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
hereabout are such as if they were held practically and after the proper sense of their expressions would be a great hinderance to salvation if not plainly hazard it And therefore the question is not to be cast by as needless or unprofitable It is so neer the great matters of our Redemption Justification and the nature of faith that it is it self the greater And if Amesius say true that truths are so concatenated that every Error must by consequence overthrow the foundation then it must be so in this The consequents shall be mentioned anon in the Arguments where it will be more seasonable And in great matters it is not a contemptible Error which consisteth but in mis-naming and mis-placing them It is a very great help to the clear and full understanding of Truths to have right Notions and Methods And the contrary may prove dangerous to many others when the particular Patrons of those mistakes may be in no danger by them For perhaps their first Notions may be righter than their second and they may not see the consequents of their mistakes and yet when such mistakes in terms and methods shall be commended to the world other men that hear and read their words and know not their hearts and better apprehensions are like enough to take them in the most obvious or proper sense and by one disorder to be led to more and to swallow the Consequents as well as the misleading Premises And therefore I must needs say that this point appeareth of such moment in my eyes that I dare not desert that which I confidently take to be the Truth nor sacrifice it to the honor or pleasure of man For the explication of the terms it is needless to say much and I have neither time for nor mind of needless work By Justification here we mean not either Sanctification alone or sanctification and remission conjunct as making up our Righteousness as the Papists do though we deny not but sometime the word may be found in Scripture in some such sense For thus it is past controversie that our justification that is our sanctification as to all that followeth faith is as much if not much more from our belief in Christ as Teacher and King as from our belief in him as a Ransome But by Justification we mean that Relative Change which Protestants ordinarily mean by this word which we need not here define The Preposition By when we speak of being justified by faith is not by all men taken in the same sense First Sometime it s used more strictly and limitedly to signifie only an efficiency or the Interest of an Efficient cause And thus some Divines do seem to take it when they say that we are justified by faith in Christs blood and Righteousness and not by faith in him as a Teacher or a Lord which occasioneth the Papists to say our difference is wider then indeed it is For the word By hath an ambiguity and in their sence we yield their Negative though not their Affirmative in the last-mentioned conclusion Secondly Sometime the word By is used to signifie a Conditionality or the Interest of a condition only in special And thus we take it when we explain our selves in what manner it is that we are justified by faith and by these questioned acts in particular And therefore those Protestants that dispute against us who are for the Affirmative do if I understand them deny only the propriety of the phrase which we use but not the thing or sense which we express by it for they grant that these acts of faith are Conditions of our Justification when they have never so much disputed that we are not justified by them and so a small syllable of two letters is much of the matter of their controversie Thirdly sometime this word is used to signifie the Interest of any other cause as well as the Efficient and that either generally or especially of some one This Paper is white By the whiteness as the formal cause we are moved to a godly life By God and salvation as the final cause c. Fourthly Sometime the term By is taken yet more largely and fitly enough for all or any Means in General or the interest of any means in the attainment of the End And so it comprehendeth all Causes even those Per accidens and Conditions as well as Causes and all that doth but remove impediments And in this comprehensive sense we take it here in the Question though when we come to determine what is the special Interest of faith in Justification I take it in the second sense Take notice also That I purposely here use this phrase we are Justified by Believing or by Faith rather than these justifying faith or Faith doth justifie us And I here foretell you that if I shall at any time use these last expressions as led to it by those with whom I deal it is but in the sense as is hereafter explained The Reasons why I choose to stick to this phrase rather then other are First Because this only is the Scripture phrase and the other is not found in Scripture that I remember It is never said that Faith doth justifie us though it be said that we are justified by faith And if any will affirm that I may use that phrase which is not found in Scripture he cannot say I must use it And in a Controverted case especially about such Evangelical truths the safety of adhering to Scripture phrase and the danger of departing from it is so discernable and specially when men make great use of their unscriptural phrases for the countenancing of their opinions I have the more reason to be cautelous Secondly Because the phrases are not alwaies of one and the same signification The one is more comprehensive then the other if strictly taken To be justified by faith is a phrase extensive to the Interest of any Medium whatsoever And there are Media which are not Causes But when we say that Faith doth justifie us or call it justifying Faith we express a Causality if we take the word strictly Though this last phrase may signifie the Interest of a bare Condition yet not so properly and without straining as the former The Reverend Author of the seond Treatise of Justification is of the same mind as to the use of the terms but he conjectures another reason for the Scripture use then I shall ever be perswaded of viz. that it is because Credere is not Agere but Pati to Believe is to Suffer and not to Act that it is a Grammatic all Action but Physically a Passion Though I think this no truer then that my brains are made of a looking glass and my heart of marble yet is there somwhat in this Reverend mans opinion that looks toward the truth afar off For indeed it intimateth that as to Causality or Efficiency faith is not Active in the justifying of a sinner but is a meer condition or
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
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
if God wil shew me so much Mercy as to enable this restless uncessantly-pained Sceleton to such a work I shall be bold to send you word and claim the favour you offer In the mean time it is my duty to let you know I have received your Letter and to return your hearty thanks for it though it be not that which I hoped for and shall now cease to expect I am convinced now as well as you that Letters are but a loss of time but your Arguments or direct answers to my Questions would have been for my advantage a precious improvement of it but seeing I may not be so happy I must rest content It still seemeth to my weak understanding to be no impertinency to prove that your self affirm Repentance Confession Turning Forgiveing others c to be more then signs i. e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness and to tell you that I say no more and to tell you still that you give more to faith and so to man then I but I give no more to works for ought I descern then you I am sure then our ordinary Divines do And if I do mistake herein you have little reason to suspect me of willfulness though of weakness as much as you please As for the state of the Question between us which you speak of I am a stranger to it and know not what you mean I never came to the stating of a Question with you nor did you state any to me in your letters but mentioned your vehement dissent from several passages in my book and therefore I had reason to think that you fell upon the Questions as there they were stated so that it is intime medullitùs pertinent to my question which is impertinent to yours You say the question is Whether the Gospel righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing and tell me that I say by believing and obedience when I never stated such a question nor ever gave such an answer I suppose by Gospel Righteousness you mean Christs Righteousness given to Believers Now I have affirmed that those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction and so in him be legally righteous who do believe and obey the Gospel and so are in themselves Evangelically righteous But your phrase made ours doth intimate that our first possession of Christs Righteousness should be upon Obedience as well as Faith which I never affirmed But Christs Righteousness is continued ours on condition of obeying him though not made ours so and we shall be justified at Judgement also on that condition As it is not marriage duty but Contract which is the condition of a womans first Interest in her Husband and his riches but marriage duty and the performance of that Covenant is the condition of her Interest as continued And indeed it is much of my care in that Book to shun and avoid that question which you say is stated between us for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word By which I was loth to play with I know we are justified By God the Father By Christs satisfaction By Christs absolution By the Gospel Covenant or Promise By the Sacraments By Faith By Works for I will never be ashamed to speak the words of the Holy Ghost By our words for so saith Christ Therefore if you will needs maintain in general that Christs Righteousness is made ours no otherwise then by beleiving nor otherwise continued ours you see how much you must exclude But to remove such Ambiguity I distinguish between justifying By as an efficient instrumental Cause and By as by a condition and I still affirm that Works or Obedience do never justifie as any cause much less such a cause but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Justifier we are finally justified And truly Sir it is past my reach at present to understand what you say less in this then I except you differ only about the word By and not the sence and think that it is improper to say that Pardon or Justification is By that which is but a condition You seem here to drive all at this and yet me thinks you should not 1. Because you affirm your self that conditions have a moral efficiency and then it seems when you say Repentance Confession c. are conditions you mean they are morally efficient which is a giving more to works then ever I did 2. Because you know it is the phrase of Christ and his Spirit that