Quest. Whether we are Justified by Beliveing in Jesus Christ, as our King and Teacher; as well as by believing in his Blood? Aff.

Though I have oft spoken to this Question in the ears of the world, as taking it to be of very great Consequence; yet upon the Invitation of this opportunity, I shall once again attempt a brief Discussion of it; and the rather, because the Answers of a Reverend Brother (Mr. Blake) to my for­mer Arguments, and his Arguments for the contrary opinion, may wrong the Truth and the souls of men, if their Fallacy be not manifested by a Reply.

And I shall first speak somewhat of the Importance of the Question, and then of the sense of it, and then endeavour a [Page 2] clear Resolution, and the Confirmation thereof, and the Con­futation of the contrary conceits.

And for the first, I shall give you my thoughts of it in these two Propositions.

Proposition 1. The difference amongst Protestants about this Question is not of so great moment, that either party must Eo­nomine be judged to deny the Essentials (or Fundamentals) of the faith, and so to be of a different Religion from the other, or to fall short of Salvation.

I lay down this Proposition first, Because of the Papists who stand looking upon all our differences with a mind too like the mind of the Devil; rejoycing in them, and endeavouring to encrease them, and to make them seem greater in the eyes of the world than indeed they are, that so they may make use of them for the reproaching of our Profession, and take an advantage from them to make the truth and Servants of Christ become odious unto others.

Secondly, And I do it also for the sake of some (even too many) among our selves, that speak of controversies as they are concerned in them, or as the party to whom they joyn doth speak of them, or as they appear to them in the dark, or at a distance, or upon a hasty superficial search; but have not the skil (nor some of them, the will) to open the true state of a Controver­sie, and make the difference appear no wider, then indeed it is.

To the proving of the Proposition, it must be observed, First, that the Affirmers do yield, that it is not the Doctrine or Go­vernment of Christ, but his blood that is the Ransome for one sins, and his Righteousness that is the sole Meritorious Cause of our Justification: and that believing in Christ as Prophet and King, is not a proper Instrument of our Justification; and that Christ as a Ransome for us, and a deserver of our Justification, is the formal Object of that other act (which accordingly be­lieveth in him) and not of this act of believing in him as Pro­phet and King.

On the other side, it is granted by them that are for the Ne­gative, that it is our duty to believe in Christ as a Prophet and King and that it is of necessity to salvation, yet to Justification it self; For they yield that it is the Fides quae Justificat, the faith [Page 3] by whch we are Justified, but not qu [...] Justificat, or that it Ju­stifieth not quà talis, as such: They yield also that it is a Con­dition of Justification, for so they confess that Repentance it self is; but they only say, that it is not the Instrument of Justi­fication, as they think the other act is. So that the difference is here: They yield all that we affirm (if I can understand them;) but they affirm somewhat more themselves, which we do not yield: They grant that believing in Christ as our Teacher and Lord is a Condition of our Justification, and the [...]ides quae Justi­ficat; which is all that I desire: But then they add, that the Be­lief in Christs blood and Righteousness is the Instrument of our Justification, and that it justifieth qu [...] talis; which we utterly deny, if the words be properly taken; and Tropes should not upon choice be made the terms of our Question, while there are plainer to be had. So that by this time its easie to see that neither of these opinions are such as must unchurch or damn us, or make us Hereticks. First, We that are for the Affirmative are out of that danger; for we hold no more positively then is yielded us by the other. All that they can charge us with; is this Negative, that [believing in Christs blood doth not properly Justifie as an Instrument (that is, as an efficient Instrumental Cause of our Justification) nor yet qu [...] talis:] And I think they will not lay our salvation on the Affirmative, when they consider what we yield (of which more anon) And on the other side, we are far from passing any damning sentence on them that are for the said Instrumentality; especially as we perceive it commonly held. Let no Papist therefore insult over us and say, we are disagreed in our fundamentals, unless he be resolved to do it in design against the light of his own conscience. I the rather premise this Caution, because I hear that the Papists do mutter thus against us already to silly people that cannot see their de­ceit: They say, [Is not the death of Christ a fundamental? and yet some say that he died for All, and some say he died only for the Elect; some say he paid the Idem, and some but the Tan­tundem] but they tell not the people the true state of the Con­troversie, and wherein we are agreed, or that they differ as much about the extent of the death of Christ among themselves, without such a charge. Christ is the Foundation: but yet whe­ther [Page 4] his hair were cut, or not, or whether he were thirty three or thirty five, or fifty years old when he died; or whether he was buried in a Garden, or in a Sepulchre of stone, these are not the foundation. So much to the first Proposition for narrowing our difference.

Proposition 2. Though this controversie be not of such Mo­ment as is denied, yet is it of great weight, and the Consequents of the Errors of one party 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, [Page 5] 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 its 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 [Page 6] 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, [Page 7] 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 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 [Page 8] must needs grant that it is not one only single Act, but many. Seventhly. One Reverend man thats now with God (Bishop Ʋsher) 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 [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] and Justification, as that any acts of our own must interpose; but they are in eodem instanti, and differ only in order of nature. In sum, we prove a promise of pardon to all that receive Christ himself, and believe in him: If any will affirm the necessity of any other act before we can be justified, it is incumbent on them to prove it.

This was the substance of my Answer, to which the Reverend Bishop said no more; whether satisfied or not, I cannot tell: But I thought meet to recite his Judgement, both because it comes so neer the matter, and because I know not of any other that saith the same or so much of seeming strength against us.

Against all these seven particular Opinions, I am now to de­fend the Thesis; when I have first told you, in certain distin­ctions and propositions, how much I grant, and what I deny; which I shall in short dispatch.

And here I need but to rehearse what I have said already to Mr. Blake, pag. 3.4. or to give you some short account of my thoughts to the same purpose.

First, We must not confound Justification by Constitution or Guift, and justification by the Sentence of the Judge, and the Execution of that sentence, which are three distinct things.

Secondly, We must not confound Justification with the assu­rance or feeling of Justification.

Thirdly, We must distinguish between our first Justificati­on from a state of sin, and our daily Justification from particu­lar Acts of sin.

Fourthly, Between that which is necessary on Christs part, and that which is necessary on our part to our Justificati­on.

Fifthly, Between Christs purchasing our Justification, and his actual justifying of us.

Sixthly, Between these two senses of the phrase [justified by Fatih] viz. as by an efficient Cause, or as a meer Condition.

Seventhly, Between the Causality of faith in the Physical effects of sanctification on the soul, and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promise in our Justification.

Proposition 1. Ex parte Christi, We easily grant that [Page 11] it is not his Teaching, or Ruling us, but his Ransome and Obedience that are the Meritorious cause of our Justification and Salvation.

Proposition 2. Therefore if Christ did justifie us per modum objecti aprehensi in the nearest sense, as the Belief of sacred Truths doth make a Qualitative impression on the soul in our Sanctification, and the exciting and acting, of our Graces then I should confess that it is only that Act of Faith which is the ap­prehension of this Object, that doth help us directly to the bene­fit of the Object.

Proposition 3. But it is not so: For the Object justifieth us causally by way of Merit and Moral procurement, and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promise conveying to us Justification, and partly Justification conveyed by that Pro­mise (not to speak now of other benefits) and the Promise conveyeth Justification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift, or a Pardon to a Traytor: Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver, and the Promise or deed of Gift being the Immediate Instrumental efficient Cause of it, as it is signum voluntatis Donatoris, our Belief or Apprehension qua talis cannot justifie us, nor have any nearer or higher interest in our Justification, then to be the Condition of it, as it is a free Gift. And therefore the Condition must be judged of by the will of the Donor expressed in his Promise, and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeableness to the Object in this or that respect.

Proposition 4. Yea, Even ex parte Christi, though he Merit Justification by his Ransome and Obedience, yet he actually justifieth us as King of his Church, and that in regard of all the three sorts or parts of Justification. He giveth it consti­tutively by his Promise, as Lord and Legislator and Benefactor, on these terms of Grace. He sentenceth us Just, as our Judg; and he executeth that sentence as a Just Judge, governing ac­cording to his Laws. So that if Faith did justifie ex natura rei, which they call its Instrumentality, I see not yet but that the apprehension of Christ as Lord and Judge must justifie us, because the Object apprehended doth thus justifie us.

Proposition 5. I easily grant that in our Sanctification or the [Page 12] exciting and exercise of our Graces, the case standeth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Justification. This Interest of the Act must be judged of by the Object apprehended. For it is not the Belief of a Promise that feareth us, but of a Threatning; nor the Belief of a Threatning that Comforteth us, but of a Promise. For here the Object worketh immediately on our minds, per modum objecti apprehensi: But in Justification it is not so, where God is the Agent as a Donor, and there can be nothing done by us, but in order to make us fit Subjects; and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as such, but Relative by a Fundamentum which is without us in the Gos­pel, and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition, without which it will not be done.

Proposition 6. Accordingly I easily grant, that the Sense, or Assurance of Justification in our Consciences is wrought by the Object as an Object: Because this Assurance is a part of our Sanctification. But that Object is not directly Christs Ransome, but the Promise through his blood, and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promise.

Proposition 7. I easily grant that Faith in Christ as Lord or Teacher of the Church, is not the Instrumental efficient Cause of our Justification: They need not therefore contend against me in this. But withall I say, that faith in his Priest-hood is not the Instrumental efficient Cause neither; though I allow it to have a nearer Physical Relation to the Ransome which merit­eth our Justification.

Proposition 8. Though there is a greater shew of Reason to assert the Interest of the single Belief in Christs Priest-hood, for a particular Pardon, then for our first general Pardon; yet in­deed it is but a shew, even there also. For it is not only the apply­ing our selves to his blood or Ransome, but it is also the applying our selves to whole Christ, to make up the whole breach, that is the Condition of our particular Pardon, (so far as a parti­cular Act of saith is a Condition) which though it be not a Receiving Christ for Union with him, as we did in the beginning, yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et secundum quid; and a renewed Consent to his whole Office, and adhesion to him as our spe­cial, remedy for recovery from that fall, by freeing us both from the guilt and stain of Sin.

[Page 13] Proposition 9. It is undoubtedly the duty of every Sinner, in the sense of his guilt and misery, to fly to the Ransome of Christs blood and the Merit of his Obedience, as the satisfa­ction to Gods Justice, and the Purchaser of our Justification. And he that doth not this, how willing soever he may seem 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 [Page 14] 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, [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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 shall not perish, but have everlasting life.] [He that believeth on him is not condemned.] Not to be condemned, is to be justified. Con­demnation and Justification are opposed in Scripture, Rom. 8, 33, 4. Here therefore a saving faith and a justifying are made all one. And it is [Believing in Christ] without exclusion of any essential part, that is this faith; It is [Believing in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.] ver. 18. which is more then to believe his Ransom.

Thirdly, John 3.35, 36. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, he that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.] To have Gods wrath abide on him to be unjustified. And the unbelievers opposed to the Believers before mentioned, are such as [Believe not the son:] which phrase cannot possibly be limited to the affiance in his blood: It is the [ [...]] often translated Disobedient: signi­fying, saith Willet, both unbelieving and disobedient, but rather Disobedient, properly it is unperswadable. But of this more anon. And the faith here mentioned is [Believing on the son] entirely, without exclusion of any essential acts; nay expresly including the act in question, by shewing that it is faith in Christ as Lord, into [whose hands the Father hath given all things] as the connexion of these words to the foregoing doth manifest.

Fourthly, Rom. 1.16, 17, 18. I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that be­lieveth—for therein is the Righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith.] where saving and justifying faith is made the same, and that is to be a believer of the Gospel, or in Christ, without limitation to any one essential part of it.

Fifthly, Rom. 3.22. [Even the Righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe.] [Page 17] Here it is faith in Jesus Christ by which we are justified, which therefore includeth all that is essential to it.

Object. Vers. 25. It is said to be by faith in his blood.

Answ. 1. But there is not a syllable confining it to faith in his blood alone. It saith not, (by faith only in his blood) Secondly, The ordinary course of Scripture is to call it by that name (faith in Jesus Christ) which comprehendeth all thats essential to it. But sometime upon special occasions, its denominated from some one notable act or part. And that is, when it is the scope of the text, to denote more the distinct Interest of that part of Christs Office which is related to that act of faith, then any sole Interest of that act of faith it self. And so the Apostle here mentioneth faith in his blood as a special act, because he now draweth them especially to observe that blood which is the Ob­ject of it; and in other places he instanceth in other acts of faith; but commonly speaks of it entirely. And I think the Opponents will grant that as (only) is not here expressed, so neither is it implyed: for then it would exclude also, faith in the rest of his satisfactory Humiliation, or at least, in his active Righteousness, if not in his Person or Relation: of which more anon.

So vers. 18.30, 31. Its called (faith) entirely, or without re­striction by which we are justified; and therefore none of the essentials are excluded.

But it would be too tedious to recite the particular Texts: Its known, that [by faith] and [by believing] in Christ, without exclusion or limitation, is the common please of Scripture, when it speaks how we are justified: as many further be seen, Rom. 5.1, 2. & 9.32. Gal. 2.16. (we are justified by the faith of Jesus Christ, and by believing in Jesus Christ, as opposed to the works of the Law; but not by faith in his Priesthood, or Ransom, as opposed to faith in him as our Lord and Teacher) Gal. 3.11, 24, 25, 26. & 5.5.6. Eph 2.8, 9. & 3.12, 17. Phil. 3.9. Rom. 9.30. Heb. 11. throughout, John 6 35, 40, 47. Acts 10.42, 43. Rom. 10 10. Acts 23.39. From these and many the like I argue thus.

The Scripture doth ascribe our Justification to faith; and doth not limit it to any one part of faith excluding the rest: Believing in Jesus Christ as Redeemer, Prophet, Priest and King, is essenti­ally this faith. Ergo, &c.

[Page 18]If the Scripture speaks of faith essentially, not limiting it ad partem fidei, then so must we: But the Scripture doth so; Ergo' &c. It is nowhere more necessary then in such cases this to hold to the Rule, of not distinguishing ubi lex non distinguit. First, Because it is an adding to the doctrine of Christ in a point of weight. Secondly, Because it savoureth of a presumptuous de­traction from the Condition Imposed by Christ himself. If a Prince do make a General act of Oblivion, pardoning all Rebels that will enter into Covenant with him, wherein they consent to Accept his pardon, and take him for their Soveraign Lord; He that shall now say, that Returning to his Allegiance, or consent­ing to the Princes Soveraignty, is no part of the Condition of the Traytors pardon, but that they are pardoned only by accept­ing of a pardon, and not by the other act, will certainly be guil­ty of adding to the act of his Prince, and of detracting from the condition by him required; and so is it in our present case.

If God speak of any thing essentially, we must not presume without sufficient proof of the restriction, to expound it only de parte essentiali. If he invite a Guest to his marriage feast, he means not the mans head only, or his heart only: for neither of these is the man. If he require a lamb in sacrifice, we must not expound it of the head only, or heart only of a Lamb.

To this Argument (briefly in my Apology) Mr. Blake (having first excepted at the newness of the phrase [Lord-Re­deemer] doth answer thus [I say, Christ is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Master or Teacher; but faith in Justification eyes Redemption, not Dominion.] Repl. First, The Phrase [Faith in Justification] is as unacceptable to me, as [Lord-Redeemer] is to you: not only for the Novelty, but the ambiguity, if not the false Doctrine which it doth import. First, If the meaning be [Faith as it is the Condition of our Justification,] then its contrary to your own Concession after, that this should eye Christs Priest-hood only; and its an un­truth, which you utterly fail in the proof, or do nothing to it. Secondly, If you mean [Faith in its effecting of our Justifi­cation,] then it importeth another mistake, which you have not proved, viz. that faith doth effect our Justification. If you mean [Faith in Receiving Justification] either you mean [Page 19] the proper Passive Receiving, and this is but Justificari, and the man Receiveth it as the Subject, and his faith is but a Conditi­on, or means of it: Or you mean the Moral active Metapho­rical Receiving; which is nothing but Consenting that it shall be ours; or accepting: And this is neither part of Justificati­on, nor proper Cause; but a Condition, and but part of the Condition: And therefore here your meaning must be one of these two, Either That Act of Faith which is the accepting of Justification, is not the [...]ying of Dominion: To which I reply, First, taking it largely as a moral Act, its not true; for its comprehensive of both, of which more anon: but taking it strictly as one Physical Act, its true: Secondly, But then its nothing to the purpose: For we are not more truly justifyed by that Act which is the accepting of Justification, or Consent­ing to be justified, then we are by the Accepting of Christ for our Lord and Master; the reason of which, you have had before, and shall have more fully anon; or else you mean as before expressed, That Act of Faith which is our Consenting to Justification, is the whole Condition of our Justification, and not the eying of Dominion; But of that before. If I may Judge by your Doctrine elsewhere expressed, you mean only That the act of Faith which accepteth of Justification, is the only Instru­ment of Justification; of which in its due place: It may here suffice to say again, that I affirm not that in question to the be Instru­ment of it. Be not offended that I enquire into the sense of your ambiguous phrase, which I truly profess, is to me not intelligi­ble, till you have explained in what sense it is that you intend it; and therefore my enquiry is not needless.

Ar. 3. If the Scripture doth (not only by the specificke Deno­mination, as was last proved, but also) by description, and men­tioning those very acts, include the believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher, &c. in that faith by which as a Condition, we are justified; then we are justified by believing in Christ as our Lord and Teacher, &c. not only as a sacrifice or Meriter of Justification. But the Antetedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.

I prove the Antecedent by many Texts.

Rom. 10 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. For Christ is the end of the Law [Page 20] for Righteousness to every one that believeth. — But the Righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise: Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into Heaven? that is to bring Christ down from above: or who shall descend into the deep? that is to bring up Christ again from the dead: But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man belie­veth unto Righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation.] Here it is evident, that it is a Believing unto Righ­teousness that is mentioned, and therefore it is the Believing by which we are justified. And then it is evident that the faith here called [a believing unto Righteousness] is the believing in the Lord Jesus; expresly Christ as Lord and Saviour, is made the Object of it; and is not confined to a believing in one part of his Priesthood only. Also [that God raised Christ from the dead] is the expressed object of this faith. And the Resurrection of Christ is no part of his sacrifice or meer Priestly Office.

Rom. 4.24, 25. [But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.] Here it is evident that it is Justification it self that is the Benefit spoken of, even the Imputing of Righteousness: And that faith here is mentioned as the Condition of that Imputation [If we be­lieve] And that this faith is described to be first a believing in him that raised Christ, and not only in Christ. Secondly, A be­lieving in Christ Jesus our Lord, who is the express object of it; and so his Lordship taken in; and thirdly, a believing in his Re­surrection, and not only in his blood or obedience. So that I see no room left to encourage any doubting, whether we are justifi­ed by believing in Christ as Lord, and in his Resurrection, and in God that raised him, as the Condition of our Justification.

John 1.9, 11, 12. [That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. — He came to his own, and his own received him not: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, to them that believe in his Name.] Here it is manifest, First, that it is the faith by which we are justified that is spoken of; for its commonly agreed [Page 21] that Justification is here included in Adoption, or at least that its the same act of faith by which we are adopted and justified. Secondly, Also that the object of this faith is Christ as the Light, which is not his meer Priesthood. Thirdly, And that it is his person in his full office, and not some single benefit. Fourth­ly, that it is called [his Name] and [Believing in his Name] is more then consenting to be justified by his blood; and in Scri­pture-sense comprehendeth his Nature and Office: and is all one as taking him as the true Messiah, and becoming his Disciples: Fifthly, And its much to be Noted, that it is not by way of Phy­sical efficacy by apprehension (as I take Gold in my hand, and so receive possession of it) that faith hath its nearest Interest in our Adoption: but it qualifieth the subject dispositively in the sight of God, and so God gives men Power thereupon to become his sons.

So the forecited words, Iohn 3.31, 35, 36. Where Life is gi­ven on Condition that we believe on the Son; and that is expres­sed as the object of that faith, as he is one that [Cometh from Heaven, and is above all, and whom the Father loveth, and hath given all things into his hands.]

And so Iohn 5.22 23, 24. [He hath committed all judgement to the son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honor the Father; Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into Condemnation] Here the faith mentioned is that which freeth men from Condemnation, and therefore is it by which we are Iustified: And the object of it is the Word of Christ (and therefore not only his Priesthood) and the Father as sending the Son, even to his whole office of Redemption.

