and righteous in himself But all justified persons as to Iustification are not righteous in themselves but in Christ their Surety and Mediator Answ 1. If this were true in your unlimited latitude Inherent Righteousness were the certainest evidence of damnation For no man that had inherent Righteousness i. e. Sanctification could be justified or saved But I am loth to believe that 2. This Argument doth make as much against them that take Faith to be the Condition of Justification and so look to be justified by it as a Condition as against them that make Repentance or Obedience the Condition And it concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Justification I am loth to dissent from you but I am loather to believe that all those are unjustified that take faith for the Condition of Justification They are hard Conclusions that your Arguments infer 3. Righteousness in a mans self is either Qualitaetive or Relative called imputed As to the later I maintain that all the justified are Righteous in themselves by an Imputed Relative Righteousness merited for them by Christ and given to them And this belief I will live and die in be the grace of God Qualitative and Active Righteousness is threefold 1. That which answers the Law of works Obey perfectly and live 2. That which answers the bare letter of Moses Law without Christ the sense and end which required an operous task of duty with a multitude of sacrifices for pardon of failings which were to be effectual only through Christ whom the unbelieving Jews understood not 3. That righteousness which answers the Gospel imposition Repent and Believe As to the first of these A righteousness fully answering the Law of nature I yield your Minor and deny your Major A man may be justified by fulfilling the condition of the Gospel which giveth us Christ to be our Righteousness to answer the Law and yet not have any such righteousness qualitative in himself as shall answer that Law Nay it necessarily implyeth that he hath none For what need he to perform a Condition for obtaining such a Righteousness by free gift from another if he had it in himself And as to the second sort of Righteousness I say that it is but a nominal righteousness consisting in a conformity to the Letter without the sense and end and therefore can justifie none besides that none fully have it So that the Mosaeical Righteousness so far as is necessary to men is to be had in Christ and not in themselves But the performance by themselves of the Gospel Condition is so far from hindring us from that gift that without it none can have it But then as to the third sort of righteousness qualitative I answer He that performeth the Gospel Condition of Repenting and Believing himself is not therefore Righteous in himself with that righteousness qualitative which answereth the Law of works But he that performeth the said Gospel Conditions is Righteous in himself 1. Qualitatively and actively with that righteousness which answers the Gospel Constitution He that believeth shall be saved c. which is but a particular Righteousness by a Law of Grace subordinated to the other as the Condition of a free gift 2. And Relatively by the Righteousness answering the Law of Works as freely given by Christ on that Condition This is evident obvious necessary irrefragable truth and will be so after all opposition Treat pag. 228. Yea I think if it be well weighed it will be found to be a contradiction to say they are Conditions and yet a Causa sine qua non of our Justification for a causa sine qua non is no Cause at all but a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a Moral efficiency and is a Causa cum qua not a sine qua non Answ 1. You do but think so and that 's no cogent Argument I think otherwise and so you are answered 2. And Lawyers think otherwise as is before shewed and more might be and so you are over-answered A Condition qua talis which is the strictest acception is no Cause at all though the matter of it may be meritorious among men and so causal If you will not believe me nor Lawyers nor custom of speech then remember at least what it is that I mean by a Condition and make not the difference to lie where it doth not Think not your self sounder in matter of Doctrine but only in the sense of the Word Condition but yet do somewhat first to prove that too viz. that a Condition as such hath a moral efficiency Prove that if you are able Treat ib. If Adam had stood in his integrity though that confirmation would have been of
sincere Repentance and sincere Obedience and this is the same in all Secondly But the matter of both these viz. the sins repented of and the duties of Obedience may differ in many particulars in several persons One may not have the same sins to Repent of as another and one may have some particular duties more then another though in the main all have the same sin and duty But this difference is no absurdity nor strange thing When Christ mentioneth the final Justification of some Mat. 25. and gives the reason from their works for I was hungry and ye fed me c. I read of none that took it for an absurdity because First The poor Secondly Infants Thirdly Those that dye before they have opportunity do no such works Treat pag. 231. The seventh Argument This Assertion according to the sense of the late Writers that are otherwise Orthodox for I mean not the Socinians will bring in a Justification two waies or make a twofold Justification whereof one will be needless For they grant an Imputation of Christs Righteousness in respect of the Law he fulfilled that and satisfied Gods Justice that the Law cannot accuse us And besides this they make an Evangelical personal Righteousness by our own Evangelical works Now certainly this later is wholly superfluous for if Christs Righteousness be abundantly able to satisfie for all that righteousness which the Law requireth of us what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings and supply that righteousness also surely this is to make the stars shine when the Sun is in its full lustre Thus it may be observed while men for some seeming difficulty avoid the good known way of truth they do commonly bring in Assertions of far more difficulty to be received In this case it s far more easie to maintain one single Righteousness viz. the Obedience of our Lord Christ then to make two c. Answ First This twofold Righteousness is so far from being needless that all shall perish in everlasting torment that have not both I doubt not but you have both your self and therefore do but argue with all this confidence against that which you must be saved by and which you carry within you As if you should argue that both a heart and a brain are needless and therefore certainly you have but one But the best is concluding you have but one doth not really prove that you have but one for if it did it would prove you had neither and then you were but a dead man in one case and a lost man in the other First Did ever any man deny the necessity of inherent Righteousness that was called a Protestant Object But that 's nothing to its necessity to Justification Answ First it s the very being of it that you plead against as needless if your words are intelligible 2ly It s as gross a contradiction to talk of a Righteousness that makes not righteous or will not justifie in tantum according to its proportion as to talk of whitness that makes not white or Paternity that makes not a father or any form that doth not inform or is a form and is not a form Secondly If there be two distinct Laws or Covenants then there is a necessity of two dstinct Righteousnesses to our Justification But the Antecedent is certain I suppose it will be granted that Christs righteousness is necessary to answer the Law of works And I shall further prove that a personal righteousness given from Christ is necessary to fulfill the condition of the new Covenant or Law of Grace believe and be saved c. Thirdly Christ did not himself fulfill the condition of the Gospel for any man nor satisfie for his final non-performance therefore he that will be saved must perform it himself or perish That Christ performed it not in person is past doubt It was not consistent with his state and perfection to repent of sin who had none to repent of to return from sin to God who never fell from him to beleve in Christ Jesus that is to accept himself as an offered Saviour and to take himself as a Saviour to himself that is as one that redeemed himself from sin to deny his own righteousness to confess his sin to pray for pardon of it c. Do you seriously believe that Christ hath done this for any man For my part I do not believe it Secondly That he that hath not satisfied for any mans final predominant Infidelity and Impenitency I know you will grant because you will deny that he dyed for any sin of that person or at least your party will deny it Thirdly All that shall be saved do actually perform these conditions themselves I know you will confess it that none adult but the Penitent Believers Holy shall be saved This sort of Righteousness therefore is of necessity Fourthly The Benefits of Christ obedience and death are made over to men by a conditional Promise Deed of gift or act of oblivion Therefore the condition of that Grant or Act must be found before any man can be justified by the righteousness of Christ It is none of yours till you repent and believe therefore you must have the personal Righteousness of faith and repentance in subordination to the imputed righteousness that it may be yours And will you again conclude that Certainly this later is wholly superfluous Hath not God said He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned And Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. Is it not necessary that these be done then both as duty commanded and as a condition or some means of the end propounded and promised And is this wholly superfluous In Judgement if you be accused to have been finally impenitent or an Infidel will you not plead your personal faith and repentance to justifie you against that accusation or shall any be saved that saith I did not repent or believe but Christ did for me If it be said that Christs satisfaction is sufficient but what 's that to thee that performedst not the conditions of his Covenant and therefore hast no part in it Will you not produce your faith and repentance for your Justification against this charge and so to prove your Interest in Christ Nay is it like to be the great business of that day to enquire whether Christ have done his part or no or yet to enquire whether the world were sinners or rather to judge them according to the terms of grace which were revealed to them and to try whether they have part in Christ or not and to that end whether they believed repented loved him in his members improved his Talents of Grace or not Or can any thing but the want of this personal righteousness then hazard a mans soul But you ask If Christs righteousness be able to satisfie what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings c. Answ
me such contrary waies and I must be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I say Yea or Nay And yet which is the wonder they differ not among themselves 2. But seeing your ends direct you to fetch in his controversie so impertinent to the rest its requisite that the Abettor do better open his opinion then you have done that the Reader may not have a Defence of he knows not what My opinion so oft already explained in other writings is this 1. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator is to be distinguished from the Remedying Law of Grace called the New Testament the Promise c. Whether you will call them two Laws or two parts of one Law is little co the purpose seeing in some respect they are two and in some but one 2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and Sanction or doth constitute the Dueness 1. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or shall command 2. And of many duties in particular 3. And of everlasting death as the penalty of all sin So that it saith The wages of sin is death 3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace like an act of Oblivion which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed 2. And command the belief of them which other particular duties in order to its ends 3. And doth offer Christ and Pardon and Life by a Conditional Donation enacting that whosoever will Repent and Believe shall be Justified and persevering therein with true obedience shall be finally adjudged to everlasting life and possessed thereof It s tenor is He that Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved and he that doth not shall be damned 4. That the sense of this Promise and Threatning is He that Repenteth and Believeth at all in this life though but at the last hour shall be saved and he that doth it not at all shall be damned Or he that is found a penitent Believer at death c. And not he that believeth not to day or to morrow shall be damned though afterward he do 5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was not at first Peremptory and Remediless and that now it is so far Remedyed as that there is a Remedy at hand for the dissolving of the Obligation which will be effectual as soon as the Condition is performed 6. That the Remedying Law of Grace hath a peculiar penalty that is 1. Non-liberation A privation of Pardon and life which was offered For that 's now a penal privation which if there had been no Saviour or Promise or Offer would have been but a Negation 2. The certain Remedilesness of their misery for the future that there shall be no more sacrifice for sin 3. And whether also a greater degree of punishment I leave to consideration 7. I still distinguished between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant and between sin as it respecteth both And so I said that Repentance and Faith in Christ even as a means to Justification are commanded in specie in the Gospel which constituteth them duties but commanded consequently in genere in the Law of nature under the generall of Obedience to all particular precepts and whether also the Law of Nature require the duty in specie supposing God to have made his supernatural preparations in providing and propounding the objects I left to enquiry Accordingly I affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity though afterward Repented of as also the Imperfections of true faith and repentance are sins against the General precept of the Law of Nature and the special precept of the Law of Grace and that Christ dyed for them and they are pardoned through his blood upon condition of sincere Repentance and Faith 8. Accordingly distinguishing between the respect that sin hath to the precept and prohibition on one side and to the promise and threatning on the other I affirmed that the foresaid Impenitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance are condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only and that the person is not under the Actual obligation of the peculiar Threatning of the Law of Grace that is that though as to the Gospel Precept these sins may be against the Gospel as well as the Law yet as to the Threatning they are not such violations of the New Covenant as bring men under its actual curse for then they were remediless And therefore I said that its only final Impenitency and Unbelief as final that so subjects men to that Curse or Remediless peremptory sentence The reason is because the Gospel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death the Condition of promised pardon and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impenitency and unbelief final it is not that which brings a man under the Remediless Curse except only in case of the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which is ever final 9 Accordingly I affirm that Christ never bore or intended to bear the peculiar Curse of his own Law of Grace 1. As not suffering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief which is proved in his Gospel constitution which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance and therefore the non-performance of his Condition is expresly excepted from all pardon and consequently from the intended satisfaction and price of pardon 2. In that he did not bear that species of punishment as peculiarly appointed by the Gospel viz. To be denyed Pardon Justification and Adoption and to be Remediless in misery c. 10. Also I said that all other sins are pardonable on the Gospel Conditions but the non-performance that is final of those Conditions is everlastingly unpardonable and consequently no sin pardoned for want of them Reader this is the face of that Doctrine which Reverend Brethren vail over with the darkness and confusion of these General words that I say Christ hath not satisfied for sins against the second Covenant And all these explications I am fain to trouble the world with as oft as they are pleased to charge me in that confusion But what remedy This is the Legion of errours and contradictions which I leave to thy impartial judgement to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit shall convince thee that they are erroneous and to bless those Congregations and Countries that are taught to abhor them and to rejoyce in their felicity that believe the contrary Treat pag. 235. 2. If so then the works of the Law are Conditions of our Justification and thus he runneth into the extream he would avoid Answ 1. The works which the Law requireth to Justification that is perfect obedience are not the Conditions of Justification 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Mosaical Law of Sacrifices c. 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law after the special Constitution of the Gospel God hath chosen