we are justified By our words and works and it is safe speaking in Scripture phrase 3. Because you say after that my Assertions are destructive of what Divines deliver but the word By if we are agreed in the sence cannot be destructive and except the phrase only By c. be the difference where is it When you say Repentance c. are conditions and I say they are no more and I have nothing from you of any disagreement about the sence of the word condition Lest you should doubt of my meaning in that I understand it as in our usual speech it is taken and as Lawyers and Divines generally do viz. Est Lex addita negotio quae donec praestetur eventum suspendit Vel est modus vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur quoad ex post facto confirmetur ut Cujacius And whereas Conditions are usually distinguisht into potestativas causales mixtas seu communes I mean conditiones potestativas Where you add that you say only faith is the condition justifying c. but I make a justifying Repentance c. And whereas heretofore we had only justifying faith now c. I answer 1. If by justifying Repentance c. you mean that which is as you say Faith is an instrument or efficient Cause I never dreamed of any such If as a Condition you confess it your self 2. If you speak against the sence we are agreed in that for ought I know If against the phrase then justifying Faith or Repentance is no Scripture phrase but to be justified By faith and By works and By words are all Scripture phrases You say you firmly hold that Repentance and other Exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications and media ordinat◠in the use whereof only Pardon can be had but what is this to me c. I answer 1. Add conditions as you do in your Book and you say as much as I. 2. If by the other exercises of Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated or the like and if by Pardon you mean even the first pardon as the word Only shews you do then you go quite beyond me and give far more to those exercises of grace then I dare do For I say that Christ and all his imputed Righteousness is made ours and we pardoned and justified at first without any works or obedience more then bare faith and what is precedent in its place or concomitant and
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
Act. Again as I said the whole is denominated from the first leading and most difficult Act the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the persons to whom it was spoken Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Messias or Mediator must be Received Welcomed Honoured Loved submitted to but they could not Believe that Christ was he And this was foolishness to the Gentiles also as well as a stumbling-block to the Jews that one that lived and walked among them and seemed a poor contemptible man and at last was crucified should be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world I tremble sometimes to think if we had lived our selves in those times how hard it would have been even to us to believe so that when the great Difficult act is named the other Consent and Affiance are still implyed and included I will end with Amesius true observation to this purpose Medul l. 1. c. 3. Quamvis in scripturis aliquando Ascensus veritati quae est de Deo Christo Joh. 1.50 habetur pro vera fide includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia atque adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam indicatur tantum determinatio vel applicatio ejus ad personam Christi vel per Assensum illum designatur tanquam effectum per suam causam Joh. 11.25 26 27. § 20. The second Argument which you answer lyeth thus If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart then it is not only in the Understanding but in the Will also But the former is the words of Scripture Act. 8.37 Rom. 10.10 Ergo c. Here you answer that the whole heart notes not every inward faculty but as often sincerity To which I Reply 1. The word whole I yield to Illyricus signifies the sincerity which is usually expressed by Integrity but the word Heart signifies the subject and is commonly taken for the Will and oft for the whole soul Vnderstanding and Will as most Fathers Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point though the two former placed too much of it in the Assent but where and how oft do you find the word Heart used for the sole Intellect I pray shew the place 2. The proverbial speech with all the Heart is not used in Rom. 10.10 but only subject barely expressed with the Heart man believeth to Righteousness My third Argument as you place it was to another use which is of less moment As I judge Faith to be taken 1. sometimes more strictly for meer Assent to a Testimony so James takes it when he saith the Devils believe 2. And sometimes more fully for Assent and Acceptance or Consent so Paul takes it and so it Justifieth So 3. I suppose it is sometime taken most largely and improperly for the full performance of the conditions of the New Covenant If any deny this I have no mind to contend for it because it is but about a word and not the thing Your answer is twofold 1. that Heb. 5.9 speaks of obeying Christ but doth not call faith obeying Christ I Reply That Obedience which containeth the Condition of salvation by Christ whereof Justification is a part must needs include Faith But the word Obedience Heb. 5 9 containeth the condition of salvation by Christ therefore it includes faith He is become the Author of Eternal salvation to all them that obey him Your second answer is It may be obedience by Assent that Christ is the Messiah died rose c. Repl. 1. If Obedience of meer Assent be not made the condition of Eternal salvation in Scripture then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned But the former is true therefore the latter 2. The first Assent to these Gospel Truths is not in a full proper sence called Obedience to Christ at all therefore not here to be so understood As subjection so obedience is a term of Relation on supposing the Authority of a Superior the acknowledgement of that Authority A command from that Superior and that the action be therefore done because so commanded Now the first Assent to or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Office and Soveraignty must needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a Soveraign I confess improperly a man may be said to obey when he yields to the Reason and perswasion of another but this wants the very form of obedience properly so called If it be true that the first Acceptance of Christ for our Soveraign as Redeemer by the Wills consent may be both the Reception of him for King and Obedience to him Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception first though in time it is both at once But the first Assent to Christs Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign And for the understanding the Text when I find Christ give the world a systeme of Precepts and tell them that he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him I dare not without Reason restrain that obedience in the sence of it to some one or two acts Especially when I find that he hath made the like promise on condition of other acts of ours besides Believing as in many Text I have shewed in those Aphor Take my yoke and burden c. Learn of me to be meek and lowly c. and I will ease you and ye shall find rest Forgive and ye shall be forgiven He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy with multitudes of the like And Rom. 10. that is called Faith ver 14 17. which is called obeying the Gospel ver 16. And if the Gospel do as directly and urgently command Consent as Assent yea if it command love to Christ as of equal necessity with both I have reason to think that in this large sence Faith includes it Why should obeying the Gospel and obeying the Truth be made Synonima's with Believing as it is one single Act when the Gospel commands many other Acts as of aequal necessity and excellency Let me argue thus ex concessis from your self and others Most Divines affirm that the proper Reason why Faith justifieth is its Relation to Christ because it is a Receiving of him it justifies Relative i.e. A Christ received Justifies but Mr. Tombâ—s confesseth that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith therefore other Graces justifie as well as Faith The Consequence is a Quatenus ad Omne What 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 import in their first signification is not to our business so much as in what sense they are commonly used No doubt they may signifie properly our yielding to perswasion improperly called Obeying but that they are put for proper Obeying usually in Scripture most Interpreters affirm You may therefore as well draw to your purpose the Latin Obedire because it is but quasi ob-audire Indeed the Obedience
to learn of Christ as a Master or to be ruled by him yet cannot be justified or saved by him Proposition 10. I easily grant that Faith qud Christum Prophetam et Dominum recipit doth not justifie but only fides quâ Christum Prophetam Dominum recipit quâ est promissionis Conditio praestita But then I say the same also of Faith in Christ as Priest or in his Righteousness Having explained my meaning in these ten Propositions for preventing of Objections that concern not the Controversie but run upon mistakes I shall now proceed to prove the Thesis which is this Thesis We are justified by God by our Believing in Christ as Teacher and Lord and not only by Believing in his blood or Righteousness Argument 1. My first Argument shall be from the Concession of those that we dispute with They commonly grant us the point contended for Therefore we may take it for granted by them If you say What need you then dispute the point if they deny it not whom you dispute with I Answer some of them grant it and understand not that they grant it us because they understand not the sense of our Assertion And some of them understand that they grant it in our sense but yet deny it in another sense of their own and so make it a strife about a syllable But I shall prove the Concession left some yet discern it not If it be granted us that Believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Teacher is a real part of the Condition of our Justification then is it granted us that by this believing in him we are justified as by a Condition which is our sense and all that we assert But the former is true Therefore so is the later For the proof of the Antecedent which is all First Try whether you can meet with any Divine that dare deny it who believeth that Faith is the Condition of the Covenant Secondly And I am sure their writings do ordinarily confess it Their Doctrine that oppose us is That Faith is both a Condition and an Instrument but other Acts as Repentance c. may be Conditions but not Instruments And those that have waded so far into this Controversie seem to joyne these