and not the hundreth line or word to press them to Trust that he will pardon and save them All the powerfull Perachers that ever I heard however they dispute yet when they are preaching to the generality of people they zealously cry down laziness lukewarmness negligence unholyness prophaness c. As that which would be the liklyest cause of the damnation of the people But if only the foresaid saith be the condition and all other Graces or Duties be but meer signal effects of this and signal qualifications of the subject and not so much a conditions what need all this Were it not then better to perswade all people even when they are whoring or drunk to trust on Christ to pardon and justifie them And then when they have the tree and cause the fruits and signal effects will follow Quest 24. Yea Why do the best Divines preach so much against Presumption And what is Presumption if it be not this very faith which Divines call justifying viz. the Trusting to Christ for Pardon and Salvation only without taking him for their King and Prophet If it be said that this last must be present though not justifie How can the bare presence of an idle Accident so make or marr the efficacy of the cause Quest 25. If to be unwilling that Christ should raign over us be part of the directly condemning sin Luke 19.27 why is not the willingness he should raign part of saving justifying faith Quest 26. Seeing resting in Christ is no Physical apprehension of him who is bodily in Heaven nor of his Righteousness which is not a being capable of such an apprehension How can that Resting justifie more then any other Act but only as it is the condition to which the Promise is made Resting on a friend for a Benefit makes it not yours but his gift does that As Perkins cited by me To believe the Kingdom of France shall be mine makes it not mine But to believe Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven c. vid. loc where he saith as much as I vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not said He that believeth shall be justified and saved would Believing have done it And if he had said He that repenteth or loveth or calleth on the name of the Lord shall be justified or saved would not these have done it if so then doth not faith justifie directly as the condition of the Gift Promise or new Covenant And its apprehension is but its aptitude to be set apart for this Office And if it justifie as a condition of the Promise must not others do it so far as they are parts of the Condition Sir If you should deny me the favour I hope for in resolving these doubts yet let me hear whether I may expect it or not And in the interim I shall search in jealousie and pray for direction But till your Arguments shall change my judgement I remain confident that I can maintain most of the Antinomian Dotages against any man that denyeth the principles of my Book and that which is accounted novelty in it is but a more explicate distinct necessary delivery of common Truths Yours RICHARD BAXTER April 5 1650 Sir I Am sorry that you are not in capacity for the motion I profered I thought discourse would not so much infeeble you especially when it would have been in so loving a way And I judged it the more seasable because I had been informed of a late solemn conference you had about Paedobaptism which could not but much spend you I shall press no more for it although this very letter doth abundantly confirm me that letters are but a loss of time for one word might have prevented many large digressions Is not that endeavour of yours in your seventh question to prove out of my book that Repentance is a necessary condition or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned c. a meer impertinency You earnestly desire satisfaction of your conscience therefore I cannot think you do wilfully mistake For is that the state of the question with us Is it not this whether the Gospel Righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing You say by believing and Obedience I say only believing I say faith is only the condition justifying or instrument receiving you make a justifying Repentance a justifying Patience you make other acts of grace justifying as well so that whereas heretofore we only had justifying faith now there are as many other qualities and all justifying as there are Graces So that I do firmly hold and it needs a recantation that repentance and other exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and are media ordinata in the use whereof only pardon can be had But what is this to you Who expresly maintain the righteousness of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours upon our godly working as well as believing If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith had no peculiar Instrumentality in our Justification but what other Graces have then you had hit the mark What is more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato which are not in actu justificationis The fastening of the head to the body is a necessary condition in homine vidente but it is not in actu videntis You grant indeed some precedency to faith but you make Faith and Works aequè though not aequaliter the conditions of Justification I should say much more to the state of the question but I forbear In other things you seem to come off and though I do not say you recede from your Assertions yet you much mollifie them that I need not therein contend with you But here is the stick Let it be demonstrated that whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Justification to believing only as through faith and by Faith and through faith in his blood that you can as truly say it s received by love and it s through love of his blood shed for our sakes c. This is a little of that much which might be said to the state of the question This I judge new Doctrine justifying Repentance justifying Charity And in my Letter I laid down an Argument Rom. 4. Concerning Abrahams Justification the Pattern of all others To this you reckon up many Answers but I see not the Argument shaken by it First you say you exclude a co-operation effective but why do we strive about words You do not exclude works justifying as well as faith let the expressions be what they will Whereas Paul saith he would be found having the Righteousness which is by faith you will add and which is by love by zeal 2. You desire it to be proved that Paul excludes all works under any notion I think it s very easily done First because of the immediate opposition between Faith and Works now you will contradict Pauls Argument and give a tertium works that are of Grace But the Apostles opposition is so immediate here and
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
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
neither and yet say it is harsh But the reason you intimate because Bellarmine hath some such phrase which I never remembred or observed in him and little do I care whether he have or no If the Papists be nearer to us then I take them to be it is cause of joy and not sorrow But sure I am that Protestant Writers generally use the word Condition and Wendeline saith The Papists abuse us in feigning us to say the Gospel is absolute and saith the Gospel in each sence is conditional In one sence Faith is the Condition in another Faith and Obedience c. But here you come again to the Labyrinth and transcendent Mysterie of passive Faith nay you enlarge the Mysterie yet more 1. You say again Faith doth pati 2. And yet Love doth agere 3. Else you would yield that Bellarmine argues consonantly enough that Love would justifie as well as Faith 4. Yet you acknowledge Faith an Active Grace but only in this Act its meerrecipient Answer I confess my reason utterly at a loss in this but yet if it were in my Bible to me Intelligible I would believe it as I do the Doctrine of the Trinity and cease enquiring But I cannot so do by any Creature to make him the Lord of my faith and Reason 1. Whether Faith doth Pati I have enquired already 2. That Love doth Agere I verily believe and yet I have ofter heard Love called a Passion then Faith And as Keckeram saith the Affections are more Passive then the immanent Elicit Acts of the Intellect and Will And though as it is in the Rational soul Love saith Aquin. is no Passion but a Willing which causeth me to judge it so near Kin to Faith yet as it is in the sensitive it is a Passion So that I am quite beyond doubt that physically love is more properly called a Passion then Faith 3. Therefore for ought I know it is no wonder if Bellarmine bear the Bell and Papists be unconvinced if you have no better Arguments then this especially if no body else had better 4. But yet the Mysterie is far more unsearchable to me that faith should be Active in all other save only this Act. What is this thing called Faith which you make such a Proteus to be Active and Passive as to several Objects Yea when it is acknowledged the same Faith which receiveth Christ and Righteousness and the several promises and resteth on Christ for the Pardon of each sin for hearing each Prayer for Assurance Peace Comfort Deliverance from temptations and dangers and sin and is thus usefull through all our lives for the fetching of help from Christ in every streight yet that this same Faith should be Active in all the Rest and Passive only in One justifying Act. Oh For the face of an Argument to prove this Sure its natural Reception of one Object and another is in point of Passiveness alike and its assigned Conditionality in Scripture is of like nature as to each branch of the good on that condition promised 5. And here also I perceive by your speech you make it consist in some single act And yet you never tell what that is and how then can it be in several faculties as Davenant Amesius Joh. Crocius Melancth with most do affirm 6. But yet the depth of the mysterie to me lies in understanding and reconciling your words Only in this Act its meerly Recipient Is this an Act too and yet meerly Recipient which you make a meer Pasâ—ive reception A meerly Passive Act is such a contradiction in adjecto to my understanding that I cannot welcome the notion thither yea if you had said less that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Passive I never knew that an Act could Pati yet am I more conscious of mine own insufficiency then to contend with one of your knowledge in matter of Philosophy but I must needs say that your notions are yet so far beyond my reach that possibly I might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I so highly value yet am I not able to apprehend the sence The Joy in Heaven which you mention for a wandring sheep I think is meant of the first or some eminent recovery to Christ and not of every Philosophical notion sure Sir if salvation hang on this Doctrine as thus by you explained I am out of hope that either I or ever a one in all this countrey should ever come to heaven except by believing as that part of the Church