moral disposition which is necessary to him that will be in the nearest Capacity to be justifyed by God The last words Believing in his blood I use not as the only way that is taken by the Opponents but as one instance among divers For they use to express themselves so variously as may cause us to think by many as we know it of some that they take more waies then one in opposing us First Some of them say that the only Act of faith that justifieth is our believing in Christs blood or sufferings or humiliation Secondly Others say That it is the believing in or apprehending and resting on his whole Righteousness even his Obedience as Obedience to be it self imputed to us Thirdly Other Reverend Divines say that it is the apprehending and resting on his Habitual as well as Active and Passive Righteousness that his Habits may be imputed to us as our Habitual Righteousness and his Acts as our active Righteousness in both which together we are reputed perfect Fulfillers of the Law and his sufferings as our Satisfaction for our breaking the Law As for those that mention the Imputation of his Divine Righteousness to us they are so few and those for the most part suspected of unsoundness that I will not number it among the Opinions of Protestants Fourthly Others say that the justifying Act of Faith is not the apprehension of Christs Righteousness or Ransome but of his Person and that only as he is Priest and not as Prophet or King Fifthly Others think that it is the apprehension of Christs person but not in his intire Priestly office for he performeth some Acts of his Priestly office for us Intercession after we are justified Therefore it is his Person only as the Satisfier of justice and Meritor of Life which they make the adequate Object of the justifying Act of Faith Sixthly Others say that it is both his Person and his satisfaction Merit Righteousness yet Pardon and justification it self that is the adequate Object By which they must needs grant that it is not one only single Act but many Seventhly One Reverend man that 's now with God Bishop Vsher understanding that I was engaged in this Controversie did of his own accord acquaint me with his Judgement as tending to reconciliation And because I never heard any other of the same mind and it hath a considerable aspect I shall briefly and truly report it as he expressed it He told me that there are two Acts or sort of Acts of Faith By the first we receive the Person of Christ as a woman in Marriage doth first receive the Person of her Husband This is our Implantation into Christ the true Vine and gives us that Union with him which must go before Communion and Communication of his Graces and so before justification The second of Faiths Acts are those that apprehend the Benefits which he offereth Of which Justification is one and this is strictly the Justifying Act of Faith and followeth the former So that said he it is true that the first Act which apprehendeth Christs person doth take him as King Priest and Prophet as Head and Husband that we may be united to him but the following acts which Receive his Benefits do not so but are suited to the several benefits The opinion is subtile and I perceived by his Readiness in it that it was one of his old studied points and that he had been long of that mind my answer to him was this You much confirm me in what I have received for you grant the principal thing that I desire but you add something more which I cannot fully close with but shall plainly tell you what are my apprehensions of it First You grant that the act of faith by which we are united to Christ and which goes first is the Believing in or Receiving whole Christ as Priest Prophet and King This will do all that I desire Secondly You add that another act even the Receiving of his Righteousness is after necessary that we may be justified Your reason seems to be drawn from the difference of the effects Union goes before Justification therefore the uniting act goes before the justifying act This is it that I deny My Reasons are these First Scripture distinguisheth between our Union with Christ and our Justification but no where between the uniting and justifying acts of faith Secondly The nature of the thing requireth it not because faith justifies not by a Physical causality as fire warmeth me but by the moral interest of a condition and the same act may be the Condition of divers benefits Thirdly Scripture hath express made the Receiving of the person in his Relations to be the Condition of the participation of his benefits As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God John 1.12 whoever believeth in him shall not perish but c. believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved c. Fourthly Your own Similitude cleareth what I say Though the wife have not possession of all that is her husbands as soon as she is married yet she hath Right to all that is her part and possession of the benefits meerly Relative which consist but in a Right The accepting his person in marriage is the condition to be by her performed to instate her in his Honours so far as she must partake of them When she is made a wife by that Consent there needs not any other act before she can be noble honourable a Lady a Queen c For the former was the