other Acts of Faith with the Conditions but not with the Instrument Thirdly They expresly make it antecedent to our Justification as of moral necessity ex constitutione permittentis and say it is the Fides quae justificat which is the thing desired if there be any sense in the words Fourthly They cannot deny to Faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher that which they commonly give to Repentance and most of them to many other Acts. But to be a Condition or part of the Condition of Justification is commonly by them ascribed to Repentance therefore they cannot deny it to these acts of faith So that you see I may fairly here break off and take the Thesis pro Concessa as to the sense Nothing more can be said by them but against our phrase whether it be proper to say that we are justified By that which is but a bare Condition of our Justification which if any will deny First We shall prove it by the consent of the world that apply the word By to any Medium And Dr. Twiss that told them contr Corvinum over and over that a condition is a Medium though it be not a cause and I think none will deny it Secondly by the consent of many Texts of Scripture But this must be referred to another Disputation to which it doth belong viz. about the Instrumentality of faith in justifying us which God willing I intend also to perform Argument 2. The usual language of the Scripture is that we are justified by faith in Christ or by believing in him without any exclusions of any essential part of that faith But faith in Christ doth essentially contain our believing in him as Teacher Priest and King or Lord therefore by believing in him as Teacher Priest and Lord we are justified The Major is past the denial of Christians as to the first part of it And for the second part the whole cause lyeth on it For the Minor also is past all controversie For if it be essential to Christ as Christ to be God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord then it is essential to faith in Christ by which we are justified to believe in him as God and man the Redeemer Teacher Priest and Lord. But the Antecedent is most certain therefore so is the Consequent The reason of the Consequence is because the act here is specified from its Object All this is past further question All the Question therefore is Whether Scripture do any where expound it self by excluding the other essential parts of faith from being those acts by which we are justified and have limited our justification to any one act This lyeth on the Affirmers to prove So that you must note that it is enough for me to prove that we are justified by faith in Christ Jesus for this Includeth all the essential acts till they shall prove on the contrary that it is but secundum quid and that God hath excluded all other essential acts of faith save that which they assert The proof therefore is on their part and not on mine And I shall try anon how well they prove it In the mean time let us see what way the Scripture goeth and observe that every Text by way of Authority doth afford us a several Argument unless they prove the exclusion First Mark 16.15 16 17. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every Creature he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and these signs shall follow them that believe c. Here the faith mentioned is the believing of the Gospel and the same with our becoming Christians and therefore not confined to one part or act of saving saith That Gospel which must be preached to all the world is it that is received by the faith here mentioned But that Gospel doth essentially contain more then the doctrine of Christs Priesthood therefore so doth that faith Object It is not Justification but Salvation that is there promised Answ It is that Salvation whereof Justification is a part It is such a Salvation as all have right to as soon as ever they believe and are baptized which comprehendeth Justification And the Scripture here and everywhere doth make the same faith without the least distinction to be the condition of Justification and of our Title to Glorification and never parcels out the several effects to several acts of faith except only in those Qualities or Acts of the soul which faith is to produce as an efficient cause To be justified by faith or Grace and to be saved by faith or Grace are promiscuously spoken as of the same faith or Grace Secondly John 3.15 16 18. He that believeth in him
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
his flesh Ephe. 5.23 24 25 30. Sixthly We are to do it as in remembrance of his death so also in expectation of his comming which will be in Kingly Glory when he will drink with us the fruit of the Vine new in the Kingdome of his Father Object But Christ doth not pardon sin in all these respects Answ First But in the Sacrament he is represented to be believed in entirely in all these respects Secondly And he pardoneth as King though he merit it as a sacrifice And as his Sacrifice and Merit are the cause of all that following so therefore it is specially represented in the Sacrament not excluding but including the rest Thirdly Believing in Christ as King and Prophet even as his offices respect his Honor and our sanctity may be as truly the condition of our Justification as believing in his blood Mr. Blake As the spirit of God guides faith so it must go to God for propitiation and â—â—tonement But the Holy Ghost guides faith to go the blood of Christ for attonement Rom. 3.25 5.9 Eph. 1.7 1 John 1.7 Reply Concedo totum The conclusion can be but this therefore faith must go to the blood of Christ for attonement Who ever questioned this I But your Thesis which you set at the Head of your Arguments was Faith in Christ qua Lord doth not justifie which is little kin to any of your Arguments But in the explication you have here at last the term Only and therefore I may take that to be supposed in the Argument But then with that Addition I deny your Minor The texts mentioned say nothing to prove it Rom. 3.25 hath no only in it nor any thing exclusive of the other acts of Christ And if it had yet it would not follow that all other acts of our faith were excluded As his blood is the meritorious cause and so the foundation of all the benefits and so all the Applying Causes are supposed in the mention of it and not excluded so are all other acts of our faith in the mention of that act Rom. 5.9 saith not that we are justified only by his blood Nâ—r is it any adding to the Scripture to add more unless you can prove that these texts are the whole Scripture or that the other Scriptures add no more Ephe. 1 7. and 1 John 1.7 do neither of them exclude either the other acts of Christ or other acts of faith Nay John seems to make somewhat else the condition on our part then the belief in that blood only when he saith there If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Or if you think this if denoteth but a sign yet other texts will plainly prove more To conclude If I were to go only to the blood of Christ for atonement yet it would not follow that going to that blood only for it is the only act of Faith on which Justification is promised or given me in the Gospel as is before declared Mr. Blake You demand Will you exclude his Obedience Resurrection intercession To which I only say I marvell at the question If I exclude these I exclude his blood His shedding of blood was in Obedience John 10.18 Phil. 2.8 his Resurrection was his freedom from the bands of death and an evidence of our discharge by blood His Intercession is founded on his blood He intercedes not as we by bare petition but by merit He presents his blood as the high Priest in the Holy of Holies Repl. It was the thing I had to do to prove that Rom. 3.24 and those other texts are not exclusive of all but his blood and that the word Only is no more meant then it is expressed in them And now you grant it me And needs must do it while Scripture tells us that by the Obedience of one many are made Righteous Rom. 5.19 and that he is Risen for our Justification Rom. 4 â—5 and that Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead ver 24. and It is God that justifieth who is he that condemneth it is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen again who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh Intercession for us Rom. 8 33 34. he that believeth all these texts will not add only to the first at least if he understand them for they do not contradict each other Well! but you marvell at my question I am glad of that Are we so well agreed that you marvell at my supposition of this difference To satisfie you my question implyed this Argument If the Resurrection Intercession c. be not in those texts excluded nor faith in them then we may not add only to interpret them but c. Ergo. But let us hear the reasons of your marveling First As to Obedience you say His shedding of blood was in Obedience Answer But though all blood-shed was in Obedience yet all Obedience was not by blood-shed nor suffering neither And the text Rom. 5.19 seems to speak of Obedience as Obedience and not only as in blood shed Secondly You say His Resurrection was his freedom c. Ans But Suffering is one thing and freedom from suffering is another thing I herefore faith to our justification must eye Christs conquest and freedom from death as well as his death it self Moreover Resurrection was an act of Power and his Entrance on his Kingdom and not a meer act of Priesthood Nor will you ever prove that faith to Justification must only look at the Resurrection as connoting the death from which he riseth Thirdly You say His Intercession is founded on his blood c. Answer So is his Kingdom and Lordship Rom. 14 9. Mat. 28.18 Phil. 2.9 10. It seems then faith in order to Justification must not only look at Christs blood but that which is founded on it His Government in Legislation Judgement Execution is all founded in his blood c. because he hath drank of the brook in the way therefore did he lift up the Head Psalme 110.7 You add He Interceeds by Merit Answer Not by new purchasing Merit but by the virtue of his former Merit and the collation of the effects of it from the Father And so he Reigneth and Governeth both by virtue of former Merit and for the applying that Merit and attaining of its Ends. Whereas therefore you say If I exclude these I shall exclude his blood It is a weighty Answer And the like you may say also of his Kingly and Prophetical office The operation of them are so woven and twisted together by infinite wisdom that all do harmoniously concur to the attainment of the ends of each one and if you lay by one you lay by all you exclude Christs blood as to the end of Justification if you include not his Kingly and Prophetical
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
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