Moreover, that faith by which our Justification is continued, it is begun by this (both they and we are agreed in, though some yield not that any thing more is required to its continu­ance.) But the faith by which Justification is continued, is the Belief of the Gospel, which is preached to every Creature and not only one branch of it. Col. 1.21, 22, 23. And it is called, Col. 2.6. a Receiving Christ Iesus the Lord.

John 20.31. These things are written, that ye might believe that Iesus is the Christ, the son of God and that believing ye might [Page 22] have life through his Name:] That faith by which we have life, is certainly it by which we are justified: for as Justification is part of that life, so Right to Eternal life is given on the same terms as Justification is. And the object of this faith here is, Christ in Person and entire Office, the son of God by whose Name we have life.

Acts 2.30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. [Knowing that God had sworn with an Oath to him, that of the fruit of his loynes ac­cording to the flesh, he would raise up Christ, to sit upon his Throne, he seeing this before spake of the Resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in his Hell, neither his flesh did see Corruption: This Iesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses; therefore being by the right hand of God exalted — therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made this same Iesus whom ye have Crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this — Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Iesus Christ, for the Remission of sins —.] Here it is evident that Remission of sins is a Benefit that by this faith they were to be made par­takers of; and so that it is the faith by which we are justified, that they are Invited to: And that the Object of this faith implyed in the terms, Repent and be baptized, &c. is the Name of Jesus Christ, and that eminently in his exaltation, as Risen, and set at the Right hand of God, and as Lord and Christ.

So Acts 3.19.22.15. Repent therefore and be Converted, that your sins may be blotted out — For Moses truly said, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up —.] Here the Jews are ac­cused for killing the Prince of life, vers. 15. and exhorted to Re­pent thereof, and so of their Infidelity, and be converted (to Christ, and so to become Christians,) which is more then one act of faith; and this was that their sins may be blotted out: And Christ as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of this faith, which they are exhorted to.

So Act, 10.42, 43. with 36, 37, 38, 40, 41. [And he command­ed us to preach unto the people, and to testifie that it is he that is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead; to him give all the Prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever be­lieveth in him shall receive Remission of sins.] Here the faith is [Page 23] described which hath the Promise of Remission. And the Object of it is at large set out to be Jesus Christ as Lord of all, ver. 36. as anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power, raised from the dead, and made the Judge of the quick and the dead; and it is called entirely a Believing in him, and the Remission is through his name.

Act. 16.31. The faith of the Jaylor as perswaded to for life▪ is the believing in the Lord Jesus Christ entirely: and its called a Believing in God, ver. 34.

1 Pet. 2.4, 5, 6, 7. The faith there mentioned is that By which we are justified; he that believeth on him shall not be confounded; and the Object of it is, whole Christ as the Corner stone, Elect and Precious.]

John 5.10, 11, 12. [The faith there mentioned, is that by which we have Christ and Life]: And the Object of it is, [the Son of God] and [God] and [the record that God gave of his Son] even [that God hath given us eternal Life, and this life is in his Son.]

Mat. 11.27, 28, 29. The faith there mentioned, is called [a comming to Christ weary and heavy laden, that he may give them rest,] which must comprehend Rest from the Guilt of sin and punishment. And the Act of that Faith is directed to Christ as one to whom all Power is given by the Father, and as one whose yoak and burden we must take upon us. But I shall add no more for this.

To this last Mr. Blake saith, pag. 504. This Text shows the Duty of men to be, not alone to such rest and ease from Christ, but to learn of Christ and follow him: But neither their learning nor their imitation, but faith in his blood, is their freedom or Justifi­cation. Repl. Properly neither one act of faith nor other is our Justification. Faith is a Quality in the Habit, and an act in the exercise: and Justification is a Relation. Faith is a part of our Sanctification; Therefore it is not our Justification. But supposing you speak Metonymically, I say both acts of faith are our Justification, that is, the Condition of it. And the Text proves it, by making our Subjection not only a Duty, but an express Condition of the Promise. And this Conditi­onality you here before and after do confess or grant.

[Page 24] Argument 4. If we are justified by Christ as Priest, Pro­phet and King conjunctly, and not by any of these alone, much less by his Humiliation and Obedience alone; then according to the Opponents own Principles (who argue from the distinct Interest of the several parts of the Object, to the distinct In­terest of the several acts of faith) we are justified by believing in Christ as Priest, Prophet and King, and not as Humble and Obedient only. But we are justified by Christ as Priest, Prophet and King, &c. Ergo, &c.

The Consequence is their own. And the Antecedent I shall prove from several texts of Scripture, and from the nature of the thing, beginning with the last.

And first it is to be supposed, That we are all agreed that the blood and Humiliation of Jesus Christ, are the Ransome and Price that satisfieth the Justice of God for our sins, and accor­dingly must be apprehended by the Believer: And many of us agree also, that his Active obedience as such, is part of this sa­tisfaction, or at least, Meritorious of the same effect of our Justification. But the thing that I am to prove, is, that the Me­ritorious Cause is not the only Cause and that Christ in his other actions, is as truly the efficient Cause, as in his meriting, and that all do sweetly and harmoniously concur to the entire effect; and that faith must have respect to the other causes of our Justifi­cation, and not alone to the Meritorious Cause, and that we are Justified by this entire work of Faith, and not only by that Act which respects the satisfaction or merit. And first, I shall prove that Christ doth actually justifie us as King.

The word Justification, as I have often said (and its past doubt) is used to signifie these three Acts. First, Condonation, or con­stitutive Justification, by the Law of Grace or Promise of the Gospel. Secondly, Absolution 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, [Page 25] 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, [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 heart that Christ was the son of God, and so received him as Christ entirely.

Argument 5. If it be a necessary Condition of our being baptized for the Remission of sin, that we profess a belief in more then Christs Humiliation and merits then is it a necessary Condi­tion [Page 28] of our actual Remission of sin, that we really believe in more than Christs Humiliation and Merits: But the Antecedent is certain. For the Prescript, Mat. 28.19, 20, and the constantly used form of Baptism, and the Texts even now mentioned, 1 Pet. 3.21. Act. 8.37. do all shew it: And I have more fully proved it in my Dispute of Right to Sacraments. And the Consequence is undeniable: And I think all will be granted.

Argument 6. If the Apostles of Christ themselves before his death, were justified by believing in him as the son of God, and the Teacher and King of the Church, (yea perhaps without be­lieving at all in his Death and Ransom thereby) then the belie­ving in him as the son of God, and Teacher and King, con­junct with believing in his blood, are the faith by which we are now justified. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent.

The reason of the Consequence is, because it is utterly im­probable that the addition of further light and objects for our faith, should null the former, and that which was all or so much of their justifying faith, should be now no part of ours.

The Antecedent I prove, Matth. 16.21.22, 23. [From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his Disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders and chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day: then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee Lord, this shall not be unto thee] &c. — John 12.16. These things understood not his Disciples at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then, &c. Luke 28. [Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them; Behold, we go up to Jerusàlem, and all things that are written by the Prophets concerning the son of man, shall be accomplished: For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked and spitefully intreated and spit upon, and they shall scourge him and put him to death, and the third day he shall rise again: And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken.]

Luke 24.20, 21, 22. [The chief Priests and Rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him; but we trust­ed that it had been be which should have redeemed Israel: and be­side [Page 29] all this to day is the third day since these things were done; and certain women also of our company made us astonished which were early at the Sepulchre — O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his Glory? vers. 45. Then opened be their understanding that they might understand the Scripture.]

John 20.9. [For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise again from the dead.] By all this it is plain that the Disciples then believed not Christs death or Resurrection.

Yet that they were justified, is apparent in many Texts of Scripture, where Christ pronounceth them clean by the word which he had spoken, John 15.3. and oft called them blessed, Mat. 5. & 16.17 Luke 6. And he saith that the Father loved them: John 16.27. They were branches in him the living Vine, and exhorted to abide in him, John 15 5, 6, 7.— And that they were Belie­vers is oft exprest, and particularly that they Believed in him as the son of God, and trusted it was he that should redeem Israel: that is by Power, and not by Death: and that they took him for their Master and Teacher, and the King of Israel; some of them desiring to sit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom, and striving who should be the greatest about him, John. 16.27. The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have be­lieved that I came out from God.] John 1.49. [Nathaniel an­swered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the son of God: thou art the King of Israel] Here was the saving faith of the Disci­ples, Matth. 16.16. Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the son of the living God.]

Object. But was it possible for them to be justified without the blood of Christ?

Answ. No: as to the Fathers acceptance, his blood even then before it was shed, was the meritorious cause of their Justi­fication: But they were justified by it, without the knowledge or belief of it, thought not without faith in Christ as the son of God, the Messiah, the Rabbi, and the King of Israel. Which also shews that faith did not then justifie them in the new Notion of an Instrumental cause apprehending the purchasing cause; or that the effects of Christs several acts were not diversifyed ac­cording to the several acts of faith to those as Objects.

[Page 30]I hope all that have Christian Ingenuity will here understand, that I speak not this in the least measure to diminish the excel­lency or necessity of that act of faith which consisteth in the be­lieving on Christ as crucified, or in his blood and Ransom! Or that I think it less necessary then the other to us now▪ because the Disciples then were justified without it. I know the case is much altered; and that is now of necessity to Justification that was not then. But all that I endeavour is, to shew that we are justified by the other acts of faith, as well as this, because it is not likely that those acts should not be now justifying, in conjuncti­on with this, by which men were then justified without this.

Argument 7. If the satisfaction and merits of Christ be the only Objects of the justifying act of faith, then (according to their own principles) they must on the same reason, be the only obiects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith. But the sa­tisfaction and merit of Christ are not the only Objects of the sanctifying and saving acts of faith: therefore not of the justi­fying.

To this Mr. Blake answereth, by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit; and four terms in the Syllogism (as in other terms I had expressed it.) And saith [We look at Christ for ju­stification as satisfying Iustice, and meriting pardon and remission, not as meriting sanctification.] Repl. But this is his mis-under­standing of plain words The term [Meritor] was not equi­vocal, but the General comprehending both effects: And that which he nakedly affirms, is the thing which the Argument makes against. Here it is supposed as a granted truth, that we can be no more sanctified, then justified without Christs blood and merits: and so the scope of the Argument is this: Christ as a Ransom and a Meritor of sanctification, is not the only object of the sanctifying act of faith: therefore by 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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.) Its 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 [Page 33] 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 him is the means of Receiving all.

1 John 5.11, 12. [God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his son: He that hath the son hath life; and he that hath not the son hath not life.] So that accepting Christ as Christ, makes him ours (by way of condition;) and then our life of Justifica­tion and sanctification is in him and comes with him.

Coming to Christ as Christ, is the sole undivided condition [Page 34] of Life, John 5 40. Ye will not come to me that ye may have Life.]

Yet here I must crave that Ingenuous dealing of the Reader, that he will observe (once for all, and not expect that I should on every call recite it) that though I maintain the unity of the condition, not only in opposition to a separating division, but also to a distributive division of Conditions; yet I still maintain these three things. First, that quoad materiale Conditionis, that faith which is the condition, doth believe all the essential parts of Christ office distinctly; and so it doth not look to his Exaltati­on in stead of his Humiliation; nor è Contra; but looks to be Ransomed by him as a sacrifice, and meritoriously justified by his Merits, and actually justified by him as King, Judge, and Bne­factor, &c. And that it eyeth also distinctly those Benefits which salvation doth essentially consist in (at least.) And it takes Christ finally to Justifie, Adopt, Sanctifie, Glorifie, &c. distinctly. But still its but one condition on which we have Title to all this.

Secondly, That I maintain that in the Real work of sanctifi­cation, the several acts of faith on several objects are distinct efficient causes of the acting of several Graces in the soul. The Belief of every attribute of God, and every Scripture truth, hath a several real effect upon us: But it is not so in Justificati­on, nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation; for there our faith is not a true efficient cause, but a Condition: and faith as a condition is but One, though the efficient acts are divers. The Belief of several Texts of Scripture, may have as many sanctifying effects on the soul; But those are not several conditions of our Title thereto. God saith not I will excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text, and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text. In the exercise of Grace God worketh by our selves as efficient causes: but in the Justifying of a sinner, God doth it wholly and immediately himself without any Co-efficiency of our own, though we must have the disposition or Condition.

Thirdly, I still affirm, that this One undivided condition may have divers appellations from the Respect to the Consequent be­nefits (for I will not call them the effects;) This one faith may [Page 35] be denominated (importing only the Interest of a condition) a justifying faith, a sanctifying faith, an Adopting faith, a saving faith, preserving faith, &c. But this is only, if not by extrin­sick denomination, at the most but a Virtual or Relative di­stinction; As the same Center may have divers denominations from the several lines that meet in it: Or the same Pillar or Rock may be East, West, North, or South, ad laevam, vel ad dextram, in respect to several other Correlates: Or (plainly) as one and the same Antecedent, hath divers denominations from several Consequents. So if you could give me health, wealth, Honor, Comfort, &c. on the condition that I would but say One Word [I thank you:] that one word, might be denominated an enriching word, an honouring word, a comfort­ing word from the several Consequents. And so may faith. But this makes neither the Materiale, nor the Formale of the Condi­tion to be divers: either the faith it self, or condition of the Promise.

Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general, and of Gods imposed Condition in speci­cial, enough to perswade us that the benefit dependeth usually as much or more on some other act, as on that which accepteth the benefit it self: then we have reason to judge that our Justi­fication dependeth as much on some other act, as on the accep­tance of Justification; but the Antecedent is true, as I prove: First, As to Covenant Condition in general, it is most usual to make the promise consist of somwhat which the party is wil­ling of, and the condition to consist of somewhat which the Promiser will have; but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to. And therefore it is that the Accepting of the bene­fit promised is seldome, if ever, expresly made the Condition (though implicitly it be part;) because it is supposed that the party is willing of it. But that is made the express condition, where the party is most unwilling: So when a Rebel hath a par­don granted on condition he come in, and lay down arms, it is supposed that he must humbly and thankfully accept the par­don; and his returning to his allegiance, is as truly the condi­tion of his pardon, as the putting forth his hand and taking it is. If a Prince do offer himself in maraiage to the poorest Beg­gar, [Page 36] and consequently offer Riches and Honors with himself, the accepting of his person is the expressed condition, more then the accepting of the riches and honors; and the latter de­pendeth on the former. If a Father give his son a purse of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him, or ask him for­giveness of some fault: here his kneeling down and asking him for­giveness, doth more to the procurement of the gold, then putting forth his hand and taking it.

Secondly, And as for Gods Covenant in specie, it is most cer­tain, that God is his own end, and made and doth all things for himself. And therefore it were blasphemy to say that the Cove­nant of Grace were so free as to respect mans wants only, and not Gods Honor and Ends, yea or man before God. And there­fore nothing is more certain then that both as to the ends, and mode of the Covenant, it principally respecteth the Honor of God. And this is it that man is most backward to though most obliged to. And therefore its apparent that this must be part, yea the principal part of the condition. Every man would have pardon and be saved from hell: God hath promised this which you would have, on condition you will yield to that which naturally you would not have. You would have Happiness; but God will have his preeminence; and therefore you shall have no Happiness but in him. You would have pardon: but God will have subjection, and Christ will have the honour of being the bountifull procurer of it, and will be your Lord, and Tea­cher, and Sanctifier as well as Ransom: If you will yield to one, you shall have the other. So that your Justification dependeth as much on your Taking Christ for your Lord and Master, as on your receiving Justification or consenting to be pardoned by him. Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Christ himself and the benefits offered you, (that you take them thankfully, lovingly, humbly, renouncing your own worth, &c.) are ne­cessary parts of the condition of your pardon. There is as great a Necessity laid upon that part of the Condition which Christs honour lieth on, and that in order to your Justification, as of that part which directly respecteth your Salvation. And me thinks common reason and ingenuity should tell you that it must be so, and that its just and meet it should be so. And therefore [Page 37] I may safely conclude ex natura rei, that the taking of Christ for our [...]eacher and Lord▪ is as truly a part of the condition of our Justification, and our Justification lieth as much upon it, as the Affiance in Christs sufferings.

If you say, [But the efficiency is not equal, though it be equally a Condition] I answer; Neither of them have any proper effi­ciency in justifying us, unless you will unfitly call the Conditio­nality an Efficiency, or the Acceptableness of believing in the sight of God, an efficiency; there is no such thing to be ascribed to our faith as to the effect of Justification. But this belongs to ano­ther Controversie.

I know not what can be said more against this, unless by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any pro­per Condition, but only a priority and posteriority of Duties. But the express conditional terms of the Covenant do put this so far out of doubt, and I have said so much of it in other writ­ings, that I shall not trouble my self here with this sort of Ad­versaries: Only to prevent their mistake, I shall tell them this: that in a condition there is somewhat Essential, and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promise; and therefore they are pro­per conditions: and there is somewhat Accidental: as First, sometime that the thing be Ʋncertain to the Promiser: This is not in Gods Conditions: It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent. Secondly, That the matter of the condition be somewhat that is gainfull to the Promiser, or other­wise have a merit, or moral causality: But this is separable: In our case it is sufficient that it be somewhat that God liketh, loveth, or is pleasing to him, though it properly merit not.

And the evident Reason why God hath made some Promises conditional, is, that his Laws and Promises may be perfectly suit­ed to the nature of man on whom they must work, and so may shew forth Gods Infinite Wisdom, and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends: and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is natural­ly more forward to, or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor: As also that the Holiness of God may shine forth in his Word; and it may be seen that he loveth Justice, Holiness, Obedience, and not only the persons of men: and so [Page 38] all his Attributes may be seen in their conjunction and the beau­ty that thence resulteth in the Glass of his Word.

Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are justified, be the Not-be-believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, than the faith by which we are justified, is the believing in him as King, Priest and Prophet. But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Con­sequent.

Only the Antecedent needs proof, though the Consequence have the hard hap to be denyed also.

Here note, that by The condemning Ʋnbelief, I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning sin according to the spe­cial Commination of the Gospel: Where I suppose first, that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is simply for sin as sin. Secondly, And a distinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace, which is not simply for sin as sin, but for one sort of sin in special, that is, the final rejection of the Re­medy: And of this sort of condemnation I speak in the Argu­ment. The confirmation of this distinction I shall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake.

The Antecedent I prove. First, from John 3.18, 19, 20, 21. [He that believeth on him is not condemned, (There's the justify­ing faith:) But he that believeth not, is condemned already. (Theres the condemning unbelief, contradictory to the justifying faith) [Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begot­ten Son of God:] (here is a special condemnation proved, distinct from that by the Law of works.) [And this is the con­demnation (that is the condemning sin or cause) that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then light, be­cause their deeds were evil] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, &c. The 19 verse describeth the Condemning unbe­lief, and the 20. gives the reason of mens guiltiness of it. And the unbelief described is a shunning or not coming to Christ as he is the Light to discover and heal their evil deeds. So that if con­tradictories will but shew the nature of each other, I think our controversie is here plainly resolved.

So is it in Psal. 2.12. [Kise the Son left he be angry, and ye perish from the way; when his wrath is kindled but a little, blessed [Page 39] are all they that put their trust in him.] The faith that saves from punishment, saveth from Guilt: The faith that saves from Guilt, is justifying faith: The faith here described, is that which saves from punishment: And the faith here described is [kissing the Son,] which comprehendeth subjection, and depen­dance, and love; and is the same for all that, which is after called [trusting in him.]

So Luke 19.27. [But those mine enemies which would not that I should raign over them, bring hither, and destroy them be­fore me.] Unwillingness to have Christ raign over them, is here made (not a common, but) the special condemning sin, called commonly Unbelief; and so is the contrary to justifying faith.

So John 3.36. [He that believeth on the Son, (this as all confess, is justifying faith) hath everlasting life: and he that be­lieveth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abid­eth on him.] Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the pri­vation, the contradictory or contrary to justifying faith. First, because they are so directly opposed here denominatively, that else the words would be equivocal, and not intelligible. Secondly, Because the contrariety of effects also is added to put the thing past doubt. [The wrath of God abideth on him▪] is contrary to justifying, which takes the wrath of God off him; especially considering, that it is cursing, comminatory, obliging wrath that is principally meant; the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation.

And that materially this unbelief thus opposed to justifying faith doth consist in contumacy, rebellion, or unperswadableness, is plain in the words, [ [...]] which signifie [They that are contumacious or disobedient to the Son, or unper­swadable.]