full condition of the first possession of this benefit and the benefit immediately resulteth from the Union Fifthly I conceive that these two acts which you mention are but one moral work though divers Physical acts and to be done without any interposition of time before we can have Christ for Union or Justification For the end is Essential to Relations and he that receives Christ must take him to some end and use and that must be to Justifie Reconcile and save him to bring him to God that he may be blessed in him He that doth not receive Christ to these ends receiveth not Christ as Christ and therefore cannot be united to him and he that doth thus receive him doth both those acts in one which you require Sixthly And the case is much different between Physical and Relative benefits For its true that when we are united to Christ we may have after need of renewed acts of faith to actuate the Graces of the Spirit Inherent in us For here Right is one thing and Possession is another But the Relation of Sonship Justification c. are benefits that arise from the promise or free Gift by a meer resultancy to all that are united to Christ and whoever hath present Right to them even thereby hath possession of them so that this answereth your Reason For there is no such distance of time between our Union with Christ and Justification
soul on Christ for Righteousness I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance but it is as Perkins Dr. Downam Rob. Baronius c. say a fruit Of faith strictly taken rather then faith it self but if you take faith in a larger sence as the Gospel not seldom doth and against which I am no adversary so Affiance is part of faith it self But that it is the whole of that faith I shall never believe without stronger Arguments where you say Its the receiving Christ as the hand embraceth any Object I answer 1. I am glad you here grant Christ himself to be the Object 2. If you mean as verily as the hand c. So I grant it if a moral receiving may be properly said to be as true as a physical But if you mean By a Physical Contact and Reception as the hand doth c. then I am far from believing that ever Christ or our Assembly so meant or ever had so gross a thought Where you say I take it not the in sence as the Scripture words imply I answer When I see that manifested I shall believe it When it is said John 1. He came to his own and his own received him not 1. Is it meant they took him not in their hands or received not his Person into their houses the later is true But 1. Only in a second place but their hearts were the first Receptacle 2. Else those were no Unbelievers where Christ never came in person And that had no houses 3. And that receiving cannot belong to us that never saw him nor to any since his Ascension 2. Or is it the Intellective Reception of his species I trow not I have said enough of that before 3. Or is it a moral Reception of him as thus and thus related volendo eligendo consentiendo diligendo pardon this last it is but the qualification of the rest consequenter fidendo I think this is it If you can find a fourth way you will do that which was never done to my knowledge and then you will be a Novellist as well as I. For your next expressions I answer to them that you do truly apprehend that I am loth to seem to recede from others and as loth to do it but magis amica veritas And I cannot believe what my list nor like those that can By which you may truly know that I do it not out of affectation of singularity as he knoweth that knoweth my heart nor intend to be any instrument of division in the Church And if my assertions are destructive of what others deliver it is but what some men and not what all deliver Not against the Assembly nor many learned Divines who from several parts of the Land have signified to me their Assent besides all those great names that appear for me in print But you tell me that I may not build on some Homilitical popular expressions in any mans books Answer Let me again name to you but the men I last named and try whether you will again so entitle their writings The first and chief is Dr. Preston who was known to be a man of most choice notions and so Judged by those that put out his books and his credit so great in England that he cracks his own that seeks to crack it And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Auditory at least as your Lectures and yet you defend your own expressions Yea it is not once nor twice not five times only but almost through all his Books that Dr. Preston harpeth upon this string as if it were the choisest notion that he intended to disclose Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as justifying and Dr. Preston was no homiletical Definer I can produce the like Testimony of Dr. Stoughton two as great Divines in my esteem as most ever England or the world bred Another is Mr. Wallis Doubtless Sir no homiletical popular man in Writing nor could you have quickly bethought you of an English Book that less deserves those attributes His words are these I assent not to place the saving Act of faith either with Mr. Cotton as his Lordship cites him in the laying hold of or assenting to that Promise c. nor yet in a particular application of Christ to my self in assurance or a believing that