some to be the Conditions of life And if you believe not this I refer you to Mr. Blake who will undertake to prove more 2. But your assertion is groundless I said not that they are works of the Law What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gospel duty Do I call the duty a work of the Law because I say the Law condemneth the neglecters of it 3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion and against that which you dispute against Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers when the Gospel hath commanded faith Have I so much ado to perswade the men of your party that the Gospel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty and that it is truly a Law which the Lutherans have taught too many and now do you think that its only the Gospel that Curseth impenitent unelievers and that maketh punishment due for the remnant of these sins in penitent Believers Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and self-contradiction Treat ib. But above all this is not to be endured that Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the New Covenant and that there is no such breach but final impenitency For are the defects of our Repentance faith and love in Christ other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace our unthankfulness unfruitfulness yea sometimes with Peter our grievous revolts and apostacies What are those but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest though they do not dissolve it But it is not my purpose to fall on this because of its impertinency to my matter in hand Answ I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preached Reader I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in darkness and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour bare-faced To which end besides what is said before understand 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him 3. A violation of Gods constitution Believe and be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar punishment 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions which left us under a non-liberation for that time and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was executed 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant or Law of Grace as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment These are my usual limitations and explications And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teaching to confound all these under the general name of Covenant-breaking 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine and like to make Congregations blessed that our defects of repentance unfruitfulness and unthankfulness c. are such violations of the Law of Grace or the Conditions of the Gospel as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment That is in plain English to say We shall all be damned Treat ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Justification then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts and troubles whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perversness from the fore-named Doctrine but the very Genius of it tends thereunto For if a Condition be not performed then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed As in faith if a man do not believe he cannot say Christ with his benefits are his Thus if he have not works the Condition is not performed but still he continueth without this benefit But for works How shall I know when I have the full number of them Whether is the Condition of the species or individuums of works Is not one kind of work omitted when it s my duty enough to invalidate my Justification Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all seeing that one is required as a Condition Answ Your Argument is an unproved Assertion not having any thing to make it probable 1. Belief in Christ as Lord and Teacher is Works with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he believeth in Christ as King and Prophet and is his Disciple as well as when he believeth in him as Priest 2. Repentance is Works also with the Opponents Why may not a man know when he Repenteth as well as when he believeth 3. Do you not give up the Protestant cause here to the Papists in the point of certainty of salvation We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is sincere And how why by its fruits and concomitants and that we take Christ for Lord as well as Saviour or to save us from the power of sin as well as the guilt And is it now come to that pass that these cannot be known What not the signs by which faith it self should be known and therefore should be notiora This it is to eye man and to be set upon the making good of an opinion 4. Let all Protestants answer you and I have answered you How will they know when they Repent and Believe when they have performed the full of these believed all necessary Truths Repented of all sins that must be Repented of Whether it be the species or individual acts of these that are necessary Will not the omission of Repentance for one sin invalidate it Or the omission of many individual acts of faith are not those acts conditions c. Answer these and you are answered 5. But I shall answer you briefly for them and me It s no impossible thing to know when a man sincerely believeth repenteth and obeyeth though many Articles are Essential to the Assenting part of faith and many sins must be Repented of and many duties must be done God hath made known to us the Essentials of each It is not the Degree of any of them but the Truth that is the Condition A man that hath imperfect Repentance Faith and Obedience may know when they are sincere notwithstanding the imperfections Do you not believe this Will you not maintain it against a Papist when you are returned to your former temper what need any more then to be said of it 6. Your Argument makes as much against the making use of these by way of bare signs as by way of Conditions For an unknown sign is no sign to us 7. And how could you over-look it that your Argument
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
honour of faith Though that were not so dangerous as to derogate from Christ For I acknowledge faith the only condition of our first Remission and justification and the principal part of the condition of our justification as continued and consummate And if faith be an instrumental cause I do not give that honor from it to works for they are not so Nay I boldly again aver that I give no more to obedience to Christ then Divines ordinarily do that is to be the secondary part of the condition of continued and consummate justification Only I give not so much as others to faith because I dare not ascribe so much to man And yet men make such a noise with the terrible name of Justification by works the Lords own phrase as if I gave more then themselves to man when I give so much less And thus Sir I have according to your advice spent my self as you speak in aiming at that mark which you were pleased to set me And now I shall proceed to the rest of your exceptions My next answer to you was that If works under every notion are excluded as you say they are then repentance is excluded under the notion of a condition or preparative But repentance under that notion is not excluded Therefore not works under every notion To this you reply that Repentance is not excluded as qualifying but as recipient which what is it but a plain yielding my Minor and so the cause For this is as much as I say If repentance be a work or act of ours and not excluded under the notion of a qualification or as you elsewhere yield a Medium ordinatum and a condition then works are not under every notion excluded And that repentance is not recipient how easily do I yeild to you But do you indeed think that when Paul excludeth the works of the Law that he excludeth them only as Recipient and not as qualifying If so as this answer seems to import seeing you will not have me here distinguish between works of Law and of Gospel or New Covenant then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I do or dare For I aver that Paul excludeth them even as qualifications yea and the very presence of them and that the Jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient To my next you say Whether Paul dispute what is our righteousness or upon what terms it is made ours it doth not much matter But I think it of very great moment they being Questions so very much different both in their sense and importance And whereas you think Paul speaks chiefly of the manner I think he speaks of both but primarily of the quasi materia and of the manner or means thereto but secondarily in reference to that So that I think the chief Question which Paul doth debate was Whether we are Justified by our own works or merits or by Anothers viz. the satisfaction of a surety which yet because it is no way made ours but by believing therefore he so puts the Question whether by works of the Law or by faith and so that he makes them two immediate opposites not granting any tertium I easily yield But of that before To the next you say that I cannot find such a figure for faith Relatively in my sense Answ And I conceive that faith in my sense may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours Doubtless acceptance of an offered Redeemer and all his benefits doth relate as properly to what is accepted viz. by the assent of the understanding initially and by the election and consent of the will consummately as a Physical Passive reception or instrumentality can do And also as it is a condition I make little doubt but it relateth to the thing given on that condition and that the very name of a condition is relative So that in my sense faith relateth to Christ two ways Whereof the former is but its very nature and so its aptitude to its office The later is that proper respect in which it immediately or directly justifieth Yet do I not mean as you seem to do as I gather by your phrase of putting Love and Obedience for Christs Righteousness For I conceive it may be put relatively and yet not strictly loco correlati for the thing related to when I say my hands or teeth feed me I do not put them instead of my Meat and yet I use the words relatively meaning my Meat principally and my teeth secondarily Neither do I mean that it relateth to Christs righteousness only or principally but first to himself And I doubt not but Love to Christ and Obedience to him as Redeemer do relate to him but not so fully clearly and directly express him as related to as Faith Faith being also so comprehensive a grace as to include some others It is a true saying that a poor woman that is marryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love and continued so by duty to her husband But it is more obscure and improper then to say she is made honourable by Marriage or taking such a man to her husband which includes love and implyeth duty and faithfulness as necessarily subsequent I conceive with Judicious Doctor Preston that faith is truly and properly such a consent contract or marriage with Christ Next to your similitude you say that I hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent but any other Actions of sense will as well heal the wounded Christian To which I answer Similitudes run not on all four Thus far I believe that this holds 1. Christ was lift up on the Cross as the brazen Serpent was lift up 2. He was lift up for a cure to sin-stung souls as the brazen Serpent for the stung bodies 3. That as every one that looked on the Serpent was cured an easie condition so every one that believeth Christ to be the appointed Redeemer and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered and so trusteth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life 4. That as the cure of their bodies came not from any natural reason drawn from the eye or from any natural excellency or efficacy of seeing above hearing or feeling but meerly from the free will and pleasure of God who ordained that looking should be the condition of their cure So all those Acts usually comprized or implyed in the word believing which justifie do it not from any natural excellency efficacy or instrumentality but meerly from the good pleasure of the Law-giver And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith that is its very formal essence must not be given as the proper direct cause of its Justifying But that is its conditionality from the free appointment of God But on the other side 1. It was only one Act of one sense which was the condition of their cure but you will not say I believe that it is only one act of one faculty which justifieth however I will not 2. It
to use any more distinctions then these few and therefore I will add no more about this Term. As to the term Evangelical Righteousness may be so called in a four-fold sense 1. Either because it is that righteousness which the Covenant or Law of Grace requireth as its Condition Or 2. Because its a Righteousness revealed by the Gospel Or 3. Because it is Given by the Gospel 4. Or because it 〈◊〉 ◠perfect fulfilling of the Precepts of the Gospel By a personal Righteousness we mean here not that which is ours by meer Imputation but that which is founded in somewhat Inherent in us or performed by us Necessity is 1. of a meer Antecedent 2. Or of a Means We mean the last Means are either causes or conditions I shall now by the help of these few distinctions give you the plain truth in some Propositions both Negatively and Affirmatively as followeth Proposition 1. It is confessed by all that know themselves or man and the Law that none of us have a Personal universal Righteousness For then there were no sin nor place for confession or pardon or Christ Prop. 2. And therefore we must all confess that in regard of the Preceptive part of the Law of works we are all unjust and cannot be justified by the deeds of the Law or by our works Prop. 3. And in regard of the Commination of that Law we are all under guilt and the Curse and are the children of wrath and therefore cannot be justified by that Law or by our works Both these are proved by Paul at large so that none have a personal Legal Righteousness Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper satisfaction of his own for the pardon of sin and escaping the curse of the Law But only Christs Satisfaction that fulfilled the Law and became a curse for us Prop. 5. No man can plead any merit of his own for procuring the Reward unless as actions that have the promise of a Reward are under Christ improperly called merits But our righteousness of this sort is only the merit and purchase of Christ and the free gift of the Gospel in him Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfectly justifiable by the perfect precepts of the Law of works And therefore we have no legal personal Righteousness at all that can properly be so called but are all corrupt and become abominable there being none that doth good no not one Imperfect legal righteousness is an improper speech it is properly no legal righteousness at all but a less degree of unrighteousness The more to blame they that call sanctification so Prop. 7. No man can say that he is a Co-ordinate Con-cause with Christ in his Justification or that he hath the least degree of a satisfactory or Meritorious Righteousness which may bear any part in co-ordination with Christs righteousness for his justification or salvation Prop. 8. We have not any personal Evangelical Righteousness of perfect obedience to the Precepts of Christ himself whether it be the Law of Nature as in his hand or the Gospel positives Prop. 9. Even the Gospel personal Righteousness of outward works though but in sincerity and not perfection is not necessary no not as an antecedent to our Justification at the first Prop. 10. External works of Holiness are not of absolute necessity to Salvation for it is possible that death may suddenly after Conversion prevent opportunity and then the inward faith and repentance will suffice Though I think no man can give us one instance of such a man de facto not the thief on the cross for he confessed prayed reproved the other c. Prop. 11. Where sincere Obedience is Necessary to Salvation it is not all the same Acts of obedience that are of Necessity to all men or at all times for the Matter may vary and yet the sinecerity of obedience continue But some special Acts are of Necessity to the sincerity Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness as having a perfect conformity to the Law But not so an Evangelical Righteousness for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits that he was neither obliged to fulfill nor capable of it If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law Christs righteousness was in some sort the righteousness of the Law of works for he merited all the reward of that Law But it was principally the righteousness of the special Covenant of Redemption between the Father and him but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man he did not repent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer If Righteousness be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law then Christs sufferings were neither a strictly legal or an Evangelical righteousness For the Law required the supplicium ipsius delinquentis and knew no Surety or Substitute But thus Christs sufferings were a Pro-Legal-righteousness as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening but a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver which was equivalent and so a valuable consideration why the Law should not be fulfilled by our damnation but dispensed with by our pardon So that the Commination was the cause of Christs sufferings and he suffered materially the same sort of Death which the Law threatened But most strictly his sufferings were a Righteous fulfilling his part of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father But in no propriety were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace against the Despisers or neglecters of Grace I mean that proper to the Gospel Prop. 13. Christs righteousness is well called our Evangelical Righteousness both as it is Revealed by the Gospel and conferred by it and opposed to the legal way of Justification by perfect personal Righteousness So that by calling our own personal righteousness Evangelical we deny not that Title to Christs but give it that in a higher respect and much more Prop. 14. No personal righteousness of ours our faith or repentance is any proper cause of our first Justification or of our entering into a justifyed state Though as they remove Impediments or are Conditions they may improperly be called causes So much for the Negative Propositions Affirm Prop. 1. That a Godly man hath a particular righteousness or may be Just in a particular cause there is no man can deny unless he will make him worse then the Devil for if the Devil may be falsly accused or belyed he is just in that particular cause Prop. 2. All Christians that I know do confess an Inherent Righteousness in the Saints and the necessity of this righteousness to Salvation So that this can be no part of our Controversie Prop. 3. Consequently all must confess that Christs righteousness imputed is not our only righteousness Yea that the righteousness of Pardon and Justification from sin is no further necessary then men are sinners and therefore the less need any
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