And 1 John 5.10, 11, 12. This faith and unbelief are opposed; and the unbelief consisteth in [not believing the record that God hath given of his Son] and that record is not only concerning Justification, or the merit of it.

So 2. Thes. 2.12. [That all they might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.] So 2 Thess. 1.8, 9, 10. [That obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus [Page 40] Christ] is the description of the Ʋnbelievers, opposed to [them that believe,] ver. 10.

So Jo. 8.24. [If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins,] which as to the act and effect is contrary to justifying faith. And [that I am he] is not only [that I am the Ransome] but also [that I am the Messiah and Redeemer.]

So John 16.8, 9. [He willl reprove the world of sin.— (not only in general that they are sinners, but of this sin in specie) because they believed not in me.]

Many texts may be cited where justifying faith and condemn­ing unbelief are described from acts of the understanding (though the will be implyed) as believing, or not believing that Christ is the son of God, &c. which cannot possibly be restrained to his Ransom and Merit alone.

The Consequence cannot be denyed, if it be but understood that this unbelief doth thus specially condemn, not in general as sin, or by the meer greatness of it, but as the privation of that faith by which only men are justified. For Privatives shew what the Positives are. And if this unbelief did condemn only as a sin in general then all sin would condemn as it doth: but that is false. And if it condemned only as a great sin, then first, every sin as great would condemn as it doth; and secondly, it would be Derogatory to the preciousness and power of the Remedy, which is sufficient against the greatest sins, as great: It remains therefore that as it is not for the special worth of faith above all other Graces, that God assigned it to be the condition of Justifi­cation; so it is not for a special greatness in the sin of unbelief that it is the specially condemning sin, but as it is the Privation of that faith (which because of its peculiar aptitude to that Office, is made of such necessity to our Justification.

But saith Mr, Blake ‘[This is like the old Argument; Evil works merit condemnation: therefore good works merit salvati­on. An ill meaning damns our good meaning; therefore saves.]’

Repl. First, A palpable mistake. Meriting, and saving by me­rit, are effects or efficiencies so plainly separable from the things themselves, that the invalidity of the Consequence easily ap­pears: But in good sadness, did you believe when you wrote this, that he that argueth from the description or nature of a pri­vation, [Page 41] to the description or nature of the thing, of which it is the Privation, or that argueth from the Law of opposites and con­tradictions, doth argue like him that argues from the moral sepa­rable efficiency, or effect of the one, to the like efficiency or ef­fect of the other?

Secondly, But understand me to argue from the effect it self if you please, so it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Cove­nant of God: I doubt not but the Argument will hold good. As under the Law of works it was a good argument to say [Not-per­fect-obeying is the condemning evil: therefore perfect-obeying is the justifying condition.] So is it a good argument under the Cove­nant of Grace to say, Not-believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, is the specially-condemning unbelief; therefore believing in Christ as King, Priest & Prophet, is the faith by which we are justi­fied] The main force of the reason lyeth here, because else the Covenant were equivocating, and not Intelligible, if when it saith [He that believeth shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.] it did speak of one kind or act of faith in one Pro­position, and of another in the other. If when it is said, [He that believeth shall be justified from all things, &c. and he that believeth not shall be condemned] [if you believe you shall not come into condemnation; but if you believe not, you are condemned, and the wrath of God abideth on you] [He that believeth shall be forgiven, and he that believeth not shall not be forgiven] I say, if the Affirmative and Negative Propositions, the Promise and the Threatning do not here speak of the same believing, but di­vers, then there is no hope that we should understand them, and the language would necessitate us to err. Now the Papists Ar­gument ab effectis hath no such bottom; Bad works damn, there­fore good works save. For the Covenant is not [He that doth good works shall be saved, and he that doth bad works shall be condemned] But [he that obeyeth perfectly shall be justified, and he that doth not shall be condemned] Or if they argue from the threatning of the Gospel against bad works, to the merit of good, quoad modum procurandi, it will not hold, viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit: therefore good works procure salvation by way of merit. For there is not eadem ratio, and so no ground for the Consequence; Nor did I argue ad modum pro­curandi;] [Page 24] Rejecting Christ as King doth condemn by way of merit; therefore accepting him as King doth save by way of merit] This was none of my arguing: But this [Rejecting or not believing in Christ as King, is part of that Ʋnbelief which is by the Law of Grace, threatned with condemnation: therefore accepting or belie­ving in Christ as King, is part of that faith which hath the Promise of Justification] And so if a Papist should argue, not ad modum procurandi, but ad naturam actus & effecti; I would justifie his Argument [Raigning sin, Rebellion, or the absence of Evangelical good works, is Threatned by the Gospel with condemnation at Judge­ment: therefore good works have the Promise of salvation, or ju­stification at Judgement.]

And that I may and must thus understand the Condemning Threatning, and the Justifying promise, to speak of one and the same faith, I am assured by this: because it is usual with God in scripture to imply the one in the other. As in the Law of works with perfect ma [...], the promise was not exprest, but imply­ed in the Threatning [In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.] So in the Gospel the Threatning is oft implyed in the promise [He that believeth shall not perish] When the Lord saith [The soul that sinneth shall die] It implyeth that [the soul that sinneth not shall not die.] And though we cannot say the like of the prohibition of Eating the forbidden fruit, that is, because the same Law did on the same terms prohibite all other sin as well as it. And [in the day that thou sinnest, thou shalt die] doth imply [if thou sin not, thou shalt not die.] So [he that believeth, shall be saved,] doth imply, he that believeth not, shall be condemned. And so, If thou believe, thou shalt be justified, implyeth, If thou believe not, thou shalt not be justified. If you consent not to this, you then must maintain that this Co­venant excludeth not Infidels from salvation, the term only being not implyed in the promise of pardon to Believers: But if you grant all this, (as sure you will) then it is most evident that Believing is taken in the same sense in the promise, and in the threatning: For no man breathing can tell me, either how a Promise to one kind of faith, can imply a threatning against the want of another kind or act of faith; or else what that other faith must be that is so implyed, if not the same. And [Page 43] if it be the same faith that is implyed (which is a most evident truth) then it will follow, that if I prove the Threatned unbe­lief to be a Rejecting of Christ as King, the faith then that is made the condition of the promise, must be the accepting of him as King as well as Priest. But I have proved that not be­lieving in Christ as King, is part of the unbelief that is special­ly threatned werth condemnation: therefore believing in him as King is part of that faith which hath the promise, or is the Condition of Justification.

But saith Mr. Blake, [I further answer, Rejecting Christ as King, is a sin against the moral Law, which damns: Yet some­what more then subjection to the Moral Law is required than a sinner may be saved]

Repl. For my part, I know no Law but moral Law. Its a strange Law that is not Moral, as it is a strange Animal that is not quid Physicum. But yet I partly understand what some others mean by the phrase Moral Law; but what you mean I cannot tell, for all your two volumns. And its to small purpose to dispute upon terms whose sense we be not agreed in, nor do not understand one another in: And you must better agree with yourselves before you agree with me: I cannot re­concile these speeches.

Mr. Blake of the Covenant, pag. 111. I know no other Rule but the old Rule: the Rule of the Moral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.

Mr. Blake here. pag. 563. Yet somewhat more then subjection to the Moral Law is required, that a sinner may be saved.

I am confident you will allow me to think you mean some­what more ex parte nostri and not only ex parte Christi: And can that somewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it? And yet I find you sometimes seeming offended with me, for telling you I understand you not.

But I further answer you: The rejecting of Christ as King, is no further a sin against the Moral Law, then the accepting him as King, is a duty of the Moral Law. Will you not believe this without a Dispute, when you are told by Paul, that where there is no Law, there is no transgression, and elsewhere that sin is a [Page 44] transgression of the Law? And need not stand to prove that the same Law which is the Rule prescribing duty, is the Rule disco­vering sin, even that sin which is the Privation of that duty. I desire no Readers that will not receive these things without any more arguing.

Mr. Blake adds [Ʋnbelief, if we speak properly, doth not at all condemn, further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment. The privation of which you speak, only holds the sentence of the Law in force and power against us: which me thinks should be yeur judgement as well as mine, seeing you are wont to compare the new Law (as you call it) to an act of oblivion: And an act of oblivion saves many, but condemns none. —]

Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ. But this is a truth that you must not so easily take out of our hands. Though having had occasion to speak largely of it elsewhere, I shall say but little now.

First, Again, I know no Commandment that is not moral. But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly as delivered by Moses, or as written in Nature; I am not of your mind, nor ever shall be. To be void of the belief of these Articles of the faith [that this Jesus is the Christ, that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried: Rose again the third day, ascended into Heaven; sitteth in our nature at the right hand of God; gave the Holy Ghost to his Apostles to confirm the Doctrine of the Gospel] with many more; doth con­demn further then as it is a breach either of the Mosaical or Natural Law: yea in some respects as it is no breach of those Laws.

And yet the same sin materially may be a breach of several Laws; and condemned by several.

Secondly you very much mistake my judgement here, if you think it the same with yours: Nor will the mention of an act of oblivion justifie your mistake I suppose an Act of obli­vion may possibly have a Penalty anexed, (as, that all that stand our, and accept not of this pardon by such a year or day, shall be remediless, and lyable to a greater Penalty,) And I think if no Penalty be named, there is one implyed.

[Page 45]For my part, I am satisfied that the Remedying Law, or the Law of Grace, hath its special Threatning, when I so often read it, [He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] and [unless ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.] And I take it to differ from the Threatning of the law of works, thus.

First, In the matter of the condition; which is not sin in general; any sin: but a special sin, viz. the final rejecting the Remedy; that is, Refusing to turn to God by faith in Christ.

Secondly, In the Penalty: First, The Gospel Penalty, is Non-liberation from the curse of the Law. Not to be forgi­ven or saved. This had been but a Negation, and not Pe­nal, if there had been no Christ and Gospel: But it is a pri­vation and penal, now, because by a special sin, we forfeit our hopes and possibilities. Secondly, As to the degree, I find it will be a far sorer punishment, Heb. 10.29. The Law of greatest Grace doth threaten the greatest punishment. Thirdly, And doubtless in Hell, Conscience will have a special kind of Accusations and self-tormentings, in reflecting on the refusals of the remedy, and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant; which is a punishment that was never threatned by the Covenant of works. Fourthly, And there will be a Priva­tion of a greater Glory, then ever was promised under the Law of works. Fifthly, As also of a special sort of eternal felicity, consisting in loving the Redeemer, and singing the song of the Lamb, and being his members, &c.

Thirdly, And as there are these five differences in the Penal­ty, besides that of the Condition of it, so is there a considera­ble modal difference in the consummation it self. viz. that of the Law of works was not peremptory, excluding a Remedy: but the Threatning of the Law of Grace is peremptory, exclu­ding all further Remedy to all Eternity: which I think is a most weighty difference. I know, this is not much pertinent to our present Controversie; but you have made it necessary for me thus to touch it: But I shall not digress now to prove it to those that see it not by its own light: But I must say, that if I should be drawn by you to deny it, I should have but a [Page 46] strange Method of Theology in my understanding, and should think I let open the door to more Errors then a few.

So much for the proof of the Thesis.

The Principal work is yet behind, which is to confute the Arguments of the Opponents. I call it the Principal work, because it is incumbent on them to prove, who make the limi­tation and restriction, and add a new proposition to the Doctrine of the Gospel: and till they have proved this proposition, our ground is good; we say that [Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is the faith by which we are justified [and this is past denyal in the Scriptures. They say, that [Believing in him as a Ransom and Purchaser, or apprehending his Righteousness, is the only act of faith by which we are justified,] and not also Believing in him as Lord, Teacher, Intercessor, &c. When they have proved the restri­ction and exclusion, as well as we prove our Assertion that ex­cludeth no essential part of faith, then the work is done, and till then they have done nothing.

And first, before I come to their Arguments, I shall consider of that great Distinction, which containeth much of their opini­on, and which is the principall Engine to destroy all, our Argu­ments for the contrary. And it is to this purpose.

Repl. As just and necessary Distinction riddeth us out of the fruitless perplexity of confused disputings; so unsound Distincti­ons, especially with seeming subtilty, are Engines to deceive and lead us into the dark. The last time I answered this Di­stinction, I was so improvident as to say, that, it [it is the general [...]heat] meaning no more then a Fallacy, and thinking the word had signified no worse: But Mr. Blake publisheth this Comment on that syllable [And as it seems you have met with a pack of Im­postors, [Page 47] and that of the most Learned in the Land, that out of their great Condescension have written for your satisfaction. This word you think sounds harshly from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth, and is no small blemish to his great pains; you may then judge how it will sound from your self in the ears of others.

Such insinuations, as if it were to breed dissention between those Learned Brethren and my self, are not fair dealing. First, I do not remember one or two at most of all those Brethren, that in their Papers to me used that distinction! How then can you tell the world in print, that it seems I have met with a pack of Impostors, even them you mention? Did you ever see my Papers, or theirs? Did they ever tell you that this distincti­on is in them? I solemnly profess it was not in my thoughts so much as to intimate that any one of their Papers was guilty of that distinction. But if you will say so, what remedy But per­haps I intimate so much in my words; In what words? when I say, that [all that I have to do with, grant the Antecedent] and whats that to the question in hand? many a hundred may grant that this act is the fides quae, that assert not the other act to be the fides quâ, and allow not the use of the distinction which I resist. But perhaps its my next words that imply it [For the general cheat is by the distinction of fides qua and qua, &c.] But sure it cannot be understood, that its general with al the world, nor ge­neral as to all that I have had to do with: There is no such thing said or meant by me; for then it must extend to all that are of my own mind: and I told Mr. Blake enough of the contrary as to the persons he mentioneth, by telling him how they owned not the Instrumentality of faith, and then they cannot well main­tain this use of this distinction. It is the general deceit or cheat of all that are deceived by it; and of most that in this point oppose me. But if Mr. Blake think either that all that vouch­safe me their writings, do it by way of opposition (when many do it but by explication and reconciliation) or that all that op­pose me, do oppose me in that point, he thinks no truer then here he writes.

Secondly. And as he feigneth me to speak of many reverend persons that I never meant, so he feigneth me to take them actu­ally for Impostors, because I take the distinction for a cheat. [Page 48] But is it not possible that it may cheat or deceive themselves, though some never utter it to the deceiving of others? Much less as impostors with an intention to deceive: I would you had never learned this art of confutation.

Thirdly, But I perceive how you would take it if I had ap­plyed this to your self. And what is this, but plainly to forbid me to dispute with you? (which I had never done on other terms then for Defence.) Can I not tell you that your Argu­ment is a Fallacy, but you will thus exclaim of me, as making you an Impostor? why then if you be so tender, who may deal with you? On the same grounds, if I say that your Major or Minor is false▪ you may tell the world I make you a Lyar; and I must either say as you say, or let you alone; lest by contra­diction I make you a Lyar or an Impostor. Prove that ever I blamed Mr. Crandon for such a passage as this, if you can. It is not [this word] thus applyed, but other words that I excepted against; I will not yet believe it all one to call an Argu­ment or distinction a cheat or fallacy, and to call the person a Cheater and Deceiver, and that designedly, as purposely dissem­bling his Religion.

Mr. Blake proceeds. ‘[And I much marvel that this distin­ction, that everywhere else would pass, and be confessed to be of necessity, to avoid confusion in those distinct capacities in which men usually act, should here not alone be questioned, but thus branded. Does not every man that undergoes various relations, variously act according to them? And do not men that make ad­dress, address themselves in like variety? He that is at once a Husband, a Parent, a Master, a School-master, a Physician, acts variously according to all of these capacities. Some come to him as a Father, some as a Master, some as a Teacher; all of them come to him as a Physician: But only they that come to him as a Physician are cured by him. Believers through faith go to Christ that hears all the Relations mentioned. But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding, which is an act of his Priest­hood, they are justified.]’

Repl. I ever granted that we are justified by trusting in Christs blood: But not [only] by that.

Secondly, It was God that sought satisfaction in Christs [Page 49] blood, the Believer seeks for the fruit of that satisfacti­tion.

Thirdly, But now to the distinction, I shall tell you freely my thought of it, and the reasons of my resisting your use of it, and then answer your reasons for it.

And first, We must understand what it is that is distinguish­ed: whether the Habit of faith, or the Acts? As far as I am able to understand them, they that understand themselves, do in­tend to distinguish of the Habit by a virtual distinction, and their meaning is [The Habit of Faith which produceth both these acts doth justifie: but not as it produceth the act of believing in Christ as Lord, Teacher, &c. but as it produceth the Act of belie­ving in his blood] that is, [The habit is the remote cause, and the act is the nearer cause; and the habit justifieth by this Act, and not by the other.] I verily think this is their meaning; I am sure this is the most probable and rational that I can imagine. But then first, This contradicteth their ordinary assertion, that it is not the Habit of faith, but the act by which we are justified. Secondly, Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Christ as Lord, &c. is so much as the fides qua, which if they will speak out and make no more ado, the controversie will be much better understood. For then it is a question thats easily apprehended, Whether only the act of faith in Christs satisfaction do justifie, or the believing in Christ as King, Priest and Prophet, or all that is essential to Christian faith] This is a plain case; which fides qua and qua do not illustrate.

But then I must add, that this begs the question as used by them, but decideth it not. And as [qua] respecteth but the Matter of the condition; q. d. The habit as it produceth this act, and not that, is the condition of Justification] (for else it justifieth neither as it produceth the one or the other,) so it is the very Question between us, Whether it be one act, or the whole essence of the Christian faith that is the Condition?

And this supposeth the determination of other controversies that are not yet determined. There are three opinions of the Habit of faith. First, that the several acts of faith, have several habits. Secondly, that the divers acts have but one habit of faith distinct from the habits of other graces. Thirdly, That [Page 50] faith, love, and all graces have but one habit. If the first hold, then the distinction as before explained, hath no place. If the last hold, then the Habit of Love, or Fear, may be on the same ground, said to justifie.

If I have before hit on their meaning, then the distinction of the Habit is virtualis, and the distinction of the acts is realis, and they totally exclude all acts, save that which they fix upon; not from being present, but from a co-interest. But from what interest? Of a Cause? that we deny even to all: Of a Condi­tion? that they grant to these which they exclude.

Next, we must understand the members of their Distinction: And sometime they express one branch to be [fides qua justifi­cat] and sometime [fides qua apprehendit Christum satisfacien­rem, &c.] As to the former, it cannot be contradistinct from [faith in Christ as Lord,] but from faith as sanctifying, &c. it being but a denominative or virtual distinction of one and the same faith, from the several consequents. And so I easily grant that fides qua justificat, non sanct ficat vel glorificat▪ and so of all the consequents of it. As it is the condition of one, it is not the condition of the other: which is no more, then to say that there is between the consequents Distinctio realis, from whence the antecedent (Really the same) may be denominative­ly or virtually distinguished: As the same man that goeth be­fore a hundred particular men, hath a hundred distinct Relati­ons to them, as Before them all. The very same condition in a free Gift, may be the condition of many hundred benefits, and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively distinguish­ed; when yet it is as truly the condition of all as of one, and hath equal interest as to the procurement.

And as for the other phrase that [fides qua recipit Christum satisfacientem, justificat,] properly it is false Docrine; if qua signifie the nearest Reason of faiths interest in procuring justi­fication; for then it is but to say that [fides, qua fides, justificat] which is false. The denomination and the description express but the same thing; fides is the denomination; and Receptio Christi is the description: if therefore it justifie qua Receptio Christi, then it justifieth qua fides, that is qua haec fides in specie: which is to ascribe it to the [...] credere with a witness. And else­where [Page 51] I have disproved it by many Arguments.

But if qua be taken less properly, as denoting only the apti­tude of faith to be the condition of Justification, then still the Question is begged. For we say, that as the act of believing in Christs blood-shed hath a special aptitude in one respect, so the act of believing in his Resurrection, Intercession, &c. and re­ceiving him as King, Teacher, &c. hath a special aptitude in other respects, upon which God hath certainly made them the Conditions of our Justification with the other.

But if any should distinguish of the act of faith, and not the Habit, and say that [fides qua credit in Christum ut Regem, justificat, sed non quâ credit in Christum ut Regem] I accept the former as being all that I desire, and grant the latter: But then I say the like of the other act of faith, that [fides quâ credit in Christum satisfacientem non justificat, because fides quà fides, non justificat, sed fides quâ conditio praestita.] And I think I need to say no more for the opening the Fallacy, that this distincti­on useth to cover.