Christ is mine c. But I choose rather to place it in an act of the Will then in either of these forenamed acts of the Vnderstanding It is an Accepting of Christ offered rather then an Assenting to a proposition affirmed To as many as received him c. that is to them that believe in his name John 1. God makes an Offer of Christ to all else should not Reprobates be condemned for not accepting of him as neither the Devils are because he was not offered to them Whosoever will let him come and take of the water of life freely Rev. 22.17 Whereupon the believing soul replies I will and so takes him When a Gift is offered to me that which maketh it to be mine is my Acceptation c. If you call this taking of Christ or confenting that Christ shall be my Saviour a Depending a Resting or relying on Christ for salvation if you speak of an act of the Will it is all one for Taking of Christ to be my Saviour and committing my self to Christ to be saved is the same Both of them being but a consenting to this Covenant I will be your God and you shall be my People c. And if you make this the saving Act of faith then will Repentance so far as it is distinct from Faith be a consequent of it Confidence also c. Thus Mr. Wallis is clear that the Nature of Faith is the same that I have affirmed and in no popular Sermon but in his Truth tryed pag. 94 95. And on these grounds he well answers Bellarmines Dilemma which else will be but shiftingly answered The next is Mr. Norton of New England a man judged one of their best Disputants or else they would not have chose him to encounter Apollonius And will you call his very Definition of Faith in an accurate Catechism an homiletical popular expression What then in the whole world shall escape that censure His Words are Quest What is justifying Faith Answ It is a saving grace of the Spirit flowing from Election whereby the soul receiveth Jesus Christ as its Head and Saviour according as he is revealed in the Gospel I subscribe to this Definition from my heart The next cited was Mr. Culverwell not in any popular Sermon but in a solid well approved Treatise of Faith and not in common passages but his very definition of faith pag. 13.17 and after all concludes pag. 19. Thus we see that the very nature of faith consisteth in the true Acceptation of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel The next I cited about the Definition of faith was Mr. Throgmorton who in his accurate Treatise of Faith and not in any
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
neither this act nor that act nor any act but qua justificans noteth only its respect to Justification rather then to Sanctification or other benefits As when I kindle a fire I thereby occasion both Light and Heat by putting to the fewel And if you speak of that act of mine qua calefaciens or qua illuminans this doth not distinguish of the nature of the act but of the Respect that the same Act hath to several effects or consequents Mr. W. Argument 10. If Christ only as crucified be the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption and Justification then Christ crucified is the only object of faith as Justifying But Ergo. Answ 1. The consequence of the Major is vain and an proved More then the Meritorious Cause of our Redemption is the object of justifying faith 2. The Minor is no small errour in the Judgement of most Protestants who maintain that Christs active Obedience and suffering life are also the Meritorious cause of our Justification and not only his Crucifixion Mr. W. Argument 11. If Christ as a servant did satisfie Gods Justice then he is so to be believed on to Justification But as a servant he did satisfie Gods Justice Ergo. Answ 1. I grant the conclusion Christ as a servant is to be believed in 2. But if only was again forgotten I further answer 1. I deny the consequence of the Major because Christ is to be believed on for Justification in other respects even in all essential to his Office and not only as satisfying I instanced before in Obeying Rising Judging from express Scripture 2. If the conclusion were granted it s against you and not for you For 1. Active obedience is as proper to a servant as suffering 2. Christ Taught the Church as a servant to his Father and is expresly called A Minister of the Circumcision So that these you yield the objects of this faith Mr. W. Argument 12. If none can call Christ Lord before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not an Accepting him as Lord. The Minor is true because none can call him Lord but by the Spirit and the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith after we believe Answ Any thing must serve 1. Both Major and Minor are such as are not to be swallowed in the lump If by Call you mean the call of the voyce then the consequence of the Major is vain and groundless For a man may believe in Christ with the heart as Lord and Saviour before he call him so with the mouth But if by Call you mean Believe then the Minor is false so confessed by all Protestants and Christians that ever I heard from of this point till now For they all confess that faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher and Head c. is the fides quae justificat or is of necessity to be present with the believing in his blood that