they shall do better without him and a third party that seem to be friends tell them though you do take him for your Physitian yet must you work your self to health and take those other medicines as well as his if you will be cured But the Physitian saith its only your trusting in me that can cure you Now here we are at a loss in the interpreting of his conditions Some say that they must be cured barely by believing or trusting in him and not by taking his person in the full relation of a Physitian or at least not by taking his medicine which they abhor nor by exercising or sweating upon it or observing the dyet and directions which he giveth them But I rather interpret him thus in requiring you to take him for your Physitian it is implyed that you must take his medicines how bitter soever and that you must order your selves according to his directions and must not take cold nor eat or drink that which he forbiddeth you for though it be only his precious medicine that can cure you yet if you will take those things that are destructive to you it may hinder the working of it and an ill dyet or disordered life may kill you The working therefore that he excluded was not this implyed observance of his directions but your own Receipts and Labourings as above-said 3. I further answer to your observation that the same Scripture that saith We are justified by faith doth also say that Except ye Repent ye shall all perish Luke 13.3 5. And Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sins Acts 2.38 and mentioneth the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sin and joyneth the preaching of Repentance and Remssion Luke 24.47 Repent and be Converted that your sins may be blotted out c. Luke 6.37 Forgive and it shall be forgiven you Jam. 5.15 The prayer of faith shall save the sick and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him Mat. 6.14 15. If you forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will forgive you but if you forgive not c. Mark 11.11 25. Forgive that your Father may forgive you 1 Iohn 1.9 If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins c. Isa 55.6 7 c. And he that saith We are Justified by faith saith also that by works a man is justified and not by faith only and that by our words we shall be justified 4. Lastly to your argument from the peculiar attributions to faith I say that we do accordingly give it its prerogative as far as those attributions do direct us and would do more if it were not for fear of contradicting the Scripture Treat pag. 224. From these expressions it is that our Orthodox Divines say that faith justifieth as it is an Instrument laying hold on Christ c. ad pag. 226. Answ Though I could willingly dispatch with one man at once yet because it is the matter more then the person that must be considered I must crave your Patience as to the Answering of this Paragraph till I come to the Dispute about faiths Instrumentality to which it doth belong that so I may not trouble the present Dispute by the Interposition of another Treat pag 226 The third Argument is If in the continuance and progress of our Justification we are justified after the same manner we were at first then it s not by faith and works but by faith only as distinct to works Rom. 1.17 Galat. 3.11 Answ 1. I grant the whole understanding faith and works as Paul doth but not as you do 2. By the same manner either you mean the same specifically as specified from the Covenant and Object as distinct from Jewish Righteousness or from all false waies or all Mercenary meritorious works so intended or any manner that is not subordinate to Christ and implyed in Believing And thus your Antecedent is true and your Consequence in your sense of faith and works is false Or else you mean the same manner in opposition to any additional act implyed in our first believing as its necessary Consequent And thus your Minor or Antecedent is false If you will not believe me believe your self who as flatly spake the contrary Doctrine as ever I did being not as it seems in every Lecture of the same thoughts pag. 118. you write it for observation in a different Character thus For though holy works do not justifie yet by them a man is continued in a state of Justification so that did not the Covenant of grace interpose gross and wicked waies would out off our Justification and put us in a state of Condemnation But because you may avoid your own authority at pleasure many waies I shall give you a better authority that cannot be avoided 1. In our first Justification we were not justified by our words but in our last Justification at Judgement we shall Mat. 12.36 37. therefore they so far differ in the manner 2. In our first Justification we were not justified by our works but afterwards we are in some sense or else James spoke not by the Spirit of God Jam. 2.24 The Major is plain in that the works of Abraham Rahab and such like that Iames speaks of were not existent at their first Justification 3. In our first Justification we are not Judged and so Justified according to our works But in the last we are therefore they differ in the manner 4. In our first Justification we are not justified by the mouth of the Iudge in presence passing a final irreversible sentence on us but in the last we are therefore they differ in the manner 5. Our first pardon is not given us on condition of our first forgiving others but the continuance is Matth. 18.35 6.14 15. 6. Our first pardon is not given us if we confess our sins For we may be pardoned without that but the renewed or continued pardon is if we be called to it 1 John 1.9 7. Reconciliation and final Justification is given to us in title If we continue in the faith grounded and settled and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel c. Col. 1.23 8. In our first Believing we take Christ in the Relation of a Saviour and Teacher and Lord to save us from all sin and to lead us to glory This therefore importeth that we accordingly submit unto him in those his Relations as a necessary means to the obtaining of the benefits of the Relations Our first faith is our Contract with Christ or Acceptance of him as our Saviour And all contracts of such nature do impose a necessity of performing what we consent to and promise in order to the benefits To take Christ for my Saviour is to take him to save me viz. from the power and guilt of sin therefore if I will not be saved by him when I have done but had rather keep my
grace yet his works would have been a causall Condition of the blessedness promised In the Covenant of Grace though what man doth is by the gift of God yet look upon the same gift as our duty and as a Condition which in our persons is performed This inferreth some Moral Efficiency Answ 1. See then all you that are accounted Orthodox the multitude of Protestant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions what a case you have brought your selves into And rejoyce then all you that have against them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions for your Cause is better then some have made you believe and in particular this Reverend Author Yea see what a case he hath argued himself into while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were supposed in For he himself writeth against those that make Repentance to be but a sign and deny it to be a Condition to qualifie the subject for Iustification Treat of Iustif part 1. Lect. 20. And he saith that in some gross sins there are many Conditions requisite besides humiliation without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained and instanceth in restitution pag. 210. with many the like passages 2. Either you mean that Adams works would have been Causall quatenus a Condition performed or else quatenus meritorious ex natura materia or some other cause The first I still deny and is it that you should prove and not go on with naked affirmations The second I will not yield you as to the notion of meritorious though it be nothing to our question The same I say of your later instance of Gospel Conditions Prove them morally efficient qua tales if you can Treat ib. And so though in words they deny yet in deed they do exalt works to some kind of causality Answ I am perswaded you speak not this out of malice but is it not as unkind and unjust as if I should perswade men that you make God the Author of sin indeed though you deny it in words 1. What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my words Speak out and tell the world and spare me not But if it be words that you set against words 1. Why should you not believe my Negations as well as my supposed affirmations Am I credible only when I speak amiss and not at all when I speak right A charitable judgementi 2. And which should you take to be indeed my sense A naked term Condition expounded by you that never saw my heart and therefore know not how I understand it further then I tell you Or rather my express explication of that term in a sense contrary to your supposition â—ear all you that are impartial and judge I say A Condition is no Cause and Faith and Repentance are Conditions My Reverend Brother tells you now that in word I deny them to be efficient Causes but in deed I make them such viz. I make them to be what I deny them to be Judge between us as you see cause Suppose I say that Scripture is Sacred and withall I add that by Sacred I mean that which is related to God as proceeding from him and separated to him and I plead Etymologie and the Authority of Authors and Custom for my speech If my Reverend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitness of the word and say that sacer signifieth only execrabilis I will not be offended with him though I will not believe him but should so good and wise a man proclaim in print that sacer signifieth only execrabilis and therefore that though in word I call Scripture Sacred yet in deed I make it execrable I should say this were unkind dealing What! plainly to say that a Verbal controversie is a Real one and that contrary to my frequent published professions What is this but to say Whatever he saith I know his heart to be contrary Should a man deal so with your self now he hath somewhat to say for it For you first profess Repentance and Restitution to be a Condition as I do and when you have done profess Conditions to have a Moral Efficiency which I deny But what 's this to me that am not of your mind Treat pag. 229. A fifth Argument is that which so much sounds in all Books If good works be the effect and fruit of our Justification then they cannot be Conditions or Causa sine qua non of our Iustification But c. Answ 1. I deny the Minor in the sense of your party Our first Repentance our first desire of Christ as our Saviour and Love to him as a Saviour and our first disclaiming of all other Saviours and our first accepting him as Lord and Teacher and as a Saviour from the Power of sin as well as the guilt all these are works with you and yet all these are not the effects of our