Evangelical as declared and given by the Gospel But the thing in question you now fully confess Mr. W. pag. 171. That we our selves are not the subjects of Evangelical righteousness I shall endeavour to prove by thesâ— Arguments 1. If our Evangelical righteousness be out of us in Christ then it is not in â—â— consisting in the habit or Acts of faith and Gospel obedience but it is out of us in Christ Answ We shall have such another piece of work with this point as the former to defend the truth against a man that layeth about him in the dark 1. I have oft enough distinguisht of Evangelical righteousness The righteousness conform to the Law and revealed and given by the Gospel is meritoriously and materially out of us in Christ The righteousness conform to the Gospel as constituting the condition of life He that believeth shall not perish Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out This is in our selves materially and not out of us in Christ Mr. W. 2. If satisfaction to Divine Justice were not given or caused by any thing in us but by Christ alone then Evangelical righteousness is in Christ alone But Ergo without blood no remission Answ Your proof of the consequence is none but worse then silence Besides the satisfaction of Justice and remission of sin thereby there is a subservient Gospel righteousness as is proved and is undeniable Mr. W. 3. If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves then perfect righteousness is in our selves But that 's not so Ergo. Answ Still you play with the ambiguity of a word and deny that which beseems you not to deny that the fulfilling of the condition Believe and Live is a Gospel-righteousness particular and subservient and imperfect The Saints have an Inherent righteousness which is not Legal therefore it is Evangelical If you say it s no righteousness you renounce the constant voice of Scripture If you say it is a Legal righteousness imperfect then you set up Justification by the works of the Law the unhappv fate of blind opposition to do what they intend to undo For there is no righteousness which doth not justifie or make righteous in tantum and so you would make men justified partly by Christ and partly by a Legal righteousness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evangelical righteousness without any cause in the world but darkness jealousie and humorous contentious zeal Yea more then so we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for were we judged by it And yet will you say that faith or inherent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical Mr. W. 4. If Evangelical righteousness were in ourselves and did consist either in the habit or act of faith and new obedience then upon the intercision of those acts our Justification would discontinue But Answ If you thought not your word must go for proof you would never sure expect that we should believe your Consequence For 1. What shew is there of reason that the intercision of the act should cause the cessation of that Justification which is the consequent of the Habit which you put in your Antecedent The Habit continueth in our sleep when the acts do not 2. As long as the cause continueth which is Christs Merits and the Gospel-Grant Justification will continue if the condition be but sincerely performed For the Condition is not the cause much less a Physical cause But the condition is sincerely performed though we believe not in our sleep I dare not instance in your payment of Rent left a Carper be upon mâ— back but suppose you give a man a lease of Lands on condition he come once a moneth or week or day and say I thank you or in general on condition he be thankful Doth his Title cease as oft as he shuts his lips from saying I thank you These are strange Doctrines Mr. W. 5. If Evangelical righteousness were in our selves and faith with our Gospel obedience were that righteousness then he who hath more or less faith or obedience were more or less justified and more or less Evangelically righteous according to the degrees of faith and obedience Answ I deny your Consequence considering faith and repentance as the Condition of the Promise because it is the sincerity of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition and not the degree and therefore he that hath the least degree of sincere faith hath the same title to Christ as he that hath the strongest 2. But as faith and obedience respect the Precept of the Gospel and not the Promise so it is a certain truth that he that hath most of them hath most Inherent Righteousness Mr. W. 6. That opinion which derogates from the Glory and Excellency of Christ above all Graces and from the excellency of Faith in its Office of justifying above other Graces ought not to be admitted But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteousness in the habit act or Grace of faith and Gospel obedience derogates from both Christ and Faith Answ Your Minor is false and your proof is no proof but your word Your similitude should have run thus If an Act of Oblivion by the Princes purchase do pardon all that will thankfully accept it and come in and lay down arms of Rebellion it is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to say I accept it I stand out no longer and therefore it is mine If you offer to heal a deadly sore on condition you be accepted for the Chyrurgion doth it derogate from your honour if your Patient say I do consent and take you for my Chyrurgion and will take your Medicines Your proof is as vain and null that it derogates from faith What that Faith should be this subservient Righteousness Doth that dishonour it Or is it that Repentance is conjoyned as to our first Justification and obedience as to that at Judgement When you prove either of these dishonourable to faith we will believe you but it must be a proof that is stronger then the Gospel that is against you We confess faith to be the receiving Condition and repentance but the disposing Condition but both are Conditions As for Phil. 3.9 Do you not see that it is against you I profess with Paul not to have a righteousness of my own which is of the Law which made me loth to call faith and repentance a legal righteousness but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousness which is of God by faith Faith you see is the means of our Title to Christs Righteousness And if you deny faith it self to be any particular Righteousness you must make it a sin or indifferent and contradict the Scriptures And presently contradicting what you have been arguing for that Evangelical Righteousness is not in us and we are not the Subjects of it You profess pag. 178. That Inherent Righteousness is in us It seems then either Inherent righteousness is not righteousness or it is
hear that their Discretion forbad them the other For all men are not so easily whistled into a Christs-Church contention against the Truth and Church of Christ as ' Dr. K. and one or two Confidents that living in a cold and sâ—eril Country are less substantive and more adjective then Innocents and Independents use to be None 's here so fruitfull as the Leaning Vine And what though some be drunken with the Wine They 'l fight the better if they can but hit And lay about them without fear or But stay See What Example is As the name of Dâ— K. and the remembrance of his differtatiuncula an Appendant to fax pro Tribunali that could salva fide fidem solvere began to tice me into a jocound vein so your concluding Poetry had almost tempted me in an Apish imitation to Poetize when weariness made me think of a conclusion But I had rather conclude with this serious motion to you that my end may meet your beginning that before you next write on this Subject you will better consider of the question that your qua justificans concerneth And instead of telling us that fides qua justificans respicit Christum Salvatorem that is fides qua justificans est fides as if it were justifying in order of Nature before it is Faith you will be pleased to tell us sub qua ratione fides justificat vel fide justificamut Whether you will say that fides qua justificans justificat or fides qua fides justificat which I think you disown or fides qua respicit apprehendit recipit Christum which is all one as fides qua fides or fides qua Instrumentum apprehendens which Metaphorical expression still signifieth no more then qua credit in Christum or qua fides Or whether you will stand to what you have affirmed chap. 9. pag. 67. that its Gods assignation of it to the office who therefore doth it because he wills it and to what you said pag 304. The meerest formal reason of a Believers Interest to pardon is a Believers fulfilling the condition And if you will stand to this that you have said and understand that the Doctrine of us whom you assault is the same more carefully expressed be intreated then to let your next bolt be shot at the right mark which is all that 's now requested of you by Your Christian Brother whether you will or no RICHARD BAXTER Decemb. 25. 1657. Richard Baxters DISCVSSION OF Mr John Tombes his Friendly Acceptable ANIMADVERSIONS ON HIS Aphorisms and other Writings About the Nature of Justification and of justifying Faith LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Sir UPON reading of the Postscript in your late Book I have sent you these Animadversions You say Aphor. of Justification â—ag 184. All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life I understand of Justification in Title of Law So Rom. 5.1 and 4 2. and 5.9 Jam. 2.21 25 c. I conceive Justification being Gods Act Rom. 3.30 Rom. 8.33 consequent upon Faith and calling and importing a sentence opposite to Condemnation Rom. 8.30 33 34. and 5.1 terminated on particular persons Rom. 4.2 3 Rom. 8.30 it must be more then the Vertual Justification in Law-Title which is only an act of God prescribing or promisig a way of Justification not the sentence it self and is general and indeterminate to particular persons and is performed before the person justified believes Yea is the same though none were actually justified and therefore in my apprehension that Act of Gods Covenanting or promising in which I conceive you place the Justification by Law-Title Thes 38. Is not the Justification by faith meant Rom. 5.1 c. Besides to be justified notes a Passion which presupposeth an Action an Act Transient not Immanent or only Gods purpose to justifie nor can it be Gods Promise to justifie For the Act though it be Transient yet it is only a Declaration what he will do his promise to justifie upon condition is not Justifying and therefore a man is not by the Covenant without a further Act Denominated Justified though he be made justifyable by it I conceive Justification is a Court term Importing an Act of God as Judge whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge but Rector thes 42. you mention the Angels judging us Righteous and Rejoycing therein which whence it should be but by a sentence passed in Heaven I know not Constitutive Justification different from Declarative by sentence I do not find expressed under the term Justification It would be considered whether any other Act besides the sentence doth make a man just but giving of faith notwithstanding Christs Death and the conditional Covenant before faith a person is only justifyable Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse A person is upon giving of Faith justified but not by giving of faith that 's an act of Sanctification but by a sentence of God Thes 59. You make justification a continued act now it being a transient act I suppose it may not be well called a continued Act which imports a successive motion between the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem whereas the act whether by sentence or Covenant is not such a Motion It s not to be denyed that the Benefit and Vertue of it is continued but I think not the Act. If it be not sâ—mel but saepe yet it should be rather called Actus Renovatus Repetitus Iteratus then continued I incline to think there is but one Justification of a person in this life though there be frequent remissions of sin Of this you may Consider In the Saints Everlasting Rest pag. 11. Doubtless the Gospel takes faith for our obedience to All Gospel Precepts Believing doth not produce subjection to Christ as King as a finite but contains it as an Essential part c. Aphor. p. 25.5 Faith doth as Really and Immediately Receive Christ as King as Saviour or Priest and so Justifie Thes 65. Scripture doth not take the word Faith for any one single Act nor yet for various Acts of one only faculty but for a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ its Object Thes 57. It is the Act of faith which justifies men at Age and not the Habit. Against this I object 1. Faith worketh by Love Gal. 5.16 If one be an essential part of the other and faith a compleat entire motion of the soul then when it is said Faith worketh by Love it might be said it worketh by Faith 2. 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 You conceive the Justification Jam. 2. to be by works in a proper sence and that before God and Rahabs act was a work of Hospitality ver 25.
commanded in the Law and Abrahams work was a sacrificing or offering a work of the Ceremonial Law ver 21. 3. Repentance is obedience to one Gospel Precept yet Faith and Repentance are distinguished Mar. 1.15.6 1. Love Faith Hope are three 1 Cor. 13.13 1. Tim. 1.5 2 Thes 1.3 faith and Love have different Objects Col. 1.4 Phil. 5. 1 Thes 1. ◠Therefore not the same nor one an Essential part of the other 4. Obedience is a sign to prove faith Jam. 2.18 and therefore not an Essential part 5. If Faith include obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an Essential part then actual faith includes actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an essential part and if the Act of faith Justifie men at Age not the Habit and receiving Christ as King as immediatly Justifie as believing in Christ as Saviour then a person of Age is not Justified without actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts and this may be not till Death if then and so no Justification in this Life 6. If Faith justifie as immediatly by receiving Christ as King as by receiving him as Saviour then it justifies by receiving Christ as Judge Matth. 25.34 as Law-giver Avenger of his enemies and so a man is justified By receiving Christs Judging Punishing Condemning Commanding Avenging as well as saving by his Death which is contrary to Rom. 3.25 5.9 7. The Scripture makes the object of justifying faith Christs Death Resurrection Blood Rom. 3.25 10.9 Gal. 2.20 21. Nowhere Christs dominion Ergo. Subjection to Christ as King is not an essential part 8. The object of Faith is nowhere made to be a Gospel Precept such as forgiving others using Sacraments c. nor Christ as commanding but the Declaration of the Accomplishments of Christ and the counsel of God in him 1 Cor. 15.1 c. Rom. 1 16 17. Gal. 3.8 Ergo Obedience is not an Essential part 9. If it be an essential part then either Genus or Difference for no other Essential parts belong to a quality or Action not the Genus that 's Assent Aph. p. 254.274 when the object is a Proposition when it is an Incomplex term Trust is the Genus not the Difference that 's chiefly taken from the object Keker syst Logic. l. 1. sect 2. c. 2. can Defin. Accid 5.7 Obedience may make known Faith as a sign but not as a part it s at least in order of Nature after the cause is afore the effect the Antecedent before the Consequent and faith is such Heb. 11.8 c. 10. If Faith be a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ then it should be Love Joy Hope Understanding Will Memory Fear But this is not to be said Ergo. It is alleadged 1. Faith must be the Act of the whole soul else part should receive him part not Answ Faith is expressed by the Metaphor of Receiving Joh. 1.12 Col. 2.6 And he is Received by the Receiving of his Word Joh. 12.48 1 Thes 2.13 which is Received by Assent 2. The whole soul receives Christ though by other Graces besides faith 2. Acts 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Answ The term Whole notes not every inward faculty but as after sincerely not feignedly as Simon Magus So Illyricus 3. Faith is called Obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 1 Pet. 1.22 4.17 2 Thes 1.8 Gal. 3.1 5.7 Heb. 5.9 But the Gospel commandeth All thus to obey Christ as Lord forgive others love his people bear what sufferings are Imposed diligently use his Means and Ordinances confessing bewailing sins praying for pardon sincerely and to the end Answ Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeyng Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ but be it granted Faith is called obeying of Christ or the Gospel doth it follow that it is obedience in doing those named Acts It may be obedience by Assent to the Doctrine of Christ that he is the Messiah died for sins c. commanded 1 Cor. 15.3 1 Joh. 3.23 which the terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do rather Import then the other Acts mentioned The Gospel and Truth are restrained to the Doctrine of Christs coming dying c nowhere applyed that I know to the Precepts of forgiving others suffering death receiving the Lords Supper c. 4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called faith Gal. 3.12 23 25. Answer Neither of these places make faith the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant nor any place else In Gal. 3.12 It s said the Law that is the Covenant of the Law is not of Faith i. e. doth not assign Life to Faith in Christ Faith Gal. 3 23 25. is put saith Piscat for the time of the Gospel or Christ say others or the Doctrine of Faith By Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justification in this life is fulfilled not concerning every Benefit of the new Covenant Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins forgiving others doing good to the Saints of entering into Life 5. The Gospel reveals not Christs offices as separate Ergo. They mnst be so believed Answ The conclusion is granted but proves not faith to justifie in receiving Christ as King 6. It offers Christ as King and so must be received Answer the same 7. Scripture nowhere tieth Justification to the receit of him as priest only Ar. The contrary is proved from Rom. 3.25 5.9 8. Commonly Christ is called our Lord and Saviour Answ True But we are justified by his blood 9. If we receive him not as a King then not as an entire Saviour Answ True Yet Justification is by his death 2 Cor. 5.21 Gal. 2.21 Rom. 3 25 and 59. 10. Christ is not received truly if not entirely as King Answ True But this proves not that obedience is an essential part of faith or that subjection to Christ as King justifies as immediatety as receiving him as Saviour 11. The exalting of his proper Kingly office is a Principal End of Christs dying Psal 2. Rom. 14.9 Answ True But it follows not that either Obedience is an Essential part of faith or subjection to Christ as King justifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or Priest Yours in the Truth I.T. Sir IT s to be considered 1. Whether these words answer to Valedict orat at B. pag. 191. Nothing but the satisfaction of Christ is that which our Divines call the matter of our Justification or the Righteousness which we must plead to Acquit us in Judgement And it is said Rom. 3.25 through faith in his Blood and Rom. 5.9 by his Blood Do not prove Christs Death either the sole or chief Object of faith as Justifying and how this stands with Aphorism of Justification Thes 66. and its Explication 2. Whether the words Luk. 12.14 import not a disclaiming or denial of a Title to judge and so your answer be not insufficient pag. 276. which seems to suppose a Title and only a Suspension of Exercise in that state of Humiliation 3.
