Of Justification: FOUR DISPUTATIONS Clearing and amicably Defending the Truth, against the unnecessary Op­positions of divers Learned and Re­verend Brethren.

By Richard Baxter, A servant of Christ for Truth and Peace.

JOHN 3.18, 19.

He that Believeth on him, is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already; because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather then Light, be­cause their deeds were evil.

Dr. Twiss, Vindic. Grat. lib. 1. part. 3. pag. (Vol. min.) 302.

[Verum in diverso genere ad Justitiam Dei refertur Christi satis­factio, & fides nostra: Christi satisfactio ad eandem refertur per modum, meriti & condignitatis: nostra vero fides ad eandem re­fertur duntaxat per modum congruae dispositionis.] ☜

LONDON, Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons Bookseller in Kederminster, and are to be sold by him there; and by Nathaniel E [...]s, at the Gun in Pauls Church-Yard. 1658.

The Preface.

Christian Readers,

TO prevent your trouble and misunder­standing in the perusal of these Dis­putations: I have two things here at the entrance to acquaint you with. First, The occasion of all these Wri­tings: Secondly, The true state of the Controversies here managed. The first Disputation is upon a Question of considerable weight, whether Christ as Christ, and so as Pro­phet, Priest and King▪ be the Object of that Faith by which we are justified? Three points especially my Reverend Brother Mr. Blake was pleased to publish his Reasons against, which in my Aphorisms I had asserted. These being vindicated by me in an Apologie, he renewed the conflict in his Treatise of the Sacraments. The first [Page] about the Sacraments I have defended again in a Volume by it self. The second is this in hand, which I had finish­ed about fifteen or sixteen months ago. The third is about the Instrumental efficiency of Faith to our Justification, of which I had also begun above a twelve month since. But it hath lately pleased our wise and gracious Lord to call this Reverend Brother to himself: whereupon, though this first Disputation was gone so far, that I could not well recall it, yet the others, which was not out of my power, I re­solved to condemn to perpetual silence. If you ask me a rea­son of this resolution, I must desire that my disposition and passion may go for part of a Reason this once. The grief of my heart for the loss of this precious servant of Christ would not permit me to appear any further in a way that seemed to militate with the dead, and with one whose death, we have all so much cause to lament. Alas, that our sin should provoke our dear Father, to put out the precious Lights of his Sanctuary, and to call in such experienced faithful Labourers, while ignorance, and error, and prophaness, and all Vice doth so plenteously survive. When these plants of Hell do thrive upon us, under all our care to weed them up: what will they do when the Vineyard is left desolate? Though God in mercy is raising up a supply of young ones, that may come to be Pillars in their dayes: yet alas, what difference will the Church find between these, and their grave experien­ced Guides: and how many years study, and experience, and patience, is necessary to ripen these tender plants, to bring them to the stature, and stability, and strength of such as this Blessed servant of Christ, that is now taken from us. The sense of our loss doth make it doubly bit­ter to my thoughts, that ever I was unhappily engaged in any way of serving the Lord of Truth, which must con­tein [Page] so much contradiction of such a friend of Truth. As it is for God, or for Truth, or for the use of the Church, I dare not disown it; but as it savoureth of disagreement (though necessitated to it) it is very un­grateful to me to think of, or review. But our diseases will have their pains. We must bear the smites of our own and our Brethrens weaknesses, rather then neglect the ser­vice of Christ, his Church and Truth. We quickly par­don one another, and at the furthest Heaven agreeth us all: But the benefit of our search, though mixed with our infirmities, may be somewhat serviceable when we are gone.

The second Disputation is yet more ungrateful to me, then the first: the Reverend Brother whom I contradict being as high and dear in my esteem as most men alive; indeed being an Honour and Blessing to the Church in this unworthy Generation. The Lord preserve him long for his service. But my Defence here also is necessitated. 1. I did my best to have prevented the Necessity, and could not: I mean, not by diswading him from opposing me in Print, for that might have hindered the Church of the Benefit of his Opposition (for ought I knew, till I had seen it:) But by trying first, whether I could receive or give satisfaction. 2. I had publickly obliged my self, if this Reverend Brother did Dissent, to search again: and by an Epistle, became more accountable to the world for Dissenting from him then other men. 3. His Name deservedly precious in the Church, hath the greater ad­vantage to over-lay the Truth, where humane imperfecti­on engageth him against it. Yet do I not blame him for beginning this Contest with me; but take the blame to my self that might occasion it, by dishonouring his Name by a temeracious prefixing it to my undigested papers, [Page] (though nothing but High estimation, and Affection was my Motive.)

The Letters that past between us were never intended for the view of the world: And therefore I must desire the Reader to remember it, if sometime I be more pressing and vehement, then manners and reverence require; be­cause we use to speak freelier in private among friends, then in the hearing of the world. And yet I thought it my duty now to joyn them with the rest for these Reasons. 1. Because some passages in the Writings of this Reverend Brother, do in a manner invite me to it. 2. Because the matter requireth me to speak the same things; and there­fore it is as good affix the old, as be at the same labour needlesly again. 3. And it can be no wrong to him, be­cause it is my own Papers that are the main bulk of what I publish: His Letters being brief, and annexed but as the occasions of mine. 4. But especially, I was brought to think it meet, by the open blame that I have received from some very dear and Reverend Brethren, for not pre­venting this publike Contest. And therefore I thought good to let them see, that I was not wholly wanting to pre­vent it.

If there be any passages in these Writings too eager or provoking (which I must needs suspect even where I have not observed them, as being conscious of too keen a stile, forgetting the persons while I speak meerly to the words and matter,) I do intreat my Brethren to pardon it, as be­ing not designed to their provocation or dishonour, and as I heartily do the like by theirs, and as I hope God will do both theirs and mine. And I do adjure the Reader to believe that this Controversie: for all our infirmities is ma­naged with a very high esteem and honour of those Reve­rend Brethren, whom I am necessitated to gainsay. Nor [Page] would I have it be any dishonour to them (though an ex­cuse to me,) that they have been the Assailants, and begun the conflict: for the Truths of God must be precious to us all, and I doubt not but they were confident that it was some dangerous errour, which they set upon, and I have here proved to be the Truth. Nor is it any such wrong to either side, to be openly contradicted, that Reasons may be openly produced, and men may have some further help, to see into these Points. Let the proud swell or smart, be­cause they are thus proclaimed fallible, and mistaken; but the Humble that are devoted servants to the Truth, are of another spirit, and have learnt another lesson.

And if any Papist or enemy to our unity and Peace, shall from these Writings predicate our dissentions or divisi­ons, let them know to their faces, that even these differen­ces as momentous as they seem, are not neer so great as are commonly published among themselves: nor are they for Number one to twenty, perhaps to a hundred, that are agi­tated in their Schooles, and the writings of their Doctors: Had we such differences as those of the Jesuit Casuists opened by Montaltas the Jansenian in his Mysterie of Je­suitism, out of their own writings, something they might then say against us. Yea I doubt not but we differ with more hearty Christian Love, then they agree; and have more real union in our controversies, then they have in their Articles of Faith, and are neerer one another in our smaller differences, then the French and Italians are in their very Fundamentals.

The third Disputation was called forth by Mr. Warner's Treatise of the Object and Office of Faith, and takes up the subject of the first Disputation, with some others.

When that was in the Press, Mr. Tombes's Book against Infant Baptism came forth, in which I found the Pap­ers [Page] that I sent to him (upon his importunity) printed without my consent, (which if God will, I shall yet vindi­cate.) And therefore seeing that it is his way, I thought he might do the like by other Papers, which formerly I had wrote to him on this subject of Justification. And therefore thinking it fitter that I should publish them (of the two) then he, (I have saved him the charge of printing them, and annexed them to these.

The fourth Disputation was added, because it is the ve­ry heart of our Controversie, which most of our Disputes about the instrumentall Causality of Faith as to Justifi­cation, and the other Concomitant, are resolved into.

That the Reader may understand these Disputations the better, I shall here at the entrance shew him the face of the way that I maintain, and also of the way that I op­pose.

The way that I plead for is contained in these Proposi­tions. 1. Man having broken the Law of Nature or works, is lost, and disabled to his own Recovery, or to do any works by which that Law will ever justifie him.

2. Jesus Christ hath Redeemed him from this lost con­dition, by his Incarnation, Life, Death, Resurrection, &c. fulfilling the Law by his obedience, and suffering for our not fulfilling it, and thereby satisfying the Lawgiver, and attaining the ends of the Law, and more: making him­self an example to us of holiness, and becoming our Tea­cher, High Priest and King, to save us from all sin and enemies, and recover us to God, for our Salvation, and his Glory and Pleasure.

3. The Offices and Works of Christ, are for other ends as well as for our justification; even for our Sanctifica­tion, Glorification, &c.

4. The Believer ought not to confound the offices, works, [Page] or ends and effects, but to apprehend them as distinctly as he can.

5. The same Offices of Christ are exercised in the ef­fecting several works: He doth justifie us both as Priest, Prophet and King: and he sanctifieth us as Priest, Pro­phet and King, His Death purchasing both our justifica­tion and sanctification; and his Teaching shewing us the way to both, and his Kingly Office conferring both, though most notably our justification; and the Prophetical effect­ing more of our sanctification, then of our justification.

6, We must have part in Christ himself as our Head, in order of Nature before we can partake of justification, Sanctification, (as following our first faith) or Glorifi­cation from him.

7. Though our Physical Communion with Christ is ef­fected by a Physical change on the soul; yet our Right to him and to Justification, and other following benefits is the effect of a free Gift, or Testament, or Promise, and that Promise or free Gift is our Title, which is Fundamen­tum juris, or the efficient Instrumental cause.

8. Christ and pardon, or justification, and Right to Heaven, &c. are given us by one and the same Deed of Gift: so that he that hath Right to Christ, hath by the same Title & on the same terms Right to these his benefits.

9. This Promise or Gift is conditional; though it be but the Condition of a free Gift that is required.

10. No mans works, Repentance or Faith is his proper Title to pardon or life, nor any proper meritorious cause of it; nor any efficient. Principal or Instrumental causes of his Right; No act of ours can be more then a meer con­dition of that Right; and a Causa sine quâ non (which, as it is an act that's pleasing to God, and hath the Promise of a Reward, the Fathers called improperly by the Name [Page] of Merit, which yet less fitly agrees to the Condition of our first Justification then of our Glorification.)

11. Christs pardon and life are given by this Gospel-Promise on condition of our faith in Christ, that is, if we become Believers in Christ; or Christians; which is, If we accept of Christ as offered in the Gospel, and that is, to bring us from our sins and selves to God, by the acts of his Teaching, Priestly, and Kingly Office; Or, if we believe in Christ as Christ. So that it is not any one single act of Faith that is the condition of Justification: nor are the several Benefits of Christ given us on condition of several acts of Faith; as if we had Right to pardon by one act, and to Christ himself by another, and to Adoption by another; and to Heaven by another, &c. Nor have the several acts of our faith as divided an Interest in procurement of the Benefits as Christs actions had: But it is one and the same entire faith in Christ as Christ, that is the condition of all these consequent special Benefits; without division in the procurement. So that the Belief in Christ as our Tea­cher and King hath as much hand in our Justification, as believing in him as Priest; it being the backwardness of nature to the acceptance of Christs Government and Do­ctrine, that is a special Reason why faith is made the con­dition of that pardon, which Nature is not so backward to accept.

12. The Reasons to be assigned, why faith in Christ is made the condition of Justification, is, 1. The will of the free Donor. 2. The fitness of faith to that Office; as being suited to Gods Ends, and to Christ the Object, and to mans necessitous estate. Not only because it is the Receiving of Righteousness, but for all these Reasons to­gether, in which its aptitude doth consist; and its Apti­tude to the Honour of the Redeemer and free Justifier is [Page] the principal part of its Aptitude: it being impossible that God should prefer man as his ultimate and before himself.

13. Though the Reason why Faith is made by God the condition of our Justification, must partly be fetcht from the Nature of Faith, which some call its Instru­mentallity in apprehending Christ, yet the Reason why we are Justified by Faith, must be fetched from the Tenour of the Promise and Will of the Promiser. So that though the Remote Reason be that Aptitude of Faith, which is the Dispositio material; yet the formal neerest Reason is, because God hath made it the condition of the Gift, which shall suspend the efficacy till performed, and when per­formed, the benefit shall be ours.

14. As Faith hath its denomination from some one or few acts, which yet suppose many as concomitant and consequent: So those concomitant and consequent Acts have their answerable place and Interest in the foresaid Conditionality, as to our part in Christ and Justifica­tion.

15. And therefore it was not the Apostles meaning to set Faith against these concomitant acts, (as Repen­tance, hope in Christ, desire of Christ, love to Christ, &c.) and to exclude these under the notion of Works: but con­trarily to suppose them in their order.

16. The burdensome works of the Mosaical Law, suppo­ed to be such as from the dignity and perfection of that Law, would justifie men by procuring pardon of sin, and acceptance with God, are they that the Jews opposed to Christs Righteousness and Justification by Faith, and which Paul disputeth against, and consequently against any works, or acts, or habits of our own, opposed to Christ, or this way of free justification by him.

[Page]17. The not loosing our Iustification and Title to Christ and Life, hath more for its condition, then the first Reception or Possession hath. And so hath the final Iustification at judgement, if men live after their first believing.

18. Justification at judgement, being the Adjudg­ing us to Glory, hath the same conditions as Glorification it self hath.

Reader, In these Eighteen Propositions, thou mayst fully see the Doctrine that I contend for, which also in my Confession, Apologie, and this Book I have expressed.

And now I will shew you somewhat of the face of the Doctrine, which the Dissenters commonly do propugne, but not so largely, because I cannot open other mens Doctrine so freely and fully as I can do my own.

1. They agree with me that Christs Righteousness is the meritorious or material cause of our Iustification, though some add that it is the formal cause, I suppose it is but a mistaken name.

2. They agree that Christ, and pardon, and Life, are Given us by the Gospel-Promise.

3. They yield that an entire Faith in Christ as Christ, is the condition of our Right to his entire Benefits.

4. But they say that the Acts of Faith in thier pro­curement of the Benefits, have as divers an Interest as the Acts of Christ, which Faith believeth.

5. And they say, that it is some one act (or two, or some of them) that is the sole justifying act, though others be compresent.

[Page]6. This Iustifying act some call the Apprehending of Christ as a Sacrifice: some Affiance, or Recumbency, or Resting on him, as a Sacrifice for sin, or as others, also on his active Righteousness, or an Apprehension of Christs Righteousness; or as others, A perswasion that his Pro­mise is true; or an Assent to that truth; or as others, an Assurance, or at least a Belief, fide Divinâ, that we are justified.

7. They say, that the neerest Reason of our Iustifica­tion by this faith is, because it is an Instrument of our Iu­stification, or of our Apprehending Christs Righteousness: And so, that we are justified by Faith as an Instrumental efficient cause; say some: and as a Passive Receiving Instrument, say others.

8. They say, that there being but two wayes of Iusti­fication imaginable, by faith, or by works, all that de­sert the former way (if they despair not of Iustification) fall under the expectation of the latter: And I grant that Scripture mentioneth no third way.

9. Therefore say they, seeing that Pauls Iustification by Faith, is but by the act before mentioned: whoever looketh to be justified, in whole, or in part, by another act (as by Faith in Christ as Teacher, as King, by desiring him, by Hoping in him, by Loving him, by disclaiming all our own righteousness, &c.) doth seek Iustification by Works which Paul disputes against, and so set against the only true Iustification by Faith.

10. Yea, and they hold, that whoever looks to be Iu­stified by that act of faith, which themselves call the Iu­stifying act, under any other notion then as an Instrument, doth fall to justification by works, or turn from the true Iustification by Faith.

By these unwarrantable Definitions, and Distinctions, [Page] and additions to Gods Word; A lamentable perplexity is prepared for mens souls, it being not possible for any living man to know, that he just hits on the justifying Act, and which is it, and that he takes in no more, &c. and so that he is not a Legalist, or Jew, and falls not from Evangelical Iustification by faith in Christ. So that Iu­stification by faith in Christ as Christ, (considered in all essential to his Office,) is with them no Iustification by faith in Christ, but justification by Works, so much dis­owned by the Apostle, the expectants of which are so much condemned. I have gathered the sum of most of the Dissenters minds as far as I can understand it. If any particular man of them, disown any of this, let him better tell you his own mind: For I intend not to charge him with any thing that he disowns. The Lord Illuminate and Reconcile all his people, by his Spirit and Truth. Amen.