Relative Justification nor any of them 2. As to External acts and Consequent internal acts I deny your Consequence taking it of continued or final Justification though I easily yield it as to our Justification at the first 1. All the acts of justifying faith besides the first act are as truly effects of our first Justification as our other graces or gracious acts are And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Justification Why not Conditions as well as Instruments or Causes Do you think that only the first instantaneous act of faith doth justifie and no other after through the course of our lives I prove the contrary from the instance of Abraham It was not the first act of his faith that Paul mentioneth when he proveth from him Justification by faith As it s no good Consequence Faith afterward is the effect of Iustification before therefore it cannot afterward justifie or be a Condition So it s no good Consequence as to Repentance Hope or Obedience 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Justification whereof they are the effect and which went before them which is granted you But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of continued or final Justification Sucking the brest did not cause life in the beginning therefore it is not a means to continue it It followeth not You well teach that the Justification at the last Judgement is the chief and most eminent Justification This hath more Conditions then your first pardon of sin had yea as many as your salvation hath as hath been formerly proved and may be proved more at large Treat pag. 230. By this we may see that more things are required to our Salvation then to our Iustification to be possessors of heaven and than it should be to entitle us thereto Answ 1. It s true as to our first Justifying and its true as to our present continued state because perseverance is still requisite to salvation But it s not true as to
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
was the Act of seeing which cured them without touching laying hold on apprehending resting on c. But you will not say so of justifying faith 3. The sight which was the condition of their cure was no actuall reception of the brazen Serpent but the species of that Serpent by the eye and so the eye did no otherwise receive the Serpent then it received every Object it behold even the Serpent that stung them But if you say that our receiving Christ is but per simplicem apprehensionem objecti and that it is a receiving of his species and so that we receive Christ no otherwise then we receive Satan or any Object of Knowledge I will not be of that opinion 4. Their cure was simul semel but our Justification is a continued Act as really in doing all our lives as at first 5 Therefore though one act finished their cure and there was no condition perscribed as requisite for the consummation or continuance yet when our Justification is begun and we truly justified there is further conditions prescribed for its continuance and consummation To conclude I am so far from saying that any other Act will as well heal the wounded Christian besides what God hath made the express condition of his cure that I flatly aver no other will do it But whether he hath made any one single act or Passion to be the whole of that condition I have elsewhere out of Scripture shewed you and you do not deny what I say My two last Answers to your exposition of Pauls words you are pleased to overpass the last of which the ninth being the main that I made use of viz. that Paul taketh the word Workâ— more strictly for such working as maketh the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt and in this sence I disclaim all works not only as you do from being receptive or instrumental or effective but from being concomitant why you said nothing to this my chief Answer I do not know You next tell me that I cannot take the Assemblies definition in that sence as they declare it or the Scripture words which are Metaphorical imply for its the resting of a burdened soul upon Christ only for Righteousness and by this Christs Righteousness is made over to us and it s a receiving of Christ as the hand embraceth any Object c. Answer That the word Receiving and Resting are Metaphorical I easily grant you and wonder the more that you still insist on them and instead of reducing them to more proper expressions do here add Metaphor to Metaphor till all your definition be a meer Allegory when you know how much Metaphors do seduce But for the Assemblies Definition I embrace it unfeignedly in that sence as the words seem to me most evidently to import without using violence with them But I perceive by this that you will not think it enough in a man to subscribe to national Confessions and Catechisms in the obvious sence or that which he judgeth the plain proper sence except he also agree with you in the explication Some think it not enough that we subscribe to the Scripture because we may misunderstand it and therefore we must subscribe to national Confessions as more explicate which I like well so we add nothing to Gods word nor thrust our own Commentaries into the Text or obtrude out own Doctrines upon men as Articles of their faith or at least as the Bishops did the Ceremonies which they made indifferent in word but necessary indeed But now I perceive the matter comes all to one in the issue when you cannot make a definition of Faith in such Language as is any easier to be understood then the Scripture when you and I cannot both understand it and I find that many are of Bellarmines judgement Apol. c. 7. cited by Mr. Vines in his Sermon against Haeres pag. 50. That a man may be an Haeretick though he believe the Scriptures the three Creeds and the four great general Councils But for the sence of the Assemblies definition 1 I know not what you mean by the words as they declare it If any private declaration I am not to take notice of it nor do I know what it meaneth and could wish they would do or might have done as Mr. Vines desired in his Sermon Jâ—â— 28. 1645. that is To second their conclusions with the Reasons and Grounds of them which will do much to make them pass for currant seeing saith he the Gorgons head which struck all dumb in former times The Church The Church is not likely to have the same operation row in this seeing and searching age for though men be willing to be subject to Authority yet as they are men they will be slaves to Reason So that if there were any private exposition I would we had it But if you mean only what is declared in the words of the Definition I am most confident though I never was in the Assembly that I have hit on their sence far neerer then you seem to have done and I dare not think otherwise lest I be hainously censorious of so reverend an Assembly which I am resolved not to be 1. Their very words are a receiving of Christ and not immediately and primarily his Righteousness but himself and in the confession they say as I do that it is an accepting receiving and resting on Christ 2. And as Christ the anointed which Name signifieth the Offices which he is anointed to viz. King Priest c. 3. It maketh it to consist in no one act but several expressed in two phrases 1. Receiving Christ 2. Resting on him alone for salvation 4. It expresly saith that it is a receiving of him as he is offered in the Gospel and that is not as a justifier only but as a Lord and Prophet and that as immediately as the other and conjunct with it for he is no where offered as a justifier alone if he be shew where it is 5. And hence it is plain that they mean no Reception but moral by Willing Consenting Accepting as they expresly say in the confession of Faith For he is no otherwise offered to us in the Gospel He is not offered to our Physical Reception It is not his person in substance that is offered to the Contact of our Spirits much less of our flesh but his person as cloathed with his Relations of Mediator Redeemer Lord Saviour c. And can you receive a King as King who is personally distant or invisible by any other Reception then I have said If we do receive a King into England the only Acts of the soul are hearty consenting and what is therein and thereto implyed though bodily Actions may follow which as to Christ we cannot perform I think verily this is the plain sound sence of the Assembly and shall believe so till the same Authority that thus defined do otherwise interpret their own definition And for your phrase of Resting a burdened
Whether if Magistrates be Officers of Christ as King by Office they be not in his Kingdom and so Infidel Magistrates in Christs Kingdom contrary to Col. 1.14 4. If it be maintained That Christ died for every Child of Adam conditionally It would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant was the End or Effect of Christs death and whether the so Interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all will not serve for Evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs Satisfaction aad Merit proper to the Elect. For if they may be Interpreted so He died to procure the conditional Covenant for every one this may be alledged justly then you can prove no more thence for that is the sense and then we cannot prove thence he died loco nostro c. It is a matter of much moment and needs great Circumspection Yours Sir BEsides what hath been formerly suggested to you these words in your Scripture proofs pag. 323. And where he next saith that in the aged several dispositions are required to fit a man to receive pardon and so justification viz Catholike faith hope of pardon fear of punishment grief for sin a purpose against sining hereafter and a purpose of a new life all which dispose the Receiver and I agree to him though all do not are so like the Doctrine of the Trent Council sess 6. c. 6. that it will be expected you declare whether by avowing that speech of Dr. Ward you do not join with the Papists contrary to Bishop Downam of Justification l. 6. c. 7. § 1.2 Mr. Pemble vindict fidei § 2. c. 3. And when you make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience it s to be considered how you will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercifion of Justification upon the committing of a sin that wasts the conscience refuted by Dr. Rob. Abbot but vented after by Moutague in his appeal and opposed by Dr. Preston and others As for Justification by Law-Title by the Covenant upon actual Believing without any other act of God consequent on Faith if it were so 1. Then it should be by necessary Resultancy But Justification is an Act of Will and no act of Will is by necessary Resultancy 2. If the Covenant justifie without any other Act of God then it Adops Glorifies Sanctifies c. without any other Act which is not to be said The reason of the Sequel is because the Covenant of it self doth in the same manner produce the one as well as the other 3. The Justification of the Covenant is only