your Grounds conduce to it more then mine I shall like them better Sir pardon the prolixity here and Acrimony elswhere of Your unfeigned well-willer RICHARD BAXTER THE Reader must understand that since the Writing of this I have endeavoured to clear this point in my Directions for Peace of Conscience To which now I add but this that besides a Plenary Guilt or Remission there seems to be a Guilt and Remission that are both but imperfect and of a middle sort that is that as in Peters act of sin the habit of faith remained so with his Guilt a state of Justification remained As none of his old sins returned on him so the Covenant of Grace upon his Habitual Faith did hinder the Guilt from being Plenary or fixed by beginning a Remission I fear not to call it an imperfect Remission The Law doth pronounce Death on a man for every sin it is so far in force as to determine that Death is both deserved and due to this man for this sin But at the same instant though after in order of nature the Gospel that giveth pardon to Believers doth give an Imperfect pardon to David Peter and such Habitual Believers as soon as they sin before Faith and Repentance for that sin be actuall and their Pardon will become plenary when they actually Repent and Believe Their Sin is like the fault of a Kings Son or Subject that in a Passion should strike the King when yet Habitually he hath a loving Loyal heart to him He deserveth Death and by Law it may be his due but he is a Son still and the King will not take this advantage against him though he will not fully pardon him till he submit and lament his Fault We are still the Children of God notwithstanding those sins that go against the Habitual bent of our Hearts for that 's the Tryal but must have actual Faith and Repentance before we shall have full pardon Whether you will call that Pardon which the Promise giveth upon meer habitual Repentance A vertual Pardon and that which it giveth on actual Repentance an actual Pardon or what name you will give it I leave to consideration but compleat it is not in a case of heynous sin till Actual Repentance Though it may be in a case of some unknown unobserved or forgotten infirmities For the full condition is necessary to a full Pardon He is near the case of a man that hath a Pardon granted him for Murder but for want of some action to be performed he hath not yet possession of it and cannot yet plead it If you ask me what should become of such a man if he so die before Repentance I answer 1. I think it is a case that will never fall out For 1. God is as it were engaged by Love and Promise and by giving his indwelling Spirit to Believers to bring them to Repentance 2. The new Nature or Disposition of such a man will not suffer him to be long without Actual Repentance at least in some measure especially when Death shall look him in the faâ—e I doubt not but David did repent before Nathan spoak to him but God would not wake up with so short and secret a Repentance for so great and odious a Crime 2. But if you can prove it profitable for such a 〈◊〉 to be suddenly cut off before Repentance and that such a thing will be I should incline to think that he will be fully pardoned at the instant of Death and so saved because the Lord knoweth that he repented Habitually and vertually and would have done it actually if he had had time for consideration 3. Or if we should conclude that God hath purposely left men of such a middle condition without any certainty how he will deal with them that so no man may be encouraged to sin and in Impudency I think it no dangerous Doctrine nor injurious to the Body of saving Truth And thus I have now many years since the writing of the foregoing Papers told you in brief what satisfieth me concerning this difficult point for the reconciling of the guilt of every particular sin especially the more haynous with the Doctrine of persevering uninterrupted Justification Somewhat also I have said of it in my Papers expressing my Judgement about Perseverance lately published Jan. 5. 1657. 8. THE FOURTH DISPVTATION Qu. Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of Faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether the Faith which Paul opposeth to Works in the Point of Justification be one only Physical Act of the Soul Neg. OR Whether all Humane Acts except one Physical Act of faith be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Justification Neg. I PUT these two Questions together for brevity and Elucidation of the Matter in doubt for so in effect they are but One avoiding all unnecessary Explication of terms concerning which we are agreed it is but little that I have need to say for your understanding of the sense of the Question 1. It is here supposed that Paul doth maintain Justification by Faith and opposeth it to Justification by the works of the Law and so opposeth Salvation by Grace and by works 2. It is supposed that non datur tertium there is no middle way of Justification besides these two by faith or by Works and therefore whatsoever Acts we are here justified by it must needs follow that those Acts are none of the Works that Paul here speaketh of as excluded and whatsoever Acts are excluded are none of the Faith by which Paul telleth us here that we are justified This we are agreed on and so it is often pressed by my Opponents that there is no third way which I grant them But note that I do not therefore grant them that there is no tertium or other act either implyed in Faith or subservient to it in that way of Justification that is by Faith It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all other Gracious Acts relating to Christ no not from this business of Justification as attendants on Faith or modifications of it implyed in it or subservient to it And therefore it will not follow that any third thing by which we are thus justified is either Faith or Works but only that is not Works because they are excluded 3. I put the Physical Act whose Unity we speak of in contradistinction to one moral Fact which may contain many Physical Acts such as Marriage which is one in a civil or moral sense but many Physical Acts and such as almost all Contracts be as taking a man to be my
cause as they think some other Act is Paul doth not exclude that which he makes necessary Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace is none of the works that Paul sets faith against But other acts of faith in Christ do not make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one act which you will choose E. g. Believing in Christ as King and Teacher any more then believing in him as a Ransom therefore they are not the works that Pauls sets faith against The Major is proved from the Description of the excluded works Rom. 4.4 The Minor is evident Argument 6. All acts of Faith in Christ as our Justifier are such as are opposed to works by Paul and are none of the works which faith is opposed to But they are more then one or two that are Acts of faith in Christ as Justifier Ergo. The Major I think will be granted the Minor is plain For 1. Christ justifieth us meritoriously as a Sacrifice 2. And as Obeying and fulfilling the Law 3. As the complement of his satisfaction and the entrance upon his following execution his Resurrection justifieth us 4. As the Heavenly Priest at Gods right hand he justifieth us by his Intercession 5 As King and Head he justifieth us by his Covenant or Law of Grace 6. As King and Judge he justifieth us by sentence 7. As Prophet he teacheth us the Doctrine of Justification and how to attain to Justification by sentence So that at least none of these are the excluded works Argum. 7. If the whole Essence of Christian faith be opposed to works and so be none of the opposed works in the matter of Salvation then it s so also in the matter of Justification But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent The Minor is confessed by my Opponents The consequence of the Major I prove 1. Because Salvation is as free as Justification and no more of works which Paul excludeth 2. Salvation comprehendeth Justification and Glorification hath the same conditions as final Justification at Judgement it being part of Justification to adjudge that Glory 3. The express Scripture excludes works as much from Salvation as from Justification Eph. 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life Many such places are obvious to any diligent Reader For the Minor also read 1 Cor. 15.1 2 3 4 5 6 c. Argum. 8. If no man can name any one Act of faith that is opposed to all the rest as works or opposed to works when the rest are not then no such thing it to be asserted But no man can name the Act that is thus opposed alone to works 1. It is not yet done that I know of We cannot get them to tell us what Act it is 2. And if they do others will make as good a claim to the Prerogative Argum. 9. They that oppose us and affirm the Question do feign God to have a strange partiality to one Act of faith above all the rest without any reason or aptitude in that act to be so exalted But this is not to be feigned and proved it cannot be that God should annex our Justification to the Belief in Christ as a sacrifice only and to oppose this to belief in him as Rising Interceding Teaching Promising or Judging is a fiction contrary to Scripture Examine any Text you please and see whether it will run well with such an Exposition Rom. 4.4 5. Now to him that worketh i. e. Believeth in Christ as Teacher Judge Intercessor is the reward not reckoned of Grace but of Debt But to him that worketh not that is believeth not on Christ as King and Teacher c. but Believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly an act of his Kingly office c. Doth this run well I will not trouble you with so unsavoury a Paraphrase upon the like Scriptures you may try at pleasure on Rom. 3. 4. and Gal. 3. Eph. 2. Phil. 3. or any such Text. Argument 10. If the Doctrine of the Opponents holding the Affirmative were true then no man can tell whether he be a condemned Legalist or not yea more if it be not faith in Christ as such containing the whole Essence by which we are justified as opposed to works or which is none of the excluded works then no man can tell but he is a condemned Legalist But the Consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Reason of the Consequence is because no man is able to tell you which is the sole justifying Act or which are the only acts if it be not faith Essentially that is it for among all the acts before mentioned if a man mistake and think one other E. g. faith in Christs Resurrection in Christ as King Judge Teacher c. is it by which he must be justified then he falls upon Justification by Works and so falls short of Grace for if it be of Works then it is no more of Grace else Works were no Works And so no man can tell but he destroyeth Grace and expecteth Justification by works much less can weak Christians tell I never yet saw or heard from any Divine a just Nomination with proof of the one Justifying act or a just Enumeration of the many acts if all must not be taken in that are Essential Some say Affiance is the only act but as that 's confuted by the most that take in Assent also so there are many and many acts of Affiance in Christ that are necessary and they should tell us which of these it is Object And do you think that we can any better tell when we have all that are Essential Or doth every weak Christian believe all the twenty Articles that you mentioned at first Answ 1. We can better know what is Revealed then what 's unrevealed The Scripture tells us what faith in Christ is but not what one or two acts do Justifie excluding all other as Works Divines have often defined Faith but I know not that any hath defined any such one act as thus exalted above the rest of the Essence of Faith If we covld not tell what is essential to Faith we could not tell what faith is 2. The twenty Objects of Assent before mentioned are not all Articles or material Objects the second is the formal Object And of the rest unless the Fifth Believing that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of a Virgin may be excepted which I dare not affirm
not designed to their provocation or dishonour and as I heartily do the like by theirs and as I hope God will do both theirs and mine And I do adjure the Reader to believe that this Controversie for all our infirmities is managed with a very high esteem and honour of those Reverend Brethren whom I am necessitated to gainsay Nor would I have it be any dishonour to them though an excuse to me that they have been the Assailants and begun the conflict for the Truths of God must be precious to us all and I doubt not but they were confident that it was some dangerous errour which they set upon and I have here proved to be the Truth Nor is it any such wrong to either side to be openly contradicted that Reasons may be openly produced and men may have some further help to see into these Points Let the proud swell or smart because they are thus proclaimed fallible and mistaken but the Humble that are devoted servants to the Truth are of another spirit and have learnt another lesson And if any Papist or enemy to our unity and Peace shall from these Writings predicate our dissentions or divisions let them know to their faces that even these differences as momentous as they seem are not neer so great as are commonly published among themselves nor are they for Number one to twenty perhaps to a hundred that are agitated in their Schooles and the writings of their Doctors Had we such differences as those of the Jesuit Casuists opened by Montaltas the Jansenian in his Mysterie of Jesuitism out of their own writings something they might then say against us Yea I doubt not but we differ with more hearty Christian Love then they agree and have more real union in our controversies then they have in their Articles of Faith and are neerer one another in our smaller differences then the French and Italians are in their very Fundamentals The third Disputation was called forth by Mr. Warner's Treatise of the Object and Office of Faith and takes up the subject of the first Disputation with some others When that was in the Press Mr. Tombes's Book against Infant Baptism came forth in which I found the Papers that I sent to him upon his importunity printed without my consent which if God will I shall yet vindicate And therefore seeing that it is his way I thought he might do the like by other Papers which formerly I had wrote to him on this subject of Justification And therefore thinking it fitter that I should publish them of the two then he I have saved him the charge of printing them and annexed them to these The fourth Disputation was added because it is the very heart of our Controversie which most of our Disputes about the instrumentall Causality of Faith as to Justification and the other Concomitant are resolved into That the Reader may understand these Disputations the better I shall here at the entrance shew him the face of the way that I maintain and also of the way that I oppose The way that I plead for is contained in these Propositions 1. Man having broken the Law of Nature or works is lost and disabled to his own Recovery or to do any works by which that Law will ever justifie him 2. Jesus Christ hath Redeemed him from this lost condition by his Incarnation Life Death Resurrection c. fulfilling the Law by his obedience and suffering for our not fulfilling it and thereby satisfying the Lawgiver and attaining the ends of the Law and more making himself an example to us of holiness and becoming our Teacher High Priest and King to save us from all sin and enemies and recover us to God for our Salvation and his Glory and Pleasure 3. The Offices and Works of Christ are for other ends as well as for our justification even for our Sanctification Glorification c. 4. The Believer ought not to confound the offices works or ends and effects but to apprehend them as distinctly as he can 5. The same Offices of Christ are exercised in the effecting several works He doth justifie us both as Priest Prophet and King and he sanctifieth us as Priest Prophet and King His Death purchasing both our justification and sanctification and his Teaching shewing us the way to both and his Kingly Office conferring both though most notably our justification and the Prophetical effecting more of our sanctification then of our justification 6 We must have part in Christ himself as our Head in order of Nature before we can partake of justification Sanctification as following our first faith or Glorification from him 7. Though our Physical Communion with Christ is effected by a Physical change on the soul yet our Right to him and to Justification and other following benefits is the effect of a free Gift or Testament or Promise and that Promise or free Gift is our Title which is Fundamentum juris or the efficient Instrumental cause 8. Christ and pardon or justification and Right to Heaven c. are given us by one and the same Deed of Gift so that he that hath Right to Christ hath by the same Title on the same terms Right to these his benefits 9. This Promise or Gift is conditional though it be but the Condition of a free Gift that is required 10. No mans works Repentance or Faith is his proper Title to pardon or life nor any proper meritorious cause of it nor any efficient Principal or Instrumental causes of his Right No act of ours can be more then a meer condition of that Right and a Causa sine quâ non which as it is an act that 's pleasing to God and hath the Promise of a Reward the Fathers called improperly by the Name of Merit which yet less fitly agrees to the Condition of our first Justification then of our Glorification 11. Christs pardon and life are given by this Gospel-Promise on condition of our faith in Christ that is if we become Believers in Christ or Christians which is If we accept of Christ as offered in the Gospel and that is to bring us from our sins and selves to God by the acts of his Teaching Priestly and Kingly Office Or if we believe in Christ as Christ So that it is not any one single act of Faith that is the condition of Justification nor are the several Benefits of Christ given us on condition of several acts of Faith as if we had Right to pardon by one act and to Christ himself by another and to Adoption by another and to Heaven by another c. Nor have the several acts of our faith as divided an Interest in procurement of the Benefits as Christs actions had But it is one and the same entire faith in Christ as Christ that is the condition of all these consequent special Benefits without division in the procurement So that the Belief in Christ as our Teacher and King hath as much hand in our