Disputation 1.
  • Quest. WHether we are justified by believing in Jesus Christ as our King and Teacher, as well as by believing in his blood? Aff. pag. 1.
  • The state and weight of the Controversie p. 2, &c.
  • Ten Propositions for fuller explication. p. 10, &c.
  • Argument first. p. 13
  • Argu. 2. p. 14
  • Argu. 3. p. 19
  • Argu. 4. p. 24
  • Argu. 5. p. 27
  • Argu. 6. p. 28
  • Argu. 7. p. 30
  • Argu. 8. p. 31
  • Argu. 9. p. 35
  • Argu. 10. p. 38
  • defended against Mr. Blak's assault. p. 40
  • Whether the Law of Grace condemn any, and how. p. 44, 45
  • The Distinction of sides quae justificat, & quâ justificat consider­ed. p. 46, &c.
  • [Page]MR. Blak's first Argument answered. p. 53
  • Argument 2. answered. p. 55
  • Argument 3. p. 57
  • Argument 4. p. 63
  • Argument 5. and 6. p. 64
Disputation 2.
  • Quest. WHether works are a condition of condition of Justification, and so whether we are justi­fied by works as such a condition?
  • The terms [Works and Justification] explained. p. 70, 71
  • The Term Condition explained. p. 72
  • The Truth laid down in several Propositions. p. 75
  • Negative and Affirmative
  • The main Proposition proved. p. 79, &c.
  • Quest. Can Christ be Instrumental in justifying. p. 84
  • Quest. Did Christ expiate the sins, that by the Gospel men are obliged to punishment for? p. 86
  • Of Repentance, and the habit of Faith in Justification. p. 85, 86
  • Quest. Doth the Gospel justifie us? p. 86, 87, 88, 89
  • Other points briefly discussed. p. 90
  • The Opponents stating of the Question. p. 94, 95, 96
  • Divers unjust charges repelled. p. 97, to 101
  • The Opponents Thesis and Arguments. p. 101, 102
  • How Abraham was justified, debated to p. 110
  • All works make not the Reward to be not of Grace, proved by six Arguments. p. 111, to 115.
  • And by Expo­sitors. p. 115, &c.
  • His second Argument from the difference put between faith and other Graces in Justification. p. 118
  • The case of faiths Interest opened by a similitude. p. 120
  • His third Argument considered: Our first Justification how [Page] different from the following. p. 122, 123
  • His fourth Argument of self Righteousness and causal condi­tions. p. 124, &c.
  • His Fifth Argument, Works are the fruits, therefore not the condition. p. 128
  • His sixth Argument. p. 132
  • His seventh Argument. Of a twofold Righteousness or Justification. p. 133
  • His eight Argument that cannot be a condition of Justification, which it self needeth Justification. p. 136
  • Answered.
  • Paul judgeth them dung. p. 140
  • How justifying faith belongs to the Law, and the difference be­tween the Law and Gospel. p. 142
  • More of Christs suffering for the violation of the new Cove­nant. p. 146
  • His ninth Argument, we fill men with doubts. p. 147
  • Answered.
  • His tenth Argument. p. 149
  • Of the reconciling of Paul and James. p. 150. &c.
  • Letters that past between this Reverend Brother and me. p. 157
  • In which is discussed the Argument from Abrahams Justifica­tion. And in the last Letter these questions.
  • 1. Whether videre, audire, be only Grammatical actions, and Physical Passions. p. 194, &c.
  • 2. Whether Believing be only so, and credere only pati. p. 198
  • 3. Whether Faith be passive in its Instrumentality. p. 207
  • 4. Whether the Opponents way make not other Graces as proper Instruments of Justification. p. 211
  • 5. Whether Faith be a proper Instrument of Justification. p. 212
  • 6. Question. If Faith be an Instrument, whether it justifie primarily and proxime as such, or as an apprehension of Christ or Righteousness. p. 214
  • 7. Question, which is the more clear, safe and certain Doctrine. p. 220
  • Repentance, whether excluded. p. 227
  • [Page]Of Faith relatively taken. p. 228
  • Of the Assemblies Definition of faith. p. 230
  • The Judgement of some Divines. p. 233, &c.
  • whether a dying man may look on his own Acts as the Condi­tions of the Covenant performed. p. 241, &c.
  • Further Explications. p. 244. &c.
Disputation 3.
  • Quest. WHether Besides the Righteousness of Christ imputed, there be a per­sonal evangelical Righteousness ne­cessary to Justification and Salvation? Affir. p. 259
  • Distinctions and Propositions Negative and Affirmative for ex­plication. p. 260, &c.
  • Proved. p. 266
  • Objections answered. p. 269, &c.
  • Mr. Warner's Arguments confuted. p. 273 to 285
  • Mr. Warner's 13th chap. confuted about Justistcation, and the Interest of Obedience, &c p. 286
  • Master Warner's Arguments answered, by which he would exclude Christ as King, &c. from being the Object of justi­fying faith. p. 293. &c.
  • The other chief passages in his Book considered. p. 305, &c.
  • His distinction of fides quae & qua. p. 308, &c.
  • His Preface answered in an Epistle. p. 313
  • [Page] MR. John Tombe's, his friendly Animadversions on my Aphorisms, with a Discussion of them. p. 322
  • Justification in Law-title by the Promise fully vin­dicated. p. 332, &c.
  • Whether Justification be a continued Act, or but one Act. p. 341 &c.
  • Whether Faith comprize Love, Subjection or other Graces: at large. p. 345, &c.
  • Whether Faith be only in the Intellect, or also in the Will. p. 354, &c.
  • Justifying Faith receiveth Christ as Lord, &c. p. 358
  • It is Faith, and not only Love, or other Graces, by which the Will receiveth Christ. p. 361. &c.
  • The Gospel is a Law. p. 369, &c.
  • Repentance necessary to Justification. p. 370, &c.
  • How Faith justifieth. p. 377
  • Whether Christ had a Title on Earth to Rule. p. 379
  • Of Christs universal Dominion and Redemption. p. 380
  • More of the Justification by the Gospel-Promise. p.384
  • Of Preparatives to Justification. p. 387
  • What Paul excludeth as opposite to faith in Justification. p. 391, 392
  • Of Intercision, of Justification, and the guilt of particular sins. p. 393, &c.
Disputation 4.
  • Quest. WHether the Faith which Paul opposeth to works in Justification, be one only Physical Act of the Soul? Or, Whether all Hu­mane Acts, except one Physical Act of Faith, be the works which Paul excludeth from Justification? Neg. p. 399
  • The Question opened: and its proved that this Faith is not one on­ly, [Page] Act. 1. Either Numerically. 2. Or of an inferior Genus, so as to be of one only Faculty: Nor only God the Father, Christ, Promise, Pardon, Heaven, &c. the Object. 3. Nor in specie specielissima, proved by many Arguments.


PAge 6. line 23. read that 1. p. 13. l. 10. r. quae Christum. p. 14. l. 9. r. promitentis. I. 22. r. hath. p. 18. l. 3. r. as this. l. 34. r. proof of. p. 19. [...]. 24. r. be the. l. 34. r. [...]. p. 21. l. 17. r. that be is. p. 24. l. 35. r. thus. p. 29. l. 13. r. though. p. 32. l. 32 r. must be p. 39. l. 6. r. with p. 44. l. 1. r. I need. p. 45. l. 30. r. Commination. P. [...]2. l. 11. r. as. p. 55. l 26. r. nostri. l. 32. r. exclusion. p. 64. l. 30. r. Curse. p. 74. l. 8. r. capitibus. p. 81. l. 13. r. no. l. 20. r. All. p. 85. l. 6. blot out against. p. 87. l. 22. r. that is. l. 21. r. execution. p. 88. l. 12. read there. p. 94. l. 10. r. notion. p. 95. l. 3. r. u. l. 9. r. your. p. 99. l. 19 r. as mediate it. p. 119. l. 36. r. as. p. 135. [...]. 5. r. that he hath not. p. 136. l. 18. r. Christ. p. 139. l. 13. r. a means. page 152. l. 17. r. been. p. 166. l. 38. r. we may. p. 168. r. Gods. p. 170 l. 17. r signs. p. 175. l. 15. r. divers. p. 178. l. 19. r. be that works not. p. 180. l. 4. r. or. p. 183. l. 19. r. casuals. p. 186. l. 25. r. sensu. p. 197. l. 29. r. Potentia. p. 208. l. 8. r. Porret. l. 31. r. Passive in. p. 210 l 24. r. mediante. p. 212. l. 12. r. except. p. 233. l. 7. r. in the. p. 243. l. 32. blot out till. p. 252. l. 13. r. veritatus. p. 257. l. 14. r. exalted. p. 271. l. 10. r. righteous. p. 286. l. 17. r. be. l. 24. r. the. p. 290. l. 1. r. marks. p. 294. l. 22. and l. 26. and p. 265. l. 23. and 26. for. quae r. qud. p. 299. l. 1. r. unproved p. 314. l. 36. r. cull. p. 319. [...]. 14. r. that is. p. 320. l. 14 r. fur. p. 326 l. 31. r. fruit. p. 354. l. ult. r. praemotione. p 360. l. 27. r. God. p. 361. l. 32. r. though [...]. p, 386. l. 27. r. Is it not. p. 387. l. 32. r. sanctification. p. 390. l. 22. r. morally. p. 398. l. 15. r. probable. l. 23 r. Impenitency.

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 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.

[Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as King, Teacher,] &c. is the fides quae Justificat, but it justifieth not qua talis; but qua fides in Christum satisfacientem, &c. Fides qua Justificat, must be distinguished from fides quae Justificat. A man that hath eyes doth hear, and that hath ears doth see; but he heareth not as he hath eyes, but as he hath ears; and he seeth not as he hath ears, but as he hath eyes. So faith which believeth in Christ as King doth justifie, but not qua talis, as it believeth in him as King, but as it believeth in him, or apprehendeth him as our Righteousness.

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.


A DISPVTATION OF JƲSTIFICATION: Whether any Works be any Conditions of it?

Conteining a necessary Defence of ancient Verity; against the unnecessary Opposition of a very Learned, Reverend, and dearly Beloved Brother, in his Treatise of Imputation of Righteousness, and his Lectures on John 17.

By Richard Baxter.

LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Nevil Simmons, Book-seller in Kederminster, 1657.

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.

[Page 79]I Come now to prove the sum of the Affirmative Propositi­on, together so far as they resolve the Question in hand, viz. that works or acts of man have such an Interest in our Justifica­on, and are so far conditions as is here asserted.

My first proof is from those Texts of Scripture which ex­presly speak of Justification by such acts or works.

If we are justified By our words and works, then are they no less then conditions of Justification. But we are justified By them. Ergo. &c.

The Consequence of the Major is plain, first, In that the Preposition [By] doth signifie no less then the Interest of some means: but these Works can be no means, but either a conditi­on or a cause, which is more: A cause, the persons that now I deal with, will not affirm them to be: If they do, then they ascribe much more to them then to be a condition. Secondly, The Inte­rest of faith it self is expressed by no higher terms then [By,] that is, [...], or [...], or [...]: and so is the Interest of these other acts.

The Minor is express, 1. Mat. 12.36, 37. [For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned]. ( [...]:) that is, at the day of Judgement, in the great Justification. 2. Jam. 2.24. ye see then how that By Works ( [...]) a man is justified, and not by faith only ( [...]) This speaks of Justification in this life.

When men argue against Justification by our words or works, I desire 1. to understand whether it be the words or the sense that they argue against. If the words, then it is either against the use of them simply, as being false or unmeet: or else against unseasona­ble use of them. For the former they have no ground; for you see it is the express language of Christ himself and his Apostle. And as to the later, I easily grant that no Scripture phrase should be un­seasonably used. But if it be not the words but the sense that they blame, why then do they harp so much on the words themselves, and raise the most of the odium from thence? And [Page 80] what is the unwarrantable sense? I know not of any lower sense that they can put on these words, then what importeth the In­terest of a condition: As for that of Mat. 12. they say little to it. And as to that of James, they interpret it differently among themselves. First, Some of them say that James speaks of Justification before men, and others say he speaks of Justifica­tion before God. The former are easily confuted (as they re­strain the text to that alone) by the express words of the Text. For, first, ver. 23. it expresly speaks of Righteousness by di­vine Imputation, and of Gods accepting Abraham into friend­ship. Secondly, The text speaks of that Justification which con­curreth with Salvation, ver. 14. [can faith save him?] Thirdly, It speaks of the Death of faith without works, as to Profiting, ver. 16.17. which is different from manifestation. Fourthly, It instanceth in the secret act of Rahab, and such an act of A­braham, as we read of no men that then justified him for, nay they were liker to condemn him. Fifthly, Men may justifie an Hypocrite as soon as the truly godly, and can but conjecture at the faith by the works. But the scope of the text shews that it is no such frivolous justification that is here meant.

Secondly, They that say that it is justification before God that is here meant, (as no doubt it is) have yet divers interpre­tations of the word Works. Some say, that by Works is not meant [Works themselves] indeed, but a working faith. To them I say, first, I deny it, and wait for better proof then is yet brought. Secondly, The text nameth [works] expresly twelve times in a few verses: which is not usual in speeches so tropi­call as this is supposed to be. Thirdly, In many or most of the texts, that interpretation would make the words non-sense, as the perusall will declare. Fourthly, If the word [works] did emphatically signifie the [working nature] of faith, or faith not qua fides, but qua operans, it will be all one as to the matter in question, and yield what I desire.

Others say that by works is indeed meant the works themselves properly; but then they say that the text speaks not of the Ju­stification of the person by them, but of faith by them, for faith, say they, alone doth justifie the person, and works only justifie faith. Answer, But first, this contradicteth the express text: for [Page 81] verse 14. It is the Salvation of the person that is denyed; and ver. 21. It it the justification of Abraham himself that is there mentioned; and ver. 24. it is the man that is said to be justi­fied by works and not by faith only; and verse 25. it is Rahab her self that is said to be justified by works. Secondly, The answer contradicteth themselves, or granteth what I desire: for if works justifie the faith, they must needs justifie the person in tan­tum, against any accusation of gross Infidelity and Hypocrisie. Sometime the person is justified when his Action cannot be justi­fied (as in case of satisfaction and pardon:) but to justifie the action it self, is the highest sort of justifying the person.

So that all other Interpretations being either overthrown, or resolved into that which we maintain, I need to say to more for the defending of it.

My next proof is from those texts that say, we shall be Judg­ed according to our works, and rewarded according to our Labour, &c. 2 Cor. 5.9, 10. 1 Cor. 3.8. 1 Pet. 1.16, 17. Matthew 16.27. &c.

If men shall be justified according to their works, then those works are no lower then a condition of that justification: But the Antecedent is true, as I prove thus. If men shall be judg­ed according to their works, therefore they shall be justified according to their works: The reason of the Consequence is evident; because judging is the Genus, which comprehendeth Justification and condemnation as its species. The reason also of the consequence of the former Argument is apparent: be­cause the term [of judging according to works] doth in the common use of men signifie ordinarily that which they call the Meritum causae, but never any thing lower then a bare conditi­on: nor can any lower tolerable judiciary sense be put upon them, as might easily be shewed if it were worth the standing on.

My next proof is from those texts that expresly promise the pardon of sin on condition of Repentance, Confession, &c. If Repentance, and other acts are made by the Gospel, conditi­ons of pardon, (and our first general Pardon) then are they made conditions of our first admission into a state of Justifica­tion. But the Antecedent is plain, in Act. 2.38. Mar. 14. [Page 82] Luke 13.35. Isa. 55.67. and 1.16, 17, 18. Ezek. 33.11, 16. and 18.28, 29, 30, 31, 32. Prov. 28.13. Act. 3.19. with ma­ny more. The Consequence is plain, in that Pardon is by very many made the whole of our Justification; and by others confessed a chief part; and by all its confessed to be made ours on the same terms as is Justification it self.

My fourth Proof is from those texts which make these kind of Acts to have the place of a condition in order to salvation; if they are conditions of salvation, then are they no less then conditions of our final Justification: But the Antecedent is or­dinarily acknowledged by the Opponents, and its proved, 1 Tim. 4.8. Heb. 5.9. 1 Tim. 6.18, 19. Luk. 11.28. and 13.24 1 Cor. 9.24, 25, 26, 27. Rev. 22.14. John 12.26. Rom. 8.13. Mat. 5.20. Mat. 19.29. Mat. 6.1, 2, 4, 6. and 5.12, 46. and 10.41, 42. 2 Thess. 1.5, 6. Col. 3.23, 24. Heb. 6.10. 2. Tim. 4.7, 8. Gal. 6.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. 2. Cor. 9.6, 9. John 5.22, 27, 28, 29, &c. The Consequence is proved good, first, In that final Justification and Glorification have the same conditions; as is plain, both in many Scriptures (mentioned) and in the nature of the thing: for that Justifi­cation is the adjudging us to that Glory; and there­fore so far as any thing is the cause or condition of the Glory it self, it must be the reason of the sentence which adjudgeth it to us. Secondly, And salvation is as free as Justification, and no more deserved by man: and therefore the Apostle equally excludeth works from both, Eph. 2.5, 8, 9. By Grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of your selves, it is the gift of God; not of worke, lest any man should boast. so Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. more fully. Now if Salvation by grace through faith without works, exclude not sincere obedience from being a Condition of Salvation, then Justification by grace through faith without works, doth not (in Scripture sence) exclude sincere obedience from being the condition of our final Justification, nor Repentance from be­ing the condition of our justification as begun: (for there is ea­dem ratio, and the Text makes the one as free without works, as the other) But the Antecedent is plain in the Scriptures, Ergo, &c.

My fifth Proof is from those texts that in terms seem to as­sign [Page 83] a causality to such obediential acts, which can be interpreted of no less then a conditionality; such are Luke 19.17. Mat. 25.31, 23, 34, 35, 40, 46. Gen. 22.16, 17, 18. 2 Chron. 34.26, 27. Psalm 91.9, 14. Mark 7.29. 1 John 3.22, 23. John 16.27. Rev. 3.10. and 3.4. and 7.14, 15. &c. And though some of these texts speak not of Divine acceptance to life; yet first, some do; secondly, and the rest speak of no mercy but what is as freely given as Justification. A mans own works are exclu­ded other Means and parts of salvation, as well as that.

I run over these briefly and generally, both because I expect that the bare texts without my Comments, should work upon the Considerate, and because I have been so much upon it former­ly in other writings (as Confess. §. 3. p. [...]6. cap. 3. & cap 5. §. 2. pag. 117, 118. & alibi passim) as that I apprehend in this work more tediousness than necessity.