conditional therefore not Actual Actual Justification is not till Faith be put and then Posit â conditione it is Actual A conditional is only a possible Justification it s only in potentia till the Condition be in act Now the Covenant doth only assure it on condition as a future thing not therefore as actual or present 4 The Covenant is an Act past Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.7 8. so not continued and consequently the Justification barely by it without any other Act must be past long since and not continued and he neither Justification Actual and in purpopse or virtual will be confounded or an effect shall be continued without the cause Jan. 17 1651. Yours I.T. Reverend Sir I AM more thankfull to you for these free candid rational Animadversions then I can now express to you yet being still constrained to dissent from you by the evidence of Truth I give you these Reasons of my dissent 1. First You think that the Scriptures cited are not to be intepreted of Justification in Title of Law because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification not the Sentence it self and is general and indeterminate to particular persons c. To which I answer 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant Promise the moral action thereof For you must know that this Promise of God 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est as Grotius speaks Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem But it is Perfecta Promissio ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Dominâ—i Est enim aut via ad alienaâ—ionem rei aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili 2. c. 11. § 2.3 4. 2. This Promise or Covenant of God is also his Testament and who knoweth not that a Testament is an Instrctment of proper Donation and not only a Prediction 3. Moreover this same which in one respect is a Covenant and Promise and in another a Testament is also truly part of Gods Law even the New constitution of Christ the Law-giver and King But â—ndoubtedly a Law which conferreth Right either absolutely or conditionally is the true and proper Instrument of that Effect and not only the presenting or promising away thereto The proper Effect or Product of every Law is Debitum aliquod Et de hoc debito determinare is its proper Act. Now therefore this Promise being part of Christs Law doth determine of and confer on us the Debitum or Right to sentential Justification having first given us an Interest in Christ and so to the Benefit of his satisfaction and this is Justificatio constitutiva You know a Deed of Gift though but conditional is a most proper Instrument of conferring the Benefits therein contained And is not the Promise undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift And doth he not thereby make over as it were under his hand the Lord Jesus and all his Benefits to them that will receive him So that when you say that his Promise to justifie upon condition is not justifying You may see it is otherwise by all the forementioned considerations of the nature of the Promise You may as well say a Testament or deed of Gift conditional doth not give or a Law doth not confer Right and Title And in these Relative benefits to give Right to the thing and to give the thing it self or right in it is all one still allowing the distance of time limited for both in the Instrument It is all one to give full right to son-ship and to make one a Son or at least they are inseparable Yea which weigheth most of all with me it being the proper work of Gods Laws to give Duness of or Right to Benefits it cannot be any other way accomplished that is within our Knowledge I think For Decree Purpose and so Predestination cannot do it they being Determinations de eventu and not de debito as such And the sentential declaration presupposeth this Debitum or true Righteousness an
voca notatur certa absoluta persuasio de bono futuro sed quâ significat Electionem Apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei mediâ— ac in qou persausio expectatio talis fundatur Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia potentia Amicis ac opibus suis Psal 78.22 If therefore you understand by Affiance many Acts of which velle Christum oblatum called Acceptation quia volumus objectum ut oblatum and Election quia volumus medium hâ—s rejectis aliis or Consent quia volumnus ex alterius Promotione qui prius voluiâ— is the first and chief of those of the Will as Amesius doth then I am of your mind If you say that Velle vel Acceptare is not credere vel fidem babere in the common notation of the word I answer 1. It includes Velle as its principal Act in the common use of the word when its object is an Incompelx term but indeed it includeth more also 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affection we say but Will much more 3. I answer in the words of Amesius Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 2 3 Credere vulgo significat actum intellectus Assensum testimonio praebentis sed quoniam consequenter volunt as moveri solet extendere sese ad amplectenduÌ„ bonum it a probatum ideirco fides â—tiam hunc Voluntatis actum designat satis aptè quomodo hoc in loco necessario intelligitur Est enim receptio bond sub ratione boni intima unio cum codeÌ„ John 1.12 Hinc fides fertur in bonum qoud per istam fit nostrum est actus Electionis est actus Totius hominis qua actui Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt John 6.35 Yea further I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in sincerity there is Justification certainly consequent but the term Affiance contains some acts which Divines say do only follow Justification which also Amesi seems to acknowledge ibid. § 21. Quod vero fiducia dicitur fructus fidei verum est de fiducia prout respicit Deum in futurum est spes fâ—rma sed prout respicit Deum in Christo in praesentia se offerentem est ipsa fides Yea the same Amesius tells us Medul lib 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divina viz. 1. Notitia rei à Deo testatae 2. â—ffectio pia erga Deum quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius Testimonium 3. Assersus qui praebetur veritati test atae propter hanc affectionem erga Deum qui est ejus testis 4. Aquiescentia in Deum ad illud quod propâ—nitur consequendum 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius quae in Testimonio nobis exhibetur So that even this faith hath many acts Yea and he adds Primum horum est in intellectu sed non constituit fidem c. secundum quartum quintum sunt in voluntate constituunt fidem prout est virtus actus religionis Tâ—rtium viz. assensus est in intellectu sed prout movetur à voluntate neque est proprie fidei virtus sâ—d effectum So that this Doctrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very will 2. and makes the intellectual acts even assent to be but an effect of faith and not the vertue is far from yours though I scruple not to take in assent with the rest for all it is in the Intellect and if these be all in that faith which is a holy vertue much more must that which justifies contain as much And indeed to place justifying faith only in the intellect is somewhat strange for those that make it the principal Grace when Philosophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue For in the understanding are only intellectual Habits but moral vertues are all placed in the Will or sensitive appetite for that quarrel I will pass by whether they be only in the sensitive as Burgersâ—icius c. If any therefore wonder that I place faith in so many acts and yet make one the chief compleative Act I have yet further this most accurate Divine saying the very same as I. Perfectio autom fidei est in Electione aut apprehensione illa qua bonum Propositum fit nostrum Hinc fidei natura â—ptimè explicatur in Scriptura cum fideles diâ—untur adhaererâ— Dâ—o Jos 23.6 Act. 11.23 viâ—â— veritatis â—ligere Psal 119.30 31. Where you see also that by Affiance and Adhaesion Amesius principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is And indeed he that observeth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans salvation or damnation on his Will mainly so far as it may be said to depend on our own acts rather then on any acts of the understanding but only as they refer and lead to those of the Will might well wonder that justifying saving faith the great needfull act should be only intellectual and not chiefly in or by the Will as well as all the rest Ye will not come to me that ye may have life How oft would I and ye would not These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them c. Whoever will let him take or buy freely c. Still almost all is laid on the Will and yet is not Faith in the Will Assent may be compelled by evidence of Truth and so be unvoluntary And so a man may be a Believer thus against his Will and if this will serve men may be saved against their Wills I know some think it enough that the Will commands the understanding to believe But even thus saith Amesius Medul l. 2. c. they place the first principle in the Will Qui fidem collocant iu intellectu necessariam tamen fatentur esse aliquam motionâ—â— volâ—ntatis ad assensum illum praebendum quemadmodum iâ— fide humana voluntarium esse dicitur adhibere fidem alicui si vero à voluntate pendâ—at fides necesse est ut primuÌ„ principium fidei sit in voluntate â— 20 But this is only commanding the performance so it is thus no elicit act for Aquinas and others conclude that Voluntas est Principium determinans actus humanos quo ad exercitium actus intellectus autem quo ad actus specificationem But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Act that I assert And as I said this imperium voluntatis may possibly be wanting and belief be involuntary for the main Let me add but one more consideration for I perceive my tediousness If Infidelity as it is a Privation of saving faith and so is the condemning sin be in the Will as well as in the Intellect then faith must be in the Will too But Infidelity is in both Ergo. c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer assent is rather said to be willing then in the Will but that which is opposite to justifying faith is in the Will