believes which is of your opinion When I am yet apt to think that siding with any party in such opinions will not conduce to any mans salvation For I am of Bergius his mind that as it is not the Jew the Pagan or the Mahometan or any Infidel privative that shall be saved but the Christian so it is not the Papist the Lutheran the Calvinist the Arminian that shall be saved qua talis but the Catholick However I am in strong hopes that a man may be saved though he cannot understand how an Act can be a passive instrument nor do I think that my subscribing to that notion would make any great rejoycing in Heaven I am sorry you had not leisure to answer the Questions which were very pertinent to the business of my satisfaction though not to your business That my explication of that plain weighty necessary point how imperfect graces or duties can yet be the conditions of the New Covenant should seem a Paradox to you I say to you makes me yet more possest with admiration When you know that such conditions there are suppose it were but faith alone and you know your self that this faith is imperfect But I perceive we know but in part and therefore must differ in part He shall see whom God will enlighten I had far rather you had fallen upon that point then on the term of Justification by works If you would but grant me that Justifying faith as such is an Accepting of Christ for King and Prophet as well as for a Justifier and consequently that it is a resigning our selves to be ruled by him as well as to be saved by him I shall then be content for peace sake to lay by the phrase of Justification by workâ— though it be Gods own phrase if the Church were offended with it and required this at my hands So they will be satisfied with my silencing it without a renouncing it I have written thus largely that I might not be obscure and to let you see that though I have scarce time to eate or sleeep yet I have time and paper for this work and that I make not light of your dissent The Love and Respect which you mention to me I do as little doubt of as I do whether I have a heart in my breast and your desires of my reducing I know do proceed from your zeal and sincere affections That which I take worst is that you should
justified in co-ordination with Christs merits by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can so justifie him and by repenting of those sins that have condemned him and by desiring loving hoping in Christ alone for his Justification or by Thankfulness to God for justifying him by the sole merits of Christ And is it not a strange Exposition that feigneth Paul to mean and exclude such acts as these under the name of works But yet really if such a man be to be found that doth think to merit Justification by denying such merit I am against him as well as you His third Argument is If faith justifie only as the beginning of our Justification then there are degrees of Justification but there are no degrees Ergo. Answer 1. Faith is neither the Beginning nor End of Justification but a means of it 2. If you would insinuate that I deny faith to be the means of our continued as well as begun Justification you deal deceitfully 3. I deny your Consequence It may prove more necessary to the Continuance of our Justification then to its beginning and yet prove no degrees 4. But how Justification hath or hath not Degrees I have told you before and fuller in other writings His fourth Argument is Because good works do not precede but follow Justification Answer 1. Repentance and the Love of God in Christ and faith in Christ as Lord and Head and Teacher do go before the pardon of sin and so before Justification 2. External obedience goeth before Justification at Judgement and Justification as continued here Did you doubt of these His fifth Argument is that These two Justifications overthrow each other If by one we have peace with God what need the other How can good works perfect our Justification being themselves imperfect Answer All this is answered in the second Disputation 1. It s no contradiction to be justified by God by Christ by Faith by Words by Works if God be to be believed that affirmeth all 2. As imperfect faith may be the condition of pardon so may imperfect Repentance and imperfect Obedience of our sentential Absolution Pag. 233. He answereth the Objection Blessedness is ascribed to other Graces thus Not as if Happiness were in them per se but only as they are signs Answer Promising is more then Ascrbing It s a great advantage for you to have the forming of your Objections 2. Happiness per se is as much in Love as in Faith and more 3. Other Graces are media means which is more then only works Pag. 241. He proves that works justifie not subordinate to Faith thus Argument 1. No good works were found till faith had done its Works Answer 1. Faith hath not done its work till death we are not justified only by the first act of faith but by after-acts to the Death 2. Faith in Christ as Head and Lord and Teacher and Desire and Repentance were found before Faith had justified us 3. Obedience is found before the sentential Justification or the continuation of our first received Righteousness His second Argument is Because good works are the effects of Faith and Justification and therefore cannot be the cause Answer 1. They are none of the cause at all It s not well to intimate that we hold them the cause as in despight of all our own denyals 2. They are not so much as Means or Antecedents of that part of