But the chief thing that I further here intend, is to answer some Objections, that by a Reverend Brother in his second part of his Treatise of Justification are brought against me.

But before I come to his Arguments, its necessary that I a little animadvert on his Description of Justification, that we may first agree upon the sense of our terms, or at least, know how to understand one another.

Treat. Of Justification. p. 126. [Justification is a gratious and just Act of God, whereby through Christ our Mediator and Surety, a sinner, but repenting and believing, is pronounced just, and hereby put into a state of Reconciliation and favour with God, to the praise of Gods glorious attributes, and to the Believers eternal salvation. I shall not examine this Description by accurate Logical Rules, &c.

Answ. First, Doubtless an accurate, rather then popular definition would as soon be expected from you, as from most; and here as anywhere in a Treatise purposely on the Subject. Secondly, Pronunciation doth not go before Constitution, not put us into a state of Reconciliation and favour, but find us in it, you say your self. pag. 120. To justifie, is to constitute and to declare or pronounce righteous, And in your first Treatise of Ju­stification. pag. 7. Indeed the Apostle, Rom. 5. saith, many [Page 84] are made righteous by the second Adam; which if not meant of inherent holiness doth imply that the righteousness we have by Christ, is not meerly declarative, but also constitutive; and indeed, one is in order before the other; for a man must be righteous, before he can be pronounced or declared so to be.]

Treat. p. The Application of (Justification) is attri­buted to the Holy Ghost.

Answ. I know not of any such, except first, where Ju­stification is taken for Sanctification. Secondly, or as the Holy Ghost is made the Author of the Promise, though I doubt not but he is the Author of faith also.

Treat. 16. The Socinians say Christ justifieth only In­strumentally, not principally; even so faith is said to save: but this cannot be, because Christ is God as well at Man, and there­fore cannot be instrumental, but principal.

Answ. As they err on one hand, that say Christ justifi­eth only Instrumentally (which flows from their blasphemous denyall of his God-head) so its an error on the other hand, to say that Christ cannot be Instrumental, but principal; I prove the contrary; first, If Christ may be an Officer appointed by the Father to the Redemption, and ruling of mankind, then may he be an Instrument. But, &c. Ergo, &c.

Secondly, If Christ may be a means, he may be an Instru­ment; but he may be a means, for he is called by himself the way to the Father: and a way is a means.

Thirdly, He is called the Fathers servant: therefore he may be an Instrument.

Fourthly, He is said to come to do his Fathers will, therefore he is his Instrument.

Fifthly, All Power is said to be given him, even the Power of judging, John 5.22. and Matthew 28.18, 19. therefore he is the Fathers Instrument in judging.

And your reason is invalid, (viz. because Christ is God) for he is Man as well as God, and so may be Instrumental.

[Page 85]Treat. p. 129, 130. It sounds as intolerable Doctrine in my ears, that Christ our Mediator did only expiate by his death sins against the Law and Covenant of works, but that those that are against the Covenant of Grace, &c.

Answ. A sin is against the Law of Grace or Gospel, first, because it is against some object revealed in the Gospel, which the sin is against, (as Christ) Thus sin was expiated by Christ: 2ly. As it is against a Precept of the Gospel and thus it is expiated by Christ: 3ly. As it is a breach of a mans own Promise or Covenant made to Christ upon the Gospel invitation. And thus it is expiated by Christ. 4ly. Or as it hath respect to the Gospel commination, so as to make a man the object of the actuall curse of this New Co­venant, or the person to whom its proper penalty is become actu­ally due; as every sin made the penalty of the first Law actually due to us. This is it that I have said, that Christ doth not expiate, and none but this. Some Divines say, the Gospel hath no proper curse or commination & penalty. I am past doubt that it hath, even non-liberation, a privation of all the salvation offered them, and the Remedilesness of their state, &c. and I have oft opened this, and proved that only final Impenitency and Infidelity, or the finall non-performance of the conditions of life, are thus peremptorily threatned, and make a man the Subject of the proper actual curse of this Law of Grace. And if after all ex­plications, you will still carry it in confusion, or intimate that men hold intolerable Doctrine, omitting their explications, and by generals making that theirs which they disclaim: our next reply shall be patience; or if you think indeed, either that the Law of Grace doth oblige any under the penalty of reme­diless non-liberation, besides the finally Impenitent and Unbe­lievers, or that Christ dyed to expiate any mans predominant final Impenitency or Unbelief, I will not trouble you with any other consutation then a denyal of it.

Treat. p. ibid. Repentance is not an ingredient to our Justifica­tion as faith is; Repentance qualifieth the Subject, but faith imme­diatly receiveth it.

[Page 86] Answer. The Word Ingredient is more ambiguous then to be worthy the labour of discussing: But your assigned difference I ever did allow. And yet must we voluminously differ, when I have told you that I allow it? But then I add, that this difference is in the nature of the acts, and in their aptitude to their office. But in the general nature of being Con­ditions of pardon, which is the nearest reason of their interest, they agree, though upon several reasons they are made conditions.

Treat. [We are not justified by the Habit of faith; but by the Act.]

Answer. I said so too in my Aphorisms. But the reasons of a learned man (Dr. Wallis in his friendly animadversions) have perswaded me that it is unsound.

Treat. p. 129. It is asserted, that Justification called in Titulo, or virtual, is nothing but the Grant of it in the Gos­pel: But I see not how that can be called our Justificati­on.

Answ. First, That which is asserted, is, first, That the Gos­pel, is the Instrument justifying. Secondly, That the moral act of the Gospel-Grant (and Gods Will by it) is Justification in sensu activo. Thirdly, That the Relation resulting there-from, is our passive Justification.

Secondly, Can you see how a Princes pardon under his hand-writing can be the Instrument of a Traitors pardon; and how the moral or civil Action of that Instrument, and of the Prince by it, can be active pardon; and how the Relation effected by it can be passive pardon? If you can see it there, you may see it here: And if you cannot, many a one can.

Treat. It is the sign or Instrument declaring it: not justifi­cation it self.

An. Who ever said, and where, that passive Justification (yea or [Page 87] active) is the Gospel it self, or the sign? The Letter is the sign; The actual signification of Gods will thereby is the justi­fying act. The Relation thence resulting on us, is our passive Justification. These have been oft recited.

Treat. As the grant or promise of our Sanctification is not our Sanctification.

Answ. Good reason: The difference is not to you unknown: Sanctification (passive) being a Physical effect, must have a Physical cause, and therefore a bare moral cause cannot pro­duce it. But pardon or justification being but a Relative effect, may be produced per nudam resultantiam à fundamento. 2. But suppose God had made a promise of Sanctification on condition of faith; would not the Right to Sanctification have resulted immediately from this promise, the condition being performed? And that Right hath the same Relative nature, as constitutive Justification, and pardon it self hath.

Treat. And as on the contrary our condemnation while we abide in sin, or Gods anger against the sinner, is not the threatning promulged, but that which comes from God himself.

Answ. 1. Our Condemnation per sententiam Judicis, is not the thing in question, not yet the explication of it; but our constitutive condemnation. And that it is not indeed the Letter of the Law, (whoever said so) but activè, it is the action of the Law, & passivè sumpta, it is the Relative effect of the Law.

2. From your own Argument reverst, I unresistibly make good my Cause against you. Condemnation active is the Laws act, and condemnation Passive is the Laws immediate effect: therefore Justification is alike produced by the Promise or Gift in the Gospel. The Antecedent is proved, Iohn 3.18. he that believeth on him, is not condemned, (for the Obligation is dissol­ved) but he that believeth not, is condemned already.] Which must be by some Law, it being before Judgement and Executi­on, 2 Cor. 3 9. The Law in its delivery is called [the ministra­tion [Page 88] of condemnation] and that of the Gospel [the mini­stration of righteousness] Iam. 2.9. men are said to be [con­vinced of the Law as transgressors.] Though Paul confute the false conceits of Justification by the Law, yet he took them for no unfit phrases, to speak of [the Law working wrath] Rom. 4.15. [The curse of the Law] Gal. 3.13. And saith, Whatso­ever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law] Rom. 3.19. When the Law comes, sin reviveth, and we die, Rom. 7.8 9. therefore we are said to be [delivered from the Law,] Rom. 8.2. & Gal. 3.13. Rom. 7.6. And Gal. 3.21. If there had been a Law given which could have given life, righteousness should have been by the Law. Hence then is mention of being Iustified by the Law, Gal. 5.4. and mens being debtors to the Law, Gal. 5.3. And somewhat this way is implyed by Nicodemus, Iohn 7.51. doth our Law judge any man before, &c.] In a word, what more common among Divines, then to say, [the Law curseth or condemneth sinners] And then it is not abhorrent from the nature of a Law of Grace, an act of Oblivion, to ab­solve and justifie sinners.

Treat. Neither then could we say, that we are justified by Christ given to us, but by the proposition laid down in the Scripture, whereas all say that the objectum quod of our faith is ens incom­plexum, not the promise of Christ, but Christ himself pro­mised.

Answ. Its no impossible thing to be justified both by Christ, and by the Promise. There is no ground to suppose co-ordi­nates to be contraries. Why may not Christ given us▪ justifie us as the meritorious cause, and a principal efficient; and his Gospel-grant, as his Instrument? And accordingly each of them may be the object of faith. The principal object is an ens incomplexum, Christ himself: but a subordinat Object is both the Doctrine Revealing what he is and hath done, and the promise which offereth him to us, and telleth us what he will do. If a Princes Son redeem a woman from Captivity, or the Gal­lows, and cause an Instrument under his own hand (and the Kings) to be sent to her, assuring her of pardon, and liberty, [Page 89] and honours with himself, if she will take him for her husband, and trust him for the accomplishment? Is it not possible for this woman to be pardoned and delivered by the King, by the Princes ransom, by the Prince espoused, and by her marriage with him and by the Instrument of pardon or conveyance? You may be enriched by a Deed of Gift and yet it may be an ens in­complexum that is bestowed on you by that Deed, and enricheth you too. Your Money and your Lease, both may give you title to your house. The promise is Gods Deed of Gift, bestowing on us Christ and pardon, or Justification with him.

Treat. Besides, Abraham was Iustified, and he is made the pat­tern of all that shall be Iustified: Yet there was no Scripture-grant, or deed of gift in writing, declaring this: God then commu­nicating himself to Belivers in an immediate manner.

Answ. Was there no Gospel-grant then extant? no deed of Gift of Christ and his Righteousness to all that should be­lieve? Nothing to assure men of Justification by faith, but im­mediate communications to Believers? If so, then either there was no Church, and no salvation: or a Church and salvation without faith in Christ: and either faith in the Messiah to come for pardon and life, was a duty, or no duty: If no duty, then — If a duty, then there was a Law enjoyning it, and that Law must needs contain or be conjunct with a revelation of Christ, and pardon and life to be had by him. I suppose that whatever was the standing way of Life and Justification then to the Church, had a standing precept and promise to en­gage to the duty and secure the benefit. I know not of duty without Precept, nor of faith without a word to be believed. But this word was not written! True! but what of that? Was it ever the less a Law or Promise, the Object of Faith, or Instru­ment of Justification? The promise of the seed might be con­veighed by Tradition, and doubtless was so. Or if there had been no general conditional grant or offer of pardon through Christ in those times, but only particular communications to some men, yet would those have been nevertheless instrumental

[Page 90]Treat. Therefore to call this Grant or Conditional Promise in the Scripture, Whosoever shall believe shall be justified, a tran­sient act of God, is very unproper, unless in such a sense, as we say, such a mans writing is his hand, and that is wholly impertinent to our purpose.

Answ. There are two distinct acts of God here that I call Transient. The first is the Enacting of this Law, or giving this promise. If this were not Gods act, then it is not his Law or pro­mise. If it be his act, it is either Transient, or Immanent. I have not been accustomed to believe that Legislation, Promi­sing, &c. are no acts, or are Immanent acts. The second is the continued Moral Action of the Word, which is also Gods Acti­on by that Word as his Instrument: As it is the Action of a written Pardon to Acquit, and of a Lease to give Title, &c. And so the Law is said to absolve, condemn, command, &c. What it saith, it saith to them that are under the Law: And to say, is to Act. Though physically this is no other Action, then a sign performeth in signifying, or a fundamentum in producing the Relation, which is called the nearest efficient of that Relati­on. Now either you think that to oblige (the most essential act of Laws) to absolve, condemn, &c. are Gods acts by his Word, or not. If not, the mistake is such as I dare not confute, for fear least by opening the greatness of it, I offend you. If yea; then either it is Gods Immanent act, or his Transient. The former I never to this day heard or read any man affirm it to be. That which is done by an Instrument, is no Immanent act in God: To oblige to duty, to give right to Impunity and Salvation, &c. are done by Instruments, viz. the Word of God, as it is the signifier of his will: therefore they are not Immanent Acts. Moreover, that which is begun in time, and is not from Eternity, is no Immanent Act. But such are the fore-mention­ed: because the word which is the Instrument, was indited in time. Lastly, that which maketh a change on the extrinsick ob­ject is no Immanent act, but such are these Moral acts of the Word: for they change our Relations, and give us a Right which we had not before, &c. therefore they are certainly tran­sient [Page 91] acts. A thing that I once thought I should never by man have been put to prove.

Treat. pag. 130. Its true at the day of Judgement there will be a solemn and more compleat Justifying of us, as I have elswhere shewed.

Answ. You have very well shewed it: and I take grateful­ly that Lecture, and this Concession.

Treat. pag. 131. Indeed we cannot then be said to be justified by Faith, &c. Hence this kind of Iustification will cease in hea­ven (as implying imperfection.)

Answ. And I desire you to observe, that if it be no dis­honour to Christ, that we be there (through his grace) ever­lastingly justified without his Imputed righteousness, or pardon, or faith pro futuro, it cannot be any dishonour to him here, that we should repent, and believe, and be sanctified, nor that those should be conditions of further mercy, and sufficient of them­selves to justifie us against any false charge that we are Impeni­tent unsanctified Infidels. If a perfect cure disgrace not our Physitian then sure an imperfect cure and the acknowledgement of it, is no dishonour to our Physitian now.

Treat. pag. 137. Thus all those Arguments, If we be Ju­stified by faith, then by our own work, and that this is to give too much to faith, yea more then some say they do to works, which they hold a condition of our Justification; All these and the like Objections vanish; because we are not justified by faith, as Justifi­cation is considered actively, but passively.

Answ. 1. I yet think that I have said enough in my private Papers to you, to confute the conceit of faith's being Passive. 2. If I had not, yet you yield me what I desire: If faith act not, but suffer, to our Justification, then is it no efficient Instru­mental cause. For all true efficiency is by Action. And so you keep but a Metaphorical Instrument. But of this more hereafter.

[Page 92]Treat. pag. 141. We cannot call Remission of sin a state, as we call Justification.

Answ. I do not believe you: and I can bring many Scriptures against you. Put to your self its enough to ask, How can you constantly make Remission an Essential part of Justification, and yet say, that we cannot call it a state, as we do Justification. In your first Treat. of Just. Lect. 17. pag. 145. you say, Prop. 4. Remission is not to be considered meerly as removing of evil, but also as bestowing good. It is not only ablativa mali, but collativa boni, a plentiful vouchsafing of many gracious fa­vours to us, such as a Son-ship, and a Right to eternal life, as also peace with God, and communion with him.] And why may we not say, [A state of Sonship or salvation] as well as of Justification?

Treat. ib. There is a Justification of the cause, and of the per­son, alwaies to be distinguished.

Answ. There is no Justification of his cause, which doth not so far justifie the person: Nor any sentential Justification of the person, but by justifying his cause. Though his actions may not be justifiable; yet when the cause to be tryed is, Whether sinful actions be pardoned by Christ, that cause must be justifi­ed, if that man be justified. Even as Accusations are not charged upon the person, without some cause real or pre­tended.

Treat. pag. 152. Not only Bucer who is known to place Justi­fication both in Imputed righteousness and Inherent, thereby endea­vouring a Reconciliation with the Papists — But Calvin li. 3. cap. 17. sect. 8. — To this purpose also Zanchy —.

Answ. Why then might not I have had as fair measure as Lud. de Dieu, Bucer, Calvin, Zanchy? especially when I go not so far. And yet I take my self beholden to Guil. Rivet, for helping me to some scraps of Phil. Codurcus, who drives at this [Page 93] mark, as you say Bucer doth, though I cannot yet get the Book it self.

Treat. pag. 158. O this is excellent, when a man is amazed and in an holy manner confounded at his holiness, as well as at his offences.

Answ. So you before say, they must be ashamed of their Righteousness as well as their sins. I do not well understand these distinctions. Nothing in all the world confoundeth me so much as the imperfection of my Holiness: But I dare not think that imperfection to be no sin, left I must think the perfection to be no duty, and so come to works of supererrogation and Evangelical Counsels. And Holiness considered in it self, and not as sinful and imperfect, is amiable in my eyes, and I know not how to be ashamed of it, without being ashamed of God that is its object and exemplar, and heaven that is the state of its perfection.

Treat. ib. Set some few, even a remnant aside, comparatively, the whole Christian world both Doctors and people, learned and un­learned, fasten on a Justification by works.