his Word or himself as true therefore he must be Received by the Will as well as the Understanding for Goodness is the object of the Will Here you answer 1. by confessing that Faith is called a Receiving of Christ 2. by interpreting that speech He is Received by the receiving his Word which is received by Assent This is worth a fuller enquiry because the discovery of the proper Object of Faith will shew the proper Act. The Intellectual Act Assent hath for its Objectum formale the Veracity of God or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Testifying This is not it that we enquire after The material Object for we must use the Schools termes in this distinction though perhaps fitter might be found is 1. Proximius that is the moral Verity of the Testimony or Word 2. Vlterius the Metaphysical Verity of the Things signified as Christs Person God-head Incarnation Resurrection c. The former is but the means to the latter and for its sake and not for its self In regard of this act of Assent you may say as you do that Christ is Received by receiving his Word because the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded But then 1. These are yet two distinct Acts as the Objects are distinct 2. And this Intellectual Act is called a Receiving of the Truth Believed but imperfectly because it leads to that Act of the Will which in morality is more fitly and fully called a Receiving and therefore if Assent produce not that Acceptation or consent of the Will it cannot fitly it self be called a Receiving of Christ For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Species I suppose we neither of us speak The material Object of Justifying faith as it is in the Will is 1. Principal and Adaequate which is Christ himself 2. Subservient or Instrumental which is the Covenant Promise or testamentary Gift in by which Christ is offered and Given These are two distinct Acts as the Accepting of a Testament and of the Legacy of a Pardon written and the real Pardon thereby signified or of the Oath of Allegiance and of the Prince to whom we swear But because of the Relation between the one and the other Faith may be called a receiving of Christ or a receiving of the Gospel Yet so as still the proper principal Object is Christ and the Gospel but â—ediate as to him These are my thoughts Now if I am able to understand you your words import that in your Judgement Christ is received two wayes 1. by Faith and that is only by Assent and this is only by receiving his Word that is in Believing it to be True 2. By other Graces and those I think you refer to the Wills receiving Against this opinion I further alledge 1. Almost all Protestant Divines acknowledge faith to be the Act or rather Acts of both faculties even Dr. Downame not excepted and Caâ—â—ro himself speaks sometime darkly insomuch that Melancthon Joan Crâ—cius and many more make it the judgement of Protestants in opposition to Popery And so doth Amesius in Bellarm. Enerv. though he judge it as Camero not accurate in Mâ—dul l. 1. c. 3. sect 22. Yea he that though it must be but in one faculty chooseth to place it only in the Will and excludes Assent as being called faith quia parit fidem Excellent Davenant saith Insactu fidei justifit antis Totu Anima se convertit ad causam justificantem Determin Q. 38. pag. 174. And again Fides illa quam scriptura justificantem agnoscit habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis Intellectus Determin Q. 37. pag. 166 Again Neque nobis absurdum sed valde consentaneum videtur actum illum quo tota anima purificatur Justificatur ad Totam animam pertinere ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium in Voluntate complementum ibidem Again Quod Philosophantur Voluntatem Intellectum esse duas potentias reipsa distinctas dogma philosophicum est ab omnibus haud receptum Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentum minime idoneum Idem ibid. 2. Assent is not any full moral Receiving of Christ But faith which Justifieth is a full moral Receiving of Christ Job 1.12 therefore Assent alone is not the faith that justifieth I know there is a Metonymie in the word Receive because in strict speech in Physicks Recipere est pati But it is so usual and near that in morality it is taken for a proper speech to call the Acceptation of an offered good A Receiving 3. There is such a thing as the proper accepting of Christ required as of flat necessity to Justification and Salvation But this acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other Grace therefore it is taken for an Act of faith The Maj. I hope no Christian will deny For when Christ is offered to the world as their Saviour Redeemer Teacher King-Husband who can think that the accepting of him is not required yea even in the offer Not a physical Reception which some absurdly and dangerously dream of but a moral as when a people take a man for their King or Teacher or a woman takes a man for her Husband And for the Minor Receiving Christ offered is not usually expressed in the term Hope Joy Charity Repentance therefore it is included in the word Faith unless you can name some other Grace which it is usually expressed by 4. The Grace by which we are united to Christ is Faith But it is receiving Christ by which we are so united to him therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Christ I suppose none will deny that it is Christ himself that we must be united to by believing and not the Word or Promise and that it is receiving Christ which unites us to him is obvious both from the language of Scripture and the nature of the thing A People is united to their Prince as the head of the Republique and a Church to their Teacher and a woman to her Husband by the Wills consent or acceptance and not properly but only initially preparatorily imperfectly and improperly and if it be alone not at all by believing the Truth of their words Amesius saith Medul l. 1. c. 3. § 18 Fides etiam cum sit primus actus vitae nostrae qua Deo in Christo vivimus consistat necesse est in unione cum Deo quam nullo modo facere potest Assensus adhibitus veritati quae est de Deo 5. By faith it is that we give up our selves to be Christs Disciples Subjects Members For Scripture ascribes not this to other Graces usually or chiefly And to take him for our Saviour and Head and give up our selves as his redeemed and Members is all one work But it is not by Assent only chiefly or fully at all that we give up our selves to Christ as Disciples Members c. Therefore
General Dominion and whether it be not the plain and frequent speech of Scripture And on the other side whether it may not be of dangerous consequence as injurious to Christ to deny so great a part of his Dominion and excuse not Infidels from the guilt of Rebellion against the Redeemer And whether it be not introduced by Pious Divines meerly in heat of Disputation which usually carryeth men into extreams especially least they should yield to universal Redemption in any kind and least they should yield to the Magistrates power in Religion 4. Your last Question is about Universal Redemption If it be affirmed that Christ dyed for every child of Adam conditionally it would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant was the end or effect of Christs death and whether the so interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all will not serve for evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs satisfaction and merit proper to the Elect c. Answer 1. Though I do not doubt much of the point yet I have no mind to meddle with the question as it concerns those Pagans that never heard of Christ Not for fear of any disadvantage thence to the cause but 1. Because I find God speaks sparingly of those to whom he speaks not it concerns not us so much to know his Counsel concerning others 2. Because it is an ill way of arguing to lay the stress of all on the most obscure point as men do that study more how to silence an adversary then to see the Truth and to prove obscurum per obscurius 2. This is a point that I cannot give you my thoughts of in a few words there needs so much for Explication and therefore being but here touched I shall forbear 3. I doubt not but to prove abundantly from Scripture with much evidence what I assert in this 4. It was not the only nor the first effect of his Death that Christ was Satisfaction to Gods Justice for the Violation of the Law 5. That such a conditional Law or Covenant is granted and exstant in Scripture is as plain as most points in the Gospel and sure no such thing can be but upon Christs death as the meritorious cause 6. So interpreting these Texts which are so to be interpreted is no evasion And no Text will prove Christs satisfaction and Merit wholly proper to the Elect. Much less those which say He died for all men That God intendeth only the Elect to be certainly saved by Christs death I can easily prove from many other Texts But if I should prove it by these it were strange It is an ill consequence Christ died for all men therefore his satisfaction is proper to the Elect. 7. In point of Law the Elect have no more Title to Christ and his Benefits then any others as Elect before they believe But Gods Decree hath from Eternity appropriated Salvation by Christ only to the Elect in point of Event He that determined de eventu that only the Elect should be saved by Christ did yet â—hink it the fittest way to his glorious ends to make Christs Death a sufficient satisfaction for all to make in his new Law a free deed of Gift of Christ and all his Benefits to all that will receive him as he is offered yet not engaging himself to publish this Law to every particular man though it be of universal extent in the Tenor. The Promise names none as included nor excludeth any but who do wilfully exclude themselves But these things require fuller opening 8. Lastly Christ dying loco nostro as you say is a term that needs as great caution for the true understanding it as most that we make use of The right understanding of it is the main Ground of our safety and comfort The wrong understanding it is the very turning point to Antinomiâ—nism and the very Primum vivens ultimum moriens the Heart of the whole System of their Doctrine That Christ in the person of Mediator did suffer upon his voluntary undertaking what we should have else suffered and thereby made satisfaction to Gods Justice for the breach of his Law both Father and Son whose Will is one agreeing or resolving that yet no man should have actual Remission or Salvation hereby but on condition of receiving the Redeemer for their Lord and Saviour and thus Christ died loco omnium this is sound Doctrine That at the same time it was the secret Will or Eternal Decree of the Father and the Will of the Mediator de eventu to give effectually Grace to believe to his Chosen only and consequently that they only should be actually saved and thus he died only loco Electorum is also sound Doctrine But that Christ in dying did strictly represent the person of the sinner so as either naturally or morally in Law-sense we may be said to have satisfied then in or by him as the Law calls that the action of the Principal which is done per Delegatum Dâ—putaâ—um Vicarium c. this is the soul of Antinomianism and directly and unavoidably introduceth Justifican before Faith or before we are born the non-necessity of any other Justification but in foro conscientiae it certainly overthrowrth all pardon of sin at all and so all Petition for Pardon and all thanksgiving for it with the rest of their errors yea makes man his own Redeemer But I have been too long already I sensibly acknowledge the truth of what you say That this is a matter of great moment and needs great consideration I have bestowed more consideration about it then about any other point in Divinity YOUR unfeigned Friend and Brother who doubts not ere long to meet you in our Center and Rest where all our Difference in Judgement and Affection will be healed RICHARD BAXTER Kederminster June 9. 1651. Sir The multitude of my Employments caused me to delay the returning you my thoughts of your favourable Animadversions til I received your Additional paper which made me so very sensible of your Kindness that I could not but snatch the next opportunity thus truly to give you my further Thoughts as an account of the acceptance and success of your Pains June 20. Sir YEsterday I received your third Paper dated June 17. to which I thought best to give you this short Answer together seeing the former were not gone out of my hands You here touch very easily on two Subjects I will begin with the later viz. Your four Arguments against my Doctrine of Justification by the Gospel Grant or New Law Your first is that This is per resultantiam but Justification is an act of Will but no Act of Will is by necessary Resultancy Answer As it proceedeth from the Instrument or Foundation it is by Resultancy As by that Instrument it is the Act of the Legislator or Principal Agent so it is an Act of Will It was his Will at the