Justification of which they are the effect The act of faith which you will exercise before your death is as true a condition or Instrument if you will needs call it so of your Justification as continued as your first act of faith was of your Justification as begun And yet that act of faith is but fruit of your first Justification as well as Obedience is His third Argument is that If Gospel Obedience and good works do subordinately act with faith to the effecting of Justification then the Justification which proceedeth from both must be of a different kind and nature Answer 1. Neither faith nor work effect Justification 2. Justification by Promise and Gift and Justification by Sentence Plea c. are much different 3. But your consequence is nothing worth For these are not causes but conditions And if they were yet different causes may concur to the same effect which never man before you denyed that I know of Our case is as if to a Rebell that hath forfeited Life and Estate the King upon a Ransom grant him both on condition that he thankfully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ransom and to hold them on condition that he often do his Homage to the King and return not to Rebellion Doth the first acceptance here serve turn for continuance of what is first received without the following Homage and Fidelity or do the different parts of the condition make such a difference in the benefit as you here take the Monstrous Justification to be as you rashly call it Another Argument is If faith be a total cause or condition of producing the effect of Justification then there 's no want of obedience for its assistance Answer 1. Faith or obedience are no causes of pardon 2. I will not trouble the Reader to open the shame of that Philosophy which you make such ostentation of Only I would remember you that causes total in suo genere may have others under them And that it followeth not that the sun shineth not or the fire heateth not or that you understand not and wrote not these words though I suppose you will say that God is Causa totalis of all these act nor yet that God doth use his creatures because of an insufficiency in himself 3. Faith taken for our becoming Believers Disciples Christians is the total condition of our first Receiving Justification 2. Faith taken more narrowly for our accepting Christs Righteousness is not the total Condition of our first Receiving of Justification 3. Obedience is part of the condition of the continuance of it and of our sentential Justification And whereas you talk over and over of Total causes and particular causes I tell you again they are no causes He adds that then Obedience doth nihil agere or actum agere Answer It doth nihil efficere But besides nihil and factum there 's two things oft mentioned Justification at Judgement and the non-amission of it here 3. He insipidly gain disputes that If an effect doth totally proceed from any cause then it totally depends on it And what then Therefore it solely dependeth on it And if these things were true what are they to our question But saith he When good works the fruit of faith are interrupted yet our Justification abides by the single influence of faith only as a total cause of its being and conservation Answer 1. Alas What would such Disputants do with the Church if Gods mercy did not hinder them By your own Argument now neither God nor Christ nor the Gospel are any
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
therefore I will call a moral Instrument the condition which we must perform I will not call a moral Instrument either of the Act which God performeth or yet of the effect which floweth from that act immediately Yet if any will say that it is properly and principally a condition and that it so justifieth and yet that it may be called an Instrument moral in an improper sence as it is a condition first or else in regard of its receiving use will stretch the word Instrument so wide as to apply it to it I will not contend for a word when we agree in sence And thus Mr. Wotton yieldeth as with an ill will to call it an Instrument proving it first to justifie as a condition But I am loth to give it any proper causality in justifying And now let us see whose sence is 1. More obscure I avoid and abhor all vain niceties in so fundamental a point as Justification is therefore I say plainly but That faith is the condition on which God hath bestowed Christ and all his benefits in the Gospel What woman cannot understand this at a word But your Doctrine what Oedipus is able to unfold for my part it is quite past my reach and most that I converse with are as silly as my self Can every poor man or woman reach to know what a passive Action or a passive Passion or a Passive Instrument is and how we receive Christ as a man takes a gift in his hand or to see through all the difficulties that I have discovered here in your Doctrine Even they that raise questions what one act of faith doth justifie whether of the Vnderstanding or Will Whether Assent or Affiance c. Do seem vainly and hurtfully curious to me much more those that reduce all to an unconceivable patâ— I plainly therefore asfiâ—m that faith is not any physical receiving as the hand doth receive money as you would afterward make me believe the Assembly mâ—â—ns but a Metaphorical moral receiving and that it is not by any one act of the soul much less a Passion but by the whole soul Understanding and Will the former beginning the later consummating it as