shall not perish but have everlasting life He that believeth on him is not condemned Not to be condemned is to be justified Condemnation and Justification are opposed in Scripture Rom. 8 33 4. Here therefore a saving faith and a justifying are made all one And it is Believing in Christ without exclusion of any essential part that is this faith It is Believing in the Name of the only begotten Son of God ver 18. which is more then to believe his Ransom Thirdly John 3.35 36. The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into his hand he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him To have Gods wrath abide on him to be unjustified And the unbelievers opposed to the Believers before mentioned are such as Believe not the son which phrase cannot possibly be limited to the affiance in his blood It is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often translated Disobedient signifying saith Willet both unbelieving and disobedient but rather Disobedient properly it is unperswadable But of this more anon And the faith here mentioned is Believing on the son entirely without exclusion of any essential acts nay expresly including the act in question by shewing that it is faith in Christ as Lord into whose hands the Father hath given all things as the connexion of these words to the foregoing doth manifest Fourthly Rom. 1.16 17 18. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth for therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written the just shall live by faith where saving and justifying faith is made the same and that is to be a believer of the Gospel or in Christ without limitation to any one essential part of it Fifthly Rom. 3.22 Even the Righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe Here it is faith in Jesus Christ by which we are justified which therefore includeth all that is essential to it Object Vers 25. It is said to be by faith in his blood Answ 1. But there is not a syllable confining it to faith in his blood alone It saith not by faith only in his blood Secondly The ordinary course of Scripture is to call it by that name faith in Jesus Christ which comprehendeth all that 's essential to it But sometime upon special occasions it s denominated from some one notable act or part And that is when it is the scope of the text to denote more the distinct Interest of that part of Christs Office which is related to that act of faith then any sole Interest of that act of faith it self And so the Apostle here mentioneth faith in his blood as a special act because he now draweth them especially to observe that blood which is the Object of it and in other places he instanceth in other acts of faith but commonly speaks of it entirely And I think the Opponents will grant that as only is not here expressed so neither is it implyed for then it would exclude also faith in the rest of his satisfactory Humiliation or at least in his active Righteousness if not in his Person or Relation of which more anon So vers 18.30 31. It s called faith entirely or without restriction by which we are justified and therefore none of the essentials are excluded But it would be too tedious to recite the particular Texts It s known that by faith and by believing in Christ without exclusion or limitation is the common please of Scripture when it speaks how we are justified as many further be seen Rom. 5.1 2. 9.32 Gal. 2.16 we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ and by believing in Jesus Christ as opposed to the works of the Law but not by faith in his Priesthood or Ransom as opposed to faith in him as our Lord and Teacher Gal. 3.11 24 25 26. 5.5.6 Eph 2.8 9. 3.12 17. Phil. 3.9 Rom. 9.30 Heb. 11. throughout John 6 35 40 47. Acts 10.42 43. Rom. 10 10. Acts 23.39 From these and many the like I argue thus The Scripture doth ascribe our Justification to faith and doth not limit it to any one part of faith excluding the rest Believing in Jesus Christ as Redeemer Prophet Priest and King is essentially this faith Ergo c. If the Scripture speaks of faith essentially not limiting it ad partem fidei then so must we But the Scripture doth so Ergo ' c. It is nowhere more necessary then in such cases this to hold to the Rule of not distinguishing ubi lex non distinguit First Because it is an adding to the doctrine of Christ in a point of weight Secondly Because it savoureth of a presumptuous detraction from the Condition Imposed by Christ himself If a Prince do make a General act of Oblivion pardoning all Rebels that will enter into Covenant with him wherein they consent to Accept his pardon and take him for their Soveraign Lord He that shall now say that Returning to his Allegiance or consenting to the Princes Soveraignty is no part of the Condition of the Traytors pardon but that they are pardoned only by accepting of a pardon and not by the other act will certainly be guilty of adding to the act of his Prince and of detracting from the condition by him required and so is it in our present case If God speak of any thing essentially we must not presume without sufficient proof of the restriction to expound it only de parte essentiali If he invite a Guest to his marriage feast he means not the mans head only or his heart only for neither of these is the man If he require a lamb in sacrifice we must not expound it of the head only or heart only of a Lamb. To this Argument briefly in my Apology Mr. Blake having first excepted at the newness of the phrase Lord-Redeemer doth answer thus I say Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer and as our Master or Teacher but faith in Justification eyes Redemption not Dominion Repl. First The Phrase Faith in Justification is as unacceptable to me as Lord-Redeemer is to you not only for the Novelty but the ambiguity if not the false Doctrine which it doth import First If the meaning be Faith as it is the Condition of our Justification then its contrary to your own Concession after that this should eye Christs Priest-hood only and it s an untruth which you utterly fail in the proof or do nothing to it Secondly If you mean Faith in its effecting of our Justification then it importeth another mistake which you have not proved viz. that faith doth effect our Justification If you mean Faith in Receiving Justification either you mean the proper Passive Receiving and this is but Justificari and the man
similitudes that have little or no similitude as to this The common similitude is A man that is oculatus heareth but not qua oculatus but qua auritus c. Repl. First If you take quà strictly the affirmative is not true For then à quatenus ad omne every man that is auritus would hear whereas he may stop his ears and be where is no sound c. And a man that hath eyes may wink and be in the dark c. Secondly If quà signifie the aptitude or causal interest I deny the similitude It is dissimile and the reason of the difference is evident for a mans eyes are Physical efficient causes of his sight and his ears of hearing naturally in their aptitude and potentiality determined to their proper objects but saith is no efficient cause of our Justification or of our interest in Christ at all much less a Physical efficient cause But the Interest it hath is Moral which dependeth on the Donors will and it is no higher then that of a condition and therefore the act that Physically hath least respect to the object may in this case if the Donor please do as much to procure a Title to it as that which hath the nearest physical respect to it As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will discover a Traitor or marry one that oweth it here the alien act hath more interest in procuring your Title then your Apprehending or treading on the soil or taking possession yea or accepting the deed of Gift it self So God hath made our Accepting of whole Christ to be the condition of life and pardon and consequently the Accepting him in other Relations in which he destroyeth sin advanceth God c. doth as much to our Justification as the accepting him at our Ransome Now to Mr. Blakes Reasons when he saith that this distinction would pass every where else as necessary he is much mistaken for as he doth not tell us at all what sort of distinction it is whether Realis Rationis Modalis Formalis Virtualis c. so I could give him an hundred instances in which it will not pass in any tolerable sense but what are his own select instances from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects But is it Christ or the believer that you put in these various Relations It s plain that you mean Christ But that 's nothing to the question I maintain as well as you that Christ performeth variety of works according to the divers parts of his office and that he meriteth not Justification as King but as a Sacrifice as he effectively justifieth not as a sacrifice but as a King and he teacheth as a Teacher c. this was never denyed by me But the question is whether the Interest of the several acts of our faith be accordingly distinct which I deny and confidently deny In the works that Christ doth in these several Relations there is distincti◠realis and Christ is the proper efficient cause of them But though our faith must accept Christ in all these Relations and to do the several works in the several Relations yet it is no proper cause of the effects and as I said the interest it hath in the procurement is meerly moral and that but of a condition and therefore it is to be judged of by the will of the Donor But you say that only they that come to Christ as a Physician are cured by him Repl. Very true I never denyed it But not only By coming to him as a Physitian especially as the Worker of this one part of the cure You add Believers through faith go to Christ that heareth all ◠the Relations mentioned But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding they are Justified Repl. Very true if by as you understand only the aptitude of the act to its office and the certain connexion of the effect otherwise it is not as they believe at all that they are justified but it is not only as they seek satisfaction in his blood but also as they believe in him as King Teacher Rising Interceding c. Though it be Christs blood and not his Dominion that Ransometh us yet his promise giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of believing in him as King as of the believing in his blood Hitherto we have come short of your proofs which next we shall proceed to and freely examine Mr. Blake I shall take the bodlness to give in my Arguments to make good that faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie First That which the types under the law appointed for atonement and expiation lead us unto in Christ our faith must eye for atonement expiation and reconciliation this cannot be denyed These Levitical Types lead us doubtless to a right object being Schoolmasters to lead us unto Christ and shaddows whereof he is the substance As also to that office in him who is the object of faith which serves for that work But those types lead us to Christ in his Priestly office for the most part as sacrificing sometime as interceding John 1.29 2 Cor. 5.21 1 Pet. 1.18 A great part of the Epistle to the Heb. is a proof of it Reply I grant you both Major and Minor but the question is a meer stranger to the Just conclusion First it will not follow because our faith must eye Christ as Priest for Reconciliation that therefore it must eye him only as Priest for Reconciliation And if only be not in your exclusion of other acts of faith follows not Secondly No nor if it were in neither for ex perte Christs for Reconciliation only Christs Priesthood is to be eyed as the meritorious cause speaking in their sense that take the priestly office to comprehend not only Christ as Sacrificer but as sacrifice yea as obeying in the form of a servant the sicness whereoff now pass by but ex parte nostri the so eying him is not the only act of faith by which we are justified so that for is ambiguous and either signifieth Christs procurement of our Justification or ours In the former sense grant as aforesaid these Types shew us that Christ only as Priest and sacrifice doth satisfie for us But as to the procuring Interest of our faith these Types shew us not that only this act procureth our Interest Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any such thing Jo. 1.19 saith that Christ the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world but it doth not say that only believing in him as the Lamb of God is the faith upon which we have part in his blood and are justified by him 1 Pet. 1.18 tels us we were Redeemed by his precious blood but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have interest in it but contrarily thus describes that faith ver 21. Who by him
do believe in God that raised him from the dead and gave him glory that your faith and hope might be in God 2. Cor. 5.21 tells us that he was made sin for us c. but it saith not that our believing thus much only is the full condition of our Interest in his Righteousness But contrarily expresseth it by our own being reconciled to God to which Paul exhorteth Thirdly The Types which you mention were not all the Gospel or Covenant of Grace or Promise then extant If therefore there were any other parts of Gods word then that led them to Receive Christ entirely as the Messiah and particularly as the King and Teacher of his Church and promised life and pardon on this condition your Argument then from the Types alone is vain because they were not the whole word unless you prove that they exclude the rest which you never can And indeed not only the very first promise of the seed of the woman c. doth hold out whole Christ as Priest and Prophet and King as the object of justifying faith but also many and many another in the old Testament And the Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite doth begin with his Kingly office as the object of our faith in the two first chapters which are almost all taken up in proving it Fourthly you confess your self that Christ as Interceding is the object of justifying faith and if you mean it of his Heavenly intercession that was no part of his meritorious obedidience or humiliation It s true indeed that it is for the application or Collation of the fruits of his blood and so is much of his Kingly and Prophetical office too Mr. Blake Secondly That which the Sacraments under the Gospel setting forth Christ for pardon of sin lead us unto that our faith must eye for Reconciliation Pardon and Justification This is clear Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not misguide us But these lead us to Christ suffering dying for the pardon of sin Mat 26 28. A broaken bleeding dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received Reply First I hope you would not make the world believe that I deny it Did I ever exclude a dying Christ from the object of justifying faith But what strange Arguments are these that are such strangers still to the question you prove the inclusion of faith in Christ dying but do not so much as mention the exclusion of the other acts of faith which is the thing that was incumbent on you Secondly If you say that only is meant by you though not expressed then I further reply that this Argument labouring of the same disease with the last requireth no other answer First The Sacraments being not the whole Gospel you cannot prove your Exclusion from them unless you prove somewhat exclusive in them which you attempt not that I see Secondly If therefore you understand the Minor exclusively as to all other parts of Christs office I deny it and the texts cited say not a word to prove it Thirdly And if they did yet faith may eye a dying Christ only as purchasing Pardon and yet ex parte Christi that act that so eyeth him may not be the only act that is the condition of our Title to a dying Christ or to the pardon purchased Fourthly And yet though it would not serve your turn even ex parte Christi your exclusion is so far from being proved that it s contradicted both by the Sacraments and by Scriptures much more ex parte nostri your excusion of the other acts of faith For First In Baptism its apparent which is appointed for our solemn initiation into a state of Justification which the Lords Supper is not First Christ foundeth it in his Dominion Mat. 28.18 All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth go ye therefore c. Secondly He maketh the very nature of it to be an entering men into a state of Disciples and so engaging them to him as their Master ver 19. Go ye therefore and Disciple or teach all Nations baptizing them Thirdly The words of the Jews to John If thou be not that Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet why baptizest thou John 1.25 and their flocking to his baptism and the words of Paul I Cor. 14.15 I thank God that I baptized none of you lest any should say that I baptized in my own name do plainly shew that baptizing was then taken as an entering into a state of Disciples And I have before proved that baptism doth list us under Christ the Commander King and Master of the Church Fourthly And therefore the Church hath ever baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost with an abrenunciation of the flesh the world and the devil not only as opposite to Christs blood but as opposites to his Kingdom and Doctrine Fifthly And the very water signifieth the spirit of Christ as well as his blood Though I think not as Mr. Mead that it signifieth the spirit only Sixthly And our coming from under the water was to signifie our Resurrection with Christ as Rom. 6. shews So that it is certain that Christ in all parts of his office is propounded in baptism to be the object of our faith and this baptism comprizing all this is said to be for the Remission of sin Secondly And though the Lords supper suppose us justified yet he understandeth not well what he doth that thinks that Christ only as dying is there propounded to our faith For First In our very receiving we profess Obedience to Christ as King that hath enjoyned it by his Law Secondly And to Christ our Teacher that hath taught us thus to do Thirdly The signs themselves are a visible word of Christ our Teacher and teach us his sufferings promises our duty c. Fourthly By taking eating and drinking we renew our Covenant with Christ And that Covenant is made with him not only as Priest but as the Glorified Lord and King of the Church On his part the thing promised which the Sacrament sealeth is not that Christ will dye for us for that 's done already but that Christ will actually pardon us on the account of his merits And this he doth as King and that he will sanctifie preserve strengthen and glorifie us all which he doth as King though he purchased them as a sacrifice On our part we deliver up our selves to him to be wholly his even his Disciples and Subjects as well as pardoned ones Fifthly Yea the very bread and wine eaten and drank do signifie our spiritual Union and Communion with Jesus who is pleased to become one with us as that bread and wine is one with our substance And surely it is to Christ as our Head that we are United and not only as dying for us and as to our Husband who is most dearly to be loved by us and is to rule us and we to be subject to him being made bone of his bone and flesh of
offices and look not to him as making the Covenant or Grant of pardon in his blood and as teaching and perswading and working us into Union with himself that we may have part in his blood and as conferring daily the fruits of his blood as King in Renewed pardon of daily sins and as justifying us at Judgement as King and Judge His blood is a Foundation without a building if you take it without all these Overlook these and you deny it as well as by over-looking his Resurrection Besides Session at Gods Right Hand which is one thing that the Apostle instanceth in Romans 8.35 is his Glorification it self And when you say He presents his blood as High Priest c. I answer But not as a renewed sacrifice presenting it is not shedding it or offering it in sacrifice And the presentation is not a minding God of what he knows not or hath forgot or an arguing with him to extort his Mercy but as the value and merit of Christs sacrifice hath its continual Being before God so Christ doth give out all his benefis to his Church as procured and received from the Father by the merit of his sacrifice and this is his Intercession But your arguing yiedeth that to Justification we must not only believe in Christ as shedding his blood for us on earth but also on Christ as presenting his blood for us in heaven which is enough to my ends Mr. Blake You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the exclusion of faith in his commands but of faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher I can no more distinguish Lord and Command than I can Blood and Sacrifice it being the office of a Lord to Rule as of blood to make atonement Repl. First If you cannot distinguish there 's no remedy but you must err by confusion It s obvious to an ordinary understanding that even Blood and Sacrifice may as well be distinguished as Earth and Man or Ink and Writing Blood signifying only the matter yea but part of the matter and a Sacrifice signifying that matter with its moral Form Secondly And it s as obvious that Lord and Command do otherwise differ then Blood and Sacrifice for Lord as it signefieth principally a Proprietary is toto caelo distinct from command as standing in another series And Lord as it signifieth a Rector doth differ from Command as the efficient from the effect which is otherwise then as part of the matter doth from the whole informed It is no Argument against the truth which I maintain that you cannot distinguish these Thirdly If it be the office of a Lord to Rule then you may well distinguish betwen the office and the work But indeed in the first sense Lord signifieth a Proprietary and but in the second a Rulers Power which is not alwayes properly called an Office neither no more then the Soveraign is properly an Officer Fourthly To make Atonement is not all one as to be a Sacrifice which was your former term for Atonement is the effect of a Sacrifice not of blood as blood but as a Sacrifice meritorious and accepted Fifthly And as to the point in difference between us the difference is palpable and weighty between believing in Christ as King and believing or obeying his Commands As his Kingly Power belongs to the Constitution of his mystical body or Republike and his commands that flow from it to the Administration so Subjection to his Power and Relation and consenting to