Answ. I hope not so many as you fear, or affirm. First, all the Doctors and people of your judgement do not: And if you thought those so exceeding few among Christians, you would not take me for so singular as you do. 2. None of the truly sanctified are such as you here affirm. 3. The multitude of groundless presumers of Free Grace are not such. And truly though I doubt Justiciaries are too common, I do not think that such Presumptuous ones are so small a Remnant. 4. The Li­bertines and Antinomians, and many other Sects of their mind, are none of this great number. 5. I will yet hope for all this, that you cannot prove it of the Doctors and people of half the Christian world. Their hearts God knows. And I will not yet believe that in their Doctrine about Justification by works, the Greek Churches, the Armenians, Jacobites, Copti's, Abasine [...], &c. do fasten on such dangerous sands, or differ so much from [Page 94] you. 6. I heard as eminent Divines as most I know (some yet living) in a publick meeting say, that Bishop Ʋsher and Mr. Gataker affirmed, that the Papists did not fundamentally differ from us in the Doctrine of Justification.

Treat. pag. 167. By all these subtile Distinctions, men would be thought

Answ. Your scope in that page seems to be against any distin­guishing whatsoever about works, in this proposition, We are justified by faith, and not by works, If so, that we must not run to any distinction, but say, that in every motion or sense, Works are excluded, and do justifie in none, then I profess it is past my uttmost skill to justifie you for accusing Althamer as you do, for saying, Mentiris Jacobe in caput tuum: Yea if he had upon the reading of Mat. 12.36. risen higher, and said, Mentiris Chri­ste in caput tuum. For sure he that saith [By thy words thou shalt be justified] Or by works a man unjustified, and not by faith only] can no way possibly be excused from that crime, if no di­stinction may verifie his words; but they must then be taken as absolutely false: which I will not be perswaded of.

Treat. pag. 219. Serm. 23. Observ. That even the most holy and regenerate man is not Iustified by the works of grace which he doth. This truth is the more diligently to be asserted, by how much the error that confronts it is more specious and refined, and main­tained by such abettors, whose repute is not so easily cast off as the former we spake of.

Now you come purposely, I perceive to deal with me. I con­fess the repute of Abettors doth much to bear up opinions through the world, even with them that speak most against im­plicit faith. But you need not despair of casting off the repute of them you mention Mr. Robertson and Mr. Crandon can teach any man that will learn that lesson.

Treat. ib. The Question is not, Whether we are Iustified by works, though flowing from grace, as meritorious or efficient of Ju­stification. [Page 95] This the Opinionists we have to deal with, do reject with indignation. To make Works either merits or efficient causes of our Iustification before God, they grant it directly to oppose the Scriptures; yea they seem to be offended with the Orthodox, as gi­ving too much to faith, because its made an Instrument of our Iu­stification: therefore they are to be acquitted at least from gross Popery.

Answ. This is one passage which I understand by your Pre­face to you Sermons on John 17. you lookt for thanks for: and I do freely thank you for it: for the world is such now, as that I must take my self beholden to any man that doth injure me with moderation and modesty. But you might have done that justice to us Opinionists, as to have put [any causes at all] in­stead of [efficient causes] when we had so often told you (the Orthodox) that we disclaimed all true causality; and then your Reader would have been ready to hope that we are free also from the finer Popery as well as the gross. But since I have heard of late times, what it is that goes under the name of Antichristianity and Popery, even with many that are able to call themselves Orthodox, and others that dissent from them, worse then Opinionists; I confess I begin to have charitable thoughts of a man that is but freed from the charge of gross Popery: and if those tongues should free him also from the im­putation of all the finer Popery, I should begin to suspect that somewhat is amiss.

Treat. ib. 2. Although to maintain faith and Obedience to be the conditions, and a causa sine qua non of our Justification, be the professed and avowed Doctrine of the Socinians, yet some of late have asserted the same Doctrine, that yet abhor Socinian­ism—.

Answ. For this also I give you the thanks which you expect­ed, on the foresaid grounds. But if we assert the same Doctrine with the Socinians, either it is the same false Doctrine, or the same sound Doctrine. If the later, you might as well have said, the Socinians assert that there is a God, and so do we: But to [Page 96] what purpose? If the former, then either it is false quoad ter­minos, or quoad sensum. The former cannot be said without absurdity: the words can have no other falsness, but an unfit­ness, distinct from the sense: And if the terms be any part of Socinianism, then Christ and James were guilty of Socinia­nism; quod absit. If it be the sense▪ First, I crave no other fa­vour of the impartial Reader, before he judge, then to read the Socinians explication of themselves, and to read my expli­cation here, and in my confession. Secondly, And if he will also peruse the Allegations in the end of that confession, let him judge whether the Orthodox be not guilty of Socinianism. Or if he be tempted to believe Dr. Owens intimations, as if I had dealt injuriously with the Authors there alleadged, I only desire him to turn to the places cited, and peruse them in the Authors, and freely censure me.

Treat. 220. Neither is the question about the necessity of ho­liness, &c. — Only the question is upon what account these are required in justified persons; whether in some causality, or concurrence as faith is, only not with such a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, so that we may say, justifying Repentance, justifying Law, (Love, it should be) as well as justifying faith? This is positively and vehmently affirmed by some: but certainly those Arguments and Reasons they bring are too weak to gainsay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines.

Answ. Upon the reading of this, I complained of hard mea­sure in the Preface to my confession: to which you reply some­what in your Preface to Sermons on John 17. I shall recite the reasons of my complaint. First, I did both at large in private writings to your self, and publiquely to the world, pro­fess that I took neither faith nor works for any causes at all of our Justification; was it just then to make this the state of the Question, and say I positively and vehemently affirmed it? (for you deny not that it is me that you mean, and I know it by passages here agreeable to your private letters) Secondly, I never once imagined the difference between faith and holy obe­dience [Page 97] or sanctification, to lie (in order to Justification) in the degree of excellency. I never to my remembrance so thought, or wrote, or spoke. But the difference I laid here, first, That (as to actual obedience, yea and Repentance) faith hath a pe­culiar aptitude to this office, as being a Receptive act, and fit­ed to the object, as that object is fitted to our necessity. Second­ly, That (as to assent, desire of Christ, love to Christ offered, accepting him as Teacher, and Lord) they are essential acts of faith, and so differ not at all, as they are by many supposed to do. Nay, I rather expected that some should have charged me with preferring Holiness before faith in excellency, while I made faith but the seed, and holyness as the fruit; faith to be but the cove­nanting, and Obedience the performance of what we consented to; and in a word, while I made perfect holiness the end of faith, because the end is better then the means: And I was glad when I found you saying the like, Vindic. Legis, Lect. 4. pag. 45. [13. Holiness and Godliness inherent, is the end of Faith and Justification.] But little did I think to have been charged, and that by you, for making the difference to lie in faiths higher de­gree of excellency, and only in that. Thirdly, I never owned the phrase of [justifying Repentance, justifying Love.] nor ever said that we may as well use these as [justifying faith] And when none of these things were ever said or written by me, ought you to have left on record to Generations, that [this is positively and vehemently affirmed.] On the considerati­on of this dealing, I must say again, O what is man, and what a sad case were we in, if the best of men were our Judges! when they will not stick deliberately to publish to the present and fu­ture Ages, that we positively and vehemently affirm those things, which we never thought nor wrote, but have by Letters and in printed books both positively and vehemently, & very frequent­ly professed the contrary. Is here any room for further dis­puting? yea, when I have told you of this dealing, you own it still, and defend it in your Preface to your Sermons on John 17. I shall therefore before I proceed, examine that Defence.

Preface. pag. 3. [Now when I had endeavoured to state the Question in a most candid and fair way between those [Page 98] that deny a Condition sine qua non of our Justification, and those who affirm. A Reverend and Learned Brother, judging himself concerned in this opinion likewise, doth complain of the want of Candor and truth in my stating of the Question, when I rather expected thanks for my Ingenuity: — Now let any judicious Reader, that is acquainted with controversie, de­cide, wherein any (and or truth may be desired here. For I say [causality] which is a general word, not efficiency or merit; Again, I say, some causality, Causalitas quaedam, which is terminus diminuens: yea I added the word Concurrence, which might satisfie any how low I brought the Question.

Answer. Will you call to any judicious Reader, to tell you that which I particularly exprest to you? Again, Then let the judi­cious Reader judge whether you should have said to the world, any of the forementioned particulars; First, That I give any Causality to works as to Justification. Secondly, Or that I difference them only in degree of excellency. Thirdly, Or that I affirm, that we may say, justifying Repentance, justify­ing Love, as well as justifying faith. Fourthly, And this is affirmed positively, and vehemently: and all this when I had positively and vehemently denyed them. Fifthly, Yea, and that only this is the question between us.

And what do your defences do to justifie such dealing? [you said only Causality in general, and not Efficiency or Merit] And did not I openly and privately to you deny Causality in general, and not only Merit or Efficiency? and is that positive or vehement affirming it? Secondly, you said, Causalitas quaedam, which is terminus diminuens.] If quoad esse causalitatis it be termi­nus diminuens, then the meaning is, that I make them no causes. But do you think any Reader will English Causalitas quaedam, by [no Causality] But doubtless you mean that it is Ter­minus diminuens as to the quality or nobility of the cause. But first, I never heard before that quaedam was terminus diminuens; and if no Readers must understand you, but those that know this to be true, I think it will be but few. Secondly, But what if that were so? Did you not know that I denyed even all cau­sality, how diminute soever quaedam can express, if it be but [Page 99] real. Thirdly, But you added [Concurrence] But it was in Concurrence with the several unjust passages before mention­ed: and sure the neighbour-hood of that word hath not force enough to make them all true.

Preface. [My Reverend Brother saith, He vehemently disclaimeth all Causality of works in Justification: surely his meaning is all Proper causal efficiency, and so did I in the stating of it: But to deny Causality in a large sense, is to contradict him­self.

Answer. If so, what hope of Justice? Must I in paper after paper disclaim all true Causality, and will you not on­ly perswade the world of the contrary, but persist in it, whe­ther I will or not, and say I mean a [proper causal efficiency] Reader, I have no other remedy left, but to advise thee, that if yet after this it be affirmed the next time that I dis­claim not all true causality, or mean not as I say, thou believe not the affirmation.

Preface. [For in his Aphoris. 74. Thes. They both, viz. Faith and Works justifie in the same kind of causality, or medi­ate it (should be media,) and improper causes, or as Dr. Twiss causae dispositivae, but with this difference, Faith as the principal, Obedience as the less principal. Here is causality, though im­proper; Here is a causa dispositiva: and yet shall I be blamed after I had removed Efficiency and Merit?

Answer. This is but to add injustice. When I have written at large that faith and works are no true causes of Justification, and after tell you that a condition is commonly called causa sine qua non, which is causa fatua, and no cause at all, but meerly nominal, having by custom obtained that name, and that Dr. Twiss calls this causa dispositiva: when I say that they have only a causality improperly to called, which indeed is no causality. Is it justice for you still to perswade the world that I mean some causality, though not efficiency? The thing I renounce: the name is not it that you only charge me with: if [Page 100] you had, I was not the maker of it. It was called causa sine qua non, before I was born: I must comply with common lan­guage, or be silent: especially when I tell you, I take it for no Cause. You give me such justice as the hoast of the Crown Tavern in Cheap-side had, who (as Speed saith,) was hanged for saying merrily, that his Son was Heir of the Crown, and his exposition would not save his life. I pray you hereafter re­move more then Efficiency and Merit. I take not works to be either the material or formal cause of Justification, no nor the final, though you (in the words before cited) affirm it such. Who then gives more to works, you or I? The final cause is so cal­led, because it causeth us to choose the means to it; Justifica­tion is not a means of our using, but an act of God. Therefore works are not properly the end of it, as to us.

And yet let me say this to you, lest you should mistake me: As vehemently as I disown all true causality of works to our Justifi­cation, I intend not to fall out with all men that call them causes. As first, Not with Piscator nor such other that call them causes of our final absolution and salvation. Secondly, Nor with those that call them meritorious in the same sense as the Fathers did, though they unfitly use the word. Thirdly, Nor with those that will say, that because they please God, and so are the ob­ject of his complacency and will, they may therefore, speaking after the manner of men, be called Procatarctike causes of his act of Justification: and so that the Amiableness and desirableness of faith and holiness, is the cause why he assigned them to this Noble place and office. Fourthly, Nor with them that say, faith is a moral or a Metaphorical, passive or active Instrument of Justification. Though I say not as these men, I will not quar­rel with them.

Preface. But I need not run to this; for my Arguments militate against works, at works justifying under any pretended Notion whatsoever.

Answer. By the help of this, I shall interpret all your Ar­guments. And if so, then they militate against the act of faith justifying under the pretended notion of an Instrument, unless [Page 101] you will say that faith is no Act, or Instrumentality is no pre­tended notion.

Preface. And this maketh me admire how my learned Brother could let fall one passage wherein he may be so palpably and ocularly convinced to the contrary by the first looking upon my Arguments; that which he saith is [the strength of my Arguments, lies up­on a supposition, that conditions have a moral efficiency]— There is no one of these ten Arguments brought against Justifica­tion by works, as a Condition sine qua non, that is built upon this supposition, or hath any dependance on it, only in the fourth Ar­gument after their strength is delivered, I do ex abundanti, shew that a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken hath a moral efficiency.

Answer. First, you confess it is your Assertion, that such Conditions have a moral efficiency. Secondly, I never said that you made that a Medium in all your Arguments, nor that you intended that as their strength; but that their strength lyeth on that supposition; and if I have mistaken in that, I will not stand in it: But I think to shew you that without that sup­position your Arguments have no strength: which if I do, then judge at what you marvailed.

But its a farther act of injustice in you, in alleadging me Apol. pag. 8. saying that some conditions are impulsive causes, when I told you it is not qua conditions, but only as materially there is somewhat in them that is meritorious. I doubt not but the same thing may be the matter of a cause and a conditi­on.

I shall now return to your Lect. of Justification, and there speak to the other passage in your preface, about justifying Re­pentance and Love, &c.

Treat. pag. 220. [This therefore I shall (God willing) undertake to prove, that good works are not a condition, or a cause sine qua non of our Justification.

Answer. But remember that it is Justification, either as be­gun [Page 102] in constitution, or continued, or as pronounced by the Judges Sentence, that the Question comprehendeth, and not on­ly the putting us into a justified state; And its works under any notion that you speak of, and not only under the reduplication, quà works.

Treat. p. 221. First I shall instance in the great pattern and ex­ample of our Justification, Abraham; from whom the Apostle concludeth a Justification of all Believers in the like manner he was. Now that Abraham was not Iustified by works, or his work­ing, though a godly man, the Apostle, &c.

Answ. 1. I distinguish between works in Pauls sense, and works in Iames his sense. And because you say so much against distinguishing of works, (before) as deceitful; I will first prove the necessity of distinguishing. 1. Works in Pauls sense are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt. Works in Iames his sense are not such: therefore they are not the same. Works in Pauls sense, are actions as valuable offer­ed to God, and justifying by their value. But works in Iames his sense, are none such. Proved. The works that James speaks of must necessarily be done: Works in Pauls sense, we may not so much as imagine that we can do; viz. such as make the Re­ward of Debt, and not of Grace. Though the matter of such works may be done, which Justiciaries thus conceive of, yet un­der such a notion, no man may once imagine that he hath them.

2. Works in Pauls sense are such as stand in competition with Christ, or at least, would be co-partners with him in a co-ordi­nation. But works in James his sense are none such, but such as stand in a due subordination to Christ; such undoubtedly there are: And such James speaks of.

That Paul speaks of works as Competitors with Christ, or as co-ordinate, an hundred Texts will prove; and the case is so plain, that I think it not worth the insisting on, seeing the im­partial reading over the Epistles may satisfie.

2. I distinguish of Justifying, quoad modum procurandi, or of the distinct Interests of mens actions therein, signified in the preposition [By.] Paul speaks of Justification [By] [Page 103] works, as by valuable deserving causes, or procatar­ctike causes, moving God to justifie us by their worth, or by some true causality procuring it. But Iames speaks of Works as supposing the perfect Satisfaction and Merit of Christ, and that all that is valuable to the causal procurement of our Justification is to be found in him alone, and therefore he leaves no causality herein to works but takes them as a meer condi­tion, which cease suspending when performed. For the efficien­cy of a condition, is only in suspending till performed: And so Rebellion can suspend; when the ceasing of that Rebellion by obedience, doth not cause, but only cease suspending.

Now I answer to your Minor, that Abraham was not justifi­ed by works in Pauls sense, but he was in Iames's sense, unless you will own the saying which you chide Althamer for. (Though I must say that in his Conciliationes Loc. Script. Al­thamer deals more mannerly with Iames.) Abraham was not justified by works, as making the Reward of debt, and not of grace: for he had no such works: But Abraham was justified 1. By the act of faith, as a condition: therefore by an act under some notion. I know of few Divines that deny that faith is a condition of Justification. 2. However you confess your self that Abraham was Justified by faith as an instrument: and you say that it was by the act of faith (and not the habit.) And though you take this to be but a nominal act, and really a Pas­sion, yet so do not others: for herein you are more singular (a thousand to one, as far as I am able to understand) then I am in the Doctrine which you charge with singularity. 3. The faith that Abraham was justified by, was not only a bare appre­hension of Christs Righteousness, but a receiving of Christ as Christ, which is called, Works, by your party. 4. It was either By or Because of his External Obedience, that Abraham was ju­stified. Proved. 1 By Iames 2.21. Was not Abraham our Fa­ther justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son up­on the Altar? 2. From Gen. 22.12, 16, 18. By my self have I sworn saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not with-held thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, &c. And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be bles­sed, because thou hast obeyed my voice▪ But then I must add, that [Page 104] this was none of Abrahams first Justification, for he was just be­fore this; but it was a renewed Acceptance and Approbation of God, and a kind of sentential Declaration thereof, by the voice of the Angel. But a Justification it was, and so James calls it.