And now I come to peruse all that I can find that is pro­duced to support this distinction. And the most is certain pre­tended similitudes, that have little or no similitude as to this.

The common similitude is [A man that is oculatus heareth, but not qua oculatus, but qua auritus, &c.] Repl. First, If you take quà strictly, the affirmative is not true. For then àquatenus ad omne, every man that is auritus would hear: whereas he may stop his ears, and be where is no sound, &c. And a man that hath eyes may wink, and be in the dark, &c. Secondly, If quà signifie the aptitude, or causal interest, I deny the simi­litude; It is dissimile: and the reason of the difference is evi­dent; for a mans eyes are Physical efficient causes of his sight, and his ears of hearing; naturally in their aptitude and potenti­ality determined to their proper objects: but saith is no effici­ent cause of our Justification, or of our interest in Christ at all; much less a Physical efficient cause. But the Interest it hath is Moral, which dependeth on the Donors will; and it is no higher then that of a condition: and therefore the act that Physically hath least respect to the object, may in this case if the Donor [Page 52] please, do as much to procure a Title to it, as that which hath the nearest physical respect to it. As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will discover a Traitor, or marry one that oweth it: here the alien act hath more inte­rest in procuring your Title, then your Apprehending, or tread­ing on the soil, or taking possession, yea or accepting the deed of Gift it self. So God hath made our Accepting of whole Christ to be the condition of life and pardon; and consequently, the Accepting him in other Relations (in which he destroyeth sin, advanceth God, &c.) doth as much to our Justificati­on as the accepting him at our Ransome.

Now to Mr. Blakes Reasons: when he saith that this distin­ction would pass every where else as necessary, he is much mistaken: for as he doth not tell us at all what sort of distinction it is, whe­ther Realis, Rationis, Modalis, Formalis, Virtualis, &c. so I could give him an hundred instances in which it will not pass in any tolerable sense, but what are his own select instances, from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects. But is it Christ or the believer that you put in these various Relations? Its plain that you mean Christ: But thats nothing to the question: I maintain as well as you that Christ performeth variety of works, according to the divers parts of his office, and that he meriteth not Justification as King, but as a Sacrifice; as he effectively justifieth, not as a sacrifice, but as a King; and he teacheth as a Teacher▪ &c. this was never denyed by me. But the question is whether the Interest of the several acts of our faith be accordingly distinct? which I deny, and confidently deny. In the works that Christ doth in these several Relations, there is distincti [...] realis, and Christ is the proper efficient cause of them. But though our faith must accept Christ in all these Relations, and to do the several works in the several Relations, yet it is no proper cause of the effects, and (as I said) the interest it hath in the procurement is meerly moral, and that but of a condition, and therefore it is to be judged of by the will of the Donor.

But you say that [only they that come to Christ as a Physician are cured by him] Repl. Very true: I never denyed it: But not only By coming to him as a Physitian; especially as the Worker of this one part of the cure.

[Page 53]You add [Believers through faith go to Christ that heareth all [...] the Relations mentioned: But as they seek satisfaction in his blood-shedding, they are Justified.] Repl. Very true (if by as you understand only the aptitude of the act to its office, and the cer­tain connexion of the effect: otherwise it is not as they believe at all that they are justified; but it is not only as they seek satis­faction in his blood; but also as they believe in him as King, Teacher, Rising, Interceding, &c. Though it be Christs blood, and not his Dominion, that Ransometh us; yet his promise giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of be­lieving in him as King, as of the believing in his blood. Hither­to we have come short of your proofs, which next we shall pro­ceed to, and freely examine.

Mr. Blake. I shall take the bodlness to give in my Arguments, to make good that faith in Christ qua Lord, doth not justifie.

First, That which the types under the law, appointed for atonement and expiation, lead us unto in Christ, our faith must eye for a­tonement, expiation, and reconciliation; this cannot be denyed: These Levitical Types lead us doubtless to a right object, being Schoolmasters to lead us unto Christ, and shaddows whereof he is the substance: As also to that office in him (who is the object of faith) which serves for that work: But those types lead us to Christ in his Priestly office, for the most part as sacrificing, sometime as in­terceding, John 1.29. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 1.18. A great part of the Epistle to the Heb. is a proof of it.]

Reply I grant you both Major and Minor: but the question is a meer stranger to the Just conclusion. First, it will not follow, be­cause our faith must eye Christ as Priest for Reconciliation, that therefore it must eye him only as Priest for Reconciliation. And if only be not in, your exclusion of other acts of faith follows not.

Secondly, No, nor if it were in neither: for ex perte Christs for Reconciliation only Christs Priesthood is to be eyed as the meritorious cause (speaking in their sense that take the priestly office to comprehend not only Christ as Sacrificer, but as sacri­fice, yea & as obeying in the form of a servant, the sicness where­off now pass by:) but ex parte nostri, the so eying him is not the only act of faith by which we are justified: so that for is ambigu­ous, [Page 54] and either signifieth Christs procurement of our Justifi­cation, or ours: In the former sense grant as aforesaid, these Types shew us that Christ only as Priest and sacrifice doth sa­tisfie for us. But as to the procuring Interest of our faith, these Types shew us not that only this act procureth our Interest. Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any such thing: Jo. 1.19. saith that, Christ [the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the world,] but it doth not say that only believing in him as the Lamb of God is the faith upon which we have part in his blood. and are justified by him. 1 Pet. 1.18. tels us we were Redeemed by his precious blood; but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have interest in it; but con­trarily thus describes that faith, ver. 21. [Who by him do believe in God that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God.] 2. Cor. 5.21. tells us that he was made sin for us, &c. but it saith not that our believing thus much only, is the full condition of our Interest in his Righteous­ness; But contrarily expresseth it by [our own being reconciled to God] to which Paul exhorteth.

Thirdly, The Types which you mention, were not all the Gos­pel (or Covenant of Grace, or Promise) then extant: If there­fore there were any other parts of Gods word then, that led them to Receive Christ entirely as the Messiah, and particular­ly as the King and Teacher of his Church, and promised life and pardon on this condition, your Argument then from the Types alone is vain; because they were not the whole word (unless you prove that they exclude the rest, which you never can.) And indeed not only the very first promise of the seed of the woman, &c. doth hold out whole Christ as Priest, and Prophet and King, as the object of justifying faith, but also many and many another in the old Testament. And the Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite, doth begin with his Kingly office as the object of our faith in the two first chapters, which are almost all taken up in proving it.

Fourthly, you confess your self that Christ as Interceding is the object of justifying faith; and if you mean it of his Hea­venly intercession; that was no part of his meritorious obedi­dience or humiliation. Its true indeed, that it is for the applica­tion [Page 55] or Collation of the fruits of his blood, and so is much of his Kingly and Prophetical office too.

Mr. Blake. Secondly, That which the Sacraments under the Gospel, setting forth Christ for pardon of sin, lead us unto, that our faith must eye for Reconciliation, Pardon and Justification. This is clear. Christ in his own instituted ordinances will not mis­guide us; But these lead us to Christ suffering, dying for the par­don of sin, Mat 26 28. — A broaken, bleeding, dying Christ in the Lords Supper is received.

Reply, First, I hope you would not make the world believe that I deny it; Did I ever exclude a dying Christ from the object of justifying faith? But what strange Arguments are these, that are such strangers still to the question? you prove the inclusion of [faith in Christ dying,] but do not so much as mention the exclusion of the other acts of faith, which is the thing that was incumbent on you.

Secondly, If you say that [only] is meant by you, though not expressed, then I further reply, that this Argument labouring of the same disease with the last, requireth no other answer. First, The Sacraments being not the whole Gospel, you cannot prove your Exclusion from them unless you prove somewhat exclusive in them (which you attempt not, that I see,) Secondly, If there­fore you understand the Minor exclusively as to all other parts of Christs office, I deny it, and the texts cited say not a word to prove it. Thirdly, And if they did, yet faith may eye a dying Christ only as purchasing Pardon; and yet ex parte Christi that act that so eyeth him may not be the only act that is the condition of our Title to a dying Christ or to the pardon purchased. Fourthly, And yet (though it would not serve your turn) even ex parte Christi, your exclusion is so far from being proved that its contradicted both by the Sacraments and by Scriptures: much more ex parte nostri, your excusion of the other acts of faith. For, First, In Baptism its apparent (which is appointed for our solemn initiation into a state of Justification; which the Lords Supper is not.) First, Christ foundeth it in his Dominion, Mat. 28.18. All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth; go ye there­fore &c. Secondly, He maketh the very nature of it to be an entering men into a state of Disciples, and so engaging them [Page 56] to him as their Master, ver. 19. Go ye therefore and Disciple (or teach) all Nations baptizing them. Thirdly, The words of the Jews to John (If thou be not that Christ nor Elias, nor that Prophet, why baptizest thou? John 1.25.) and their flocking to his baptism, and the words of Paul, I Cor. 14.15. (I thank God that I baptized none of you, — lest any should say, that I baptized in my own name) do plainly shew that baptizing was then taken, as an entering into a state of Disciples. And I have be­fore proved that baptism doth list us under Christ the Comman­der, King and Master of the Church. Fourthly, And therefore the Church hath ever baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost, with an abrenunciation of the flesh, the world and the devil, not only as opposite to Christs blood, but as op­posites to his Kingdom and Doctrine. Fifthly, And the very water signifieth the spirit of Christ as well as his blood: Though I think not, as Mr. Mead, that it signifieth the spirit only. Sixthly, And our coming from under the water was to signifie our Resurrection with Christ, as Rom. 6. shews. So that it is certain that Christ in all parts of his office is propounded in bap­tism to be the object of our faith, and this baptism comprizing all this, is said to be [for the Remission of sin.]

Secondly, And though the Lords supper suppose us justified, yet he understandeth not well what he doth, that thinks that Christ only as dying is there propounded to our faith. For, First, In our very receiving we profess Obedience to Christ as King, that hath enjoyned it by his Law. Secondly, And to Christ our Teacher that hath taught us thus to do. Thirdly, The signs themselves are a visible word (of Christ our Teacher) and teach us his sufferings, promises, our duty, &c. Fourthly, By taking, eating, and drinking, we renew our Covenant with Christ; And that Covenant is made with him not only as Priest, but as the Glorified Lord and King of the Church. On his part the thing promised which the Sacrament sealeth, is, (not that Christ will dye for us, for thats done already, but) that Christ will actu­ally pardon us on the account of his merits. And this he doth as King: and that he will sanctifie, preserve, strengthen, and glorifie us: all which he doth as King, though he purchased them as a sacrifice. On our part we deliver up our selves to him [Page 57] to be wholly his▪ even his Disciples, and Subjects, as well as pardoned ones. Fifthly, Yea the very bread and wine ea­ten and drank do signifie our spiritual Union and Commu­nion with Jesus, who is pleased to become one with us, as that bread and wine is one with our substance. And surely it is to Christ as our Head that we are United, and not only as dying for us: and as to our Husband, who is most dearly to be loved by us, and is to rule us, and we to be subject to him, being made bone of his bone, and flesh of 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 [...]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 [Page 58] 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. N [...]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 [...]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. [Page 59] 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.

[Page 60]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. Its obvious to an ordinary un­derstanding [Page 61] 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 its 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. 28.19.2 [...]. 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 [Page 62] 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, its 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. Its 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] [Page 63] that he useth. The same Christ that calleth himself so oft the Lord and Master of his followers, excludeth not thereby his other Relations And when he saith in one place [I am the Vine] he may freely say else where, [I am the good Shepherd:] And he that speaketh of laying down his life for the sheep, doth not there­by make it unfit to mention other Pastoral a is for them. And he that tels us of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, intended not the exclusion of the spirit that quickneth. I am therefore Resolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Christ as the object of that faith which is the Condition of Justification. And I think this full comprehensive faith is safer then the groundlesly distinguishing faith; and this Doctrine more agreeable to the Scriptures.

Mr. Blake. Fourthly, Our faith must look on Christ so as to obtain righteousness by him, by virtue of which we may appear be­fore God as righteous: But it is by his Obedience as a servant that we obtain righteousness, and stand before God as righteous, Rom. 5.19. by the obedience of one many are made righteous.

Repl. First, I grant the whole: but its nothing to our Que­stion. Its a strange error that runs through so many Arguments, that they should be impertinent to the question. You should have concluded that Faith in Christ qua Lord, doth not justifie] which in terminis is the conclusion that you undertook to prove: whereas all that this Argument will conclude, is, that [our faith must look at Christs obedience for Righteousness, &c.] which I have said no more against then you have done.

Secondly, But if [Only] be implyed as adjoyned to [obedi­ence] then it will exclude his suffering as suffering in that formal respect, and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience.

Thirdly, And by this Argument you destroy what you not only mantained, but resolved to stick to in the last, that is, that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for justification, and that you are resolved to look no further then Christs Priestly office alone. For Obedience extendeth further then blood-shed: therefore if we are justified by Christs whole obedience, then by more then his blood. Yea you will be put hard to it to prove, that all Christs obedience was offered by him as a Preist to his Father: It belongs to a [Page 64] Subject, a Servant, a Son to obey; but obedience is far from being proper to a Priest.

Fourthly, If you intend the Major exclusively as to all other considerations of the object, I still deny it as false. Our faith (even as the condition of Justification) must look at Christ, not only to obtain Righteousness by him, but also to subject our selves to his Teaching and Government, and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy.

Fifthly, Yea, the Minor it self is false, if you imply the ex­clusive Only. For we obtain Righteousness and are justified before God effectively by Christ as King first by constitution, and secondly, by sentence, as well as meritoriously by Christ as Priest.

Mr. Blake. Fifthly, That way that Christ took to bring us to God, our faith must eye and follow: But Christ by death the Sacrifice of of himself brings us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. Christ also hath once suffer­ed for sins, the just for the unjust, &c.

Repl. Still the same error: an Ignoratio Elenchi. I grant the whole, but the conclusion's wanting. Did I ever deny that faith must eye and follow Christs death to bring us to God? yea for Justi­fication. But you should have said [by his death alone] or you say nothing. And when you prove that by his death alone Christ brings us to God, you will do somewhat. And yet if you did, it would not follow that we are brought to God in Justification only by eying the cause of Justification as such.

Mr. Blake. Sixthly, As Christ freeth us from the curse, so he ju­stifies us, and in that notion our faith must look to him for Justifica­tion. This is plain; Justification being no other but our acquittal from the curse, which is the sentence of the Law of Moses, Act. 13.8. but Christ freeth us from the cause in suffering as a Sacrifice, not ruling as a Lord, Gal. 3.13. Christ hath Redeemed us, &c.

Repl. First [Only] is again left out in the Major proposition, and so I grant it: But if it be implyed that faith must look to him for Justification only in that notion as he justifieth us, yea only as he meriteth Justification, then I deny it, and you say nothing to prove it. Secondly, The exclusive of your Minor is a dange­rous error: Christ freeth us from the curse by Justifying us as a King, and teaching, and ruling, and sanctifying us; and not only [Page 65] by becoming a curse for us: For if you here put in [Only] you plainly exclude all his Obedience as such, and much of it mate­rially: for it is not a cursed thing to obey God. The Law curs­eth for disobeying: therefore Obeying is not the Curse, nor is it materially a Curse to Love God, and Trust him, and be zealous for his Glory, &c. The whole office of Christ is imployed in freeing us from the Curse: and when Paul saith, he was made a Curse to free us, he never said or thought that he did nothing else to free us; for an hundred texts do tell us of more.

Thirdly, And on the by I must say, that I am not of your mind in the description of Justification; for, omitting the controver­sie whether Justification only free us from the Curse, I do not believe that this curse is only the sentence of the Law of Moses. If it were, either you must prove that all the Gentile world that heard not of it was under the Law of Moses (which abundance of most Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it) or else that all these are under no curse for Justificati­on to remove. The Law of Nature was materially part of the Mosaical Law; but the form denominateth.

So much to Mr. Blakes Arguments, which are so little to the purpose, that if the weight of the cause, and the prejudice of some Readers did not call more earnestly for a Reply, then any apperance of strength in them, I had spared my self and the Rea­der this Labor. But that [Christ as Christ is the object of that faith by which as a Condition we must be justified] and so that we are not justified only by believing in his blood, but also by believing in him entirely as Jesus Christ our Lord, and by becoming his Disciples, or true Christians,] this is a truth, that deserveth more then my Pen to defend it; and that while God affordeth me time and strength, I shall never desert.

Nov. 1656.

Whether Works are a Condition of Justification? And so whether we are justified by Works as such a Con­dition?

THough we have said enough already on these Questions (which for dispatch I joyn toge­ther,) yet seeing there are some that must needs have more, or the same again; I shall yield so far to their Importunity, as to recite here briefly the state of the Controversie, and some of that evidence which is elsewhere more largely produced for the truth.

And First, We must explain what is meant by Works, and what is meant by Justification; what by a [Condition] and what by the Preposition by here, when we speak of Justification by works: And then we shall lay down the truth in several propo­sitions, Negative and Affirmative.

It seems strange to me to hear men on either side to speak [Page 70] against the Negative or Affirmative of the Question, and re­proach so bitterly those that maintain them, without any distin­ction or explication; as if either the error lay in the terms, or the terms were so plain and univocal, that the Propositions are true only on one part, what sense soever they be taken in. No doubt but he saith true, that saith that Works are the Condi­tion of Justification: and he saith as true, that saith they are not, if they take the terms in such different senses as commonly Dis­puters on these Questions do take them. And its past all doubt that [a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law; and that it is not of Works, but of Grace: and its as certain that [a man is justified by works and not by faith only; and that by their Words men shall be justified, and by their Words they shall be con­demned.] Gods word were not true, if both these were not true.

We must therefore necessarily distinguish: And first of Works.

First, Sometime the term, Works is taken for that (in general) which makes the Reward to be not of Grace but of Debt: Meri­torious works: Or for such as are conceited to be thus merito­rious, though they be not. And those are materially, either Works of perfect obedience without sin, (such as Adam had be­fore his fall, and Christ had, and the good Angels have,) or else Works of obedience to the Mosaical Law, which supposed sin, and were used in order to pardon and life, but mistakingly by the blind Unbelievers, as supposing that the dignity of the Law did put such a dignity on their obedience thereto, as that it would serve to life without the satisfaction and merit of Christ, or at least must concur in Co-ordination therewith. Or else lastly, they are Gospel duties, thus conceited meritorious.

Secondly, But sometime the word Works is taken for that which standeth in a due subordination to grace: and that first, most generally, for any moral virtuous Actions, and so even faith it self is comprehended and even the very Receptive or fi­duciall act of faith: or less generally, for external acts of obe­dience, as distinct from internal habitual Grace: and so Repen­tance, Faith, Love, &c. are not Works: or for all acts ex­ternal and internal, except faith it self. And so Repentance, [Page 71] Desire after Christ, Love to him, denying our own Righteous­ness, distrust in our selves, &c. are called Works. Or else for all Acts external and internal besides the Reception of Christs Righteousness to Justification: And so the belief of the Gos­pel, the Acceptance of Christ as our Prophet and Lord by the Title of Redemption, with many other acts of faith in Christ, are called works: besides the disclaiming of our own Righte­ousness, and the rest before mentioned.

Secondly, As for the word Justification, it is so variously taken by Divines, and in common use, that it would require more words then I shall spend on this whole Dispute, to name and open its several senses; and therefore (having elsewhere given a brief schem of them) I shall now only mention these few which are most pertinent to our purpose. First, Some take Justifica­tion for some Immanent Acts of God, and some for Transient. And of the former some take it for Gods eternal Decree to justifie, which neither Scripture calleth by this name, nor will Reason allow us to do it, but improperly. Sometime its taken for Gods Immanent present Approbation of a man, and Reputing him to be just, when he is first so constituted. And this some few call a Transient Act, because the Object is extrin­sick: But most call it Immanent, because it makes no Alterati­on on that object. And some plead that this is an eternal act without beginning, because it is Gods essence which is eternal; and these denominate the Act from the substance or Agent; And other say, that it begins in time, because Gods Essence doth then begin to have that Respect to a sinner which makes it capa­ble of such a denomination: And so these speak of the Act de­nominatively, formally, respectively: Both of them speak true but both speak not the same truth.