a man may be justified Never did I hear till now that we first believe in Christ as dying only and so are justified before we believe in him as Lord and it seems before we are his Subjects or Disciples and that is before we are Christians 2. To your proof of the Minor I answer 1. It is no proof because the Text saith only that No man can call him Lord but by the Spirit but our question is of Believing and not of Calling which is Confessing 2. Many Expositors take it but for a common gift of the Spirit that 's there spoken of and do you think Justification must needs precede such common gifts 3. But if it had been Believe in stead of Call it s nothing for you For I easily grant that no man can believe in Christ as Lord but by the Spirit but I deny that this gift of the Spirit is never received till after that we believe and are justified And because it seems you judge that Believing in Christ to Justification is without the Spirit I pray answer first what we have said against the Arminians and Augustine against the Pelagians for the contrary Who would have thought that you had held such a point 4. How could you wink so hard as not to see that your Argument is as much against your self as me if you do but turn it thus If none can call Christ Jesus or the Saviour or believe in him to Justification before he be justified by faith then faith as justifying is not the accepting him as a Saviour The Minor is proved because none can call him Jesus or believe to Justification but by the Spirit This is as wise and strong an Argument as the other and all one See 1 Iob. 4.15 5.5 Believing in Christ as Saviour is as much of the Spirit is believing in him as Lord. 5. The Text makes against you 1 Cor 12.3 For there when Paul would denominate the true Christian faith or Confession he maketh Christ as Lord the Object Mr. W. Argument 13. If the promise of Salvation be the proper object of justifying faith then not the commands of Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo Answ 1. The conclusion is nothing to our Question which is not of Commands but of Christ as Lord. It may be you know no difference between the Relation and subsequent Duties between the Authority and the Command between subjection and obedience 2. The Minor is false If by proper you mean Only and if not the consequence is vain and null For the Person of Christ and his Office and the fruits of his Office even Pardon yea and Glory are the true Objects of justifying Faith Mr. W. Argument 14. If we are not justified both by Righteousness Inherent and Imputed then not by obeying Christ as Lord and Law-giver But Ergo. Answ What 's this to the Question 1. About Justification by Righteousness Imputed or Inherent we spoke before 2. The conclusion never was acquainted with our Question Again it seems you cannot or will not distinguish between Relative subjection and actual obedience A man may become your servant and so have the Priviledges of a servant by covenant before he obey you A woman in Marriage may subject her self to you and have Interest in your estate even by that Marriage which promiseth subjection as well as Love without excluding the first from being any condition of her Interest and all this before she obey you 3. Your consequence would follow as much against your self as me For Believing in Christ as a Ransom is as truly a particular Inherent Righteousness as believing in him as Lord. 4. We are justified by Righteousness Inherent as a particular righteousness though not as a Universal as subordinate to Christs Righteousness that it may be ours though not in co-ordination with it Mr. W. Argument 15. If our accepting of Christ as Lord and Law-giver be not properly or formally faith nor properly to be called obedience then we are not formally justified by faith in him as Lord nor by our obedience to him as
parity of Reason Christ as a Ransom and Meritor of Justification is not the only object of the justifying act of faith The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Minor of the Argument thus explained is not denied by them They confess that faith for sanctification doth receive Christ himself not only as the Meritor of it but as Teacher Lord King Head Husband and doth apply his particular promises But the meriting sanctification by his Blood and Obedience is no part of Christs Kingly or Prophetical Office but belongs to his Priesthood as well as the meriting of justification doth For Christs sacrifice layes the general Ground-work of all the following benefits both Justification Adoption Sanctification Glorification but it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all but there are appointed wayes for the collation of each one of them after the Purchase or Ransom So that if the apprehending of the Ransom which is the general Ground do only justifie then the apprehending of the same Ransom as meriting sanctification should only sanctify And neither the justifying nor sanctifying acts of faith should respect either Christs following acts of his Priesthood Intercession nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all And therefore as the sanctifying act must respect Christs following applicatory acts and not the purchase of sanctification only so the justifying act to speak as they must respect