Now let us hear your Replies.

Treat. pag. 221. This cannot be a solid Answer. 1. Because the Apostle speaketh generally of works in this description of Iu­stification, though in other places he sometimes saith [the works of the Law] yet Abraham could not be Instanced in for such works, &c. — When we read the Holy Ghost spake generally of all works, who are we that we should limits it to some? — By their interpretation, the believer should be opposed only to some kind of works and faith, &c.

Answ. 1. The ordinary strain of the Apostles speech, being expressive of the works of the Law, is Expository of the rest, 1. Because a few passages must be usually expounded by many. 2. And because a few (much more abundance of) limiting passages, must expound those where the restriction is not ex­pressed.

2. Have not I ever yielded to you that all works are excluded from Justifying as works? but it follows not that therefore they are (as you may say) excluded under any Notion whatso­ever.

3. And why might not Abraham be instanced in? Your proof is none. 1. Is it not a good Argument Negative, Abraham was not justified by works, therefore we are not? And a good Argument to prove the Antecedent: Because he had no works that could justifie: No nor those which were then trusted on to Justification. 2. Doth not Paul shew that he speaks of these, when he proves his assertion, 1. Because Abraham was then in uncircumcision, Rom. 4.10. (what's that to Gospel obedi­ence?) 2. Because the Law was long after the promise, and was not then given, Gal. 3.17. 3. Paul maketh it all one to be justified by works, and to be justified by the Law; as abun­dance of passages shew. A multitude of particular Texts do [Page 105] expresly shew that it is a Legal Iustification only that he speaks of, and that he directly intendeth only Legal works. I will now instance but in one, viz. Rom. 4.13. compared with Gen. 22.18. [For the promise that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham and his seed by the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.] Now compare with this, the words of the promise it self, [And in thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be bles­sed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.] So ver. 16, 17. Be­cause thou hast done this thing, &c.]

4. Its not easie to conceive how any man can expect a Legal or Pharisaical Iustification by Evangelical works without a gross contradiction: For example; to be justified Legally by Evan­gelical faith, desire, love, thanks, joy, self-denyal, confession, &c. are all palpable contradictions: And such a mans faith must be thus exprest; I expect to merit Iustification legally, by believing in Christ as the sole Meriter of my Iustification and salvation, or by desiring Christ, or by loving Christ as the sole Me­riter of my salvation: Or by thanking him, or rejoycing in him as the Sole-meriter of my salvation? Or I expect legally to merit Iustification, by denying that I can merit it, by any righteousness of my own; or by confessing that I deserve damnation by my sins, or by praying or seeking for salvation by free gift, as merited only by Christ.] All these are palpable contradictions; and no man can hold both that knoweth what he doth.

5. Yet I will suppose that though no man can so trust to his works for legal Justification, that are apprehended by him as Formally Evangelical, yet perhaps he may do it by some works that are Materially Evangelical, and fancied by him to be what they are not. And so I still say, that though it were Legal works that Paul did directly dispute against, yet consequenti­ally and indirectly he disputeth against works commanded only in the Gospel, if men will do them to Legal ends, and fancy them to be of the value legally to justifie them.

6. I will therefore suppose some men to be so unreasonable, as to expect a Legal Justification, by their believing or confes­sing that Christ only can Legally justifie them, and not them­selves; and so I will grant you, that Paul doth (consequenti­ally) exclude all works, even Evangelical works from Justifica­tion: [Page 106] But though he exclude all works, yet not in every notion, nor doth he exclude All interest of All works in our Justificati­on. All works as valuable offerings, he excludes, and so as me­ritorious, not only in point of Commutative Justice, but also in point of Legal worth and Legal Justice, as the Pharisees sup­posed them meritorious: All works he excludes from all proper Causality. But he doth not exclude all works from having any Interest at all in subordination to Christ. Do you verily believe that Repentance and Faith have no Interest in our Pardon, in sub-ordination to Christ? If you say, No, not any, you contra­dict God, and your self, and all the Christian world. If you say, Yea, but they justifie not qua works; you say nothing to the controversie: For I have over and over as loud as you, professed that they justifie not formaliter as works. If you say they have any Interest: 1. Tell us better what it is. 2. And then you confute your general assertion. There's no Christian that I know but will confess that the Gospel works have the inte­rest of Declaring signs in our final Iustification. And few will deny that Repentance hath the interest of a necessary qualifica­tion, or condition to our first Justification. Now would you perswade us that Paul excludeth this kind of Interest, or oppo­seth faith to it? If not against the signal interest of works, then not against all Interest; therefore if Pauls general exclusion will consist with your signal Interest, then I shall maintain that it will consist with the fore-explained Conditional interest.

I will not therefore be guilty of your charge of limiting the Holy Ghost. If he spake of all works, I will believe he means All works. But 1. If he over and over near an hundred times at least, explain himself as speaking of the Law, I will not shut my ears against that explication. And 2. I will grant it is also all Evangelical Works, at least by consequence: But I need not therefore grant that because he excludeth All Work, there­fore he excludeth All kind of Interest of all works; but only that sort which he disputeth against.

Besides all this, I must distinguish of Justification, Legal and Evangelical, respective to the promises and threatnings of the Law and Gospel, which do differ. No works at all did ju­stifie Abraham, from the charge of the Law, Thou art a sinner, [Page 107] as being the Righteousness of the Law, and the matter of that Justification. Nor will any works at all so justifie us. But it doth not follow, that therefore no works will justifie a man from the false accusation of being an Impenitent, Unbeliever, and so having no part in Christ, whose Righteousness must stop the mouth of the Law: Or that no works are the matter of the righteousness required in this Constitution, [He that be­lieveth shall be saved: Repent that your sins may be blotted out.] Which are here required as the condition of our freedom from the Law, by the righteousness of Christ. In a word, Paul be­stows a large dispute to prove that no works of ours do answer the expectation of the Law, and so cannot justifie us them­selves from its Accusation. Its an ill consequence, that therefore Paul proveth that no works of mans do answer the special con­stitution or condition of the Gospel [Repent and Believe in Christ, &c.] and so are not the Condition of our interest in that perfect righteousness of Christ, which is the only valuable cause of our foresaid Justification.

Treat. 222. Again, that works of all sorts are excluded, is plain, if you consider the Object of Iustification, who it is that is here said to be justified, and that is, the ungodly. By the ungodly is one meant that hath not a sufficient and adequate holiness: so that Abraham though regenerated, yet as to Iustification is ungodly, he cannot stand before God, or endure, if all his imperfections be en­quired after. Now certainly he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iusti­fication, cannot be called ungodly; for he doth all that is required.

Answ. 1. Again, I grant all works excluded: but not in all their relations; nor are all their Interests in Justification excluded. 2. This Argument I should not have expected from you. You confess that by ungodly, is meant such, though Rege­nerate and holy, that have not an adequate holiness: Adequate; To what? to the Law? or to the constitution of the condition in the Gospel? Marvel not if I deny the Consequence of your Argument, and if I be unable to digest your reason for it. You say, [He that fulfilleth the Condition of Iustification, can­not be called ungodly.] But what Condition? I confess he that [Page 108] fulfilleth the Laws condition cannot be called ungodly, nor be unjustifiable by that Law. But he that performeth the Gospel-Condition of liberation, may be called ungodly in the sense you now mentioned, that is, unjustifiable immediatly for his works by the Law: or one that hath not an holiness adequate to the Law. Though indeed he cannot be called Evangelically ungodly. I suppose you clearly see that your Argument makes as much against any Condition of Justification in us, as against works being the condition. For against faith it self, being any Condi­tion, you may equally argue, [Its the ungodly that are justified: But he that fulfilleth the conditions of Iustification, is not to be called ungodly. Ergo, &c.] But if you take ungodliness (as you do) for unadequate holiness (to the Law) I deny your Mi­nor. Can no man but the Perfectly obedient, perform the con­dition of pardon in the Gospel?

Treat. ib. So that this is very considerable, that all those whom God justifieth, he justifieth them not for any thing they have of their own, or any conditions they have performed; but as such who are sinners in a strict examination, and so deserve condemnation, and therefore no works of grace are looked upon.

Answ. I have answered this fully in Colvinus. 1. Though Protestants oft say, that God saveth men for their obedience, and Scripture use the term [because] oft, yet I am willing to yield to you that men be not saved nor justified for any thing of their own, or for any conditions: But yet he would not justi­fie them without the performance of some conditions; but would condemn them for the non-performance, even with a special condemnation, distinct from that which is for their sins against the Law.

2. Colvinus was the first man, and you are the second that ever I read (to my remembrance) saying that God justifieth men as sinners. A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia. If as sin­ners, then all sinners are justified. If not as performers of any Condition, then not as Believers! These things want proof.

[Page 109]Treat. ib. Lastly, that all works are excluded, is evident by the Apostles allegation out of David, who makes mans blessedness to be in this, that God imputeth righteousness without works.

Answ. 1. This is sufficiently answered in the former. 2. Paul hence immediately concludeth that Righteousness comes not only on the Circumcision: whence you may see what works he means. 3. Your selves expound the foregoing term ungodly, of men that have not adequate holiness, though sincere; there­fore you must so take this equipollent term [without works] for [without that adequate holiness]: but it follows not, that therefore its without any humane act. 4. Yet still I grant this al­so, that its without any humane act, considered as the matter of a Legal righteousness, or as opposite to Christ, or co-ordi­nate with him: but not without any humane act, as subordinate to Christ, and as the matter of that Evangelical righteousness which is required in this Constitution [Repent and Believe the Gospel] viz. sincerely.

Treat. pag. 223. And indeed it is at last confessed, that its faith only that makes the contract between God and the soul: that good works are not required to this initial consenting unto Christ, so as to make him ours, but in the progress. This is that in effect, which the Papists affirm in other words, That the first Justificati­on is only by faith, but the second by good works.

Answ. How would you have your Reader understand these two insinuations? 1. Have I so oft asserted that which you call my Confession, and put it into an Index of distinctions, least it should be over-lookt, and told you as much so long ago in pri­vate writings, and do you now come out with an [Its at last confessed.] I hope you would not intimate that ever I denyed it: or that ever I wrote Book of that subject, wherein I did not expresly averre it. But then (that you think not better of me then I deserve) I must tell you, that when I still excluded works from our begun Justification, it was external Obedience, and not Repentance, nor those acts of faith (even the Recei­ving [Page 110] Christ as Lord and Teacher) which those that oppose me call works.

2. If you take it but for an argument to convince such as I, that [the Papists hold it: Ergo▪ &c.] I must complain that it is uneffectual: But if you intend it for another effect on other persons, viz. to affright them with the sound of so horrid a name, or drive them away by the slink of it, then you may pos­sibly attain your ends. But you should have attempted it only by truth. Is it true, that [this is that in effect, which the Papists affirm in other words?] Yea is it not a notorious truth, that it is quite another thing which the Papists affirm in somewhat like words? 1. The world knows that the Papists by the first Justifi­cation, mean the first infusion of renewing special grace. 2. And that by the second Justification, they mean, the adding of fur­ther degrees of Sanctification, or actuating that which before was given. 3. That they hold, faith justifieth in the first Justi­fication constitutivè. 4. And that works or holiness justifie constitutivè in the second Justification, even as Albedo facit al­bum, vel doctrina indita facit doctum. On the other side, I have told you often privately and publikely, that, 1. By Justificati­on I mean not Sanctification, nor any Physical, but a Relative change. 2. That by first and second, I mean not two states, or works, but the same state and works as begun, and as continued. 3. That faith justifieth neither constitutivè & inhaerenter, nor as any cause, but as a Receiving Condition. 4. And that works of external obedience are but a dispositive condition, and an exclusion of that ingratitude that would condemn. And now judge on second thoughts, whether you here speak the words of Truth or Equity.

Treat. ib. Against this general exclusion of all works, is oppo­sed ver. 4. where the Apostle saith, To him that worketh the Reward is of debt; from whence they gather that works only which are debts, are excluded.

Answ. I never used or heard such a collection. All good works are debts to God; but our collection is, that works which are supposed by men to make the reward of Debt, and not of Grace, are excluded.

[Page 110]Treat. But if this be seriously thought on, it makes strongly against them; for the Apostles Argument is à Genere: if it be by works, its of Debt: therefore there are not works of Debt, and works of no Debt.

Answ. 1. If the Apostle argue à Genere, then he argueth not from an Equivocal term; and therefore of no works but what fall under his Genus. 2. And the Apostles Genus cannot be any thing meerly Physical, because his subject and discourse is moral: and therefore it is not every act that he excludeth. 3. Nor can it be every Moral Act that is his Genus: but only Works in the notion that he useth the word; that is, All such Works as Workmen do for hire, who expect to receive wages for the worth or desert of their works.

I shall therefore here confute your assertion, and shall prove that All works do not make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace: and consequently that Paul meaneth not either every Act, or every Moral Act, here; but only works supposed Re­wardable for their value! (What you mean by Works of Debt, and Works not of Debt, I know not: they are not Scripture words, nor my words; For still I say, All Good works are of Debt to God from man.)

Argument 1. Ex natura rei; There are many Moral Acts that make not the Reward from men to be of Debt, and not of Grace: Much less will such Works make the Reward from God to be of Debt, and not of Grace. The Consequence is grounded on these two or three Reasons. 1. God is infinitely above us; and therefore less capable of being obliged by our works then man. 3. God is our absolute Proprietary, and we are wholly his; and therefore we can give him nothing but his own. 3. God is our Supreme Rector, and we are bound to a perfect fulfilling of his Law: and we are sinners that have broak that Law, and deserve eternal death: therefore we are less capable of obliging him by our works as our Debtor, then of obliging men (and indeed uncapable.) 4. Gods Reward is Eternal Glory, and mans is but some transitory thing: there­fore we are less capable of making God our Debtor for Justifi­cation [Page 112] and Salvation, then man for a trifle. This proves the Consequence.

Now the Antecedent I prove by Instances. 1. If a man be ready to drown in the water, and you offer to help him out, if he will lay hold of your hand: this act of his is Actus humanus vel moralis, and yet makes not the deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 2. If a man be in prison for Debt and you ransom him, and offer him deliverance on condition he will but consent to come forth on the account of your Ransom: this moral Action makes not his Deliverance to be of Debt, and not of Grace. 3. If a man be condemned for Treason, and up­on Ransom made, you procure and offer him a pardon, on con­dition he will take it, or if you say, If you will give me thanks for it, or take it thankfully; or, If also you confess your Trea­son; or, If also you crave pardon of the Prince; or, If also you confess me your benefactor; or, If also you will profess your purpose to take up rebellions arms no more; or, If also you will openly profess the Princes Soveraignty, and renounce the Leaders of the Rebells, whom you have followed; Ʋpon any one, or on all these conditions, you shall have a free and full pardon; without any cost or suffering of your own. Do you think that any of these do make the pardon to be of Debt, and not of Grace? 4. If you give a man a Lordship on condition he take it as a free Gift from you, and pay you yearly a grain of sand, or do some act of homage (as to say I thank you) which hath in it no consideration of value, but only of acknowledgment of dependance, doth this make your Gift to be not of Grace? 5. If you give a beggar a piece of gold, on condition he will take it, and put off his hat, and say, I thank you. I will not be­lieve, that any of these Acts do make the Reward to be not of Grace. But if you bid them, Go and do me so many daies work for it, importing somewhat profitable or valuable for your­self, then the case is altered.

Argument 2. Those works which a man cannot be justified without, make not the Reward to be of debt and not of Grace: But there are some works that a man cannot be justified without, Jam. 2.24. Matthew 12.37. what ever they be, some they are.

[Page 113] Argument 3. Those works which a man cannot be saved without, make not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace. But there are some works that we cannot be saved without. Therefore there are some works that make not the Reward of Debt and not of Grace.

The Major is proved by the express exclusion of works in this sense, from salvation: both as begun, and as consummate, 2 Tim. 1.9. who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but his own purpose and grace, &c. Ephes. 2.8, 9. For by Grace ye are saved, through faith, and not of your selves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast, Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. Not by works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he saved us by the washing of Regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, — that being justified by his Grace, we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life, Rom. 6.23. For the wages of sin is death, but the Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,] Act. 4.12. Neither is there salvation in any other, Mat. 25.34. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you, &c.] whence Expositors conclude against works.

The Minor may be proved by an hundred texts, Mat. 25.35. For I was hungry, &c. Rev. 22.12. and 2.23. Mark 13.34. Rev. 20.13. Jam. 2 14. 1 Pet. 1.17. He will judge every man according to his works, &c.

Argument 4. Those works which Grace commandeth, and causeth the Godly to perform, do not make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of debt. But there are some such works. Ergo, &c.

The Major is evident: What Saint dare say, that he hath a work that makes not the Reward of Grace, especially when it is a work of Grace?

The Minor is as true as Scripture is true, 2 Cor. 9.8. Col. 1.10. 2 Thess. 2.17. 2 Tim. 2.21. Tit. 3.1. Heb. 13.21. Mat. 5.16. Heb. 10.24. 1 Pet. 2.12. Tit. 2.14. and 3.8, 14. Ephes. 2.10. &c. — Dare any say that God hath not commanded good works? or yet, that he hath commanded us in the Gospel, so to [Page 114] work that the Reward may not be of grace, but debt? Will any say that the Saints do no good works? or else that they do such good works as make the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt? I hope not.