Sometime the word Justification is taken for a transient Act of God that maketh or conduceth to a change upon the extrin­sick object. And so first, Its sometime taken by some Divines, for a Conditional Justification, which is but an act that hath a tendency to that change; and this is not actual Justification. Secondly, Sometime it is taken for actual Justification, and that is threefold. First, Constitutive: Secondly, Sentential: thirdly, executive. First, Constitutive Justification, is first either in the [Page 72] qualities of the soul, by inherent holyness; which is first perfect, such Adam (once) and the Angels, and Christ had; secondly, or Imperfect, such as the sanctified here have. Secondly, Or its in our Relations: when we are pardoned and receive our Right to Glory: This is an act of God in Christ by the free Gift of the Gospel, or Law of Grace: and it is first, The first put­ting a sinner into a state of Righteousness, out of a state of Guilt. Secondly, Or it is the continuing him in that state, and the renewing of particular pardon upon particular sins. Secondly, Sentential pardon or Justification, is, first, by that Manifestation which God makes before the Angels in heaven. Secondly, at the day of Judgement before all the world. Third­ly, Executive Justification, viz. the execution of the aforesaid sentence, (less properly called Justification, and more properly called pardon) consisteth in taking off the punishment inflicted, and forbearing the punishment deserved, and giving possession of the happiness adjudged us: so that it is partly in this life, viz. in giving the spirit, and outward mercies, and freeing us from judgements (And thus sanctification it self is a part of Justification) and partly in the life to come, in freeing us from Hell, and possessing us of Glory.

Thirdly, As for the word Condition, the Etymologists will tell us, that it first signifieth Actionem condendi: and then, Passi­onem, qua quid conditur, and then qualitatem ipsam per quam con­dere aliguis, vel condi aliquid potest; & hinc est pro statu qui fa­ctus est rem condendo; & deinceps pro omni statu, quem persona vel res aut causa quoquo modo habet aut accipit. But we have nothing to do with it in such large acceptions, in which all things in the world may be called Conditions. Vid. Martin. in Nom. They come nearer our use of the word, when they expound it by, Moderatio, Circumscriptio, determinatio, limitatio.

In Naturals the word Condition is oft used pro ratione formali▪ per quam alicujus disciplina subjectum adaquatū constitui solet. As e. g. Physicus considerat corpus, cum conditions mobilitatis, Geo­meter considerat quantitatem cum conditions continuitatis, Arith­maticus cum conditions disjunctionis; Modicus considerat humanū corpus cum conditions, f [...]i [...]. quatenus agretare & sanari potest. Sometimes also any quality, or action, which is sine qua non to an [Page 73] effect or event is in meer Naturals called a Condition; as the dryness of the wood, and the approximation of it to the fire, &c. are conditions of its burning: the non-impedition of a more powerful Agent, is a Condition of the efficacious action of every lower cause, &c.

Many other acceptions of the word in Physicks by Zabarel, Claudius Alberius and others; you may see in Goclenii Lexic. Philosoph. in nom. conditio. But we are not in a Physical, but a moral discourse, and therfore must be understood according to the subject matter. It is therfore a Civil or Legal Condition that we have to enquire after, and must fetch our descriptions from Lawyers, and not from Physicks, and therefore it is but de­ceitful equivocation in some Opponents, to fetch their opposition from Physical instances.

The Lawyers give us divers Definitions of Condition, but for the most part they come all to one in sense. Some say, conditio est Lex adposita hominum actionibus, eas suspendens, Prat. Condi­tio (say others) est modus qui suspendit actum, donec co existente confirmetur. Vult. in Instit. de haere. instit▪ § 3. n. 6. Accursus faith, Conditio est suspensio, cujus de futuro effectus vel confirma­tio pendet: Bart. Conditio est futurus eventus, in quem dispositio suspenditar. Cuiacius, Conditio est Lex addita negotio, quae do­nec praestetur eventum suspendit. These are of conditions de futuro: But those that are de praesenti vel de praeterito, suspend not the obligation, unless as they are yet futurae quoad cognitionem, though not quoad esse, and so the knowledge of a Right may be suspended. They are commonly divided into Casuaeles, Potesta­tivas, & mixtas. The moral operation of Conditions as such, is not in causing the effect when performed, but in suspending the effect till performed. The reason of the appointing of them for such suspensions is various: sometime its because the person Giving, promising, or otherwise constituting the condi­tion, is uncertain of the event of the performance, and would not have the effect come to pass without it. But thats not al­waies: sometime though he might be sure of the event of perfor­mance, yet if he that is to perform the Condition be uncertain, it may make way for this constitution. It is therefore a vain Plea of them that say, God appointeth no conditions of his Pro­mises, [Page 74] because the event is not to him uncertain. Saith Mat. Martin in nom. Cond. Defimri solet Dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto futuro ei opposito. Sic sane apud homines quo futu­ra non norunt, sed Deus jub certis conditionibus etiam nobiscum agit▪ at omnium eventuum ipse gna [...]us, pro infinita sua sap entia qua praevidet quid occur urum nobis, & quid nos amplexuri, vel de­clinatur [...] sim [...]s. Confer. Deut. 28 29 30, 31. & 32. Ca­pitobus.] Commonly the reason of appointing Conditions is the desireab [...]ness of the thing to be performed, conjoyned with some backwardness or possibility of backwardness in the person that is to perform it, and therefore he is drawn on by the pro­mise of that which he is more willing to receive: But many other reasons there may be.

The first cause of the Condition, is the Requirer, whether he be Testator, Donor, Stipulator, Legislator, &c. And so the Condition of the Law or Covenant of Grace, is first, Gods condition as the Imposer. Secondly, And its the condition of each Subject as obliged to perform it. Thirdly, And the condi­tion of each professing Christian as having Promised the perfor­mance. Fourthly, And the condition of true Christians only as actual Performers of it.

The condition of the Gospel hath several respects according to the various respects of the Law that doth impose it. Its the Condition of a free Gift; for the Gospel is a free Gift of Christ and Life: It is the Condition of a Promise; because much of the Gospel benefits are future. It is the Condition of a Testa­ment, because Christ dying did leave this to the Church as his last Will, and it was confirmed by the death of the Testator. It is the Condition of a premiant Law, and Act of Grace and oblivion; because God made it as Legislator and Rector of the world in order to the conducting of his people to their happi­nes: It is the condition of a Minatory Law, in that it is a duty commanded on pain of death and for the avoiding of that death.

Fourthly, The preposition [by] in our present question, may signifie, either the use and Interest of any Medium in General; or else of a true cause constitutive or efficient. So much of the terms.

[Page 75] Proposition 1. Since Adams fall, it is impossible for man to be justified by a perfect sinless Obedience of his own, (except Christ only:) and consequently impossible for him to be justified by the Law considered in that form and tenor as it was given to Adam: for all men are sinners; and that Law will ustifie no sinner.

Proposition 2. By the works of the Mosaical Law, no man can be justified. And therefore the Jews seek Righteous­ness where it is not to be found, while they think that pardon of sin and acceptance with God are to be obtained by the bare works of that Law: while they overlook or reject Christ who is the end of that Law for righteousness to every Believer Speci­ally now that Law is Abrogated or ceased, it were a double error to expect Justification by its works.

Proposition 3. Much less can they be justified by the foresaid Law, who in stead of fulfilling it, do but falsely imagine that they fulfill it.

Proposition 4. No man can be justified by works properly meritorious, because no man hath any such at all; nor may we once imagine that we have any such works as Paul speaks of (and the Jews thought they had) which make the reward to be not of Grace but of Debt, Rom. 4.4. much less that we are justi­fied by such; even Gospel works and faith it self do not justifie on this account, and a conceit that they are thus meritorious would but turn them into condemning sins.

Proposition 5. No act of mans, no not faith it self can ju­stifie as an act or work, nor as This act in specie that is▪ the nearest and formal reason of its justifying Interest must not be fetcht either from the General or special nature of the act it self: and therefore it is not faith as faith, that is, as it is an ap­prehension of Christ or recumbency on him, that Justifyeth: nor yet as an Instrument thus acting. The nature of the act is but its aptitude to its office or justifying Interest, and not the formal cause of it.

Proposition 6. No work or act of man is any true proper cause of his justification, (as Justification is commonly taken in the Gospel:) neither Principal or Instrumental. The highest Interest that they can have, is but to be a condition of our Justi­fication [Page 76] and so a Dispositio moralis, which therefore some call cansa dispositiva, and some causa sine qua non, and its indeed but a Nominall cause, and truly no cause at all.

Proposition 7. Whatsoever works do stand in opposition to Christ, or disjunct from him, yea or that stand not in a due subordi­nation to him, are so far from Justifying even as conditions, that they are sins which do deserve condemnation.

Proposition 8. Works, as taken for the Imperate Acts of Obedience external, distinct from the first Radical Graces, are not so much as conditions of our Justification as begun, or our being put into a Justified state.

Proposition 9. Repentance from dead works, denying our our selves, renouncing our own Righteousness, &c. (much less external Obedience) are not the receptive condition of our Ju­stification, as faith is, that is, Their nature is not to be an ac­tual Acceptance of Christ that is, they are not faith and there­fore are not designed on that account to be the Condition of our Justification.

Proposition 10. God doth not justifie us by Imputing our own faith to us in stead of perfect Obedience to the Law, as if it were sufficient, or esteemed by him sufficient to supply its place; For it is Christs Righteousness that in point of value and merit doth supply its place: nor doth any work of ours justifie us by satisfying for our sins: for thats the work of Christ the Mediator: Our faith and love and obedience, which are for the receiving and improving of him and his Righteousness and so stand in full subordination to him, are not to be made co-part­ners of his office or honor.

Affirm. Proposition first. We are justified by the merits of a perfect sinless Obedience of Christ (together with his suffer­ings) which he performed both to the Law of nature, the Law of Moses, and the Law which was proper to himself as Medi­ator, as the subject obliged.

Proposition 2. There is somewhat in the nature of faith it self in specie, which makes it fit to be elected and appointed by God to be the great summary Condition of the Gospel; that it be Receptive (an Acceptance of Christ) is the nature of the [Page 77] thing: but that it be a condition of our Justification, is from the will and constitution of the Donor and Justifier.

Proposition 3. There is also somewhat in the nature of Re­pentance, self-denyal, renouncing all other Saviours, and our own righteousness, desiring Christ, loving Christ, intending God and Glory as our end, (procured by Christ,) confessing sin, &c. which make them apt to be Dispositive Conditions, and so to be comprized or implyed in faith the summary Receptive con­dition, as its necessary attendants at least.

Proposition 4. Accordingly God hath joyned these together in his Promise and constitution, making faith the summary and receptive Condition, and making the said acts of Repentance, self-denyal renouncing our own righteousness & disclaiming in heart Justification by the works of the Law, and the renouncing of all other Saviours, also the desiring and loving of Christ offer­ed, and the willing of God as our God, and the renouncing of all other Gods and so of the world, flesh and devil; at least in the resolution of the heart; I say making these the dis­positive Conditions, which are ever implyed when faith only is expressed, some of them as subservient to faith, and per­haps some of them as real parts of faith it self. (Of which more anon.)

Proposition 5. The Gospel promiseth Justification to all that will Believe, (or are Believers.) To be a Believer and to be a Disciple of Christ, in Scripture sense is all one, and so is it to be a Disciple and to be a Christian: therefore the sense of the pro­mise is, that we shall be justified, if we become true Christians or Disciples of Christ; and therefore justifying faith compre­hendeth all that is essential to our Disciple [...]ship or Christianity as its constitutive causes.

Proposition 6. It is not therefore any one single Act of faith alone by which we are justified, but it is many Physical acts conjunctly which constitute that faith which the Gospel makes the condition of Life. Those therefore that call any one Act or two by the name of justifying faith, and all the rest by the name of works, and say that it is only the act of recumbency on Christ as Priest, or on Christ as dying for us, or only the act of apprehending or accepting his imputed Righteousness, by [Page 78] which we are justified, and that our Assent, or Acceptance of him as our Teacher and Lord, our desire of him, our love to him, our renouncing other Saviours and our own Righteousness, &c. are the works which Paul doth exclude from our Justifi­cation, and that it is Jewish to expect to be justified by these though but as Conditions of Justification; these persons do mistake Paul, and pervert the Doctrine of Faith and Justificati­on, and their Doctrine tendeth to corrupt the very nature of Christianity it self. Though yet I doubt not but any of these acts conceited meritorious (or otherwise as before explained in the Negative) if men can believe contradictories, may be the matter of such works as Paul excludeth: And so may that one act also which they appropriate the name of justifying faith to.

Proposition 7. Sincere obedience to God in Christ is a con­dition of our continuance in a state of Justification, or of our not losing it. And our perseverance therein is a condition of our appearing in that state before the Lord, at our departure hence.

Proposition 8. Our Faith, Love, and Works of Love, or sin­cere Obedience, are conditions of our sentential Justification by Christ at the particular and general Judgement (which is the great Justification.) And so as they will prove our Interest in Christ our Righteousness, so will they materially themselves justifie us against the particular false Accusation of being fi­nally impenitent, Unbelievers, not Loving, not obeying sin­cerely. For to deny a false accusation is sufficient to our Justi­fication.

Proposition 9. As Glorification and Deliverance from Hell, is by some called Executive pardon or Justification; so the fore­said acts are conditions of that execution, which are conditions of Justification by the sentence of the Judge.

Proposition. 10. As to a real inherent Justice, or Justifica­tion, in this life we have it in part (in our Sanctification and Obedience) and in the life to come we shall have it in perfec­tion.

So much for the explicatory Propositions.

HAving heard that Mr. — disliked some things in my A­phorisms, and by the perswasi­ons of some, intended a Confu­tation of them: I wrote to him an ear­nest Request, that he would acquaint me with what he disliked, annexing his Reasons to convince me of my Errors, pro­fessing my earnest Desire of Information, especially from him: To which he re­plyed, as followeth.

[Page 255] THE Reader must understand that after this, I had a personal con­ference with this Dear and Re­verend Brother, wherein he still owned and insisted on the passiveness of Justifying faith, viz. That it is but a Grammatical action, (or nominal) and a physical, or hy­perpyhsical passion; which also he giveth us again in the Treatise of Imputation of righteousness.

Question. Whether Besides the Righ­teousness of Christ Imputed, there be a Personal Evangelical Righteousness necessary to Justification and Salva­tion? Affirm.

THough it hath pleased a late Opponent (Mr. Warner) to make the Defence of this Propo­sition necessary to me; yet I shall suppose that I may be allowed to be brief, both because of what I have formerly said of it, and because the Question is so easily decided, and Chri­stians are so commonly agreed on it.

For the right understanding of what we here maintain, its necessary that I explain the Terms, and remove confusion by some necessary distinctions, and lay down my sense in some Pro­positions that make to the opening of this.

To trouble you with the Etymologies of the words in several Languages that signifie Righteousness or Justification would be a needless loss of time, it being done to our hands by so many, and we being so far agreed on it, that here lyeth no part of our pre­sent controversie.

[Page 260]The Form of Righteousness, signified by the name is Relative, as strait or crooked is. (For it is not the Habit of Justice, by which we give every man his own, that is the Subject of our Questi­on but Righteousness in a Judicial or Legal sense) 1. Righ­teousness is either of the cause, or of the person. Not that these are subjects actually separated but distinct, the one being subor­dinate to the other. The cause is the nearest subject, and so far as it is just and justifiable, so far the person is just and justifiable. Yet the person may otherwise be just and justified, when one or many causes are unjustifyable.

2. Righteousness is denominated either from a Relation to the Precept of the Law, or to the Sanction. To be righteous in Re­lation to the Precept, is to be conform to that Precept; An Acti­on or Disposition conform to the Precept, is called a Righteous Action or Disposition: and from thence the person being so far conform, is called a Righteous person: And so this Righteousness, as to the positive precept, is his obeying it; and as to the prohibi­tion, it is his Innocency, contrary to that guilt, which we call Rea­tus culpae.

Righteousness as a Relation to the Sanction, is either a Rela­tion to the Commination and penal Act of the Law, or to the pro­missory or Premiant Act. As to the former, Righteousness is no­thing, but the Not-dueness of the punishment, contrary to the Reatus poenae, as it respects the execution; and so A not being ly­able to condemnation, as it respects the sentence. This is some­time founded in the persons Innocency last mentioned: some­time on a free pardon or acquittance: sometime on satisfaction made by himself: And sometime on satisfaction by another, con­junct with free pardon (which is our case.)

Righteousness as a Relation to the Promise, or Premiant part of the Sanction, is nothing but our Right to the Reward, Gift, or Benefit, as pleadable and justifyable in foro. Which sometime is founded in merit of our own; sometime in a free Gift: some­time in the merit of another, conjunct with free Gift, which is our case, (other cases concern us not) This last mentioned, is Righ­teousness as a Relation to the substance of the Promise or Gift: But when the Promise, or Gift, or Testament, or Premiant Law is conditional, as in our case it is, then there is another sort of [Page 261] Righteousness necessary, which is Related to the Modus pro­missionis, and that is, The performance of the condition: which if it be not properly called Righteousness Ethically, yet civilly in a Judiciary sense it is, when it comes to be the cause to be tryed and Judged, whether the person have performed the condition, then his cause is just or unjust, and he just or unjust in that respect.

3. Righteousness is either Ʋniversal, as to all causes that the person can be concerned in: or it is only particular, as to some causes only, and so but secundum quid to the person.

4. A particular Righteousness may either be such as the total welfare of a man depends on; or it may be of less and inconsi­derable moment.

5. When a cause subordinate to the main cause is Righteous, this may be called a subordinate Righteousness. But if it be part of the main cause, it is a partial righteousness co-ordinate.

I will not trouble you with so exact a disquisition of the Na­ture of Righteousness and Justification as I judge fit in it self, both because I have a little heretofore attempted it, and because I find it blamed as puzling curiosity or needless distinguishing: Though I am not of that mind, yet I have no minde to be trou­blesome.

As for the term Justification, 1. It either may signifie the Act of the Law or Promise: or the sentence of the Judge: or the Exe­cution of that sentence; For to one of these three sences the word may still be reduced, as we shall have to do with it; that is, to constitutive, or sentential, or Executive Justification; though the sentence is most properly so called. To these, Justification by Plea, Witness, &c. are subservient.

2. Justification is either opposed to a false Accusation, or to a true.

3. In our case, Justification is either according to the Law of works, or to the Law of Grace.

I think we shall at this time have no great need to use any more distinctions then these few, and therefore I will add no more about this Term.

As to the term [Evangelical] Righteousness may be so cal­led in a four-fold sense. 1. Either because it is that righteous­ness [Page 262] which the Covenant or Law of Grace requireth as its Condi­tion; Or 2. Because its a Righteousness revealed by the Gospel; Or 3. Because it is Given by the Gospel; 4. Or because it [...] [...] perfect fulfilling of the Precepts of the Gospel.

By [a personal] Righteousness, we mean here, not that which is ours by meer Imputation, but that which is founded in some­what Inherent in us, or performed by us.

[Necessity] is 1. of a meer Antecedent. 2. Or of a Means: We mean the last. Means are either causes, or conditions.

I shall now by the help of these few distinctions give you the plain truth in some Propositions, both Negatively and Affirma­tively, as followeth.

Proposition 1. It is confessed by all that know themselves, or man and the Law, that none of us have a Personal universal Righte­ousness. For then there were no sin, nor place for confession, or par­don, or Christ.

Prop. 2. And therefore we must all confess, that in regard of the Preceptive part of the Law of works we are all unjust, and cannot be justified by the deeds of the Law, or by our works.

Prop. 3. And in regard of the Commination of that Law, we are all under guilt and the Curse, and are the children of wrath, and therefore cannot be justified by that Law, or by our works. Both these are proved by Paul at large, so that none have a personal Le­gal Righteousness.

Prop. 4. No man can plead any proper satisfaction of his own for the pardon of sin, and escaping the curse of the Law: But only Christs Satisfaction, that fulfilled the Law, and became a curse for us.

Prop. 5. No man can plead any merit of his own for procuring the Reward (unless as actions, that have the promise of a Reward, are under Christ improperly called merits) But our righteousness of this sort is only the merit and purchase of Christ, and the free gift of the Gospel in him.