Davâ—nant soundly And let us trye by common speech which of these is the more plain and probable sence Suppose a Prince will redeem a Turkish condemed slave and send him word I have bought thee and if thou wilt receive or take me for thy Redeemer Deliverer and Lord and for the future wilt serve me and be thankfull I will actually set thee free Here it would sure be a silly thing to fall a questioning what the Prince means by the word Receive or take Whether it be an act of this faculty or that Whether this or that act Or whether it is meerly Pati Though we are too wise to understand this now I warrant you the foolishest slave would soon understand it and know that to receive or take the Prince for his Redeemer is to believe him and consent and thankfully accept of him as he requires and of deliverance by him And he that should ask him Whether it were the bare act of affiance or whether gratitude or love were included in the term would seem but simple to him If a Prince will deliver a condemned woman from death and offer with all to marry her and give her himself and all he hath on condition she will receive or take him for her husband and accordingly be a faithfull wife to him till death He that should here step in and raise profound Scruples and enter difficult disputes whether this receiving were an act of the Understanding or Will Whether Affiance Recombency Assurance c. or whether a Passion would be well judged ridâ—culous when every man knows at the first word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for her Husband even gladly and lovingly to consent and accept the offer and with all her heart deliver up her self to him accordingly So if a King of another Nation that hath right also to this but not possession should send to us to charge us to receive him for our King what a hard word is this to understand or doth it signifie any one act or the act of any one single faculty that the people of the land must perform Oh how too learned Divines or too unlearned have puzzled and amazed poor souls and muddyed the clear streams of the Doctrine of Christ in this so weighty and plain a point of justification In a word Sir I know there is never a one of my Hearers can understand your Doctrine of instrumentality Active or Passive nor have they the Logick necessary thereto and therefore I will not speak to them in such a language Even while I untye your knots I am thought a Barbaâ—iâ—n and not understood how much more if I spoke what I understand not my self nor am able though I set my wits on the tenter 2. And then let us see which is the truer and certaâ—ner your Doctrine or mine And 1. I have said somewhat already to weaken the credit of yours 2. And more from what is last said it is unlikely to me to be true because of the obscurity for I believe God hath spoke plainer in fundamentals and not laid folks salvation upon that which none but Scholars of a better or worse judgement then I can understand I know there is that kind of difficulty in Divine things which requireth the spiritual illumination of the understanding but not such in foundation points that necessarily requireth so much humane learning 3. Your way hath not one word of Scripture for it Where doth Scripture say in phrase or sense that faith Justifieth as an instrument or that it is such Active or Passive Or that it is this or that only Act But now for the Doctrine I teach 1. Neither your self nor any solid man denyeth it that faith is a condition and so justifieth and that it is a Moral receiving and by the whole soul esepcially the hearty consent and acceptance of the will most Divines teach as I could shew but for wasting time 2. I prove it further that it is but this plain Moral recepâ—ion thus As Christ is offered so he is received therefore the Assembly say as he is offered in the Gospâ—l But Christ is offered Morally in the Gospel and not Physically therefore he must be so received 3. Rejicere est noâ—le Ergo reciâ—ere est velle To reject Christ is the condemning sin of infidelity but that lies in an unwillingness to have him to be their Redeemer Saviour and especially Lord therefore receiving Christ is a willingness consent or acceptance of him for Redeemer and Lord Joh. 1.10 His own received him not What is that but they refused him and not that they wree not Passive physical receivers of Justice Luke 19.27 These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them bring hither and destroy c. Then willingness of his
viz. that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Justification and that to justifie a sinner is nothing else but to do away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent Righteousness And so Mr. Pemble disputes against it only as thus meant And Calvin also in his Antidot on this 6. Sess 6. chap. never once finds fault with them here but only for ascribing that to free Will which they should ascribe to effectual Grace and for making Justification to be Sanctification but not a word for making these Acts to be praeparatory to Justification Tractat. Theologic pag. 387 388. Vid. etiam Articuloâ— facultat Parisiens Art 4. de sensu Papissiâ—o Every man that makes Faith to contain many acts most Divines say Notitiam Assensum siduciam Amesius names five must needs make all those Acts to be pre-requisite to Justification besides Repentance and besides preparatory acts of common Grace No man that I know doth seem to come nearer you then Dr. Downame in placing justifying faith in Assent and