Christs following Collation or application and not only his Purchase of Justification And then I have that I plead for because Christ effectively justifies as King Argument 8. It is the same faith in Habit and Act by which we are Justified and by which we have right to the spirit of sanctification for further degrees and Adoption Glorification c. But it is believing in Christ as Prophet Priest and King by which we have Right to the spirit of sanctification to Adoption and Glorification Therefore it is the believing in Christ as Prophet Priest and King by which we are justified The Minor I suppose will not be denyed I am sure it is commonly granted The Major I prove thus If the true Christian faith be but one in essence and one undivided Condition of all these benefits of the Covenant then it is the same by which we are justified and have Right to the other benefits that is they are given us on that one undivided Condition But the Antecedent is true as I prove by parts thus First That it is but one in essence I think will not be denied If it be I prove it first from Ephes 4.5 There is one faith Secondly If Christ in the Essentials of a Saviour to be believed in be but One then the faith that receiveth him can be but One But the former is true Therefore so is the later Thirdly If the belief in Christ as Prophet as Priest and as King be but several Essential parts of the Christian faith and not several sorts of faith and no one of them is the true Christian faith it self alone no more then a Head or a Heart is a humane body then true faith is but one consiisting of its essential parts But the Antecedent is undoubted therefore so is the Consequent Secondly And as Faith in Essence is but One faith so this One faith is but One undivided Condition of the Covenant of Grace and it is not one part of faith that is the Condition of one benefit and another part of another and so the several benefits given on several acts of faith as several conditions of them but the entire faith in its Essentials is the condition of each benefit and therefore every essential part is as well the Condition of one promised benefit as of another This I prove First In that Scripture doth nowhere thus divide and make one part of faith the condition of Justification and another of Adoption and another of Glorification c. and therefore it is not to be done No man can give the least proof of such a thing from Scripture It is before proved that its one entire faith that is the Condition Till they that divide or multiply conditions according to the several benefits and acts of Faith can prove their division from Scripture they do nothing Secondly we find in Scripture not only Believing in Christ made the One Condition of all benefits but the same particular acts or parts of this faith having several sorts of benefits ascribed to them though doubtless but as parts of the whole conditions It s easie but needless to stay to instance Thirdly Otherwise it would follow by parity of reason that there must as many Conditions of the Covenant as there be benefits to be received by it to be respected by our faith which would be apparently absurd First Because of the number of Conditions Secondly Because of the quality of them For then not only Justification must have one condition Adoption another and Sanctification another and Glorification another and Comfort and Peace of Conscience another but perhaps several graces must have sveral conditions and the several blessings for our present life and Relations and Callings and so how many sorts of Faith should we have as well as justifying faith even one faith Adopting another Glorifying c. And as to the quality it is a groundless conceit that the belief or Acceptance of every particular inferiour mercy should be our title to that particular mercy For then the covetous would have title to their Riches because they accept them as from Christ and the natural man would have this title to his health and life and so of the rest whereas it is clear that it is faith in Christ as Christ as God and man King Priest and Prophet that is the condition of our Title even to health and life and every bit of bread so far as we have it as heirs of the Promise The promise is that all things shall work together for good not to every one that is willing to have the benefit but to them that love God Rom. 8.28 If we seek first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness not righteousness alone much less pardon alone other things shall be added Matth. 6.33 Fourthly If the Receiving of Christ as Christ essentially be that upon which we have title to his benefits then there are not several acts of faith receiving those several benefits necessary as the condition of our Title to them But the Antecedent is true as I prove thus The Title to Christ himself includeth a title to all these benefits that are made over to the heirs of Promise But on our acceptance of Christ we have title to Christ himself therefore upon our acceptance of Christ as the simple condition we have title to all these benefits Rom. 8.32 He that spared not his own son but gave him up for us all how shall he not with him also freely give us all things so that all things are given in the gift of Christ or with him Therefore Receiving