Prop. 6. We have no one work that is perfectly justifiable by the perfect precepts of the Law of works: And therefore we have no legal personal Righteousness at all that can properly be so called; but are all corrupt and become abominable, there being none that [Page 263] doth good, no not one; Imperfect legal righteousness, is an im­proper speech; it is properly no legal righteousness at all, but a less degree of unrighteousness (The more to blame they that call san­ctification so)

Prop. 7. No man can say that he is a Co-ordinate Con-cause with Christ in his Justification; or that he hath the least degree of a satisfactory or Meritorious Righteousness, which may bear any part in co-ordination with Christs righteousness, for his justifica­tion or salvation.

Prop. 8. We have not any personal Evangelical Righteousness of perfect obedience to the Precepts of Christ himself: whether it be the Law of Nature as in his hand, or the Gospel positives.

Prop. 9. Even the Gospel personal Righteousness of outward works, though but in sincerity, and not perfection, is not necessary▪ (no not as an antecedent) to our Justification at the first.

Prop. 10. External works of Holiness are not of absolute necessi­ty to Salvation: for it is possible that death may suddenly after Conversion, prevent opportunity: and then the inward faith and repentance will suffice: Though I think no man can give us one instance of such a man de facto: not the thief on the cross: for he confessed prayed, reproved the other, &c.

Prop. 11. Where sincere Obedience is Necessary to Salvation, it is not all the same Acts of obedience that are of Necessity to all men, or at all times: for the Matter may vary, and yet the sinece­rity of obedience continue. But some special Acts are of Necessi­ty to the sincerity.

Prop. 12. If Righteousness be denominated from the Precept, Christs Obedience was a perfect legal Righteousness, as having a perfect conformity to the Law: But not so an Evangelical Righ­teousness: for he gave us in many Laws for the application of his Merits, that he was neither obliged to fulfill, nor capable of it. If Righteousness be denominated from the Promise or premiant part of the Law, Christs righteousness was in some sort the righ­teousness of the Law of works, (for he merited all the reward of that Law;) But it was principally the righteousness of the spe­cial Covenant of Redemption (between the Father and him▪) but not of the Covenant of Grace made with man (he did not re­pent or obey for pardon and salvation to himself as a Believer;) [Page 264] If Righteousness be denominated from the Comminatory or penal part of the Law then Christs sufferings were neither a strictly legal▪ or an Evangelical righteousness. For the Law required the supplicium ipsius delinquentis, and knew no Surety or Substi­tute. But thus Christs sufferings were a Pro-Legal-righteous­ness, as being not the fulfilling of the Threatening, but a full Satisfaction to the Law-giver, (which was equivalent) and so a valuable consideration, why the Law should not be fulfilled (by our damnation) but dispensed with (by our pardon) So that the Commination was the cause of Christs sufferings; and he suffered materially the same sort of Death which the Law threatened. But most strictly his sufferings were a Righteous fulfilling his part of the Covenant of Redemption with the Father: But in no pro­priety were they the fulfilling of the Commination of the Law of Grace, against the Despisers or neglecters of Grace. I mean that proper to the Gospel.

Prop. 13. Christs righteousness is well called our Evangelical Righteousness, both as it is Revealed by the Gospel, and confer­red by it, and opposed to the legal way of Justification by perfect per­sonal Righteousness. So that by calling our own personal righte­ousness, Evangelical, we deny not that Title to Christs, but give it that in a higher respect, and much more.

Prop. 14. No personal righteousness of ours, our faith or re­pentance, is any proper cause of our first Justification, or of our en­tering into a justifyed state: Though as they remove Impediments, or are Conditions, they may improperly be called causes; So much for the Negative Propositions.

Affirm. Prop. 1. That a Godly man hath a particular righ­teousness, or may be Just in a particular cause, there is no man can deny: unless he will make him worse then the Devil: for if the Devil may be falsly accused or belyed, he is just in that particu­lar cause.

Prop. 2. All Christians that I know do confess an Inherent Righteousness in the Saints, and the necessity of this righteousness to Salvation. So that this can be no part of our Controversie.

Prop. 3. Consequently all must confess that Christs righteous­ness imputed, is not our only righteousness. Yea, that the righteous­ness [Page 265] of Pardon and Justification from sin, is no further necessary then men are sinners; and therefore the less need any man hath of it, the better he pleaseth Christ, that is, he had rather we would beware of sin as far as may be, then sin and fly to him for Pardon.

Prop. 4. And we are agreed I think that the personal Righte­ousness of the Saints is so much the end of Christs Redemption and Pardoning Grace, that the perfection of this is that blessed state to which he will bring them; so that when he hath done his work, Sanctification shall be perfect; but Justification by Pardon of further sins, shall be no more: Heaven cannot bear so imperfect a state.

Prop. 5. We are agreed therefore that our Righteousness of Sanctification, or the Doctrine thereof is so far from being any de­rogation or dishonour to Christ, that it is the high honour which he intended in his work of Redemption, that the Glory of God the Father, and of the Redeemer may everlastingly shine forth in the Saints, and they may be fit to love, and serve, and praise him, Tit. 2.14.

Prop. 6. It is past all doubt that this Inherent Righteousness consisteth in a true fulfilling of the Conditions of the Gospel-Promise, and a sincere Obedience to the Precepts of Christ. And so hath a double respect: one to the Promise; and so it is conditio praestita: the other to the Precept; and so it is Officium praesti­tum. All Conditions here are Duties: but all Duties are not the Condition.

Prop. 7. I think we are agreed, that Justification by Christ as Judge at the great day, hath the very same Conditions as Salvation hath, it being an adjudging us to Salvation. And therefore that this personal Evangelical Righteousness is of neces­sity to our Justification at that Judgement.

Prop. 8. And I think we are agreed that no man can continue in a state of Justification, that continueth not in a state of Faith, Sanctification, ond sincere Obedience.

Prop. 9 We are agreed I am sure that no man at age is justified before he Repent and Believe.

Prop. 10 And we are agreed that this Repenting and Believing is both the matter of the Gospel-Precept, and the Condition of [Page 266] the Promise. Christ hath made over to us himself with his imputed Righteousness and Kingdom, on condition that we repent and be­lieve in him.

Prop. 11. It cannot then be denied that Faith and Repentance be­ing both the Duty commanded▪ and the Condition required and performed, are truly a particular special Righteousness, subordi­nate to Christ and his Righteousness, in order to our further participation of him, and from him.

Prop. 12. And lastly its past dispute that this personal Righ­teousness of Faith and Repentance, is not to be called a Le­gal, but an Evangelical Righteousness, because it is the Gospel that both commandeth them, and promiseth life to those that per­form them.

Thus methinks all that I desire is granted already: what Ad­versary could a man dream of among Protestants in such a Cause? Agreement seemeth to prevent the necessity of a further Dispute.

To be yet briefer, and bring it nearer an Issue: If any thing of the main Thesis here be denyed, it must be one of these three things. 1. That there is any such thing as Faith, Repen­tance or Sanctification. 2. Or that they should be called an Evangelical personal Righteousness. 3. Or that they are neces­sary to Justification and Salvtaion: The first is de existen­tia rei: The second is de nomine: The third is de usu & fine.

The first no man but a Heathen or Infidel will deny.

And for the second, that this name is fit for it, I prove by parts. 1. It may and must be called A Righteousness. 2. A Personal Righteousness. 3. An Evangelical Righteous­ness.

1. As Righteousness signifieth the Habit by which we give to all their own, so this is Righteousness. For in Regeneration the soul is habituated to give up it self to God as his own, and to give up all we have to him, and to love and serve all where his love and service doth require it. No true habit is so excellent as that which is given in Regeneration.

2. The sincere performance of the Duties required of us by [Page 267] the Evangelical Precept, is a sincere Evangelical Righteousness: But our first turning to God in Christ by Faith and Repen­tance, is the sincere performance of the duties required of us by the Evangelical Precept. Ergo. — Object. The Gospel requireth actual external Obedience and perseverance also. Answ. Not at the first instant of Conversion: For that in­stant, he that Believeth and Repenteth, doth sincerely do the Duty required by it: and afterward, he that continueth herein with Expressive Obedience, which is then part of this Righte­ousness.

3. The true Performance of the Conditions of Justification and Salvation, imposed in the Gospel-Promise, is a true Gos­pel Righteousness: But Faith and Repentance at the first, and sincere Obedience added afterward, are the true performance of these Conditions. Ergo.—

4. It is commonly called by the name of Inherent Righte­ousness, by all Divines with one Consent: therefore the name of [Righteousness] is past controversie here.

5. That which in Judgement must be his justitia causae, the Righteousness of his cause, is so far the Righteousness of his per­son: (for the person must needs be righteous quoad hanc cau­sam, as to that cause) But our Faith and Repentance will be much of the Righteousness of our cause at that day (for the Tryal of us will be, whether we are true Believers, and penitent or not; and that being much of the cause of the day, we must needs be righteous or unrighteous as to that cause:) there­fore our Faith and Repentance is much of the Righteousness of our persons▪ denominated in respect to the Tryal and Judge­ment of that day.

6. The holy Scripture frequently calls it Righteousness, and calls all true penitent Believers, and all that sincerely obey Christ, [righteous] because of these qualifications (supposing pardon of sin, and merit of Glory by Christ for us:) therefore we may and must so call them, Mat. 25.37, 46. Then shall the righteous answer—but the righteous into life eternal, Mat. 10.41. He that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous mans reward. Heb. 11.4. By faith Abel offered, — by which he obtained witnest that he was [Page 268] righteous, God testifying of his Gifts. 1 Pet. 3.12. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous.—1 John 3.7. He that doth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. Isa. 3.10. Say [...]o the righteous it shall be well with him. Psal. 1.5, 6. Mat. 5.6, [...]0. An enemy to the faith, is called an enemy of righteousness. Acts 13.10. 2 Pet. 2.21. 1 John 2.29. and 3.10. Gen. 15.6. And he believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righte­ousness. Psal. 106.31. Rom. 43.5. His faith is counted for righteousness. ver. 9. Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righ­teousness. ver 22, 24. Therefore it was imputed to him for righ­teousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead. So Jam. 2.23. Gal. 3.6. If any say that by [Faith] in all these Texts is meant Christs righteousness, and not Faith, I will be­leive them when I take Scripture to be intelligible only by them, and that God did not write it to have it understood. But that Faith is imputed or accounted to us for Righteousness in a sense meerly subordinate to Christs righteousness, by which we are justified, I easily grant. As to Satisfaction and Merit we have no righteousness but Christs, but a Covenant and Law we are still under, and not redeemed to be lawless: and this Covenant is ordained as the way of making over Christ and his meritorious righteousness, and life to us: and therefore they being given or made over on Covenant-terms, there is a personal performance of the conditions necessary: and so that personal performance is all the righteousness inherent or propiae actionis, that God requireth of us now, whereas by the first Covenant perfect Obedience was required as necessary to life. So that in point of meer personal performance our own Faith is accepted, and imputed or accounted to us for Righte­ousness, that is, God will require no more as necessary to Justifi­cation at our own hands, but that we believe in the righteousness of another, and accept a Redeemer (though once he required more:) But as to the satisfying of the Justice of the offended Majesty, and the meriting of life with pardon, &c. So the Righteousness of Christ is our only Righteousness. But nothing in Scripture is more plain then that Faith it self is said to be ac­counted [Page 269] to us for Righteousness; and not only Christs own righ­teousness: He that will not take this for proof, must expect no Scripture proof of any thing from me.

Eph. 4.24. The new man after God is created in righteous­ness. Many other Texts do call our first Conversion, or state of Grace, our faith and repentance, and our sincere obedience by the name of Righteousness.

2. And then that it may, and that most fitly be called an Evangelical righteousness, I will not trouble the Reader to prove, lest I seem to censure his understanding as too stupid. Its easie to try whether our Faith and Repentance, our Inherent Righteousness, do more answer the Precepts and Promise of Christ in the Gospel, or those of the Law of works.

3. And that this is a personal righteousness, I have less need to prove: Though it is Christ that purchased it (and so it may be called the righteousness of Christ) and the Spirit that work­eth it in us, yet its we that are the Subjects and the Agents as to the act.

It being therefore past doubt that, 1. The thing it self is existent and necessary. 2. That righteousness is a fit name for it. 3. All that remains to be proved is the Use of it, Whether it be necessary to Justification and Salvation. And here the com­mon agreement of Divines, (except the Antinomians) doth save us the labour of proving this: for they all agree that Faith and Repentance are necessary to our first Justification; and that sincere obedience also is necessary to our Justification at Judge­ment, and to our Salvation. So that here being no conteoversie, I will not make my self needless work.

Obejct. 1. But faith and repentance are not necessary to Justifica­tion qua justitia quaedam Evangelica, under the notion of a righ­teousness, but faith as an Instrument, and repentance as a qualifying condition.

Answ. 1. We are not now upon the question under what notion these are necessary. It sufficeth to the proof of our pre­sent Thesis, that a personal Evangelical Righteousness is necessa­ry, whether quâ talis or not.

[Page 270]2. But the plain truth is, 1. Remotely, in respect of its na­tural Aptitude to its office, faith is necessary because it is a Re­ceiving Act, and therefore fitted to a free Gift, and an Assent­ing Act, and therefore fitted to a supernatural Revelation: And hence Divines say, It justifieth as an Instrument, calling its Receptive nature, Metaphorically an Instrument: which in this sense is true. And Repentance is necessary, because it is that Return to God, and recovery of the soul which is the end of Redemption, without which the following ends cannot be attained. The Receptive nature of Faith, and the dispositive use of Repentance, may be assigned as Reasons, Why God made them conditions of the Promise: as being their aptitude thereto. 2. But the nearest reason of their Interest and Necessity, is be­cause by the free constitution of God▪ they are made condi­tions in that Promise that conferreth Justification and Salvati­on, determining that without these they shall not be had, and that whoever believeth shall not perish, and if we repent, our sins shall be forgiven us. So that this is the formal or nearest Reason of their necessity and interest, that they are the con­ditions of the Covenant, so made by the free Donor, Promi­miser, Testator. Now this which in the first instant and con­sideration is a condition, is in the next instant or consideration, a true Evangelical Righteousness, as that Condition is a Duty in respect to the Precept; and as it is our Title to the benefit of the Promise, and so is the Covenant-performance, and as it hath respect to the sentence of Judgement, where this will be the cause of the day, Whether this Condition was performed or not. It is not the Condition as imposed, but as performed, on which we become justified: And therefore as sentential Justificati­on is past upon the proof of this personal Righteousness, which is our performance of the condition, on which we have Title to Christ and Pardon, and eternal life; even so our Justification in the sense of the Law or Covenant, is on supposition of this same performance of the Condition, as such: which is a cer­tain Righteousness. If at the last Judgement we are sententially justified by it as it is quaedam justitia, a Righteousness subordi­nate to Christs Righteousness, (which is certain,) then in Law-sense we are justifiable by it on the same account. For to [Page 271] be justified in point of law, is nothing else then to be justifiable, or justificandus, by sentence and execution according to that Law: so that its clear that a personal Righteousness, qua talis, is neces­sary to Justification, and not only quo talis; though this be be­yond our Quest on in hand, and therefore I add it but for eluci­dation and ex abundanti.

Object. 2. If this be so, then men are righteous before God doth justifie them.

Answ. 1. Not with that Righteousness by which he justifieth them. 2. Not Righteousness simply, absolutely or universally, but only secundum quid, with a particular Righte­ousness. 3. This particular Righteousness is but the means to possess them of Christs Righteousness, by which they are mate­rially and fully justified. 4. There is not a moments distance of time between them: For as soon as we believe and repent we are made partakers of Christ and his Righteousness, by a meer resultancy from the Promise of the Gospel. 5. Who de­nyeth that we have Faith and Repentance before Justifica­tion?

Object. 3. But according to this Doctrine we are justified before we are justified: For he that is Righteous is consti­tuted just, and so is justifiable in Judgement, which is to be justified in Law.

Answ. Very true: But we are as is said, made just or justi­fied but with a particular, and not an universal Righteousness; which will not donominate the person simply a Righteous or justified person: we are so far cured of our former Infidelity and Impenitency, that we are true penitent Believers before our sins are pardoned by the Promise: and so we are in order of nature (not of time) first justifiable against the false Accu­sation, that we are impenitent Ʋnbelievers, before we are justi­fiable against the true accusation of all our sins, and desert of Hell. He that by inherent Faith and Repentance is not first justifiable against the former false charge, cannot by the blood [Page 272] and merits of Christ be justifiable against the latter true accusa­tion. For Christ and Pardon are given by the Covenant of Grace, to none but penitent Believers.

Object. 4. By this you confound Justification and Sanctifica­tion: for inherent Righteousness belongs not to Justification, but to Sanctification.

Answ. Your Affirmation is no proof, and my distinguish­ing them is not confounding them. Inherent Righteousness in its first seed and acts belongs to Sanctification, as its Begin­ing, or first part, or root: And to Justification and Pardon as a Means or Condition: But Inherent Righteousness, in its strength and progress, belongs to Sanctification as the Matter of it, and to our final Justification in Judgement as part of the means or condition: but no otherwise to our first Justification, then as a ne­cessary fruit or consequent of it.

Object. 5. By this means you make Sanctification to go be­fore Justification, as a Condition or means to it: when Divines com­monly put it after.

Answ. 1. Mr. Pemble, and those that follow him, put Sanctification before all true Justification, (though they call Gods immanent eternal Act, a precedent Justification.) 2. The case is easie, if you will not confound the verbal part of the controversie with the Real. What is it that you call San­ctification? 1. If it be the first special Grace in Act or Habit, so you will confess, that Sanctification goeth first: For we re­pent and believe before we are pardoned or justified. 2. If it be any further degrees or fruits, or exercise of Grace, then we are agreed that Justification goeth before it. 3. If it be both begin­ing and progress, faith and obedience that you call Sanctification, then part of it is before Justification, and part after. All this is plain; and that which I think we are agreed in.

But here I am invited to a consideration of some Arguments of a new Opponent, Mr. Warner in a book of the Object and Office of Faith. What he thought it his Duty to oppose, I take it [Page 273] to be my Duty to defend: which of us is guided by the light of God, I must leave to the illuminated to judge, when they have compared our Evidence.

I now come to shew that both these kinds of Righte­ousness, Legal and Evangelical, are not absolutely necessary to Justification. — I do not undertake the Negative, and will endeavour to prove it by these demonstrations. Argu­ment 1. If things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascrib­ed to the sme person or action, then both these kinds of Righteous­ness are not absolutely necessary to make up our Justification: But things in themselves contradictory cannot be ascribed to the same person or actions, Therefore—The sequell is thus proved by Paul. If it be of works, it is no more of Grace: if of Grace, then it is no more of works. What are therefore these two kinds of Righ­teousness, but contradictory to each other? And therefore it seemeth illogical Theologie to predicate them of the same person or act, c. 12. pag. 154.

Reader, I crave thy pardon for troubling thee with the Confutation of such Impertinencies, that are called De­monstrations: It is I that have the bigger part of the trouble: But how should I avoid it without wrong to the Truth? See­ing (would you think it!) there are some Readers that cannot discern the vanity of such Arguings without Assi­stance.

1. What a gross abuse is this to begin with, to conclude that these two sorts of Righteousness are not necessary [to make up] our Justification, when the Question was only whether they are necessary [to] our Justification. [Making up] expresseth the proper causality of the constitutive causes, (matter and form,) and not of the efficient or final; much less the Inte­rest of all other means, such as a condition is. So that I grant him his conclusion, taking Justification as we now do Our Faith or Repentance goeth not to make it up.

And yet on the by, I shall add, that if any man will needs take Justification for Sanctification, or as the Papists do com­prehensively for Sanctification and Pardon both (as some Pro­testant [Page 274] Divines think it is used in some few Texts) in that large sense our Faith and Repentance are part of our justifying Righteousness. But I do not so use the word, (Though Phi­lip Codurcus have writ at large for it.)

2. I deny his Consequence: And how is it proved? By reciting Pauls words, Rom. 116. Which contain not any of the terms in the question. Paul speaks of Election: we of Justification (though that difference I regard not.) Paul speaks of works, and we speak of Evangelical Faith and Repentance. In a word there­fore I answer. The works that Paul speaks of are inconsistent with Grace in Justification (though not contradictory, but contrary, what ever Mr. W. say:) but Faith and Repentance are not those works; and therefore no contrariety is hence proved. Here is nothing therefore but a rash Assertion of Mr. W. to prove these two sorts of Righteousness contra­dictory.