so not taking it to contain so many acts And yet even he tells you that the act of the Will doth concur to Faith and that faith which a habit of the mind is seated as well in the Will as in the Vnderstanding and this is confessed by Farthers Schoolmen and the modern Doctors of the Romish Church Treat of Justif pag. 358.359 Yea for ought I can understand he extended faith as far as I and meant as I do herein pag. 348.349 352. he saith By the former which is a bare Assent we do after a sort Credere Christum acknowledge him to be the Saviour of these that believe in him By the latter which is the lively and effectual Assent working on the Heart we do credere in Christum and receive him to be our Saviour whereupon necessarily followeth Affiance in Christ and love of him as a Saviour Thus then by a true Belief we receive and Embrace Christ in our judgement by a lively Assent in our Hearts desiring earnestly to be partakers of him which Desire we express by our Prayer and in our Wills resolving to acknowledge and Profess him to be our only Saviour and to rest upon him alone for Salvation So that a true lively and effectual faith is the work of the whole soul that is to say as well of the Heart as of the Mind Rom 10.10 Act. 16.14 Act. 8.37 so far Dr. Downame Is not this as much as I say and the very same I only mention him having many more at hand because 1. you urge him and 2. I conjecture you think you go his way about the nature of faith If this be not as much as I say do but add what he saith pag. 15. and I think you have as much in this particular The true meaning saith he of the Question whether we are justified by Faith or by Works is not as opposing the inward Grace of Faith to the outward acts of Obedience which indeed aâ—eths fruits of Faith But as opposing the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith to the righteousness which is Inherent in our selves and performed by our selves And truly Sir I use to charge my conscience to enquire what may be the plain meaning of a Text and to embrace that and not against Light to be carryed by prejudice and this conscience tells me that this Resolution of Dr. Downame being so plainly agreeable to Paul is not to be rejected When I impartially consider what Paul driveth at my Judgement tells me that it was never his intent to advance any one simple Act of the soul into the office of justifying excluding all the rest but to advance Christ against mens own works which stood up then in competition with him And that Paul never meant that Assent Justifies but not Velle Acceptare Consentire Eligâ—re Fiduciam habere c. Suppose there be a mortal Disease that hath seized on a City which no man can cure but one only Physitian nor he but by a Medicine that will cost him as much as the lives of the Citizens are worth This Physitian comes and sends to them and offers then all without exception that if they will but take him for their Physitian and trust him with their lives he will not only manifest his skill that he is able to cure them but he will do it and pay for the Physick and not put them to pay a penny Hereupon some that are his enemies and some that are mistaken in the man upon false reports and some that judge of him by his outward appearance do all conclude this is some Deceiver he is not able to do any such matter none but fools will trust him and venture their lives in his hand Let us stir about and labour and we shall overcome it and do well enough On the contrary the Physitian having great compassion on the poor deluded people knowing their case better then themselves and having already bought the remedy for them doth send to them again to tell them all that those that will believe him and trust him he will certainly cure and the rest shall dye every man of them for all they think to labour it away I pray you now put our Questions here impartially 1. Is believing and trusting the Physitian some one single act excluding all others Or was it ever his intent to advance some one act of theirs 2. Would it not be a learned madness to dispute whether the Physitian make the act of Assent or the act of Willing only or Accepting c. or Affiance or Recumbency to be the Healing act and of what faculty that act was which must heal them 3. Is it the Trusting and Receiving him only 1. as one that hath brought a Remedy 2. Or as one that can and will cure us by it or 3. Also as one that must be obeyed in the use of that remedy for the effecting the cure which of these is it that he intends must be the Object of their Act 4. Doth Trusting him and Believing him exclude a Resolution to obey his Directions and the future actual obedience Surely no it includeth both But it excludeth both their trusting any other Physitian and their thinking to work away the Disease and cure themselves 5 Doth Trusting or Believing him cure these men as the Instrument or is it only a condition without which he will not cure them But this Question with you I may spare Lastly You question How I will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercision of Justification upon the committing a sin that wasts the conscience when I make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience Answ 1. Do you not discern that the Question concerneth you and every man as much as me and that it is of aequal difficulty upon your own and others opinion as upon mine Dr. Downame will tell you as well as I that Justification is a continued Act. So will Dr. Twiss and all that with him do