and others do the Garden wherein Adam was placed a place upon Earth for certain it was and very pleasant yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of Those words Thou shalt die being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed but also of eternal torment it follows That the Life implicitly promised is to be understood not only of the continuance of that Life but of Eternal Blessedness I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works but that some are so under that Covenant that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant nor are guilty of contemning it being utterly ignorant of it To whom God doth not say Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved to them in effect he doth say Obey perfectly and live or If thou sin thou shalt die eternally But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say Believe c. that Promise is altogether unknown unto them they live and die without ever hearing of it so that to them it is as if it had never been Consider I pray what the Apostle saith to this purpose Ephes 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death Do not many continue in the same Condition I yeeld that none are so under the Covenant of Works but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy and that by vertue of the New Covenant but that which I stand upon is this That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised being not revealed unto some nor any way dispensed unto them they cannot be said to be under it nor shall be judged as transgressors of it Add 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant might have been enjoyed Add 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made Man after his Fall though plunging himself into sin continually more and more yet had contracted no more Guilt nor incurred any greater Condemnation than he did by his first Transgression And 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects but as rebelling I conceive only against the Law not against the Gospel they being such as never were acquainted with it Add 4. There are common Mercies which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save If such Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 12. Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose to shew That as they that sinned without the Law shall perish without the Law even so they that sinned without the Gospel shall perish without the Gospel That 2 Thess 1. 7 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but also of such as know not God The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts viz. such as know not God so he describes the Gentiles 1 Thess 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel c. that is such as having had the Gospel preached unto them would not receive it either not at all or not sincerely Yet Christ he saith will in flaming fire take vengeance on both as well on the former as on the latter And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me and so as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do Infidels saith he that were never under any other Covenant than that of works and Covenant-breaking Christians are in the same condemnation there are not two Hells but one and the same for those that know not God and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ 2 Thess 1. 8. You pass by that which I alledged from Rom. 6. ult viz That death which is the wages of sin is opposed to Eternal Life which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven Ergo Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell and that you know is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say Call it the first or second Death as you please The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection Tertullian surely thought so or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument Age inquit scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione Negent operum societatem ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare Non sit particeps in sententia caro si non fuerit in causâ And again Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum And again also Non possunt separari in mercede caro anima quas opera conjungit And surely that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. That every Man may receive the things done in the Body doth imply That as the things were done in the Body so also the Reward must be received in the Body As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked until the Resurrection Therefore it is not probable that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant What-ever some new Philosophers may say true Philosophy I think doth tell us That it is the Body which by the Sensitive Soul doth â—eel pain even as it is the Eye which doth see by the Visive Faculty You observe not it seems that I did but answer your Queries which you made Append. p. 10. To the second When should he have risen I thought and still think it sufficient to answer That Adam and so others should either have risen in the end of the World as now they shall or when God should please to raise them It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection which he speaks of unto all when he expresly limits it to those that are Christs vers 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory Expressè resurrectio Christi est
Divines I think is against him Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day Sentential Justification I should rather call it Publick Sentential Justification or a publick manifestation of the Sentence of Justification For surely our Justification here is Sentential God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgment Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word Justification for Justification as you say by Sentence do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justifie those that believe Perhaps you will say Where is that Sentence Answ It is in the Scripture But you may say The Scripture speaks only in general Well but if God in the Scripture say That all that believe are justified as Acts 13. 39. then consequently he saith That you and I believing are justified And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular though it is true they have not that clear evidence and full assurance as they shall have hereafter So for Condemnation at the last day I think it to be but a more solemn and publick pronouncing of the Sentence together with the immediate and full execution of it For otherwise the Sentence is past already He that believeth not is condemned already John 3. 18. I do not deny that Declarative Justification at the last Judgment is properly Justification only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before only shews that it is more full Extensivè as freeing from the guilt of more sins but that is only per accidens Justification in it self considered was as perfect before for it freed from all sin and from all Condemnation and the other doth no more What the meaning of your Question was If we be not one real Person with Christ then one what I could not tell but the words did seem to imply That we must either be one real Person with Christ or else we could not any way be one with him whereas the Scripture is clear that Believers are one with Christ though that they are one real Person with him is not to be admitted Therefore I thought meet to answer as I did viz. That we are one Spirit as the Apostle expresseth it 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is spiritually one with Christ as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him No doubt but further Queries may still be made and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature Yet I see not why we should not content our selves with those Similitudes and Resemblances which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery as of the Vine and Branches Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members Ephes 5. To your next Section I need say no more than this Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re constet I have shewed my meaning all along viz. That Christ's Satisfaction and not Faith is properly that by which we are justified Whereas you say We are justified by Faith it self as the Condition and not so by Christ I can admit it only thus That Faith is the Condition required of us that so we may be justified by Christ Otherwise I cannot yeeld that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification is properly that by which we are justified but of that enough before For the Habit and Act of Faith I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature For Habits may be in us when we sleep or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits I think also that though acquired Habits follow Acts yet infused Habits such as Faith is go before 2. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ I see not how any can make the Act of Faith but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ And if any of our Divines say That it is not the Habit of Faith but the Act that doth justifie I think they mean that Faith doth justifie as acting i. e. receiving Christ So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justifie yea they make it the instrumental cause of Justification only they make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose though they differ as you say No Similitude is to be set on the Rack if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used it is sufficient But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul I see not how Faith is the perfection of it For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument I think you trouble your self to no purpose though I know you have some end in it But what if it be not an Instrument properly if yet it may not unfitly be so termed And for any thing I see it may even as generally Divines do so term it Fides saith Revet est velut organum manus animae quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur And again Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum c. So Trelcatius Jun. Ex parte hominis Justificationis passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductivè tota est Instrumentalis Fides est c. Thus also Calvin Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae Inst lib. 3. cap. 11. § 7. And Wotton Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus And again Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scripturis Fides insigniatur Nam nec Causa esse dicitur cujus tamen rationem obtinere Theologi omnes confitentur And Bellarmine saying that Luther makes Faith Formalem causam Justificationis Davenant answers Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem c. Pemble saith Faith doth justifie Relatively and Instrumentally Of Justif § 2 chap. 1. p. 27. So Mr. Ball of Faith chap. 10. pag. 135. It is a cause only Instrumental c. And of the Covenant chap. 3. p. 19. Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification c. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is It is the Instrument of the Soul c. Mr. Blake's words I think do more nearly concern you And these things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification nay scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us c. And
efficacy of that Act of his but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us upon our obedience whereunto God is pleased of his free Grace to justifie us But still notwithstanding all you say my Argument remains good Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ therefore they concur not with it in justifying The Consequence is good because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification For this is that which Believing in or on Christ doth import which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ Joh. 1. 12. That Repentance and Obedience do concur with Faith in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification you only affirm but do not prove Indeed Repentance as taken for an acknowledgment of and sorrow for sin is requisite unto Justification at first For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins except we be sensible of them and humbled for them Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified It is neither Repentance nor Obedience though Repentance in the sence before-mentioned must go before this Justifying-Faith and so before Justification and obedience must follow after Penitentia saith Ames quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita sed non ut causa Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam cujus primaria pars est fides ut Act. 11. Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis atque adeo ipsius justificationis effectum qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quotunque modo accipiatur dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans quia N. B. non habet vim applicandi nobis just 〈◊〉 Christi Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali Resipisientia fides differentia hac indigitatur Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum fides in Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum See also Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 3. p. 18 19. 1. You need not trouble your self to prove That by VVorks are meant VVorks For surely a working Faith or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of VVorks doth imply VVorks But the Question is VVhether VVorks concur with Faith in justifying or only are inseparable Attendants and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth You hold the former yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun continued and consummate VVhether of us hath more ground from Scripture let it be judged by what hath been said about it But 1. whereas you say That VVorks are still opposed to Faith without VVorks or Faith alone and not to this or that sort of Faith I have shewed before from Oecumenius not to speak of our late VVriters that there is one sort of Faith that is with VVorks or of a working Disposition and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ and another sort of Faith that is without VVorks viz. a bare Assent and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other teaching that we are justified by the former not by the latter 2. You say It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity yet your self deny not only the efficacy but even the presence of VVorks to be requisite when we are at first justified and St. James denies Faith alone so as he doth speak of it to have any force at all to justifie as being dead and unprofitable Therefore you must needs grant That it is Faith alone without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh Besides if there be a working Disposition there will be VVorks themselves when there is opportunity But all this doth only prove That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition and produceth VVorks themselves when opportunity is offered That VVorks do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification it no way proveth 3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry is accepted of God when there is no opportunity to do the thing it self And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp though VVorks themselves be requisite when there is opportunity and still I must put you in mind that your self requires no more than a disposition to work when we are first justified 4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see He that expects mercy from God must shew mercy to his Neighbour Doth it therefore follow that VVorks of Mercy justifie as well as Faith No but that Justifying Faith must and will shew it self by VVorks of Mercy 5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent as in the Devils cannot justifie or save Who opposeth this Or whom doth it oppose So that the same Faith is justifying and saving I think all will yeeld yet is there more required unto Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it than unto Justification 6. VVho makes James v. 18. to speak such non-sence as you tell of Do they who say his meaning is That Faith is pretended in vain if it do not shew it self by VVorks as occasion doth require And what more can any gather from v. 20 22 24 26 You might save your labour of proving That by VVorks are meant VVorks you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified This is that which they mean who say that James doth speak of a working Faith i.e. a Faith ready to work and so actually working when God doth require it not as if instead of Works it were good sense always to put a working Faith Such sophistry doth not become us 7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works as fruits of Justifying Faith is ever granted that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification is never proved Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification Against this first you say James doth make VVorks or Working necessary to justifie I say he doth not but only drives at this That none must think to be justified by Faith except it be a working Faith as Abraham's and Rahab's was You say The Soul doth not truly signifie the Body to be alive But the word Jam. 2. 26. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breath which is but an effect of Life and not a cause of it Thus saith Pemble the comparison is exact As the Body without Breath is dead so is Faith without Works So Downam Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul but
to the Breath as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Breath doth properly signifie c. So that the meaning of St. James is As the Body without Breath is dead even so Faith without Works which are as it were the breathing of a lively Faith is dead But if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be meant the Soul as 1 Cor. 6. ult I hope you will not so understand it as to compare Faith to the Body and Works to the Soul as if Works were the Soul of Faith and so did give Life unto it whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works and Works do but evidence Faith and the lively power of it The Apostle saith Fulk in this Similitude doth not make Faith the Body and Works the Soul but Works the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith which is trust in God c. 2. God you say needs no Signs Well but God say I requiring such a Faith whereof Works are Signs as Fruits and Effects of it we must look to the signs of our Faith to find it such as God requires of us to our Justification Maccovius it seems met with the Objection At Deo non est opus experimento Resp Hoc sane verum est at non proinde sequitur homines non praebere sui experimentum Deo 3. Faith may be real and yet not justifying A real Assent yea and Consent if limited so as to exclude Christ's dominion over us is not that Faith which your Opposers plead for 4. The New Testament doth make a working Faith yet not Faith as working the Condition of Justification I wonder how you can stumble at this when as you constantly hold That we are justified at first by Faith without Works yet surely that Faith whereby we are justified at first is a working Faith i.e. of a working Nature and will when there is opportunity shew it self by Works That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification is more than your own Principles will admit without that distinction of Justification Inchoated and Justification Continued of which though you make much use yet I see little ground for it Now for Dr. Preston's words which I cited I think they are clear enough against you For first he saith That Faith alone justifieth and maketh Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified You limit it to Justification as begun but he speaks of Justification simply considered and not as begun only 2. He speaks indeed of a double Justification but not as you do nor to that intent to bring in a double Righteousness as requisite unto Justification All that he intends is this That we are justified only by Faith according to Paul's Doctrine yet as James teacheth our Faith must appear to be a true Justifying Faith by VVorks otherwise it is but a false and feigned Faith as it pretendeth to be Justifying and he that pretendeth it is a Hypocrite His words without doing violence unto them can have no other sense put upon them VVhen any one is accused of being but a seeming Believer or a mere Believer without Obedience take Believing merely as it is the Condition of Justification by the Covenant it is but as I have often said the making good this Accusation That he is a Transgressor of the Law and to be condemned by the Law for the transgression of it and so much the more in that he neglected the benefit offered in the New Covenant So that in this case to justifie a Man by his Faith and VVorks is but indeed to plead that he is justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him through Faith which Faith is proved to be sound and good by his VVorks 1. I see you are very tenacious of your Opinion but if you will not forsake your Opinion till you see better Arguments to draw you from it marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they see better Arguments to draw them to it But to the Matter Me-thinks you might easily see the meaning of this that Abraham's first Justification could not be by Faith which was without VVorks i.e. by Faith which was not of a working Nature Thus in that very page 52. I explained my self saying Faith if it be alone without VVorks i.e. renuens operari c. cannot justifie 2. Do not you see that your Answer is to no purpose in limiting the words of the Apostle to Continued and Consummate Justification whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith which is without VVorks or which is not of a working Disposition from being able to justifie as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable That which you so slight as if it were indignus vindice nodus Calvin a Man as likely to see into the Apostle's meaning as another calls nodum insolubilem as I have before noted That more Conditions are required unto Justification afterward than at first is more than I can find and more I am perswaded than will ever be proved Did Paul when he speaketh so much of Justification by Faith without VVorks viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification mean that we are so justified indeed to day but not so to morrow or some time after All his Arguments shew the contrary Yea doth he not prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was justified only by Believing when as yet that was not the beginning of his Justification So when James saith That we are not justified by Faith which is without VVorks such a Faith being dead and no better than the Faith of Devils was his meaning this That hereafter indeed we cannot be so justified but yet at present we may If you be of this mind Non equidem invideo miror mà gis 3. Of the sense of James his Discourse enough before And for v. 17. I think it might easily let you see that he speaketh not as you suppose only of Continued and Consummate Justification but of Inchoated also and consequently that he cannot be interpreted otherwise than thus That Faith which doth not shew it self by VVorks is dead ineffectual and of no force to justifie either at first or afterward as not being that Faith which is required unto Justification viz. a working Faith or Faith which is of a working Nature I have noted before what Oecumenius one that was long before either Calvin or Luther saith upon that very Verse as also how in the judgment of the Syriack Interpreter and other Learned Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is to be understood 1. Though Faith may be true and real without Works yet a living Faith it is not for a living Faith is operative so that a working Faith and a non-working Faith are of different Natures this being but a bare and naked Assent but the other an apprehending of Christ and a receiving of him I little doubt but the Faith of Devils and the Faith of Men who are justified