Be judge all Divines and Christians upon earth: Did you ever hear before from a Divine or Christian, that imputed and inherent Righteousness, or Justification and Sanctification, or Christs fulfilling the Law for us, and our believing the Gospel and repenting were contradictory in themselves? Do not all that believe the Scripture, believe that we have a personal Righteousness, a true Faith and Repentance, and must ful­fill the Conditions of the Promise; and that in respect to these the Scripture calls us Righteous? (as is before proved.)

If the person justified is of himself ungodly, then Le­gal and Evangelical Righteousness are not both absolutely necessa­ry to our Justification: But the person justified (considering him in the act of justifying) is so, therefore.—The Sequel is undeny­able; because he who is ungodly is not Legally Righteous, and that the person now to be justified is ungodly, is express Scripture, Rom. 4.5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that just fieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I suppose the Reader understandeth that the Le­gal or rather Pro-legal Righteousness, that I plead for, is Christs [Page 275] 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 Ʋngodliness] If it be taken for an unregenerate impenitent unbeliever, then I deny the M [...]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 [Ʋngodly] 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 its 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 [Page 276] 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.

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.—

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.

[Page 277]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.

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.

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. Its 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 [Page 278] Condition of our part in Christ and his righteousness: and this is Faith it self. Both these are sufficient to Justification: but Faith is neither sufficient, nor is Faith without Christs legal righ­teousness: And Christ is sufficient Hypothetically, but will not be effectual to our Justification without Faith (and re­pentance.)

But perhaps this Writer means only to shew his offence against my naming Christs righteousness legal. If that be so, 1. I have given in my reasons, because there can be no better reason of a name then from the form: and the form of Christs righteous­ness being relative, even a conformity to the Law of works (and to the peculiar Covenant of redemption,) I thought did sufficiently warrant this name. 2. The rather when I find not only that he is said to fulfill the Law and all righteousness, and be made a curse for us, but also to be righteous with that righte­ousness, which is denyed of us; which can be none but a legal or prolegal righteousness. 3. But yet if the name [Legal] be all, I could easily have given this Brother leave to differ from me about a name without contention, and methinks he might have done the like by me.

Object. But what if works and faith were both of them applyed to procure our Justification?

This Objection yet further shews, that the Author understands me not (if it be me, as I have reason to judge that he writeth against) for he supposeth that its works that I call a legal Righteousness, when I still tell him it is Christs satisfacti­on and fulfilling the Law, of which our faith or works are no part, but a subordinate, particular, Evangelical Righteous­ness.

If both these kinds of Righteousness were absolutely necessary, then where one of them is wanting in a person, there can be no Justification of that person. But — Ergo. — For where was any Legal Righteousness of the good thief on the Cross, condemned for legal unrighteousness?

I deny your minor. The converted thief had a legal righteousness hanging on the next Cross to him; even Christ that then was made a curse for him, and was obedient to the death of the Cross. I begin to be a weary in writing so much only to tell men that you understand me not.

If legal Righteousness be thus necessarily to be join­ed with our Evangelical Righteousness to Justification, then there must be two formal causes of Justification.

I deny your consequence. If the formal cause con­sist in remission and imputation as you say, then Christs meri­torious righteousness is none of the Form, but the Matter. And if besides that Matter a subservient particular righteousness (of faith) be necessary as the condition of our Title to Christ; this makes not two forms of this Justification. 2. And yet I grant you that it infers a subservient Justification that hath another form, when you are made a Believer, or justified against the false charge of being no Believer (or penitent) this is not remissi­on of sin, but another form and thing.

That which maketh void Christs death, cannot be absolutely necessary to Justification. But legal righteousness makes void his Death, Gal. 2.21.

Its a sad case that we must be charged with making void Christs Death, for saying that he is legally Righteous, by satisfying and fulfilling the Law; and that this is all the legal righteousness that we have. I am bold therefore to deny the Minor: yea and to reverse it on you, and tell you, that he that denyeth Christs legal Righteousness, denyeth both his death and obedience. The Text Gal. 2.21. speaks not of the Law, as fulfilled by Christ, but by us. Righteousness comes not by our keeping the Law, but it came by Christs keeping it: yet so, that the Gospel only giveth us that righteousness of his.

That which concurs with another efficient, must [Page 280] have both an aptitude and Confluence to produce the effect: but the Law, and consequently Legal righteousness hath no aptitude to give life, Gal. 3.2

This is Disputing enough to make one tremble, and loath Disputing. Is there no aptitude in Christs legal Righte­ousness to give us life? The Law doth not give us righteousness, but it denominateth Christ righteous for fulfilling it (and the Law-giver for satisfying) and to that it had a sufficient apti­tude. The Text Gal. 3.2. saith truly that the Law giveth not life: but first it speaks of the Law as obeyed by us, and not by Christ, that fulfilled it. Secondly, And indeed its speaks of Mo­ses Law; and not directly of that made with Adam. Thirdly, And it denies not that Christ fulfilling it may give us life, though the Law it self give us none, so that all this is besides the business.

That Doctrine which doth most exalt the Grace of God, ought to be admitted before that which doth least exalt it: But the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, as our Gospel-righteousness doth most exalt his Grace, and the other less. Ergo.

Still misunderstanding! Doth the Doctrine of faith alone without Christ advance Grace? Thats no faith. You do not think so: that which denyeth Christ or faith denyeth Grace.

That opinion which considereth a person under a two-fold Covenant at the same time, ought not to be admitted: But to require both Legal and Evangelical Righteousness, is to consider him under the Covenant of works and Grace: I conclude therefore that two sorts of righteousness are not necessarily required to our Justification.

How far we are, or are not under the Covenant of works, I will not here trouble you by digressing, in this ram­bling Dispute to enquire. But to your Minor I say, this opini­on considereth man only under the curse of the Law till Christ take it off him, by being made a curse for us, and making over the fruit of his merits and suffering to us.

As for the Subjects of these kinds of Righteous­ness, I thus declare. 1. That Jesus Christ and he alone who was truly endued with Legal righteousness, who as he was made under the Law, so he did not destroy but fulfill it; and if he had not been the subject of Legal righteousness in himself, he could not have been the Author of Evangelical Righteousness to us.

Here after all these Arguments, I have all that grant­ed me that I contend for (supposing the Imputation or Dona­tion of Christs Righteousness to us, whether in se or in [...]ffectis, I now dispute not.) You have here his full confession that Christ had a legal Righteousness: Let him but grant the imputation of this, and then its ours: And then I have granted him that it may be also called Evangelical in another respect.

pag. 166. I think it to be no incongruity in speech, or Paradox in Divinity, to say that Christs Legal righteousness is our Evangelical righteousness, 1 Cor. 1.30. 2 Cor. 5.21. Jer. 23.8.

Sure we shall agree anon, for all the ten Arguments. Heres all granted but the name as to us. Many and many a time I have said, that Christs Righteousness made ours is Legal in respect to the Law that it was a conformity to, and which it answereth for us; but Evangelical as declared, and given by the Gospel. But the thing in question you now fully confess.

pag. 171. That we our selves are not the subjects of Evangelical righteousness, I shall endeavour to prove by thes [...] Arguments. 1. If our Evangelical righteousness be out of us in Christ, then it is not in [...], consisting in the habit or Acts of faith and Gospel obedience, but it is out of us in Christ.

We shall have such another piece of work with this point as the former, to defend the truth against a man that lay­eth about him in the dark. 1. I have oft enough distinguisht of Evangelical righteousness. The righteousness conform to the Law, and revealed and given by the Gospel is meritoriously and materially out of us in Christ. The righteousness conform to the [Page 282] Gospel, as constituting the condition of life, [He that believeth shall not perish: Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out,] This is in our selves materially, and not out of us in Christ.

If satisfaction to Divine Justice were not given or caused by any thing in us, but by Christ alone, then Evangelical righteousness is in Christ alone. But — Ergo — without blood no remission.

Your proof of the consequence is none; but worse then silence. Besides the satisfaction of Justice and remission of sin thereby; there is a subservient Gospel righteousness, as is proved, and is undeniable.

If Evangelical righteousness be in our selves, then perfect righteousness is in our selves. But thats not so. Ergo.

Still you play with the ambiguity of a word, and deny that which beseems you not to deny, that the fulfilling of the condition [Believe and Live] is a Gospel-righteousness, par­ticular and subservient and imperfect. The Saints have an In­herent righteousness, which is not Legal: therefore it is Evange­lical. If you say, its no righteousness, you renounce the con­stant voice of Scripture. If you say, it is a Legal righteousness imperfect, then you set up Justification by the works of the Law, (the unhappv fate of blind opposition, to do what they intend to undo.) For there is no righteousness which doth not justifie or make righteous in tantum: and so you would make men justified partly by Christ, and partly by a Legal righteous­ness of their own by a perverse denying the subservient Evan­gelical righteousness, without any cause in the world, but dark­ness, jealousie, and humorous contentious zeal. Yea more then so, we have no worKs but what the Law would damn us for, were we judged by it. And yet will you say that faith or in­herent righteousness is Legal and not Evangelical?

If Evangelical righteousness were in ourselves, and [Page 283] did consist either in the habit or act of faith and new obedience, then upon the intercision of those acts, our Justification would discon­tinue. But,

If you thought not your word must go for proof, you would never sure expect that we should believe your Conse­quence. For 1. What shew is there of reason that the intercision of the act should cause the cessation of that Justification which is the consequent of the Habit (which you put in your Antece­dent?) The Habit continueth in our sleep, when the acts do not.

2. As long as the cause continueth (which is Christs Merits and the Gospel-Grant) Justification will continue, if the con­dition be but sincerely performed (For the Condition is not the cause, much less a Physical cause) But the condition is sincerely performed, though we believe not in our sleep. I dare not in­stance in your payment of Rent, left a Carper be upon m [...] back; but suppose you give a man a lease of Lands on condition he come once a moneth, or week, or day, and say, I thank you, or in general, on condition he be thankful. Doth his Title cease as oft as he shuts his lips from saying, I thank you? These are strange Doctrines.

If Evangelical righteousness were in our selves, and faith with our Gospel obedience were that righteousness, then he who hath more or less faith or obedience were more or less justifi­ed, and more or less Evangelically righteous, according to the de­grees of faith and obedience.

I deny your Consequence, considering faith and re­pentance as the Condition of the Promise; because it is the sin­cerity of Faith and Repentance that is the Condition, and not the degree: and therefore he that hath the least degree of sin­cere faith, hath the same title to Christ as he that hath the strongest.

2. But as faith and obedience respect the Precept of the Gos­pel, and not the Promise; so it is a certain truth, that he that hath most of them, hath most Inherent Righteousness.

That opinion which derogates from the Glory and Excellency of Christ above all Graces, and from the excellency of Faith in its Office of justifying above other Graces, ought not to be admitted: But this opinion placing our Evangelical Righteous­ness in the habit, act, or Grace of faith and Gospel obedience dero­gates from both Christ and Faith.

Your Minor is false, and your proof is no proof, but your word. Your similitude should have run thus. If an Act of Oblivion by the Princes purchase, do pardon all that will thank­fully accept it and come in and lay down arms of Rebellion; it is no derogating from the Prince or pardon to say, I accept it, I stand out no longer, and therefore it is mine. If you offer to heal a deadly sore on condition you be accepted for the Chy­rurgion; doth it derogate from your honour if your Patient say, I do consent and take you for my Chyrurgion, and will take your Medicines?

Your proof is as vain and null, that it derogates from faith. What, that Faith should be this subservient Righteousness? Doth that dishonour it? Or is it that Repentance is conjoyned as to our first Justification, and obedience as to that at Judgement? When you prove either of these dishonourable to faith, we will believe you: but it must be a proof that is stronger then the Gospel that is against you. We confess faith to be the receiving Condition, and repentance but the disposing Condition: but both are Conditions. As for Phil. 3.9. Do you not see that it is against you? I profess with Paul, not to have a righteousness of my own which is of the Law, (which made me loth to call faith and re­pentance a legal righteousness) but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:] Faith you see is the means of our Title to Christs Righteous­ness: And if you deny faith it self to be any particular Righteousness, you must make it a sin, or indifferent, and contradict the Scriptures. And presently contradicting what you have been arguing for (that Evangelical Righteous­ness is not in us, and we are not the Subjects of it:) You profess pag. 178. That Inherent Righteousness is in us. [Page 285] It seems then either Inherent righteousness is not righteous­ness, or it is not Evangelical but Legal, or it is in us, and not in us.

Had you only pleaded that we are not justified by it as a Righteousness, I should have answered you as before on that point. Not as a Legal Righteousness; nor an Evan­gelical Righteousness co-ordinate with Christs; but as a fulfilling of the Condition of that Promise, which gives us Christ, and Pardon, and Life; by which performance of the Condition, the Benefit becomes ours by the Will and Grant of the free Donor; and we are no longer impe­nitent Infidels, but just, and justifiable from the false charge of being such; and so of not having part in Christ. Its one thing to be accused of sin as sin: And another thing to be accused of the special sin of not accepting the Remedy: and so of having no part in Christ and his Righteousness. From the later we must have a real Faith and Title to Christ, which must materially justifie us: but from the former, even from all sin that ever we are guilty of Christs Righteousness only justifieth us materially and meritoriously, and our faith is but a bare condition.

A Confutation of the Error of Mr. Warners 13th Chapter about Justi­fication, and the interest of Obedience therein.

HE begins with a false Intimation, that we revive the Pa­pists first and second Justification: and he that will be­lieve him, may take his course for me: I crave only liberty for my self to believe that it is not all one to have Justification be­gun and continued; and that Justification by the sentence of the Judge, is not of the same kind with Justification Legal by the Donation of the Gospel. If I may not have this Reverend Brothers leave to believe these matters, I will believe them without his leave. And that the Papists have such friends among us, as those that make the world believe that such things as these are Popery, I will also lament, though such Disputers give not their consent.

His Endeavours to overthrow that Doctrine of mine which he nameth of [second Justification] begin pag. 223. where he argueth, 1. from Rom. 5. 1▪ 2, 3. That the beginning and end is ascribed to faith. Answer. Its all granted: faith is it that we are justified by to the last. We are agreed of this inclusively: But the Question is, whats the Exclusion: Not believing in Christ as Lord and Master, nor loving him; but the works that make or are supposed to make that Reward to be of debt, and not of Grace.

His second proof is from Phil. 3.7, 8. To which I answer. We are of Pauls mind, but not of yours. 1. He counted all [Page 287] as loss and dung that stood in opposition to, or competition with Christ: and so would I do by faith and love it self, should they be so arrogant. 2. Paul expresly nameth the works that he excludeth, that is, the Righteousness which is of the Law, or in Legal works. And do we make any doubt of this? No, nor of those works that materially are Evangelical: for if they are formally Evangelical they cannot be set up against Christ, their very nature being to subserve him.

Once for all, remember this Argument. Those works that are commanded by God in the Gospel, are not excluded by God in the Gospel in that nature and to the use for which they are commanded. But faith in Christ Jesus the Lord and Sa­viour, (an entire faith) and Repentance towards God and love to him are commanded by God in the Gospel in order to the pardon of sin; and the continuance of these with sincere Obedience, are commanded as means of our continued par­don, and as a means of our final Justification at Judgement. Therefore none of these are excluded by the Gospel from any of these uses or ends.

He citeth also, Act. 15. and Heb. 2.9. and Rom. 1.17. to as much purpose as the rest.

Pag. 228. He begins his Arguments. The first is [Because in vain are additions of numbers, without which any thing may be done: But without addition of works the act of justifying is perfect, Ergo.] Answer. 1. As if the Question were of the [Act of justifying,] and not of Justification passively taken. Gods act hath no imperfection, when yet it maketh not a perfect work. 2. Its but spleen and partiality to harp upon the term [works] still to seduce your Readers to believe that I am for such works as Paul denyeth. I use not the phrase of [Justification by works] nor think it fit to be used, unless rarely, or to explain such texts of Scripture as do use it, or terms equipollent. 3. Justi­fication is neither perfect nor real, without a faith in Christ as Head and Husband, and Lord, and Teacher, and Intercessor, as well as a Sacrifice for sin. Nor is it perfect or true, without repenting and loving Christ. 4. Justification is so far perfect at first, as that no sin past or existent is unpardoned. But it is not so perfect, but that, 1. Many future sins must have re­newed [Page 288] pardon. 2. And means is to be used by us, (believing again at least) for that end. 3. And the continuance of par­don is given us but conditionally, (though we shall certainly perform the condition.) 4. And the most perfect sort of Ju­stification (by sentence at Judgement) is still behind. Are these things doubtfull among Divines or Christians? That the Church must be thus molested by such disputing volumes against it, to make the Papists and other enemies believe we hold I know not what? Read the many Arguments of learned Sand­ford and Parker de Descensu, and Bp. Ʋsher de Descensu (to the Jesuite) by which they prove that all separated souls, as sepa­rated, are under penalty, and that Christs soul as seperated was so: and then tell us whether your fancy of absolutely perfect Justification at the first will hold or not. I wonder that men should so little know the difference betwixt Earth and Heaven; a sinner in flesh, and a Saint that is equal to the Angels of God? and should dream of such perfection short of heaven, the place of our perfection?

His second Argument is, [Faith and works are here contrary: If of Faith, then not of works] Answer. Its true of the works that Paul excludes: but not of the works that you exclude: For Faith in Christ is [Works] with such as you, save only that act that resteth on his satisfaction for righteousness: And repentance and love to Christ, and denying our own righteous­ness, are works with you. And all these are necessarily subservient to Christ and Grace, and therefore not contrary. Augustine, and after him the School-men, put it into their most common de­finition of Grace, that its a thing [qua nemo male utitur.] And as to efficiency its certainly true: Grace doth not do any harm: And if I may presume to tell Augustine that [objectively] Grace may be ill used, yet perhaps he might reply, [not qua talis, without contradiction] In good sadness, Is it not a strange thing for a man in his wits, to expect to be justified in co-ordination with Christs merits, by denying that he hath any merits of his own that can so justifie him, and by repenting of those sins that have con­demned him, and by desiring, loving, hoping in Christ alone for his Justification: or by Thankfulness to God for justifying him by the sole merits of Christ? And is it not a strange Expo­sition [Page 289] that feigneth Paul to mean and exclude such acts as these under the name of works. But yet really if such a man be to be found, that doth think to merit Justification by de­nying such merit, I am against him as well as you.

His third Argument is, [If faith justifie only as the beginning of our Justification then there are degrees of Justification: but there are no degrees. Ergo.] Answer. 1. Faith is nei­ther the Beginning nor End of Justification, but a means of it. 2. If you would insinuate that I deny faith to be the means of our continued, as well as begun Justification, you deal deceitfully. 3. I deny your Consequence. It may prove more necessary to the Continuance of our Justification, then to its beginning, and yet prove no degrees. 4. But how Justification hath or hath not Degrees, I have told you before; and fuller in other writings.

His fourth Argument is, [Because good works do not precede, but follow Justification.] Answer. 1. Repentance, and the Love of God in Christ, and faith in Christ as Lord, and Head, and Teacher, do go before the pardon of sin, and so before Justification. 2. External obedience goeth before Justifica­tion at Judgement and Justification as continued here. Did you doubt of these?

His fifth Argument is, that [These two Justifications over­throw each other: If by one we have peace with God, what need the other? How can good works perfect our Justification, being themselves imperfect?] Answer. All this is answered in the second Disputation. 1. Its no contradiction to be justified by God, by Christ, by Faith, by Words, by Works, if God be to be believed, that affirmeth all. 2. As imperfect faith may be the condition of pardon, so may imperfect Repen­tance, and imperfect Obedience of our sentential Absolu­tion.

Pag. 233. He answereth the Objection. [Blessedness is ascribed to other Graces,] thus [Not as if Happiness were in them, per se, but only as they are signs.] Answer. Promising is more then Ascrbing: Its a great advantage for you to have the forming of your Objections. 2. Happiness per se is as much in Love, as in Faith, and more. 3. Other, Graces [Page 290] are media, means, which is more then only works.

Pag. 241. He proves that works justifie not subordinate to Faith] thus [Argument 1. No good works were found till faith had done its Works] Answer. 1. Faith hath not done its work till death; we are not justified only by the first act of faith: but by after-acts to the Death. 2. Faith in Christ as Head, and Lord, and Teacher, and Desire and Re­pentance were found before Faith had justified us. 3. O­bedience is found before the sentential Justification, or the continuation of our first received Righteousness.