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
I know not of one that 's not essential to Christianity And I think if we had Hereticks among us that denyed Christ to be conceived by the Holy Ghost we should scarce take them for Christians But that man that shall deny or not believe that Christ is God that he is Man that he was no sinner that he dyed and that for our sins and that he was a Sacrifice or Ransom for us and that he Rose again is Glorified and will judge us that he hath offered us a pardon of sin that there will be a Resurrection of the body and life Everlasting by this our Redeemer I cannot see how he can be a Christian And for the number of Articles â— left out much of the ancient Creed it self the Belief in God the Father Creator c. in the Holy Ghost the Article of the Catholick Church the Communion of Saints of Christs burial Descent into Hell and more And yet do you think this too big to be essential to Christian Faith If so tell not any Heretick that denyeth any one of these that he denyeth an Essential Article of our faith But for the ignorant weak Christian I say 1. He knoweth all these Articles that I have named but 2. perhaps not with so ripe a manner of apprehension as is formed into mental words or which he can express in words to others I find my self in my studies that I have somtimes an apprehension of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an expression 3. And perhaps they are not Methodical and Distinct in their conceptions and cannot say that there are just so many Articles Every sick man can understand what it is to desire and accept of such a man to be his Physitian and herein he first verily desireth health and secondly desireth Physick as a means to Health and thirdly desireth the Physitian in order to the use of that means and fourthly therein doth take him to be a Physitian and fifthly to have competent skill and sixthly to be in some measure faithful to be trusted and seventhly doth place some confidence in him c. all this and more is truly in his mind and yet perhaps they are not ripened and measured into such distinct conceptions as that he can distinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language or doth observe then as distinct Conceptions in himself and whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not see many Objects though ab objectis the acts must be called many and divers is a Controversie among Philosophers and as I remember Pet. Hurtad de Mendoza affirmeth it But if you your selves will form all these into distinct conceptions and ask your Catechist his judgement of them its like he can mak you perceive at least by a Yea or Nay that he understands them all The new formed body of the Infant in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man and yet so small that you cannot so easily discern them as you may do the same parts when he is grown up to manhood So the knowledge of every particular Essential Article of faith is truly in the weakest Christian in the very moment of his conversion but perhaps it may be but by a more crude imperfect Conception that observeth not every Article distinctly nor any of them very clearly but his knowledge is both too dim and too confused And yet I must say that it is not only such as some Papists call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or knowledge As to believe only the General Revelation and the formal Object as that the Scripture is Gods Word and God is true or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article of faith is true while they know not what the Church or Scripture doth propound for this is not actual Christian faith but such a part as a man may have that is no Christian And yet some Papists would perswade us that where this much is there is saving faith though the person believe not yea or deny by the probable Doctrine of seducing Doctors some of the foresaid Essential Articles Argum. 11. If the terms Faith in Christ receiving Christ Resting on Christ c. are to be understood as Civil Political and Ethical terms in a moral sense then must we suppose that they signifie many Physical acts and not any one only But these terms are to be thus morally understood Ergo. The Antecedent is proved thus Terms are to be understood according to the nature of the Subject and Doctrine But the Subject and Doctrine of the Gospel which useth these terms is Moral Political therefore the terms are agreeably to be interpreted The same term in Physick Law Mathematicks Soldiery Navigation Husbandry c. hath various significations but still it must be interpreted according to the nature and use of the doctrine Art or Science that maketh use of it The consequence of the Major is proved because it is the use of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret such phrases as containing divers Physical Acts. Marriage is one Civil act but it is many Physical Acts it containeth divers acts of the understanding concerning the Essentials of the Relation and divers acts of the Will in consenting thereunto and the outward words or signs of Consent for making the Contract So taking a man to be my King my General my Tutor Teacher Pastor Physician Master c. all signifie the acts of the Understanding Will and expressing Powers which the several parts of the Objects do require Argument 12. If there be many Acts besides Faith in Christ attendant on it and subservient to it which are none of the works which Paul excludeth and opposeth faith to then the Essential Acts of faith it self are none of those works But the Antecedent is true as I prove in some instances For a man to repent of sin to confess it to believe and confess that we are unworthy of any Mercy and unable to justifie our selves or make satisfaction for our sias and that we are in absolute necessity of Christ having no Righteousness Sanctification or Sufficiency of our own to take God for our Father reconciled in Christ and to Love him accordingly to forgive our Brethren from the sense of Christs forgiving us to shew our Faith by fruitfull works and words When Paul saith Rom. 4.4 5. To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace the meaning is not To him that repenteth to him that denieth himself and his own Righteousness to his Justification to him that confesseth his sin that loveth God as a reconciled Father in Christ c and when he saith To him that worketh not but believeth the meaning is not to him that loveth not God to him that repenteth not that forgiveth not others c. but believeth Object But yet it may be to him that thinketh not to be justified by or for these but by Faith Answer 1. Concomitants and Subordinates may not be set in opposition faith supposeth the Concomitancy and Subserviency of these in and to Justification 2. Believing in Christs Ransom may as well be excluded too if men think to be justified for so doing meritoriously 3. He that thinketh to be Justified by any work in that way which is opposed to Justification by Grace and Faith must think to be justified by the Merit of them or without a Saviour which all these Graces forementioned contradict 4. God saith expresly that we must Repent and be converted that our sins may be blotted out and repent that we may be forgiven and if we confess our sins he is faithfull and just to forgive us our sins and if we forgive we shall be forgiven and that by works we are justified and not by faith only and that by our words we shall be justified So that Pauls works which he opposeth faith to are neither Jame's works nor any of these particulars mentioned for these are made necessary conditions or means of pardon and of some sort of Justification such as Pauls works could not contribute to which were falsly imagined by the doers to make the Reward to be not of Grace but Debt Object There is but one faith Eph. 4.3 Answer But that One faith hath many Physical Acts or Articles There is but one true Religion but it hath many parts There is but one Gospel but that one contanieth many particular Truths COnsect 1. To be justified by Faith is to be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and not by any one part of that Faith excluding any of its Essential parts 2. To be justified by Faith in Christ as Christ and so as Rising Teaching Pardoning Ruling Judging as well as satisfying i.e. as the Saviour that hath undertaken all this is not in Pauls sense to be justified by works therefore it is the true Justification by Faith 3. It is therefore unsound to make any one Act or part of Faith the fides qua Justificans and the other Essential parts to be the fides qua justificat when no more can be said of any but that it is fides ex qua justificamur and that may be said of all 4. Though Faith be an Acceptance of Christ and Life as offered in the Gospel so that its very Nature or Essence is morally Receptive which may tolerably be called its Metaphorical Passive Instrumentality yet are we not justified by it qua talis that is qua fides and so not quatenus Instrumentum tale Metaphoricum vel Acceptatio vel Receptio moralis but qua conditio Testamenti vel faederis prastita 5. Therefore it is not only the Acceptance of Righteousness by which we are justified much less the Affiance in Christ as dying only but the Belief in Christ as the Purchaser of Salvation and as the Sanctifier Guide and Teacher of our souls in order thereunto hath as true an Interest in our Justification as the believing in him for Pardon And so far as any other holy act doth modifie and subserve faith and is part of the Condition of Justification with it so far by it also we are justified FINIS