Argument 5. Repentance is a moral Act: Repentance mak­eth not the Reward to be of debt, and not of grace: therefore there are some works that make not the Reward to be not of grace, but of Debt. The same I say of Faith it self, and other Acts.

But perhaps some one else will object, that though its true that there be such works, yet they have no Interest in the business of our Justification, and therefore Paul doth hence exclude them. Answer. First, It sufficed to my last purpose to prove that there are works which will not bear his description, and therefore are not they that he means. Secondly, But that those other works have some Interest in the business of our Justification, I have proved in the beginning. Repentance hath the promise of Pardon: so hath faith, &c. But I'le not unseasonably here digress to this, but refer you to what is said before and after, and elsewhere more at large.

Argu. 6. In ver. 5. the opposite term [he that worketh not] doth not signifie him that performeth no moral act. Therefore in the fourth verse, [he that worketh] doth not signifie him that doth perform any moral act. The consequence is undeniable from the evident immediate opposition, between him that work­eth, and him that worketh not. The Antecedent I prove, First, From the words of the Text, which mention one act, even believing, as opposite to working, and implyed in, or consistent with not working. [To him that worketh not, but believeth.] Secondly, Because else it would subvert the Gospel. What sense would you make of it if you should inter­pret this and such texts as this of all moral Acts? Such as Christian ears would abhor. If [working] be the Genus, and the Text will hold as extended to Believing, Repenting, &c. as the species, and that even in their due Evangelical notion: Let us try them a little in such an Exposition. ver. 4, 5. [to him that worketh, that is, Repenteth, Believeth, &c. the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. But to him that worketh not, (that [Page 115] is, that Repenteth not, Loveth not God▪ Desireth not Christ or Grace, believeth not in Christ,) but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith (supposing he have it not) is imputed to him for righteousness.] Is this a sweet and Christian sense? If we should run over an hundred such Texts by such an Interpretation, you would hear no sweeter Melody.

Let us hear some modern Expositors, (for I will give you no thanks to grant me the Ancients, without citing them)

1.Calvin, (that excellent Expositor) saith thus [Opt­rantem vocat qui s [...]is meritis aliquid promeratur: non operantem, cui nihil debetur operum merito. Neque enim fideles vult esse ig­navos; sed tantum Mercenarios esse vetat, qui à Deo quicquam reposcant, quasi jure Debitum.] Is not this one of the Opinionists, that so far joyneth with the Socinians and Pa­pists?

2. Bullinger (and Marlorate citing him) makes the Apostle to argue thus [Si quis sit qui promereatur aliquid opere suo, res promerita, non imputatur illi gratis; sed ut debita redditur: Fides reputatur in justitiam, non quod aliquod tale promereamur, sed quia Domini bonitatem apprehendimus. Ergo, &c.

3. Beza: Atqui ei qui operatur, [...]: Id est, ei qui ex opore sit aliquid promeritus. Cui opponitur, [...], qui non operatur, id est, qui opus nullum adfert cujus mercadem flagitet, sed gratuita Dei promis­sione nititur — Justificatio enim gratiae est in Christo, ista vero Meriti est in nobis.

4. Piscator in Schol. Sic argumentatur Paulus: Ei qui operibus meretur, merces non imputatur. ver. 4. Atqui Abra­hamo justitia fuit imputata; ver. 3. Ergo Abrahamus justitiam non est meritus operibus.

5. Peter Martyr also is a down right Opinionist; In loc. pag. (mihi) 168. Et cum audimus à Paulo, Operanti & non operanti, nequaquam sic accipere debemus, quasi illi qui crodant non operentur. Nam de illa tantum operations loguitur, qua moreamur, ant mereri velimus Justitiam. Etherl [...] consideratu dignum, est, quod apud Theologos sehelasticos jam inveteravit us dicant meritum à Paulo appellari debitum: Quare cum hic [Page 116] Paulus à Justificatione debitum auferet, necessariò▪ etiam tollit me­ritum, si propriè ac verè de illo velimus loqui.

6. Aretius in loc. Tertium Argumentum ex vi relativorum, ope­ra postulant mercedem suo jure, ac debito non ex gratia, sed Abraha­mo justitia debito, non sao jure, sed ex gratia est collata: Ergo, &c. —ver. 5. Nam si opera non opus fuisset imputatione, sed tanquam [...] postulasset meritorum suorum debitum mercedem.

7. Anton. Faeyus in loc. Argumentatur Apostollus ex lo­cati & conduct [...] inter homines recepto jure: qui enim locat operam suam, pasciscitur cum conductore, ut congruens operae pretium ipsi numeretur: adeo ut non obtineat mercedem gratis, sed ex operae cum ipsa mercede [...] — Argumentum ergo est à disparatis: sunt enim disparata merces & donum, ut & operans & non operans. Operans accipit mercedem de­bitam: non operaens accipit donum. Est enim inter Deum & homines [...] illa quae est inter donantem, & donatarium. — Quod ad nomen mercedis spectat, apparet illam duplicom esse: nempe mercedem debitam ex proportione operae cum re, per proportionem Geometricam: ut cum operario pro diurna opera datur quod aequum est, ex mutuo stipulatu. (This he thinks is here meant). A lia merces est non debita, sed gratu­ita: est (que) tanquam fructus vel commodum quoddam — (This he thinks not here meant.)

Operantem vocat illum qui legis operibus Justitiam venatur: non quod unquam ullus extiterit qui sic operatus est, ut merce­dem debitam merito possit postulare, sed ex hypothesi loquitur, hoc modo; siquis operaretur ut decet, mercedem debitam posset exi­gere.

8. Dav. Paraeus in loc. Explicat quid sit fidem impu­tari pro justitia: minime videlicet idem quod actum vel opus fidei suo merito reputari pro justitia (sic enim nihil confecissit,) sed credenti iustitiam ex gratia imputari nullo merito aut debito— Operantem non vocat cum qui bona opera facit, sed qui bonis operi­bus confidit, justitiam quarit, seu qui operatur debitae mercedis causa. Nam & credentes bene operantur, non vero ut Mercenarii: nec operibus Justitiam & vitam mereri volunt. Qui enim sic ope­ratur excluditur à gratia, &c. — Ita, inquit res habet [Page 117] inter homines: qui laborat pro mercede, in vinea, militia, ruri, vel domi, ei merces per acto labore non imputatur vel donatur ex gratia, sed redditur ex debito ut meritum; idque ex ordine justi­tiae [...] quae sancit aequalitatem Arithmeticam laboris & mercedis. Talis enim labor est meritum, opus indebitum, merce­dem ex indebita faciens debitam propter justitiam. — Abrahae igitur promissa & imput [...]tio fuit justitiae merces, nullo operum me­rito, sed mera gratia. — Qui vero non operatur, nempe pro mercede, h. e. qui non quaerit Justi [...]iam operum meri­tis.

9. Dr. Willet in loc Q. 12. By him that worketh is under­stood, him that worketh with an intent thereby to merit or to be justified: For he that believeth also worketh; but he is said, not to work secundum quid, because he doth it not to the end to me­rit by.

10. Dav. Dickson in loc. Ratio 3. Mercenario operanti, seu Justitiam ex operibus quaerenti, merces non potest esse gratuita, sed ex debito seu merito retribuenda est.

11. Cartwright cont. Rhem. in loc. For if the Reward should be given according to works, God should be a Debtor unto man: But it is absurd to make God a Debtor to man. 2. He speaketh not of that Reward that ignorant men chal­lenge to themselves; but of the Reward that God should in justice give, if men had deseerved it by their works.

12. Hemi [...]gius (even a Lutheran) supposeth the Argument to be thus. Imputatio gratuita non est operantis merces: justi­tia credentis est imputatio gratuita: ergo justitia credentis non est operantis merces. Major probatur per contrarium; Merces operanti, id est, ei qui aliquid operibus promeretur, datur ex de­bito. — Probatio haec per concessionem Rhetoricam intelli­genda est. Nequaquam enim Paulus sentit, quod quisquam ex debito fiat justus revera, sed quae sit natura rerum indicat — Imputare est aliquid gratia conferre, non ex debito tribuere. — Merces proprie est quod debebatur ex merito: hoc est. Debiti so­lutio.

Yea in his blow at the Majorists he confesseth the truth [8. Evertitur corum dogma, qui clamant, opera necessaria ad salutem, quae salus cum à Justificatione separari nequit, non ha­bet [Page 118] alias causas aut merita, quam ipsa Justificatio. Hoc tamen fatendum est, quod opera necessariò requirantur in Justificatis, ut iter intermedium, non ut causa aut merita.

13. Mich. Ragerus (a Lutheran) in loc. Imputatio fidei opponi­tur imputationi ex merito; imputatio fidei fit secundum gratiam: E. fides in negotio Justificationis, non consideratur ut opus morale: quid enim per modum operis imputatur, secundum debitum & me­ritoriè imputatur— [Et qui operatur] sive operans renatus sit, sive non, dummodo eâ intentione operetur, ecque fine, ut mercedem reportet & opera sua censorio Dei judicio opposita velit.

14. In like manner Georg Calixtus (a Lutheran) in loc. pag. 26.28, &c.

To these I might add many other Protestant Expositors, and the votes of abundance of Polemical Divines, who tell the Pa­pists that in Pauls sense its all one [to be justified by works: to be justified by the Law: and to be justified by me­rits.]

But this much may suffice for the vindication of that Text, and to prove that all works do not make the Reward to be of Debt▪ and not of Grace, but only meritorious mercenary works, and not those of gratitude, &c. beforenamed.

Treat. ibid. [The second Argument may be from the peculiar and express difference that the Scripture giveth between faith and other graces, in respect of Justification. So that faith and good works are not to be considered as concurrent in the same manner, though one primarily, the other secondarily: so that if faith when its said to Justifie, doth it not as a condition, but in some other peculiar notion, which works are not capable of, then we are not Justified by works as well as faith. Now its not lightly to be pas­sed over that the Scripture still useth a peculiar expression of faith, which is incommunicable to other graces. Thus Rom. 3.25. Remission of sins is through faith in his blood, Rom. 4.5. Faith is counted for Righteousness, Rom. 5.1. Galatians [...].16. &c.

Answer. First, This is nothing to the Question, and deserves [Page 119] no further answer. The Question is not now whether faith and works justifie in the same manner: thats but a consequent (rightly explained) of another thing in question; your self hath here made it the question, whether Works be Conditions of Justification? And that which I affirmed is before explained. I grant, that if faith justifie not as a condition, but proxime in any other respect, then Faith and Repentance, &c. justifie not in the same manner: so that the sameness of their Interest in the general notion of a condition, supposeth faith to be a condition; but if you can prove that it is not, I shall grant the difference which you prove. Now it is not our question here, whether faith be a condition, or an Instrument; but whether other works (as you choose to call them) or humane acts be condi­tions.

Secondly, Scripture taketh not faith in the same sense as my Opposers do, when it gives it the peculiar expressions that you mention. Faith in Pauls sense, is a Belief in Jesus Christ (in all the respects essential to his person and office) and so a hearty Acceptance of him for our Teacher, Lord and Saviour; (Sa­viour I say both from the guilt and power of sin) and as one that will lead us by his word and spirit into Possession of eternal Glory which he hath purchased.] So that it includeth many acts of Assent, and a Love to our Saviour, and desire of him; and it implyeth self-denial, and renouncing our own righteous­ness, and all other Saviours, and a sense of our sin and misery, at least, Antecedents or concomitants; and sincere Affiance and Obedience in gratitude to our Redeemer, as necessary consequents: And this faith is set by Paul, in opposition to the bare doing of the works of Moses Law (and consequently of any other works with the same intention) as separated from Christ who was the end and life of it, or at least, co-ordinate with him; and so as the immediate matter of a legal Righteous­ness; and consequently as mercenary, and valuable in themselves, or meritorious of the Reward. This is Pauls faith. But the faith disputed for by my Opponents, is the Act of recumbency or Affiance on Christ at Justifier or Priest, which they call the Apprehension of Christs righteousness; and this as opposed to the Acceptance of Christ as our Teacher▪ and King▪ our Hus­band, [Page 120] Head, &c. (further then these contain his Priesthood:) and opposed to Repentance, to the love of our Saviour, to de­nying our own righteousness, confessing our sins, and confes­sing Christ to be our only Saviour, Thankfulness for free grace, &c. all which are called works by these men, and excluded from being so much as Conditions attending faith in our Justifi­cation or Remission of sin.

The case may be opened by this similitude. A Physitian cometh to a populous City in an Epidemical Plague: There is none can scape without his help: he is a stranger to them, and they have received false informations and apprehensions of him that he is but a mountebank and deceiver; though indeed he came of purpose in love and compassion to save their lives, having a most costly receipt which will certainly cure them. He offereth himself to be their Physitian, and freely to give them his Anti­dote, and to cure and save them, if they will but consent, that is, if they will take him for their Physitian, and thankfully take his medicine; His enemies disswade the people from believing in him, and tell them that he is a Deceiver, and that if they will but stir themselves, and work, and use such dyet and medicines as they tell them of, they shall do better without him; and a third party that seem to be friends, tell them, though you do take him for your Physitian yet must you work your self to health, and take those other medicines as well as his, if you will be cured. But the Physitian saith, its only your trusting in me that can cure you. Now here we are at a loss in the interpreting of his con­ditions. Some say, that they must be cured barely by believing or trusting in him, and not by taking his person in the full re­lation of a Physitian, or at least, not by taking his medicine, which they abhor, nor by exercising or sweating upon it, or ob­serving the dyet and directions which he giveth them. But I rather interpret him thus; in requiring you to take him for your Physitian, it is implyed, that you must take his medicines, how bitter soever, and that you must order your selves according to his directions, and must not take cold, nor eat or drink that which he forbiddeth you; for though it be only his precious medicine that can cure you, yet if you will take those things that are destructive to you, it may hinder the working of it, and an ill [Page 121] dyet or disordered life may kill you. The working therefore that he excluded, was not this implyed observance of his directi­ons, but your own Receipts and Labourings, as above-said.

3. I further answer to your observation, that the same Scri­pture that saith, [We are justified by faith] doth also say, that Except ye Repent, ye shall all perish. Luke 13.3, 5. And Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Iesus Christ for the Remission of sins, Acts 2.38. and mentioneth the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of sin; and joyneth the preaching of Repentance and Remssion, Luke 24.47. Repent and be Con­verted, that your sins may be blotted out, &c. Luke 6.37. For­give and it shall be forgiven you, Jam. 5.15. The prayer of faith shall save the sick — and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him, Mat. 6.14, 15. If you forgive men their tres­passes, your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you forgive not, &c. Mark 11.11, 25. Forgive, that your Father may for­give you. 1 Iohn 1.9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, &c. Isa. 55.6, 7, &c. And he that saith, We are Justified by faith, saith also, that [by works a man is justified, and not by faith only;] and that [by our words we shall be justified.]

4. Lastly, to your argument from the peculiar attributions to faith, I say, that we do accordingly give it its prerogative, as far as those attributions do direct us, and would do more, if it were not for fear of contradicting the Scripture.

Treat. pag. 224. From these expressions it is that our Ortho­dox Divines say, that faith justifieth as it is an Instrument, laying hold on Christ, &c. ad pag. 226.

Answ. Though I could willingly dispatch with one man at once, yet because it is the matter more then the person, that must be considered, I must crave your Patience as to the An­swering of this Paragraph, till I come to the Dispute about faiths Instrumentality, to which it doth belong, that so I may not trouble the present Dispute by the Interposition of ano­ther.

[Page 122]Treat. pag 226 The third Argument is, If in the continu­ance and progress of our Justification we are justified after the same manner we were at first, then its not by faith and works, but by faith only as distinct to works, Rom. 1.17. Galat. 3.11. —

Answ. 1. I grant the whole, understanding faith and works as Paul doth, but not as you do.

2. By [the same manner] either you mean, [the same spe­cifically (as specified from the Covenant and Object) as di­stinct from Jewish Righteousness, or from all false waies, or all Mercenary meritorious works (so intended), or any manner that is not subordinate to Christ, and implyed in Believing.] And thus your Antecedent is true, and your Consequence (in your sense of faith and works) is false; Or else you mean [the same manner] in opposition to any additional act implyed in our first believing as its necessary Consequent.] And thus your Minor or Antecedent is false. If you will not believe me, believe your self, who as flatly spake the contrary Doctrine, as ever I did, being not as it seems in every Lecture of the same thoughts; pag. 118. you write it for observation in a different Character, thus [For though holy works do not justifie, yet by them a man is continued in a state of Justification: so that did not the Covenant of grace interpose, gross and wicked waies would out off our Justification, and put us in a state of Condemnation.] But because you may avoid your own authority at pleasure many waies, I shall give you a better authority that cannot be avoided.

1. In our first Justification, we were not justified by our words: but in our last Justification at Judgement we shall, Mat. 12.36, 37. therefore they so far differ in the man­ner.

2. In our first Justification we were not justified by our works; but afterwards we are, in some sense, or else James spoke not by the Spirit of God, Jam. 2.24. The Major is plain, in that the works of Abraham, Rahab and such like, that Iames speaks of, were not existent at their first Justification.

[Page 123]3. In our first Justification we are not Judged, (and so Ju­stified) according to our works. But in the last we are: therefore they differ in the manner.

4. In our first Justification we are not justified by the mouth of the Iudge, in presence passing a final irreversible sentence on us: but in the last we are: therefore they differ in the manner.