His second Argument is, [Because good works are the effects of Faith and Justification, and therefore cannot be the cause.] Answer 1. They are none of the cause at all. Its not well to intimate that we hold them the cause, as in despight of all our own denyals. 2. They are not so much as Means or Antece­dents of that part of Justification, of which they are the ef­fect. The act of faith which you will exercise before your death, is as true a condition (or Instrument, if you will needs call it so) of your Justification as continued, as your first act of faith was of your Justification as begun. And yet that act of faith is but fruit of your first Justification, as well as Obedience is.

His third Argument is, that [If Gospel Obedience, and good works do subordinately act with faith to the effecting of Justifi­cation, then the Justification which proceedeth from both, must be of a different kind and nature.] Answer 1. Neither faith nor work effect Justification. 2. Justification by Promise and Gift, and Justification by Sentence, Plea, &c. are much different. 3. But your consequence is nothing worth. For these are not causes, but conditions. And if they were, yet different causes may concur to the same effect, which never man before you denyed, that I know of. Our case is, as if to a Rebell that hath forfeited Life and Estate, the King (up­on a Ransom) grant him both, on condition that he thank­fully accept them as the fruits of that gift and Ransom, and to hold them on condition, that he often do his Homage to the King, and return not to Rebellion. Doth the first ac­ceptance here serve turn for continuance of what is first re­ceived, [Page 291] without the following Homage and Fidelity? or do the different parts of the condition make such a difference in the benefit, as you here take the [Monstrous Justification] to be (as you rashly call it?)

Another Argument is. [If faith be a total cause or condi­tion of producing the effect of Justification, then there's no want of obedience for its assistance.] Answer 1. Faith or obedience are no causes of pardon. 2. I will not trouble the Reader to open the shame of that Philosophy which you make such ostentation of. Only I would remember you, that causes total in suo genere, may have others under them. And that it followeth not, that the sun shineth not, or the fire heateth not, or that you understand not, and wrote not these words, though I suppose you will say that God is Causa totalis of all these act: nor yet that God doth use his creatures because of an insufficiency in himself. 3. Faith taken for our [be­coming Believers, Disciples, Christians] is the total condition of our first Receiving Justification. 2. Faith taken more nar­rowly for our accepting Christs Righteousness, is not the total Condition of our first Receiving of Justification. 3. Obe­dience is part of the condition of the continuance of it, and of our sentential Justification. And whereas you talk over and over of [Total causes, and particular causes.] I tell you again they are no causes.

He adds that then [Obedience doth nihil agere, or actum agere.] Answer. It doth nihil efficere. But besides, [nihil] and [factum] there's two things oft mentioned, Justifica­tion at Judgement, and the non-amission of it here.

3. He insipidly gain disputes that [If an effect doth totally proceed from any cause, then it totally depends on it.] And what then? Therefore it solely dependeth on it: And if these things were true, what are they to our question? But saith he, [When good works, the fruit of faith are interrupted, yet our Justification abides by the single influence of faith only as a total cause of its being and conservation.] Answer. 1. Alas! What would such Disputants do with the Church, if Gods mercy did not hinder them! By your own Argument now, neither God, nor Christ, nor the Gospel are any causes of our Justifi­cation. [Page 292] For you say Faith is a Total cause, and there can be but one Total Cause, unless you lose the honor of your Phi­losophy. 2. Faith is no proper cause at all. 3. Did you not see what must needs be answered you. That Faith is in­terrupted as well as Obedience, and yet no intercision of our Justification. When we sleep we do not (at least alway) act faith no more then obedience (if so much.) And the habit of both continueth together sleeping and waking: And if you should give over love and sincerity of obedience, you would cease to be justified.

His last Argument is, [Because for sins after Conversion, we must have recourse only by faith to Christ, as our Advocate.] Answer. 1. That speaks only of renewed pardon for parti­cular sins, but not of our Justification at Judgement, nor the non-omission here. 2. We must have recourse to Christ with Repentance, and esteem, and self-denial, and desire, &c. as well as that act of faith which you plead for, as the total cause. And when you would set Zanchy against Zanchy, you do but mis-understand him. He saith truly with Paul, that neither in whole or part are our own works (such as Paul speaks of) our Righteousness, that is, to answer the Law as Paul menti­oneth, or any way to merit or satisfie, or stand in co-ordina­tion with Christ. But Zanchy never thought that Repentance and Faith in Christ as Head, and Lord, and Desire and Gra­titude, &c. might be no means or Conditions of any sort of Justification, or of that which we assert them to be means of.

I would answer much more of this Disputation; but I am perswaded the judicious Reader will think I have done him wrong, in troubling him with this much. See pag. 298, 299. how he answereth the Objection, that pardon is promised to Repentance, &c. I will not disparage the Readers under­standing so much as to offer him a Confutation of that, and much more of the Book. Only his many Arguments on the Question of my first Disputation, I must crave your Pati­ence, while I examine briefly, and I will tire you with no more.

pag. 411, 412. I will rally up my Arguments against the foresaid Definition of Faith to be an accepting of Christ as Lord and Saviour: proving that Christ only as Saviour and Priest, offering himself up to the death of the Cross for our sins, is the proper Object of justifying Faith, as justifying. Argument 1. If the Faith of the Fathers under the old Testament was direct­ed to Christ as dying Priest and Saviour; then also the Faith of Believers now ought so to be directed. But.—Ergo.—

1. I grant the whole, and never made question of it. But what kin is the conclusion of this Argument to that which you had to prove, unless [Only] had been added. Did we ever deny that Faith must be directed to Christ as Priest? 2. A Saviour is a term respecting our whole Salvation, and so Christ saveth by Teaching, Ruling, and judicial justi­fying as well as dying. 3. The Fathers faith did not respect Christ as dying or satisfying only, which you should prove but cannot.

Argument 2. If Christ as dying, and as Saviour do satisfie Gods Justice, and pacifie a sinners conscience, then as dying and Saviour he is the Object of justifying Faith. But —Ergo.—

The same answer serveth to this as to the last. The conclusion is granted, but nothing to the Question, unless [Only] had been in. 2. Christ as obeying actively, and Christ as Rising, and as interceding, and as judging, as King, doth also justifie us, Rom. 5.19. Rom. 4 24, 25. Rom. 8.33.34. Mat. 12.37. and 25.34, 40. Peruse these Texts impartially, and be ignorant of this if you can. 3. And yet the Argument will not hold, that no act of faith is the condition of Justifica­tion, but those whose object is considered only as justifying. The accepting of Christ to sanctifie us, is a real part of the con­dition of Justification.

Argument 3. If Christ as Lord be properly the Object of fear, then he is not properly the Object of Faith as justifying: But—Ergo.—

If [Properly] be spoken de proprio quarto modo, then is Christ properly the Object of neither, that is, he is not the object of either of these Only. 2. But if [pro­perly] be opposed to a tropical, analogical, or any such im­proper speech, then he is the Object as Lord, both of fear, and faith, and obedience, &c. 3. The deceit that still mis­leads most men in this point, is in the terms of reduplication, [faith as justifying,] which men that look not through the bark, do swallow without sufficient chewing, and so wrong themselves and others by meer words. Once more therefore understand, that when men distinguish between fides quae justi­ficans, and qua justificans, and say, [Faith which justifieth, accepteth Christ as Head and Lord; but faith as justifying, taketh him only as a Priest.] The very distinction in the later branch of it, [qua justificans.] Is 1. Either palpable false Doctrine. 2. And a meer begging of the Question. 3. Or else co-inci­dent with the other branch, and so contradictory to their as­sertion. For 1. The common Intent and meaning is, that [Fides quae credit in Christum justificat: And so they suppose that Faith is to be denominated formally [justificans] ab objecto qua objectum: And if this be true, then fides qua fides justifi­cat: For the object is essential to faith in specie. And so in their sense, [fides quae justificans] is but the implication of this false Doctrine, that haec fides in Christum crucifixum qua talis justi­ficat. Which I never yet met with sober Divine that would own when he saw it opened. For the nature and essence of faith, is but its aptitude to the office of justifying, and it is the Covenant or free Gift of God in modo promittendi, that as­signeth it its office. The nature of faith is but the Dispositio materiae; but its nearest interest in the effect is as a condition of the Promise performed. 2. But if by the [quâ justificans] any should intend no more then to define the nature mate­rially of that faith which is the condition of Justification, then [Page 265] the qua and the qua is all one: and then they contradict their own Assertion, that [fides quâ justificans non recipit Christum ut Dominum.] 3. If the [quâ] should relate to the effect, then it would only express a distinction between Justification and other Benefits, and not between faith and faith. For then [quâ justistcans] should be contradistinct only from [qua sanctificans] or the like. And if so, it is one and the same Faith and the same acts of faith, that sanctifie and justifie. As if a King put into a gracious act, to a company of Rebels, that they shall be pardoned, honoured, enriched, and all upon condition of their thankfull acceptance of him, and of this act of Grace: Here there is no room to distinguish of their Accep­tance, as if the acceptance of pardon were the condition of pardon, and the acceptance of riches were the condition of their Riches, &c. But it is the same acceptance of their Prince and his Act of Grace, that hath relation to the several conse­quent benefits, & may be called pardoning, honouring & enrich­ing in several respects. It is the same marriage of a Prince that makes a woman rich, honourable, &c. So it is the same faith in whole Christ, as Christ, that is sanctifying and justifying, as it relateth to the several Benefits: that is, it is the condition of both, so that their [quâ justifi [...]ans] doth either intimate this untruth, that haec fides quae talis, id est, qua fides in Christum crucifixum justificat] (which is true, neither of one act, nor other,) and so begs the Question, or else it saith nothing. So that I shall never admit this quae justificans, without an Ex­position; and better then yet I have seen from any that use it.

Argument 4. That which is the sum and substance of Evangelical preaching, is the object of Justifying Faith. But Christ as crucified, is the substance of Evangelical preaching. Ergo.

When I come to look for the conclusion which excluded Christ as Lord, Teacher, &c. from being the ob­ject, I can find no such thing in any Argument that yet I see. They have the same fate as Mr. Blakes Arguments had, to con­clude [Page 296] no more then what I grant, that is, that Christ as cru­cified, is the object of justifying faith. But wheres the [Only,] or any exclusive of the rest. 2. But if it be implyed, then 1. I say of the term crucified, that Christ crucified to purchase sanctification and salvation, is the object of that faith which is the condition of Justification, and not only Christ crucified to procure Justification. 2. I deny the Minor, if by [sum and substance] you exclude Christ as Lord, Teacher, Judge▪ Head, &c. Surely Evangelical preaching containeth Christs Resur­rection, Lord-ship, Intercession, &c. as well as his death, or else the Apostles preached not the Gospel. This needs no proof with them that have read the Bible.

Argum. 5. That which we should desire to know above all things, is that Object of justifying faith: But that is Christ cru­cified. —Ergo.

Still the Question wanting in the conclusion: Who denyeth that Christ crucified is the object of justifying faith? 2. But if [only] be here understood, really doth not this Brother desire to know Christ obeying, Christ risen, Christ teaching, ru­ling, interceding, &c? I do.

Argument 6. That in Christ is the object of faith, as justifying which being apprehended doth justifie us: But the death, suffering, blood, obedience of Christ to death is that.— Therefore it is the proper object of faith, as justifying.

I distinguish of the term [as justifying] and an­swer as before. No act of Faith effecteth our Justification: and whole faith is the condition: The being or Nature of no act is the formal or nearest reason of faiths Interest in Justifi­cation It justifieth not [as this act, nor as that.] 2. If [only] or some exclusive be not implyed in the conclusion, I grant it still: But if it be, then both Major and Minor are false. 1. The Major is false, for it is not only the matter of our Justifi­cation, that is the object of justifying faith. To affirm this, is but to beg the question: we expect your proof. 2. The [Page 297] Minor is false: for besides the sufferings mentioned, the very person of Christ, and the active obedience of Christ, and the Title to pardon given us in the Gospel, &c. apprehended by faith do justifie. But the question is not what justifieth ex parts Christi, but ex parte nostri.

Argument 7. That which the Gospel doth first pre­sent us with, is the Object of faith as justifying: But Christ is in the Gospel first presented as a Saviour: therefore he is therein the object of faith as justifying.

Distinguishing as before of the [as justifying] I still grant the whole; the exclusive and so the question is still wanting in the conclusion. 2. But if he mean only, then both Maior and Minor are false. The Maior is false; for that which the Gospel doth first present us with, is but part of the object of justifying Faith. For it presenteth us with the Articles to which we must Assent, and to the Good which we must Ac­cept by degrees, and not all in a sentence or word. The Mi­nor is false, because in order of nature, the Description of Christs Person goeth first, and of his Office afterward. 3. The word Saviour, comprehendeth both his Prophetical and Kingly Office, by which he saveth us from sin and Hell; as al­so his Resurrection, Ascention, Intercession, &c. And in this large sense I easily grant the Conclusion. 4. If by a Savi­our, he mean only (as his cause importeth) a sacrifice for sin, then (as this is a strangely limited sense of the word Saviour, so) certainly the Incarnation, Baptism, Temptation, Miracles, Obedience of Christ are all exprest before this; And if it were otherwise, yet the consequence of the Maior is utterly ground­less and vain. Priority or Posteriority of any point delivered in the Gospel, is a poor Argument to prove it the Object (much less it alone) of justifying faith.

Argument 8. That which the Lords Supper doth as a seal present to justifying faith, that is the object of faith as justifying: But the Lords Supper doth present us with Christ as dying.—Ego.

Still the question is wanting in the conclusion. What a pack of Arguments are here? 2. Do you believe in your conscience, that Christ is presented and represented in the Supper only as dying?

Argument 9. If we have Redemption and remission of sins through faith in his blood, then faith as justifying should only look upon that: But we have redemption and remission of sins by his blood, Col. 1.

Here's one Argument that hath the question in the conclusion. But 1. I deny the consequence of the Major, as not by Christians to be endured. The [only] followeth not. Though we must be justified by his blood, I have proved be­fore, that we are also justified by his Resurrection, Obedience, Intercession, Judgement, &c. 2. Moreover the consequence is false on another account: Justifying faith, that is, Faith the condition of Justification, must look at more in Christ, then that which purchaseth Redemption. It justifieth not effi­ciently, nor of its own nature, but the Promise justifieth with­out faiths co-efficiency; only it makes the condition sine qua non: and this it may do by another Act of faith, as well as that which apprehendeth the Ransom. 3. The [qua justifi­cans] I have spoke to: Qua cannot here properly refer to the nature of the faith, but to the Benefit. And so faith qua justificans, is 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.

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.

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.

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.

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, its 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.

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.

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 [Page 300] 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 thats 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] its 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.

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

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.

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.

Whats 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.

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 Lord. But such an accepting of him is not properly▪ or in the account of God, or in it [Page 302] self Faith or obedience. Ergo.—The Minor I prove: if pur­poses, intentions, or verbal professions to believe or obey are not properly faith obedience, then such an accepting is not faith or obedience. The Minor proved. That which is or may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates is not true faith or obedience. Bu —Ergo.

The Lord pardon the hardness of my heart that hath no more compassionate sense of the miseries of that poor Church, and the dishonour of God which such Disputes as this proclaim; by Arguments as fit to be answered by Tears as by words. 1. A little before he was proving (Argument 12.) that none could call Christ Lord but by the Spirit, and there­fore this act was after Justification: And now he proveth that its common to Hypocrites, & Reprobates. 2. Here he de­livereth me from all the trouble and fallacy that the distinction of fides quae Justificat and fides qua Justificat, hath been guilty of. For if the act that we dispute about, be no faith at all, then it is not the fides quae. And yet he often is upon the Qua Justificans himself, forgetting this.

3. Had I but delivered such a Doctrine as this, what should I have heard? Justifying faith hath three Parts, ASSENT, CONSENT, and AFFIANCE, (which also have several acts or parts, according to the divers essential parts of the Ob­ject.) ASSENT is but Initial and introductory to the rest, as all acts of the Intellect are to those of the Will. CON­SENT is the same which we here call ACCEPTING, which is but the meer VOLITION denominated from its respect to the offer and thing offered. This, as it is in the will, the commanding Faculty, so is it as it were the Heart of Faith; the first act being but to lead in this, and AFFIANCE the third, being commanded much by this, or depending on it: For as it is seated in the Affections, so far it is distinct from this Velle or CONSENT. Now when ever we name Faith by any one of these three acts (as the Scripture doth from every one) we include them all, though to avoid tedi­ousness we stand not to name all the parts, when ever by one word we express the whole. And all these Acts have whole [Page 303] Christ in all the essentials of his Person and office for their ob­ject. Now that this faith in Christ as Lord, or accepting him, should be said, and that by a Christian Divine, and that in the Reformed Church, to be no faith at all, (to say nothing of his denying it to be obedience;) is no matter of honour or comfort to us. How oft doth the Scripture expresly men­tion faith in our Lord Jesus Christ? Receiving Christ Jesus the Lord, Col 2.6. with other equipollent terms. But I will not offer to trouble any Christian Reader with Arguments for such a Truth.

4. But yet the man would be thought to have Reason for what he saith; and to his proof I further answer. 1. Pur­poses, Intentions, and verbal Professions were none of the terms or things in question: but Accepting or Believing in Christ as Lord, Teacher, &c. These are but concomitants (the two first) and (the last) a consequent. 2. Is it the Act [Accepting] that this Brother disputeth against, or is it the Object [Christ as Lord] as being none of the faith by which we are justified? If it be the former, 1. What Agreement then hath this Argu­ment with all the rest, or with his question? 2. What Agree­ment hath his Judgement with the holy Scripture, that calleth Faith a Receiving of Christ, and maketh it equipollent with [Believing in his Name] John 1.11.12. Col. 2.6. 3. What Agreement hath his Judgement with the Protestant Faith, that maketh Christ himself as Good to be the Object of faith; to be embraced, or chosen, or accepted by the will, as well as the word as True, to be Assented to by the understanding. But if it be the Object that he meaneth, then what force or sense is there in his Argument, from the terms, [Purposing, Intending, Confessing?] Let him name what Act he please, so it respect this Object; and if it be an Act of faith indeed, its all one as to our present Controversie. If he take Consent, willing, or Accepting of Christ to be no act of Faith, let him name any other that he will own (for I would quarrel as little as may be about words, or impertinent things,) and let that be it.

4. And how could he choose but see, that his Argument is as much against [Accepting Christ as Priest] as against [Ac­cepting him as Lord] to Justification? No doubt but a man [Page 304] that had the common Reason to write but such a book as this, must needs see this if he regard what he said. And therefore I must take it for granted that his Argument is against both alike: even to prove that Accepting of Christ as Lord, or as Saviour, is no faith or obedience at all. But the Reader will hardly believe till he weigheth it, that a waking man would reason thus upon such a Question as this in hand.

5. Consenting that Christ shall be my Lord and Teacher, and Head, doth imply a consent, and so a Purpose of future obeying, learning and receiving from him; And so consent­ing that Christ shall be my Righteousness, Intercessor, and Justifier, doth imply a Purpose of Trusting in him for the future. And yet this consent in both cases is Justifying faith.

6. And its dolefull Doctrine (were he a true Prophet) to all Gods Church, that Purposes and Intentions to believe and obey, are no more then may be found in Hypocrites or Reprobates. For though there are superficial uneffectual purposes and In­tentions in them, as there is an uneffectual faith in them; yet if no Purposes and Intentions will prove men Saints, then no­thing in this world will prove them Saints; For the Evidences of Grace are more certain to him that hath them, in the Heart then in the outward Actions. And in the Heart, the very new Creature lyeth much in these two. Desires themselves will prove true Grace: Much more when they rise to setled Pur­poses. Why else did Barnabas exhort the young beginners▪ that [with purpose of Heart they should cleave unto the Lord] as intimating that their stability lay in this; And Intentions are the very Heart of the New man. For Intention is that act that is exercised about the End, which is God himself. Inten­dere finem, is no more then Velle vel Amare Deum; It is the Love of God above all. And if this be common to Hypo­crites and Reprobates, what a case are we in then?

I hope I have given you a sufficient account of the Imperti­nency and vanity of Mr. Warners fifteen Arguments. To which he adjoyneth a rabble of the words of Socinians, Arminians, and I know not who, to assure you that we his new Adversa­ries, do joyn with that company and plead their cause: And [Page 305] he that will believe him, shall no further be disturbed by me in his belief.

I doubt I have wearied the Reader already, and therefore I shall only add a few words about a few more of the most con­siderable passages in his Book.