this constitution do enter us into the Body and unite us to him when believing and obeying his Laws for Administration do follow as the fruits If you could have distinguished between the Root and Fruits between Faith and Obedience between making Disciples and teaching to observe c. Mat. 28 19.2â— or becoming Disciples and Learning you might have distinguished between becoming a Subject and obeying And what ever you do I am sure others of your way do grant that Receiving Christ as Lord and Teacher is the faith that justifieth though not qua talis but they will not say so by receiving or obeying his Governing Laws which are distinct from the constitution or fundamental Law Mr. Blake You yet tell me it was fittest for Paul to say by faith in his blood because he intends to connote both what we are justified by ex parte Christi and what we are justified by ex parte nostri but the former principally To this I say If this were fittest for Paul then it is unfit for any to come in with Animiadversions and tell us of any other thing ex parte Christi or ex parte nostri for Justification I pray you rest here and we are well agreed Here is Christs Priestly Office on his part alone and I am resolved to look no further Repl. Though I may not hope to change you if you are Resolved yet I may take leave to render a reason of my contrary as peremptory Resolution I am resolved to look further ex parte Christi then to his blood yea or his whole Merit yea or whole Priest-hood for my Justification even to whole Christ and in special to his Regal constitution and sentence Yet I rest where you desire me as to the Truth of what I said and if we are agreed it s better then I can perceive in your other words First Though Paul there mention the Priestly office alone yet that 's not all his Epistles nor all the Scriptures nor doth he here exclude the rest Secondly It may be fittest to Pauls design in that particular discourse to mention faith in his blood and yet it may be fit for another to come in with animadversions and tell you of more necessary both ex parte Christi nostri It s common to express our meaning of a whole in a summary notion taken from a chief part And indeed in Political discourses it is hard to meet with a fitter way of expression Thirdly Paul himself was not of your opinion nor Christ neither and yet it was not unfit for them to discover it The same Paul that here thought it fittest to mention faith in his blood did elsewhere think it fit to mention Jusstification by his Obedience and that he Rose again for our Justification and to promise Jmputation of Righteousness to us if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead Rom. 4.24 25. with the like passages before mentioned But most frequently it is the comprehensive phrase of believing in Christ Jesus our Lord that he useth The same Christ that calleth himself so oft the Lord and Master of his followers excludeth not thereby his other Relations And when he saith in one place I am the Vine he may freely say else where I am the good Shepherd And he that speaketh of laying down his life for the sheep doth not thereby make it unfit to mention other Pastoral a is for them And he that tels us of eating his flesh
and drinking his blood intended not the exclusion of the spirit that quickneth I am therefore Resolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Christ as the object of that faith which is the Condition of Justification And I think this full comprehensive faith is safer then the groundlesly distinguishing faith and this Doctrine more agreeable to the Scriptures Mr. Blake Fourthly Our faith must look on Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous But it is by his Obedience as a servant that we obtain righteousness and stand before God as righteous Rom. 5.19 by the obedience of one many are made righteous Repl. First I grant the whole but it s nothing to our Question It s a strange error that runs through so many Arguments that they should be impertinent to the question You should have concluded that Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which in terminis is the conclusion that you undertook to prove whereas all that this Argument will conclude is that our faith must look at Christs obedience for Righteousness c. which I have said no more against then you have done Secondly But if Only be implyed as adjoyned to obedience then it will exclude his suffering as suffering in that formal respect and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience Thirdly And by this Argument you destroy what you not only mantained but resolved to stick to in the last that is that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for justification and that you are resolved to look no further then Christs Priestly office alone For Obedience extendeth further then blood-shed therefore if we are justified by Christs whole obedience then by more then his blood Yea you will be put hard to it to prove that all Christs obedience was offered by him as a Preist to his Father It belongs to a Subject a Servant a Son to obey but obedience is far from being proper to a Priest Fourthly If you intend the Major exclusively as to all other considerations of the object I still deny it as false Our faith even as the condition of Justification must look at Christ not only to obtain Righteousness by him but also to subject our selves to his Teaching and Government and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy Fifthly Yea the Minor it self is false if you imply the exclusive Only For we obtain Righteousness and are justified before God effectively by Christ as King first by constitution and secondly by sentence as well as meritoriously by Christ as Priest Mr. Blake Fifthly That way that Christ took to bring us to God our faith must eye and follow But Christ by death the Sacrifice of of himself brings us to God 1 Pet. 3.18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins the just for the unjust c. Repl. Still the same error an Ignoratio Elenchi I grant the whole but the conclusion's wanting Did I ever deny that faith must eye and follow Christs death to bring us to God yea for Justification But you should have said by his death alone or you say nothing And when you prove that by his death alone Christ brings us to God you will do somewhat And yet if you did it would not follow that we are brought to God in Justification only by eying the cause of Justification as such Mr. Blake Sixthly As Christ freeth us from the curse so he justifies us and in that notion our faith must look to him for Justification This is plain Justification being no other but our acquittal from the curse which is the sentence of the Law of Moses Act. 13.8 but Christ freeth us from the cause in suffering as a Sacrifice not ruling as a Lord Gal. 3.13 Christ hath Redeemed us c. Repl. First Only is again left out in the Major proposition and so I grant it But if it be implyed that faith must look to him for Justification only in that notion as he justifieth us yea only as he meriteth Justification then I deny it and you say nothing to prove it Secondly The exclusive of your Minor is a dangerous error Christ freeth us from the curse by Justifying us as a King and teaching and ruling and sanctifying us and not only by becoming a curse for us For if you here put in Only you plainly exclude all his Obedience as such and much of it materially for it is not a cursed thing to obey God The Law curseth for disobeying therefore Obeying is not the Curse nor is it materially a Curse to Love God and Trust him and be zealous for his Glory c. The whole office of Christ is imployed in freeing us from the Curse and when Paul saith he was made a Curse to free us he never said or thought that he did nothing else to free us for an hundred texts do tell us of more Thirdly And on the by I must say that I am not of your mind in the description of Justification for omitting the controversie whether Justification only free us from the Curse I do not believe that this curse is only the sentence of the Law of Moses If it were either you must prove that all the Gentile world that heard not of it was under the Law of Moses which abundance of most Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it or else that all these are under no curse for Justification to remove The Law of Nature was materially part of the Mosaical Law but the form denominateth So much to Mr. Blakes Arguments which are so little to the purpose that if the weight of the cause and the prejudice of some Readers did not call more earnestly for a Reply then any apperance of strength in them I had spared my self and the Reader this Labor But that Christ as Christ is the object of that faith by which as a Condition we must be justified and so that we are not justified only by believing in his blood but also by believing in him entirely as Jesus Christ our Lord and by becoming his Disciples or true Christians this is a truth that deserveth more then my Pen to defend it and that while God affordeth me time and strength I shall never desert Nov. 1656. A DISPVTATION OF JVSTIFICATION Whether any Works be any Conditions of it Conteining a necessary Defence of ancient Verity against the unnecessary Opposition of a very Learned Reverend and dearly Beloved Brother in his Treatise of Imputation of Righteousness and his Lectures on John 17. By Richard Baxter LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster 1657. Whether Works are a Condition of Justification And so whether we are justified by Works as such a Condition THough we have said enough already on these Questions which for dispatch I joyn together yet seeing there are some that must needs have more or the same
28.13 Act. 3.19 with many more The Consequence is plain in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification and by others confessed a chief part and by all it s confessed to be made ours on the same terms as is Justification it self My fourth Proof is from those texts which make these kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to salvation if they are conditions of salvation then are they no less then conditions of our final Justification But the Antecedent is ordinarily acknowledged by the Opponents and it s proved 1 Tim. 4.8 Heb. 5.9 1 Tim. 6.18 19. Luk. 11.28 and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24 25 26 27. Rev. 22.14 John 12.26 Rom. 8.13 Mat. 5.20 Mat. 19.29 Mat. 6.1 2 4 6. and 5.12 46. and 10.41 42. 2 Thess 1.5 6. Col. 3.23 24. Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.7 8. Gal. 6.4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 2. Cor. 9.6 9. John 5.22 27 28 29 c. The Consequence is proved good first In that final Justification and Glorification have the same conditions as is plain both in many Scriptures mentioned and in the nature of the thing for that Justification is the adjudging us to that Glory and therefore so far as any thing is the cause or condition of the Glory it self it must be the reason of the sentence which adjudgeth it to us Secondly And salvation is as free as Justification and no more deserved by man and therefore the Apostle equally excludeth works from both Eph. 2.5 8 9. By Grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of worke lest any man should boast so Tit. 3.5 6 7. more fully Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works exclude not sincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation then Justification by grace through faith without works doth not in Scripture sence exclude sincere obedience from being the condition of our final Justification nor Repentance from being the condition of our justification as begun for there is eadem ratio and the Text makes the one as free without works as the other But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures Ergo c. My fifth Proof is from those texts that in terms seem to assign a causality to such obediential acts which can be interpreted of no less then a conditionality such are Luke 19.17 Mat. 25.31 23 34 35 40 46. Gen. 22.16 17 18. 2 Chron. 34.26 27. Psalm 91.9 14. Mark 7.29 1 John 3.22 23. John 16.27 Rev. 3.10 and 3.4 and 7.14 15. c. And though some of these texts speak not of Divine acceptance to life yet first some do secondly and the rest speak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Justification A mans own works are excluded other Means and parts of salvation as well as that I run over these briefly and generally both because I expect that the bare texts without my Comments should work upon the Considerate and because I have been so much upon it formerly in other writings as Confess § 3. p. â—6 cap. 3. cap 5. § 2. pag. 117 118. alibi passim as that I apprehend in this work more tediousness than necessity But the chief thing that I further here intend is to answer some Objections that by a Reverend Brother in his second part of his Treatise of Justification are brought against me But before I come to his Arguments its necessary that I a little animadvert on his Description of Justification that we may first agree upon the sense of our terms or at least know how to understand one another Treat Of Justification p. 126. Justification is a gratious and just Act of God whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety a sinner but repenting and believing is pronounced just and hereby put into a state of Reconciliation and favour with God to the praise of Gods glorious attributes and to the Believers eternal salvation I shall not examine this Description by accurate Logical Rules c. Answ First Doubtless an accurate rather then popular definition would as soon be expected from you as from most and here as anywhere in a Treatise purposely on the Subject Secondly Pronunciation doth not go before Constitution not put us into a state of Reconciliation and favour but find us in it you say your self pag. 120. To justifie is to constitute and to declare or pronounce righteous And in your first Treatise of Justification pag. 7. Indeed the Apostle Rom. 5. saith many are made righteous by the second Adam which if not meant of inherent holiness doth imply that the righteousness we have by Christ is not meerly declarative but also constitutive and indeed one is in order before the other for a man must be righteous before he can be pronounced or declared so to be Treat p. The Application of Justification is attributed to the Holy Ghost Answ I know not of any such except first where Justification is taken for Sanctification Secondly or as the Holy Ghost is made the Author of the Promise though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith also Treat 16. The Socinians say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally not principally even so faith is said to save but this cannot be because Christ is God as well at Man and therefore cannot be instrumental but principal Answ As they err on one hand that say Christ justifieth only Instrumentally which flows from their blasphemous denyall of his God-head so it s an error on the other hand to say that Christ cannot be Instrumental but principal I prove the contrary first If Christ may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption and ruling of mankind then may he be an Instrument But c. Ergo c. Secondly If Christ may be a means he may be an Instrument but he may be a means for he is called by himself the way to the Father and a way is a means Thirdly He is called the Fathers servant therefore he may be an Instrument Fourthly He is said to come to do his Fathers will therefore he is his Instrument Fifthly All Power is said to be given him even the Power of judging John 5.22 and Matthew 28.18 19. therefore he is the Fathers Instrument in judging And your reason is invalid viz. because Christ is God for he is Man as well as God and so may be Instrumental Treat p. 129 130. It sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears that Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works but that those that are against the Covenant of Grace c. Answ A sin is against the Law of Grace or Gospel first because it is against some object revealed in the Gospel which the sin is against as Christ Thus sin was expiated by Christ 2ly As it is against a Precept of the Gospel and thus it is expiated by Christ 3ly As it is a breach of a mans own Promise or
object of faith The principal object is an ens incomplexum Christ himself but a subordinat Object is both the Doctrine Revealing what he is and hath done and the promise which offereth him to us and telleth us what he will do If a Princes Son redeem a woman from Captivity or the Gallows and cause an Instrument under his own hand and the Kings to be sent to her assuring her of pardon and liberty and honours with himself if she will take him for her husband and trust him for the accomplishment Is it not possible for this woman to be pardoned and delivered by the King by the Princes ransom by the Prince espoused and by her marriage with him and by the Instrument of pardon or conveyance You may be enriched by a Deed of Gift and yet it may be an ens incomplexum that is bestowed on you by that Deed and enricheth you too Your Money and your Lease both may give you title to your house The promise is Gods Deed of Gift bestowing on us Christ and pardon or Justification with him Treat Besides Abraham was Iustified and he is made the pattern of all that shall be Iustified Yet there was no Scripture-grant or deed of gift in writing declaring this God then communicating himself to Belivers in an immediate manner Answ Was there no Gospel-grant then extant no deed of Gift of Christ and his Righteousness to all that should believe Nothing to assure men of Justification by faith but immediate communications to Believers If so then either there was no Church and no salvation or a Church and salvation without faith in Christ and either faith in the Messiah to come for pardon and life was a duty or no duty If no duty then If a duty then there was a Law enjoyning it and that Law must needs contain or be conjunct with a revelation of Christ and pardon and life to be had by him I suppose that whatever was the standing way of Life and Justification then to the Church had a standing precept and promise to engage to the duty and secure the benefit I know not of duty without Precept nor of faith without a word to be believed But this word was not written True but what of that Was it ever the less a Law or Promise the Object of Faith or Instrument of Justification The promise of the seed might be conveighed by Tradition and doubtless was so Or if there had been no general conditional grant or offer of pardon through Christ in those times but only particular communications to some men yet would those have been nevertheless instrumental Treat Therefore to call this Grant or Conditional Promise in the Scripture Whosoever shall believe shall be justified a transient act of God is very unproper unless in such a sense as we say such a mans writing is his hand and that is wholly impertinent to our purpose Answ There are two distinct acts of God here that I call Transient The first is the Enacting of this Law or giving this promise If this were not Gods act then it is not his Law or promise If it be his act it is either Transient or Immanent I have not been accustomed to believe that Legislation Promising c. are no acts or are Immanent acts The second is the continued Moral Action of the Word which is also Gods Action by that Word as his Instrument As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit and of a Lease to give Title c. And so the Law is said to absolve condemn command c. What it saith it saith to them that are under the Law And to say is to Act. Though physically this is no other Action then a sign performeth in signifying or a fundamentum in producing the Relation which is called the nearest efficient of that Relation Now either you think that to oblige the most essential act of Laws to absolve condemn c. are Gods acts by his Word or not If not the mistake is such as I dare not confute for fear least by opening the greatness of it I offend you If yea then either it is Gods Immanent act or his Transient The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be That which is done by an Instrument is no Immanent act in God To oblige to duty to give right to Impunity and Salvation c. are done by Instruments viz. the Word of God as it is the signifier of his will therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover that which is begun in time and is not from Eternity is no Immanent Act. But such are the fore-mentioned because the word which is the Instrument was indited in time Lastly that which maketh a change on the extrinsick object is no Immanent act but such are these Moral acts of the Word for they change our Relations and give us a Right which we had not before c. therefore they are certainly transient acts A thing that I once thought I should never by man have been put to prove Treat pag. 130. It s true at the day of Judgement there will be a solemn and more compleat Justifying of us as I have elswhere shewed Answ You have very well shewed it and I take gratefully that Lecture and this Concession Treat pag. 131. Indeed we cannot then be said to be justified by Faith c. Hence this kind of Iustification will cease in heaven as implying imperfection Answ And I desire you to observe that if it be no dishonour to Christ that we be there through his grace everlastingly justified without his Imputed righteousness or pardon or faith pro futuro it cannot be any dishonour to him here that we should repent and believe and be sanctified nor that those should be conditions of further mercy and sufficient of themselves to justifie us against any false charge that we are Impenitent unsanctified Infidels If a perfect cure disgrace not our Physitian then sure an imperfect cure and the acknowledgement of it is no dishonour to our Physitian now Treat pag. 137. Thus all those Arguments If we be Justified by faith then by our own work and that this is to give too much to faith yea more then some say they do to works which they hold a condition of our Justification All these and the like Objections vanish because we are not justified by faith as Justification is considered actively but passively Answ 1. I yet think that I have said enough in my private Papers to you to confute the conceit of faith's being Passive 2. If I had not yet you yield me what I desire If faith act not but suffer to our Justification then is it no efficient Instrumental cause For all true efficiency is by Action And so you keep but a Metaphorical Instrument But of this more hereafter Treat pag. 141. We cannot call Remission of sin a state as we call Justification Answ I do not believe you and I can bring