5. Our first pardon is not given us on condition of our first forgiving others: but the continuance is, Matth. 18.35. & 6.14, 15.

6. Our first pardon is not given us if we confess our sins: (For we may be pardoned without that): but the renewed or continued pardon is, if we be called to it, 1 John 1.9.

7. Reconciliation and final Justification is given to us in title, If we continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, &c. Col. 1.23.

8. In our first Believing we take Christ in the Relation of a Saviour, and Teacher, and Lord, to save us from all sin, and to lead us to glory. This therefore importeth that we accord­ingly submit unto him, in those his Relations, as a necessary means to the obtaining of the benefits of the Relations. Our first faith is our Contract with Christ, or Acceptance of him as our Saviour: And all contracts of such nature, do impose a necessity of performing what we consent to and promise, in order to the benefits. To take Christ for my Saviour, is to take him to save me, viz. from the power and guilt of sin; there­fore if I will not be saved by him when I have done, but had rather keep my sin, then I did but nominally and hypocritically take him for my Saviour. To take him for my Teacher and be­come his Disciple, importeth my Learning of him, as necessary to the benefit.

And in humane contracts it is so. Barely to take a Prince for her husband may entitle a woman to his honours and lands: But conjugal fidelity is also necessary for the continuance of them: for Adultery would cause a divorce. Consent and list­ing may make a man your Souldier: but obedience and service is as necessary to the Continuance, and the Reward. Consent may make a man your servant, without any service, and so give [Page 124] him entertainment in your family. But if he do not actually serve you, these shall not be continued, nor the wages obtain­ed. Consent may enter a Scholar into your School: but if he will not Learn of you, he shall not be continued there. For all these after-violations cross the ends of the Relations. Con­sent may make you the subject of a Prince, but obedience is necessary to the continuance of your Priviledges. All Cove­nants usually tye men to somewhat which is to be performed to the full attainment of their ends. The Covenant-making may admit you, but its the Covenant-keeping that must continue you in your priviledges, and perfect them. See more in my Confess. pag. 47.

3. But I further answer you, that according to the sense of your party, of the terms [faith and works] I deny your conse­quence: For with them [Faith] is [Works]: And though in Pauls sense we are not at all justified by works; and in Iames his sense we are not at first justified by works: Yet in the sense of your party, we are justified by works even at first. For the Accepting of Christ for our King and Prophet, is Works with them: and this is Pauls faith, by which he and all are justified. Repentance is works with them: And this is one of Gods Conditions of our pardon. The Love and Desire of Christ our Saviour is works with them: but this is part of the faith that Paul was justified by. The like I may say of many acts of Assent, and other acts.

Treat. Lect. 24. p. 227. Argu. 4. He that is justified by ful­filling a Condition, though he be thereunto enabled by grace, yet he is just and righteous in himself: But all justified persons, as to Iustification, are not righteous in themselves, but in Christ their Surety and Mediator.

Answ. 1. If this were true in your unlimited latitude, Inhe­rent Righteousness were the certainest evidence of damnation. For no man that had inherent Righteousness, i. e. Sanctification, could be justified or saved. But I am loth to believe that.

2. This Argument doth make as much against them that take [Page 125] Faith to be the Condition of Justification, and so look to be ju­stified by it as a Condition, as against them that make Repen­tance or Obedience the Condition: And it concludeth them all excluders of the true and only Justification. I am loth to dis­sent from you: but I am loather to believe that all those are unjustified, that take faith for the Condition of Justificati­on. They are hard Conclusions that your Arguments in­fer.

3. Righteousness in a mans self is either Qualitaetive, or Re­lative, called imputed. As to the later, I maintain that all the justified are Righteous in themselves by an Imputed Relative Righteousness, merited for them by Christ, and given to them. And this belief I will live and die in be the grace of God. Qualitative (and Active) Righteousness is threefold. 1. That which answers the Law of works, [Obey perfectly and live.] 2. That which answers the bare letter of Moses Law, (without Christ the sense and end) which required an operous task of duty, with a multitude of sacrifices for pardon of failings, (which were to be effectual only through Christ whom the un­believing Jews understood not.) 3. That righteousness which answers the Gospel imposition Repent and Believe. As to the first of these, A righteousness fully answering the Law of nature. I yield your Minor, and deny your Major. A man may be justified by fulfilling the condition of the Gospel which giveth us Christ to be our Righteousness to answer the Law, and yet not have any such righteousness qualitative in himself, as shall answer that Law. Nay it necessarily implyeth that he hath none: For what need he to perform a Condition, for obtaining such a Righteousness by free gift from another, if he had it in himself. And as to the second sort of Righteousness, I say, that it is but a nominal righteousness, consisting in a conformity to the Let­ter without the sense and end, and therefore can justifie none: besides that none fully have it. So that the Mosaeical Righteous­ness, so far as is necessary to men, is to be had in Christ, and not in themselves. But the performance by themselves of the Go­spel Condition, is so far from hindring us from that gift, that without it none can have it. But then as to the third sort of righteousness qualitative, I answer, He that performeth the [Page 126] Gospel Condition of Repenting and Believing himself, is not therefore Righteous in himself with that righteousness qualita­tive which answereth the Law of works. But he that perform­eth the said Gospel Conditions, is Righteous in himself. 1. Qua­litatively and actively, with that righteousness which answers the Gospel Constitution, [He that believeth shall be saved, &c.] which is but a particular Righteousness, by a Law of Grace, subordinated to the other as the Condition of a free gift. 2. And Relatively, by the Righteousness answering the Law of Works, as freely given by Christ on that Condition. This is evident, obvious, necessary, irrefragable truth, and will be so after all opposition.

Treat. pag. 228. Yea I think if it be well weighed, it will be found to be a contradiction, to say they are Conditions, and yet a Causa sine qua non of our Justification; for a causa sine qua non, is no Cause at all: but a Condition in a Covenant strictly taken, hath a Moral efficiency, and is a Causa cum qua, not a sine qua non.

Answ. 1. You do but think so; and that's no cogent Argu­ment. I think otherwise, and so you are answered. 2. And Lawyers think otherwise, (as is before shewed, and more might be) and so you are over-answered. A Condition qua talis (which is the strictest acception) is no Cause at all; though the matter of it may be meritorious, among men, and so causal. If you will not believe me, nor Lawyers, nor custom of speech, then remember at least what it is that I mean by a Condition, and make not the difference to lie where it doth not. Think not your self sounder in matter of Doctrine, but only in the sense of the Word [Condition]; but yet do somewhat first to prove that too; viz. that a Condition as such, hath a moral efficiency. Prove that if you are able.

Treat. ib. If Adam had stood in his integrity, though that con­firmation would have been of grace, yet his works would have been a causall Condition of the blessedness promised. In the Covenant of Grace, though what man doth is by the gift of God, yet look upon [Page 127] the same gift as our duty, and as a Condition, which in our per­sons is performed, This inferreth some Moral Efficiency.

Answ. 1. See then all you that are accounted Orthodox, the multitude of Protestant Divines that have made either Faith or Repentance Conditions, what a case you have brought your selves into. And rejoyce then all you that have against them maintained that the Covenant of Grace hath on our part no Conditions; for your Cause is better then some have made you believe: and in particular, this Reverend Author. Yea see what a case he hath argued himself into, while he hath argued you out of the danger that you were supposed in: For he him­self writeth against those that make Repentance to be but a sign, and deny it to be a Condition to qualifie the subject for Iustification. Treat. of Iustif. part. 1. Lect. 20. And he saith that in some gross sins there are many Conditions requisite (besides humiliati­on) without which pardon of sin cannot be obtained: and instan­ceth in restitution. pag. 210. with many the like pas­sages.

2. Either you mean that Adams works would have been Causall quatenus a Condition performed, or else quatenus merito­rious ex natura materia, or some other cause: The first I still deny, and is it that you should prove, and not go on with na­ked affirmations: The second I will not yield you, as to the no­tion of meritorious, though it be nothing to our question. The same I say of your later instance of Gospel Conditions. Prove them morally efficient, qua tales, if you can.

Treat. ib. And so, though in words they deny, yet in deed they do exalt works to some kind of causality.

Answ. I am perswaded you speak not this out of malice: but is it not as unkind and unjust, as if I should perswade men, that you make God the Author of sin indeed, though you deny it in words? 1. What be the Deeds that you know my mind by to be contrary to my words? Speak out, and tell the world, and spare me not. But if it be words that you set against words. 1. Why should you not believe my Negations, as well as my [Page 128] (supposed) affirmations. Am I credible only when I speak amiss, and not at all when I speak right? A charitable judge­menti 2. And which should you take to be indeed my sense? A na­ked term [Condition] expounded by you that never saw my heart? and therefore know not how I understand it, further then I tell you; Or rather my express explication of that term in a sense contrary to your supposition. [...]ear all you that are impartial, and judge: I say [A Condition is no Cause] and [Faith and Repentance are Conditions]. My Reverend Brother tells you now, that in word I deny them to be efficient Causes, but in deed I make them such, viz. I make them to be what I deny them to be. Judge between us, as you see cause. Suppose I say that [Scripture is Sacred] and withall I add that by Sa­cred, I mean that which is related to God, as proceeding from him, and separated to him: and I plead Etymologie, and the Authority of Authors, and Custom for my speech. If my Re­verend Brother now will contradict me only as to the fitness of the word, and say that sacer signifieth only execrabilis, I will not be offended with him, though I will not believe him: but should so good and wise a man proclaim in print, that sacer signifieth only execrabilis, and therefore that though in word I call Scri­pture Sacred, yet in deed I make it execrable, I should say this were unkind dealing. What! plainly to say that a Verbal con­troversie is a Real one; and that contrary to my frequent pub­lished professions! What is this but to say Whatever he saith, I know his heart to be contrary. Should a man deal so with your self now, he hath somewhat to say for it: For you first pro­fess Repentance and Restitution to be a Condition (as I do) and when you have done, profess Conditions to have a Moral Effici­ency (which I deny): But what's this to me, that am not of your mind?

Treat. pag. 229. A fifth Argument is that which so much sounds in all Books. If good works be the effect and fruit of our Justification, then they cannot be Conditions, or Causa sine qua non of our Iustification. But, &c.

Answ. 1. I deny the Minor in the sense of your party; Our [Page 129] first Repentance, our first desire of Christ as our Saviour, and Love to him as a Saviour, and our first disclaiming of all other Saviours, and our first accepting him as Lord and Teacher, and as a Saviour from the Power of sin, as well as the guilt; all these are works with you; and yet all these are not the ef­fects of our Relative Justification; nor any of them.

2. As to External acts and Consequent internal acts, I deny your Consequence, taking it of continued or final Justification; though I easily yield it as to our Justification at the first. 1. All the acts of justifying faith, besides the first act, are as truly effects of our first Justification as our other graces or gracious acts are. And doth it therefore follow that they can be no Conditions of our continued Justification? Why not Condi­tions as well as Instruments or Causes? Do you think that on­ly the first instantaneous act of faith doth justifie, and no other after through the course of our lives? I prove the contrary from the instance of Abraham: It was not the first act of his faith that Paul mentioneth when he proveth from him Justifica­tion by faith. As its no good Consequence [Faith afterward is the effect of Iustification before; therefore it cannot afterward justifie, or be a Condition.] So its no good Consequence as to Repentance, Hope, or Obedience, 2. It only follows that they cannot be the Condition of that Justification whereof they are the effect, and which went before them (which is granted you.) But it follows not that they may not be the Condition of conti­nued or final Justification. Sucking the brest, did not cause life in the beginning: therefore it is not a means to continue it: It followeth not. You well teach that the Justification at the last Judgement is the chief and most eminent Justification. This hath more Conditions then your first pardon of sin had, yea as many as your salvation hath, as hath been formerly proved, and may be proved more at large.

Treat pag. 230. By this we may see that more things are re­quired to our Salvation, then to our Iustification; to be possessors of heaven, and (than it should be) to entitle us there­to.

[Page 130] Answ. 1. Its true, as to our first Justifying; and its true as to our present continued state: because perseverance is still re­quisite to salvation. But its not true as to our final sentential Justification: There is as much on our part required to that, as to salvation it self. 1. The promise makes no difference. 2. The nature of the thing doth put it past doubt. For what is our fi­nal Justification, but a Determination of the Question by pub­lick sentence, on our side, Whether we have Right to salvation or not? The 25. of Matthew shews the whole.

2. I argue against you from your own Doctrine here, thus; If Justification be it that gives us Right or Title to salvation, then that which is the Condition of our Right to salvation, is the Condition of our Justification: the Antecedent here is your own Doctrine, and is partly true: And the Consequence is undenyable; whereto I add, [But the Doing of Christs Commandments is the Condition of our Right to salvation: therefore also of our Right to Justification, viz. as Consum­mate. The Minor I prove, from Rev. 22.14. Blessed are they that do his Commandements, that they may have Right to the tree of life, and may enter in, &c.] Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved, Rom. 10.13. Acts 2.21. We are sa­ved by hope, Rom. 8.24. Who so walketh uprightly shall be saved, Prov. 28.18. Baptism doth save us, 1 Pet. 3.21. [In doing this thou shall both save thy self and them that hear thee.] 1 Tim. 4.16. If he [have not works, can faith save him?] Iames 2.14.

Treat. ib. Its true, that Iustification cannot be continued in a man, unless he continue in good works: Yet for all that, they are not Conditions of his Iustification: they are Qualifications and Determinations of tht subject who is justified; but no Conditions of his Iustification. As in the generation of man, &c. Light is necessarily required, and dryness, as qualties in fire, yet, &c.

Answ. 1. Its well you once more confess that the thing is ne­cessary! Our question then is only of the nature, and reason of that necessity? Whether it be necessitas medii ad finem, as to [Page 131] the continuance or consummation of our Justification? This I hope you will never deny. If medii, then what medium is it? not a cause. If not a condition, then tell us what, if you can.

Secondly, You say nothing to the purpose, when you give us Instances of Natural properties and qualifications. For be­sides that some of them are not media (as Light to burning) the rest that are media, are Physically necessary ad finem: But First, We are not discoursing of Physicks, and Physical neces­sities: but of Morals, and moral necessity. Secondly, You can­not here pretend (or at least prove) that there is an absolute Physical necessity ad finem to every one of the things in question to their end. Thirdly, Much less that this is the nearest reason of their Interest, and that God hath not morally su­peradded the necessity of a Condition by his Constituti­on.

I prove that the necessity is moral. First, It is imposed by way of Precept, which causeth a moral necessity. Secondly, The Precept hath varied at the pleasure of God, there being more Duties now, then formerly were, and some ceased that were then imposed.

Yea, That its a condition having necessity ad finem, is evi­dent. First, Because it is the modus promissionis imposed on us by God as Promiser in a conditional form of words, as necessary to our attaining of the benefit promised. [If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God rais­ed him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, Rom. 10.9. If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you, &c.] Mat. 64.15. Secondly, And it is not of Physical necessity; for then God could not save us without it, but by a Miracle. Whereas he saved men before Christ by believing in a Messiah in general, without beliveing that this Jesus is he, and without believing that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, buried, rose again, ascended, &c. And he saveth Infants, that themselves believe not at all; so that when you say it is a qualification of the subject, you mean either [the subject as justified] and that is nothing to the business: for then the question is not what Re­lation [Page 132] our actions have to that which is past, but to that which is future. Or else you mean the subject as to be Justified at Judge­ment, or here to be so continued. And then the question still remain­eth, whether those qualifications are means or no means? And if means, of what sort, if not conditions?

Treat. pag. 231. The sixth Argument: If Justification be by works as a condition, then one man is more or less Justified then another; and those works are required to one mans Justificati­on which are not to another, so that there shall not be two godly men in the world Justified alike. For if faith Justified as a work, then he that had a stronger faith, would be more Justified then he that hath a weaker.

Answer. First, I grant the conclusion, if you had taken Works in Pauls sense, for the works of a hirling, or any that are supposed to justifie by their value.

Secondly, I deny your first consequence: And I give you the reason of my denyal (I hope a little better then yours for the proof of it) First, It is not the degree of Repentance or Obe­dience that is made the Condition of our continued and final Justification: but the Sincerity. Now the sincerity is the same thing in one as in another; therefore one is no more justified hereby then another. Secondly, You might as well say, that different degrees of faith, make different degrees of Justifica­tion. But that is not just, because it lies all on the sincerity; therefore it is as unjust here for the same reason.

Your Reason is such as I expected not from you. [For if Faith (say you) justifie as a work] But who saith it doth ju­stifie as a work? Your Reader that suspecteth nothing, but fair in your words, may think I do; when I have again and again in terminis disavowed it. And do you think it is a cogent rea­son indeed, [If works or faith justifie as a condition, there will be various degrees of Justification: Because if it justifie as a work, there will be various degrees.] The reason of the Consequence is as strange to me, as a baculo ad angulum. Once more: First, Faith doth not justifie as a Physical act: Secondly, Nor as a Moral act, or virtue in general. Thirdly, Nor as a mercena­ry [Page 133] meritorious act. Fourthly, But as an act adapted to the ob­ject, and specially fitted to this gratious design, it is chosen to be the condition, and repentance and self-denyal accordingly to attend it. Fifthly, And as the appointed condition, we are justified by it. Sure therefore it doth not justifie as a work. But how they will avoid your consequence that say it justifieth as an Instrument, let them see.