Opinionists I confess I begin to have charitable thoughts of a man that is but freed from the charge of gross Popery and if those tongues should free him also from the imputation of all the finer Popery I should begin to suspect that somewhat is amiss Treat ib. 2. Although to maintain faith and Obedience to be the conditions and a causa sine qua non of our Justification be the professed and avowed Doctrine of the Socinians yet some of late have asserted the same Doctrine that yet abhor Socinianism Answ For this also I give you the thanks which you expected on the foresaid grounds But if we assert the same Doctrine with the Socinians either it is the same false Doctrine or the same sound Doctrine If the later you might as well have said the Socinians assert that there is a God and so do we But to what purpose If the former then either it is false quoad terminos or quoad sensum The former cannot be said without absurdity the words can have no other falsness but an unfitness distinct from the sense And if the terms be any part of Socinianism then Christ and James were guilty of Socinianism quod absit If it be the sense First I crave no other favour of the impartial Reader before he judge then to read the Socinians explication of themselves and to read my explication here and in my confession Secondly And if he will also peruse the Allegations in the end of that confession let him judge whether the Orthodox be not guilty of Socinianism Or if he be tempted to believe Dr. Owens intimations as if I had dealt injuriously with the Authors there alleadged I only desire him to turn to the places cited and peruse them in the Authors and freely censure me Treat 220. Neither is the question about the necessity of holiness c. Only the question is upon what account these are required in justified persons whether in some causality or concurrence as faith is only not with such a degree of excellency Whether good works be required as well as faith so that we may say justifying Repentance justifying Law Love it should be as well as justifying faith This is positively and vehmently affirmed by some but certainly those Arguments and Reasons they bring are too weak to gainsay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines Answ Upon the reading of this I complained of hard measure in the Preface to my confession to which you reply somewhat in your Preface to Sermons on John 17. I shall recite the reasons of my complaint First I did both at large in private writings to your self and publiquely to the world profess that I took neither faith nor works for any causes at all of our Justification was it just then to make this the state of the Question and say I positively and vehemently affirmed it for you deny not that it is me that you mean and I know it by passages here agreeable to your private letters Secondly I never once imagined the difference between faith and holy obedience or sanctification to lie in order to Justification in the degree of excellency I never to my remembrance so thought or wrote or spoke But the difference I laid here first That as to actual obedience yea and Repentance faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office as being a Receptive act and fited to the object as that object is fitted to our necessity Secondly That as to assent desire of Christ love to Christ offered accepting him as Teacher and Lord they are essential acts of faith and so differ not at all as they are by many supposed to do Nay I rather expected that some should have charged me with preferring Holiness before faith in excellency while I made faith but the seed and holyness as the fruit faith to be but the covenanting and Obedience the performance of what we consented to and in a word while I made perfect holiness the end of faith because the end is better then the means And I was glad when I found you saying the like Vindic. Legis Lect. 4. pag. 45. 13. Holiness and Godliness inherent is the end of Faith and Justification But little did I think to have been charged and that by you for making the difference to lie in faiths higher degree of excellency and only in that Thirdly I never owned the phrase of justifying Repentance justifying Love nor ever said that we may as well use these as justifying faith And when none of these things were ever said or written by me ought you to have left on record to Generations that this is positively and vehemently affirmed On the consideration of this dealing I must say again O what is man and what a sad case were we in if the best of men were our Judges when they will not stick deliberately to publish to the present and future Ages that we positively and vehemently affirm those things which we never thought nor wrote but have by Letters and in printed books both positively and vehemently very frequently professed the contrary Is here any room for further disputing yea when I have told you of this dealing you own it still and defend it in your Preface to your Sermons on John 17. I shall therefore before I proceed examine that Defence Preface pag. 3. Now when I had endeavoured to state the Question in a most candid and fair way between those that deny a Condition sine qua non of our Justification and those who affirm A Reverend and Learned Brother judging himself concerned in this opinion likewise doth complain of the want of Candor and truth in my stating of the Question when I rather expected thanks for my Ingenuity Now let any judicious Reader that is acquainted with controversie decide wherein any and or truth may be desired here For I say causality which is a general word not efficiency or merit Again I say some causality Causalitas quaedam which is terminus diminuens yea I added the word Concurrence which might satisfie any how low I brought the Question Answer Will you call to any judicious Reader to tell you that which I particularly exprest to you Again Then let the judicious Reader judge whether you should have said to the world any of the forementioned particulars First That I give any Causality to works as to Justification Secondly Or that I difference them only in degree of excellency Thirdly Or that I affirm that we may say justifying Repentance justifying Love as well as justifying faith Fourthly And this is affirmed positively and vehemently and all this when I had positively and vehemently denyed them Fifthly Yea and that only this is the question between us And what do your defences do to justifie such dealing you said only Causality in general and not Efficiency or Merit And did not I openly and privately to you deny Causality in general and not only Merit or Efficiency and is that positive or vehement affirming it Secondly you
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
know not they are not Scripture words nor my words For still I say All Good works are of Debt to God from man Argument 1. Ex natura rei There are many Moral Acts that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt and not of Grace Much less will such Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt and not of Grace The Consequence is grounded on these two or three Reasons 1. God is infinitely above us and therefore less capable of being obliged by our works then man 3. God is our absolute Proprietary and we are wholly his and therefore we can give him nothing but his own 3. God is our Supreme Rector and we are bound to a perfect fulfilling of his Law and we are sinners that have broak that Law and deserve eternal death therefore we are less capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor then of obliging men and indeed uncapable 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory and mans is but some transitory thing therefore we are less capable of making God our Debtor for Justification and Salvation then man for a trifle This proves the Consequence Now the Antecedent I prove by Instances 1. If a man be ready to drown in the water and you offer to help him out if he will lay hold of your hand this act of his is Actus humanus vel moralis and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 2. If a man be in prison for Debt and you ransom him and offer him deliverance on condition he will but consent to come forth on the account of your Ransom this moral Action makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt and not of Grace 3. If a man be condemned for Treason and upon Ransom made you procure and offer him a pardon on condition he will take it or if you say If you will give me thanks for it or take it thankfully or If also you confess your Treason or If also you crave pardon of the Prince or If also you confess me your benefactor or If also you will profess your purpose to take up rebellions arms no more or If also you will openly profess the Princes Soveraignty and renounce the Leaders of the Rebells whom you have followed Vpon any one or on all these conditions you shall have a free and full pardon without any cost or suffering of your own Do you think that any of these do make the pardon to be of Debt and not of Grace 4. If you give a man a Lordship on condition he take it as a free Gift from you and pay you yearly a grain of sand or do some act of homage as to say I thank you which hath in it no consideration of value but only of acknowledgment of dependance doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace 5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold on condition he will take it and put off his hat and say I thank you I will not believe that any of these Acts do make the Reward to be not of Grace But if you bid them Go and do me so many daies work for it importing somewhat profitable or valuable for yourself then the case is altered Argument 2. Those works which a man cannot be justified without make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace But there are some works that a man cannot be justified without Jam. 2.24 Matthew 12.37 what ever they be some they are Argument 3. Those works which a man cannot be saved without make not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace But there are some works that we cannot be saved without Therefore there are some works that make not the Reward of Debt and not of Grace The Major is proved by the express exclusion of works in this sense from salvation both as begun and as consummate 2 Tim. 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but his own purpose and grace c. Ephes 2.8 9. For by Grace ye are saved through faith and not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast Tit. 3.5 6 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost that being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life Rom. 6.23 For the wages of sin is death but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord Act. 4.12 Neither is there salvation in any other Mat. 25.34 Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdom prepared for you c. whence Expositors conclude against works The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts Mat. 25.35 For I was hungry c. Rev. 22.12 and 2.23 Mark 13.34 Rev. 20.13 Jam. 2 14. 1 Pet. 1.17 He will judge every man according to his works c. Argument 4. Those works which Grace commandeth and causeth the Godly to perform do not make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt But there are some such works Ergo c. The Major is evident What Saint dare say that he hath a work that makes not the Reward of Grace especially when it is a work of Grace The Minor is as true as Scripture is true 2 Cor. 9.8 Col. 1.10 2 Thess 2.17 2 Tim. 2.21 Tit. 3.1 Heb. 13.21 Mat. 5.16 Heb. 10.24 1 Pet. 2.12 Tit. 2.14 and 3.8 14. Ephes 2.10 c. Dare any say that God hath not commanded good works or yet that he hath commanded us in the Gospel so to work that the Reward may not be of grace but debt Will any say that the Saints do no good works or else that they do such good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt I hope not Argument 5. Repentance is a moral Act Repentance maketh not the Reward to be of debt and not of grace therefore there are some works that make not the Reward to be not of grace but of Debt The same I say of Faith it self and other Acts. But perhaps some one else will object that though its true that there be such works yet they have no Interest in the business of our Justification and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them Answer First It sufficed to my last purpose to prove that there are works which will not bear his description and therefore are not they that he means Secondly But that those other works have some Interest in the business of our Justification I have proved in the beginning Repentance hath the promise of Pardon so hath faith c. But I 'le not unseasonably here digress to this but refer you to what is said before and after and elsewhere more at large Argu. 6. In ver 5. the opposite term he that worketh not doth not signifie him that performeth no moral act
do use it as a means then what means is it Is Prayer any cause of Pardon say so and you say more then we that you condemn and fall under all those censures that per fas aut nefas are cast upon us If it be no cause of pardon Is it a condition sine qua non as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend If you say yea you consequentially recant your disputation or Lecture and turn into the tents of the Opinionists But if it be no condition of pardon then tell us what means it is if you can If you say it is a duty I answer Duty and Means are commonly distinguished and so is necessitas praecepti medii Duty as such is no means to an end but the bare result of a command Though all Duty that God commandeth is also some means yet that is not qua Duty And so far as that Duty is a means it is either a Cause near or remote or a Condition either of the obtainment of the benefit simply or of the more certain or speedy or easie attainment of it or of obtaining some inferiour good that conduceth to the main So that still it is a Cause or a Condition if a means If you say It is an Antecedent I say qua tale that is no means but if a Necessary antecedent that which is the reason of its necessity may make it a means If you go to Physical prerequisites as you talkt of a mans shoulders bearing the head that he may see c. you go extra oleas It s a moral means that we treat of and I think you will not affirm Prayer to be a means of physical necessity to pardon If it were it must be a Physical cause near or remote or a Dispositio materiae of natural necessity c. If you say that prayer for pardon is dispositio subjecti I answer that 's it that we Opinionists do affirm But it is a dispositio moralis and necessary ut medium ad finem and that necessity must be constituted by the Promiser or Donor and that can be only by his modus promissionis which makes it in some measure or other a condition of the thing promised So that there is no lower moral medium then a meer condition sune qua non that my understanding can hitherto find out or apprehend Treat ibid. Paul Judgeth them dung and dross in reference to Justification yea all things c. Answ 1. But what are those All things 2. And what Reference to Justification is it If All things simply in all relation to Justification then he must judge the Gospel dung and dross as to the Instrumental collation of Justification and the Sacraments dung and dross as to the sealing of it and the Ministry dung and dross as to the preaching and offering it and beseeching men to be reconciled to God and Faith to be dung and dross as to the receiving of it as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and dross as conditions of it or Prayer Obedience as conditions of continuing it 2. It s evident in the text that Pauls speaks of All things that stand in opposition to Christ and that stand in competition with him as such and not of any thing that stands in a necessary subordination to him as such 3. He expresly addeth in the text for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord this therefore is none of the all things that are dung for the All things are opposed to this And it containeth that faith which is works with the Opponents for this is more then a recumbency on Christ as Priest It is the Knowledge of him as Lord also I am confident I shall never learn to expound Paul thus I esteem All things even the knowledge of Christ Jesus as Lord and Prophet as dung for the Knowledge of him as Priest Also Paul here excepteth his suffering the loss of that All. I am confident that the All that Paul suffered the loss of comprehended not his Self-denyal Repentance Prayer Charity Hope c. 4. It is not only in reference to Justification that Paul despiseth All things but it is to the winning of Christ who doubtless is the Principle of Sanctification as well as Justification and to be found in him which containeth the sum of his felicity If a man should be such a self-contradicter as to set Repentance or Faith in Christ or Prayer in his Name or Hope in him c. against winning Christ and against being found in him or against the knowledge of him let that man so far esteem his faith hope prayer c. as dung If you should say I account all things dung for the winning of God himself as my felicity Would you have me interpret you thus I account the love of God dung and prayer to him and studious obeying him and the word that revealeth him c. even as they stand subordinate to him This same Paul rejoyced in the testimony of his conscience that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had had his conversation among them and he beat or subdued his body and brought it into subjection lest he should be Reprobated after he was justified and he prayed for pardon of sin and tells Timothy In doing this thou shalt save thy self c. therefore these things thus used were none of the All things that he opposed to the knowledge of Christ as dung Treat pag. 234 235. Others would avoid this Objection by saying that Gospel graces which are the Conditions of the Covenant are reducible to the Law and so Christ in satisfying the Law doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them And they judge it absurb to say that Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the second Covenant or breaches which is said to be only final unbelief Answ As this is brought in by head and shoulders so is it recited lamely without the necessary distinctions and explications adjoyned yea without part of the Sentence it self and therefore unfaithfully Treat But this answer may be called Legion for many errours and coctradictions are in it 1. How can justifying faith qua talis in the act of Justifying and Repentance be reducible duties to the Law taken strictly Indeed as it was in a large sense discovered to the Jews being the Covenant of Grace as I have elsewhere proved Vindic. Legis so it required Justifying Faith and Repentance But take it in the sense as the Abettor of this opinion must do justifying faith and repentance must be called the works of the Law Answ It s easilier called Legion then faithfully reported or solidly confuted 1. Let the Reader observe how much I incurr'd the displeasure of Mr. Blake for denying the Moral Law to be the sufficient or sole Rule of all duty and how much he hath said against me therein and then judge how hard a task it is to please all men when these two neighbours and friends do publikely thus draw
in part or whole But James spoak of Works not as answering the Law but as fulfilling the condition of the Gospel and implyed as promised or resolved on in our first believing and so as subservient to the Sacrifice Merit and Righteousness of Christ as the avoiding of poison or dangerous meats that may kill though the conrtary cannot cure is subservient to the curing medicine of a Physician and implyed in our taking him for our Physician at first And so much briefly to satisfie you and the world of the Reasons of my Dissent from you that I may not differ from so Dear and Reverend a Brother without making it appear that necessity did compel me That which I have passed over being about the Instrumentality of Faith I shall speak to if God will together with Mr. Blakes Reasonings on that Subject in another Disputation Oppon Works are not a Condition much less a Cause of our Justification under any Notion whatsoever they are taken i. e. Neither Faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher becoming his Disciples Repentance Love Hope Prayer for Pardon Confession Self-denyal sincere Obedience c. are Causes or Conditions of Justification as begun continued or as it is most eminent in the sentence at Judgement Cons Erg. This Faith Repentance Prayer Obedience c. are not truly means of our Justification now or at Judgement Ergo. Not means to the pardon of sin and freedom from punishment Ergo. Not means of Salvation from Hell or of that Glory to which the final Justification will adjudge us Ergo. 1. They are not necessary necessitate medii and 2. No Man must use them as means to his present pardon or Justification or final Justification or salvation Ergo. No means must be used for present or final Justification or Salvation but only the Instrumental receiving or apprehending of Christs Righteousness or of Christ as Priest Ergo. Object There are means besides Causes and Conditions Answ Besides Causas Conditiones proximas there are but besides Causas Conditiones proximas remotas in this case there are none that I know of if there be name them LETTERS That past between This REVEREND Much HONOURED BROTHER And my SELF 1649 and 1650. LONDON Printed by Robert White for Nevil Simmons Book-seller in Kederminster HAving heard that Mr. disliked some things in my Aphorisms and by the perswasions of some intended a Confutation of them I wrote to him an earnest Request that he would acquaint me with what he disliked annexing his Reasons to convince me of my Errors professing my earnest Desire of Information especially from him To which he replyed as followeth Dear Sir I Have indeed declared to some who happily may have informed you of it as I desired that there were several Doctrinal points asserted in your Book to which I could not pedibus ire much less corde such are many positions about Christs Righteousness about faiths Justification in your sense and the Efficacy of new Obedience in this work as well as faith Yea Love made some kind of the actings of Faith The good old sound definition of Faith waved and a new one substituted Not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 operari also called into Evangelical Righteousness and this made our personal Righteousness These things and divers others do make me vehemently dissent from you in the matters asserted Yet I do really honour you for your great Abilities and zealous Piety earnestly desiring of God that he would prolong your life and have mercy upon hss Church by sparing this Epaphroditus But whereas you have been told that I had animadversions on your Book this was a mistake for the truth is though I have cast my thoughts upon some part of it yet I have not any digested or prepared considerations about it but do defer such a work till I shall have opportunity to discharge that part I have publiquely promised about imputed Righteousness which Subject I cannot yet prosecute being hindred by other avocations It is true I have had advertisement from some honoured friends of mine at London that it is expected I should do something in those points because by your Inscription of my name which I take as an Act of your real Love and respect to me though I am unworthy of any such Testimony they think I am interested Had I known the Contents of the book before published I would have most importunately urged you at least to have taken more time of deliberation about the divulgation of them which you know have much novelty in them I know things are not to be embraced or rejected because either old or new yet Paul doth dislike 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we may so read it and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall conclude with this Let not any difference from you in Judgement be any obstruction to improve your utmost Abilities which are many and lovely to the finding out and propagating of Truth If God prolong your life I hope this next Summer we may have mutual oral Conference together which is the most conducible way to clear both Truth and our Opinions Your faithfull Friend and Brother Decemb. 3. To the Reverend and his much Honoured Friend Mr. Baxter Preacher of the Word of God at Kederminster those Deliver Sir I Received yours which I acknowledge a Favour but not so great as I expect Your dissent is so generally known that I cannot but hope to know some of the Grounds of it I hope you cannot so vehemently dissent in points of such Moment and yet deny me a discovery of mine Error The defering of such a work till you have wrote another Book doth intimate what will be injurious to the Church your self and me If you intend to publish a Confutation when I am dead and deny me any help for conviction while I live 1. The Church will lose the fruit of my own Recantation 2. And your self one part of the fruit of your Labor 3. And I may dye in error unrecanted and you being now importuned for your help be guilty of it If you did but know how gladly I would publiquely recant you would not deny your help You that would have so importuned me to deliberate if you had known before I hope will not deny your assistance for my recovery I did not hastily that I did But though I wanted the opportunity of consulting you before yet I hope it is not too late I am confident if you know me you are not so uncharitable as to think me uncurable It is therefore your flat duty not to suffer sin upon me Let me therefore intreat you to send me one or two of your strongest Arguments against some of the weightyest points in difference and to answer mine I know it is not an hours work with you to do that much and I would bestow twenty for you If you suspect that I will any way mis-imploy your papers you shall prescribe me the
of our sight to be our Saviour Soveraign by redemption and Husband even here in our native Country the match being moved to us by his Embassadors and imperfectly solemnized upon our cordial consent and giving up our selves to him by our Covenant but it shall be perfectly solemnized at the great Marriage of the Lamb. This is my faith of the nature of true justifying faith and the manner of its receiving Christ THE Reader must understand that after this I had a personal conference with this Dear and Reverend Brother wherein he still owned and insisted on the passiveness of Justifying faith viz. That it is but a Grammatical action or nominal and a physical or hyperpyhsical passion which also he giveth us again in the Treatise of Imputation of righteousness FINIS A DISPVTATION Proving the Necessity of a two-fold Righteousness to Justification and Salvation And defending this and many other Truths about Iustifying Faith its Object and Office against the confident but dark Assaults of Mr. Iohn Warner By Richard Baxter Acts 5.31 Him hath Gad axalted with his right hand a Prince and a Saviour to give Repentance unto Israel and forgiveness of sins Rom. 4.22 23 24 25. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was Imputed to him but for us also to whom it shall be Imputed if we Believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our Justification LONDON Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Book seller in Kederminster and are to be sold by him there and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard 1658. Question Whether Besides the Righteousness of Christ Imputed there be a Personal Evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salvation Affirm THough it hath pleased a late Opponent Mr. Warner to make the Defence of this Proposition necessary to me yet I shall suppose that I may be allowed to be brief both because of what I have formerly said of it and because the Question is so easily decided and Christians are so commonly agreed on it For the right understanding of what we here maintain its necessary that I explain the Terms and remove confusion by some necessary distinctions and lay down my sense in some Propositions that make to the opening of this To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in several Languages that signifie Righteousness or Justification would be a needless loss of time it being done to our hands by so many and we being so far agreed on it that here lyeth no part of our present controversie The Form of Righteousness signified by the name is Relative as strait or crooked is For it is not the Habit of Justice by which we give every man his own that is the Subject of our Question but Righteousness in a Judicial or Legal sense 1. Righteousness is either of the cause or of the person Not that these are subjects actually separated but distinct the one being subordinate to the other The cause is the nearest subject and so far as it is just and justifiable so far the person is just and justifiable Yet the person may otherwise be just and justified when one or many causes are unjustifyable 2. Righteousness is denominated either from a Relation to the Precept of the Law or to the Sanction To be righteous in Relation to the Precept is to be conform to that Precept An Action or Disposition conform to the Precept is called a Righteous Action or Disposition and from thence the person being so far conform is called a Righteous person And so this Righteousness as to the positive precept is his obeying it and as to the prohibition it is his Innocency contrary to that guilt which we call Reatus culpae Righteousness as a Relation to the Sanction is either a Relation to the Commination and penal Act of the Law or to the promissory or Premiant Act. As to the former Righteousness is nothing but the Not-dueness of the punishment contrary to the Reatus poenae as it respects the execution and so A not being lyable to condemnation as it respects the sentence This is sometime founded in the persons Innocency last mentioned sometime on a free pardon or acquittance sometime on satisfaction made by himself And sometime on satisfaction by another conjunct with free pardon which is our case Righteousness as a Relation to the Promise or Premiant part of the Sanction is nothing but our Right to the Reward Gift or Benefit as pleadable and justifyable in foro Which sometime is founded in merit of our own sometime in a free Gift sometime in the merit of another conjunct with free Gift which is our case other cases concern us not This last mentioned is Righteousness as a Relation to the substance of the Promise or Gift But when the Promise or Gift or Testament or Premiant Law is conditional as in our case it is then there is another sort of Righteousness necessary which is Related to the Modus promissionis and that is The performance of the condition which if it be not properly called Righteousness Ethically yet civilly in a Judiciary sense it is when it comes to be the cause to be tryed and Judged whether the person have performed the condition then his cause is just or unjust and he just or unjust in that respect 3. Righteousness is either Vniversal as to all causes that the person can be concerned in or it is only particular as to some causes only and so but secundum quid to the person 4. A particular Righteousness may either be such as the total welfare of a man depends on or it may be of less and inconsiderable moment 5. When a cause subordinate to the main cause is Righteous this may be called a subordinate Righteousness But if it be part of the main cause it is a partial righteousness co-ordinate I will not trouble you with so exact a disquisition of the Nature of Righteousness and Justification as I judge fit in it self both because I have a little heretofore attempted it and because I find it blamed as puzling curiosity or needless distinguishing Though I am not of that mind yet I have no minde to be troublesome As for the term Justification 1. It either may signifie the Act of the Law or Promise or the sentence of the Judge or the Execution of that sentence For to one of these three sences the word may still be reduced as we shall have to do with it that is to constitutive or sentential or Executive Justification though the sentence is most properly so called To these Justification by Plea Witness c. are subservient 2. Justification is either opposed to a false Accusation or to a true 3. In our case Justification is either according to the Law of works or to the Law of Grace I think we shall at this time have no great need
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
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
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
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
joyned with Assent as Heat in the Sun with Light though they are not the same But then the second sort of Affiance followeth Assent and hath another act of the Will interceding which is Consent or acceptance of the Benefit offered which also is closely conjunct with the first act of the Will And then followeth last of all affiance in Christ for the performance of the undertaken acts And these latter are also many particular Physical acts as the objects in specie specialissima are many And yet all these make but one object in a moral sense and so but one act and are done in a few moments of time of which after Would it not be too tedious I should stay to cite several Texts to prove that never a one of all these acts is excluded as works by Paul But of divers of them it s before proved from Rom. 3. and 4. and of more in Heb. 11. and in Gal. 3.1 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 18 20 21 22. There are at least these Objects of Justifying faith expressed 1. Christs Person 2. that he was seed promised 3. That he was crucified 4. That this was for our sins 5. That he was made a curse for us in this his death 6. That hereby he Redeemed us from the curse 7. That he is the Mediator 8. God as the Party with whom he is Mediator 9. God as Believed in his Promise 10. God as Justifier 11. The Gospel preached and he Promise made 12. Blessedness by Christ 13. The confirmed Covenant 14. The Inheritance 15. Righteousness 16. Adoption 17. That Belief is the means and believers the subjects of these benefits All these objects of Faith you will find in the Text. Argument 2. Ex natura rei If other acts of faith in Christ are no more works then that one whatsoever it be which you will say Paul opposeth to works then Paul doth not call them works or number them with works But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent Doubtless the Scripture calls them as they are and therefore if they are not works it calls them not works And for the Antecedent 1. If by works you mean the Keeping of the first Covenant by sinless obedience so neither the one or the other are works 2. If you mean the keeping of Moses Law so neither of them are works 3. If you mean the performance of an act of obedience to any Precept of God so the several acts are works but justifie not as acts of obedience to the command that 's but their matter but as the condition of the Promise 4. If you mean that they are Acts of the soul of man so every act of Faith is a work though it justifie not as such so that here is no difference to be found E. g. If you make the Believing in Christ as Dying though you take in both assent and affiance to be the only Justifying act what reason can you give why our Believing in Christ incarnate in Christ obeying the Law in Christ rising again and Glorified and Interceding in Christ actually now giving out the pardon of sin and Adoption c. should be called works any more then our Believing in Christ as crucified No reason at all nor any Scripture can be brought for it Yea what reason have you that our Believing in Christ as the Physitian of our souls to cure us of our sins and cleanse our hearts and sanctifie our Natures and in Christ as the Teacher and Guide of our souls to life eternal should be called works any more then the other Or that believing in Christs blood for everlasting Life and happiness should be any more called works then believing in his blood for Justification Yea that Believing in him as the King and Head and Captain of his Church to subdue their enemies and by his Government conduct them to perseverance and to Glory should any more be called works then believing on him as crucified in order to forgiveness Argument 3. All acts Essential to faith in Christ as Christ are opposed to works by Paul in the point of Justification and are not the works opposed to Faith But many acts are essential to faith in Christ as Christ therefore they are many acts that are opposed to works and no one of those acts is the works excluded The Major is proved thus If faith in Christ as such be it that Paul opposeth to works then every essential part of it is by Paul opposed to works for it is not faith in Christ if it want any essential part But the Antecedent is true Ergo. The Minor I have proved in the first Disputation Though sometime it is said to be by faith in his blood that we have remission of sin and sometime that we are justified if we believe in him that raised Christ from the dead c. Yet most frequently it is said to be by faith in Christ by believing in the Lord Jesus receiving Christ Jesus the Lord c. Belive in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved was the Gospel preached to the Jaylor Acts 16. But this is sufficiently proved already That many acts are essential to faith in Christ as such is also proved and particularly that believing in him as our Teacher Lord and as Rising Interceding and Justifying by sentence and Gift as well as believing in him as dying for our Justification As Christ is not Christ as to his Office and work without these Essentials so faith is not the Christian faith without these acts But here observe that though I say these acts of faith are not the works which Paul excludeth I speak of them as they are and not as they are misunderstood For if any man should imagine that Believing in Christ is a Legal Meritorious work and that can justifie him of or for it self I will not deny but he may so make another thing of faith and so bring it among excluded works if it be possible for him to believe contradictories But then this is as true of one act of Faith as another If a man imagine that it s thus Meritorious to Believe in Christ as purchasing him Justification it is as much the excluded works as to think it Meritorious to Believe in him as our Teacher or King and Judge that will lead us to final Absolution and actually justifie us by his Sentence at that Judgement Argument 4. Those acts of Faith that are necessary to Justification are none of the works that Paul excludeth from Justification unless changed by misunderstanding as aforesaid But other acts of faith as well as one are necessary to Justification Ergo. The Minor which only is worthy the labour of a proof 1. is proved before and in the first Disputation 2. And it is confessed by my Opponents that say Faith in Christ as Teacher King c. is the fides quae Justificat and the condition of Justification as Repentance also is though it be not the Instrumental