As to your Consequence, I answer▪ First, That which is ab­solutely necessary, is sincere Repentance and sincere Obedience; and this is the same in all. Secondly, But the matter of both these, viz. the sins repented of, and the duties of Obedience may differ in many particulars in several persons. One may not have the same sins to Repent of as another, and one may have some particular duties more then another: though in the main, all have the same sin and duty. But this difference is no absurdity, nor strange thing. When Christ mentioneth the final Justification of some, Mat. 25. and gives the reason from their works [for I was hungry and ye fed me, &c.] I read of none that took it for an absurdity, because. First, The poor. Secondly, Infants. Thirdly, Those that dye before they have opportunity, do no such works.

Treat. pag. 231. The seventh Argument. This Assertion according to the sense of the late Writers (that are otherwise Orthodox, for I mean not the Socinians) will bring in a Justi­fication two waies, or make a twofold Justification, whereof one will be needless. For they grant an Imputation of Christs Righte­ousness in respect of the Law; he fulfilled that, and satisfied Gods Justice, that the Law cannot accuse us. And besides this, they make an Evangelical personal Righteousness by our own Evan­gelical works. Now certainly this later is wholly superfluous; for if Christs Righteousness be abundantly able to satisfie for all that righteousness which the Law requireth of us; what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings, and sup­ply that righteousness also? surely this is to make the stars shine, when the Sun is in its full lustre. Thus it may be observed, while men for some seeming difficulty avoid the good known way of truth, they do commonly bring in Assertions of far more difficulty [Page 134] to be received. In this case its far more easie to maintain one single Righteousness, viz. the Obedience of our Lord Christ, then to make two, &c.

Answ. First, This twofold Righteousness is so far from be­ing needless, that all shall perish in everlasting torment that have not both. I doubt not but you have both your self; and therefore do but argue with all this confidence against that which you must be saved by, and which you carry within you. As if you should argue that both a heart and a brain are needless, and therefore certainly you have but one. But the best is, con­cluding you have but one, doth not really prove that you have but one; for if it did, it would prove you had neither; and then you were but a dead man in one case, and a lost man in the other. First, Did ever any man deny the necessity of inhe­rent Righteousness, that was called a Protestant? Object. But thats nothing to its necessity to Justification. Answ. First, its the very being of it that you plead against as needless, if your words are intelligible. 2ly. Its as gross a contradiction to talk of a Righteousness that makes not righteous, or will not justifie in tantum, according to its proportion, as to talk of whitness that makes not white, or Paternity that makes not a father, or any form that doth not inform, or is a form, and is not a form.

Secondly, If there be two distinct Laws or Covenants, then there is a necessity of two dstinct Righteousnesses to our Justification. But the Antecedent is certain. I suppose it will be granted that Christs righteousness is necessary to answer the Law of works. And I shall further prove that a personal righteousness given from Christ, is necessary to fulfill the condition of the new Cove­nant or Law of Grace, believe and be saved, &c.

Thirdly, Christ did not himself fulfill the condition of the Gospel for any man, nor satisfie for his final non-performance; therefore he that will be saved, must perform it himself or pe­rish. That Christ performed it not in person, is past doubt. It was not consistent with his state and perfection to repent of sin, who had none to repent of; to return from sin to God, who never fell from him; to beleve in Christ Jesus, that is, to ac­cept himself as an offered Saviour, and to take himself as a Savi­our [Page 135] to himself, that is, as one that redeemed himself from sin, to deny his own righteousness, to confess his sin, to pray for par­don of it, &c. Do you seriously believe that Christ hath done this for any man? For my part, I do not believe it. Secondly, That he that hath not satisfied for any mans final predominant Infidelity and Impenitency, I know you will grant, because you will deny that he dyed for any sin of that person (or at least, your party will deny it.) Thirdly, All that shall be saved, do actually perform these conditions themselves. I know you will confess it, that none (adult) but the Penitent, Believers, Holy, shall be saved. This sort of Righteousness therefore is of necessity.

Fourthly, The Benefits of Christ obedience and death are made over to men by a conditional Promise, Deed of gift, or act of oblivion. Therefore the condition of that Grant or Act must be found before any man can be justified by the righ­teousness of Christ. It is none of yours till you repent and be­lieve: therefore you must have the personal Righteousness of faith and repentance, in subordination to the imputed righte­ousness, that it may be yours. And will you again conclude, that [Certainly this later is wholly superfluous]. Hath not God said? ]He that believeth, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned.] And Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. &c.] Is it not necessary that these be done then, both as duty commanded, and as a condition or some means of the end propounded and promised? And is this wholly superfluous? In Judgement, if you be accused to have been finally impenitent, or an Infidel, will you not plead your personal faith and repentance, to justifie you against that accu­sation? or shall any be saved that saith, [I did not repent or believe, but Christ did for me?] If it be said that [Christs sa­tisfaction is sufficient; but whats that to thee that performedst not the conditions of his Covenant, and therefore hast no part in it?] Will you not produce your faith and repentance for your Justi­fication against this charge, and so to prove your Interest in Christ? Nay is it like to be the great business of that day to enquire whether Christ have done his part or no? or yet to enquire, whether the world were sinners? or rather to judge them according to the terms of grace which were revealed [Page 136] to them, and to try whether they have part in Christ or not; and to that end, whether they believed, repented, loved him in his members, improved his Talents of Grace or not? Or can any thing but the want of this personal righteousness then hazard a mans soul?

But you ask [If Christs righteousness be able to satisfie, what is the matter that it removeth not all our Evangelical failings? &c.] Answ. Either you ask this question as of a penitent Believer, or the finally impenitent Ʋnbeliever. If of the former, I say, First, All his sins Christs righteousness pardoneth and covereth; and consequently all the failings in Gospel duties. Secondly, But his predominant final Impenitency and Infidelity Christ pardoneth not, because he is not guilty of it; he hath none such to pardon; but hath the personal righteousness of a per­former of the conditions of the Gospel: And for the finally impenitent Infidels, the answer is, because they rejected that Righteousness which was able to satisfie, and would not return to God by him; and so not performing the condition of pardon, have neither the pardon of that sin, nor of any other which were conditionally pardoned to them.

If this Doctrine be the avoiding the good known way, there is a good known way besides that which is revealed in the Gospel: And if this be so hard a point for you to receive, I bless God, it is not so to me. And if it be far more easie to maintain one single righteousness, viz. imputed only; it will not prove so safe as easie. If one righteousness may serve, may not Pilate and Simon Magus be justified, if no man be put to prove his part in it? and if he be, how shall he prove it, but by his performance of the conditions of the Gift.

Treat. pag. 232. Argu. 8. That cannot be a condition of Justification, which it self needeth Justification: But good works being imperfect, and having much dross cleaving, need a Justi­fication to take that guilt away.

Answ. First Again, hearken all you that have so long de­nyed the Covenant to have any conditions at all: Here is an Argument to maintain your cause: for it makes as much against [Page 137] faith as any other acts (which they call works) for faith is imperfect also, and needs Justification, (a pardon I suppose you mean; I had rather talk of pardoning my sins, then justifying them, or any imperfections what ever.)

Secondly, But indeed its too gross a shift to help your cause. The Major is false, and hath nothing to tempt a man to believe it that I can see. Faith and Repentance are considerable. First, As sincere. Secondly, As imperfect: They are not the condi­tions of pardon as imperfect, but as sincere. God doth not say [I will pardon you if you will not perfectly believe,] but [If you will believe.] Imperfection is sin: and God makes not sin a condition of pardon and life. I am not able to conceive what it was that in your mind could seem a sufficiennt reason for this Proposition, that nothing can be a condition that needs a pardon. Its true, that in the same respect as it needs a pardon; that is, as it is a sin, it can be no condition. But faith as faith, Re­pentance as Repentance is no sin.

Treat. ibid. Its true, Justification is properly of persons, and of actions indirectly and obliquely.

Answ. The clean contrary is true, as of Justification in gene­ral, and as among men, ordinarily. The action is first accusa­sable, or justifiable, and so the person as the cause of that Action. But in our Justification by Christs satisfaction, our Actions are not justifiable at all, save only that we have per­formed the condition of the Gift that makes his righteousness ours.

Treat. pag. 233. This question therefore is again and again to be propounded: If good works be the condition of our Justification, how comes the guilt in them that deserveth condemnation to be done away? Is there a further condition required to this condition? and so another to that with a processus in infinitum?

Answ. Once may serve turn, for any thing regardable that I can perceive in it. But if so, again and again you shall be answer­ed; The Gospel giveth Christ and life upon the same condition [Page 138] to all; This condition is first a duty, and then a condition. As a duty we perform it imperfectly and so sinfully: for the per­fection of it is a duty, but the perfection is not the condition, but the sincerity. Sincere Repentance and faith is the conditi­on of the pardon of all our sins: therefore of their own Im­perfections, which are sins. Will you ask now [If faith be imperfect, how comes the guilt of that Imperfection to be pardoned? is it by a further condition, and so in infinitum?] No: it is on tht same condition: sincere repentance and faith are the condi­tions of a pardon for their own Imperfections. Is there any difficulty in this, or is there any doubt of it? Why may not faith be a condition, as well as an Instrument of receiving the par­don of its own Imperfection? I hope still you perceive that you put these questions to others as well as me, and argue against the common Judgement of Protestants, who make that which is im­perfect, to be the condition of pardon. [Repent and be bap­tized (saith Peter) for the remission of sin; Of what sin? is any excepted to the Penitent Believer? certainly no: It is of all sins. And is not the imperfection of faith and repentance a sin? The same we say of sincere obedience as to the continuance of our Justification, or the not losing it, and as to our final Justification. If we sincerely obey, God will adjudge us to salvation, and so justifie us by his final sentence, through the blood of Christ from all the imperfections of that obedience: what need therefore of running any further towards an infinitum?

Treat. ibid. The Popish party and the Castellians are so far convinced of this, that therefore they say our good works are per­fect. And Castellio makes that prayer for pardon not to belong to all the godly.

Answ. It seems they are partly Quakers. But they are un­happy souls, if such an Argument could drive them to such an abominable opinion. And yet if this that you affirm, be the cause, that Papists have taken up the doctrine of perfection, I have more hopes of their recovery then I had before; nay, because they are some of them men of ordinary capacities, I take it as if it were done already. For the Remedy is most ob­vious; [Page 139] Understand, Papists, that it is Faith and Repentance and Obedience to Christ in Truth, and not in Perfection that is the Condition of your final Justification at Judgement, and you need not plead for perfection any more. But I hardly believe you, that this is the cause of their error in this point.

And you may see that if Protestants had no more Wit then Papists, they must all be driven by the violence of your Argument, to hold that Faith and Repentance are per­fect.

And seeing you tell us of Castellio's absurdity, I would intreat you to tell us, why it is that you pray for pardon your selves; ei­ther you take Prayer to be Means to obtain pardon, or you do not: If not, then 1. Pardon is none of your end in praying for pardon. 2. And then if once it be taken for no means, men cannot be blamed if they use it but accordingly. But if you do use it as a means, then what means is it? Is Prayer any cause of Pardon? say so, and you say more then we that you condemn, and fall under all those censures that per fas aut nefas are cast upon us. If it be no cause of pardon; Is it a con­dition sine qua non, as to that manner of pardoning that your prayer doth intend? If you say yea, you consequentially recant your disputation (or Lecture) and turn into the tents of the Opinionists. But if it be no condition of pardon, then tell us what means it is if you can. If you say, it is a duty. I answer, Duty and Means are commonly distinguished, and so is necessitas praecepti & medii. Duty as such, is no means to an end, but the bare result of a command. Though all Duty that God commandeth is also some means, yet that is not qua Duty. And so far as that Duty is a means, it is either a Cause, (near or remote) or a Condition, either of the obtainment of the benefit, simply, or of the more certain, or speedy, or easie attainment of it, or of obtaining some inferiour good, that conduceth to the main. So that still it is a Cause or a Con­dition, if a means. If you say, It is an Antecedent. I say, qua tale, that is no means, but if a Necessary antecedent, that which is the reason of its necessity may make it a means. If you go to Physical prerequisites (as you talkt of a mans shoulders bear­ing [Page 140] the head that he may see, &c.) you go extra oleas; Its a moral means that we treat of, and I think you will not affirm Prayer to be a means of physical necessity to pardon. If it were, it must be a Physical cause, near or remote, or a Dispositio materiae of natural necessity, &c. If you say, that prayer for pardon, is dispositio subjecti, I answer, thats it that we Opinionists do affirm: But it is a dispositio moralis, and necessary ut medium ad finem: and that necessity must be constituted by the Promiser or Donor: and that can be only by his modus pro­missionis, which makes it in some measure or other a condition of the thing promised. So that there is no lower moral medium then a meer condition sune qua non, that my understanding can hitherto find out, or apprehend.

Treat ibid. Paul Judgeth them dung and dross in re­ference to Justification; yea all things, &c.

Answ. 1. But what are those All things? 2. And what Reference to Justification is it? If All things simply in all re­lation to Justification, then he must judge the Gospel dung and dross as to the Instrumental collation of Justification; and the Sacraments dung and dross as to the sealing of it; and the Ministry dung and dross, as to the preaching and offering it, and be­seeching men to be reconciled to God: and Faith to be dung and dross, as to the receiving of it; as well as Repentance and Faith to be dung and dross as conditions of it; or Prayer, Obedience, as conditions of continuing it.

2. Its evident in the text that Pauls speaks of All things that stand in opposition to Christ, and that stand in competition with him, as such; and not of any thing that stands in a necessary subordination to him as such.

3. He expresly addeth in the text, [for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord] this therefore is none of the [all things that are dung] for the All things are opposed to this. And it containeth that faith, which is works with the Opponents: for this is more then a recumbency on Christ as Priest: It is the Knowledge of him as Lord also. I am confi­dent I shall never learn to expound Paul thus [I esteem All [Page 141] things, even the knowledge of Christ Jesus as Lord and Prophet, as dung for the Knowledge of him as Priest.] Also Paul here excepteth his suffering the loss of that All. I am confident that the [All] that Paul suffered the loss of, comprehended not his Self-denyal, Repentance, Prayer, Charity, Hope, &c.

4. It is not only in reference to Justification that Paul despi­seth All things; but it is to the winning of Christ (who doubt­less is the Principle of Sanctification as well as Justification) and to be found in him, which containeth the sum of his felici­ty. If a man should be such a self-contradicter as to set Repen­tance, or Faith in Christ, or Prayer in his Name, or Hope in him, &c. against winning Christ, and against being found in him, or against the knowledge of him, let that man so far esteem his faith, hope, prayer, &c. as dung. If you should say, [I account all things dung for the winning of God himself as my felicity.] Would you have me interpret you thus, [I account the love of God dung, and prayer to him, and studious obeying him, and the word that revealeth him, &c. even as they stand subordi­nate to him.] This same Paul rejoyced in the testimony of his conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had had his conversation among them: and he beat or subdued his body, and brought it into subjection, lest he should be Reprobated after he was justified, and he prayed for pardon of sin, and tells Timothy, [In doing this thou shalt save thy self, &c.] therefore these things thus used, were none of the All things, that he op­posed to the knowledge of Christ, as dung.

Treat. pag. 234, 235. Others would avoid this Objection, by saying, that Gospel graces, which are the Conditions of the Cove­nant, are reducible to the Law, and so Christ in satisfying the Law, doth remove the imperfections cleaving to them. And they judge it absurb to say, that Christ hath satisfied for the sins of the second Covenant, or breaches, which is said to be only final un­belief.

Answ. As this is brought in by head and shoulders, so is it recited lamely, without the necessary distinctions and explicati­ons [Page 142] adjoyned, yea without part of the Sentence it self: and therefore unfaithfully.

Treat. But this answer may be called Legion; for many errours and coctradictions are in it. 1. How can justifying faith qua talis in the act of Justifying, and Repentance, be reducible duties to the Law taken strictly? Indeed as it was in a large sense discovered to the Jews, being the Covenant of Grace, as I have elsewhere pro­ved (Vindic. Legis) so it required Justifying Faith and Repen­tance. But take, it in the sense as the Abettor of this opinion must do, justifying faith and repentance must be called the works of the Law.

Answ. Its easilier called Legion then faithfully reported, or solidly confuted. 1. Let the Reader observe how much I in­curr'd the displeasure of Mr. Blake, for denying the Moral Law to be the sufficient or sole Rule of all duty, and how much he hath said against me therein; and then judge how hard a task it is to please all men: when these two neighbours and friends, do publikely thus draw me such contrary waies, and I must be guilty of more then ordinary errour whether I say Yea or Nay. And yet (which is the wonder) they differ not among them­selves.

2. But seeing your ends direct you to fetch in his contro­versie, so impertinent to the rest, its requisite that the Abettor do better open his opinion, then you have done, that the Rea­der may not have a Defence of he knows not what.

My opinion so oft already explained in other writings, is this.

1. That the Law of Nature as continued by the Mediator, is to be distinguished from the Remedying Law of Grace, call­ed the New Testament, the Promise, &c. (Whether you will call them two Laws, or two parts of one Law, is little co the purpose; seeing in some respect they are two, and in some but one.)

2. That this continued Law of Nature hath its Precept and Sanction, or doth constitute the Dueness, 1. Of Obedience in general to all that God hath commanded or shall command. [Page 143] 2. And of many duties in particular. 3. And of everlasting death as the penalty of all sin. So that it saith, The wages of sin is death.

3. That to this is affixed the Remedying Law of Grace, like an act of Oblivion, which doth 1. Reveal certain points to be believed. 2. And command the belief of them, which other particular duties in order to its ends. 3. And doth offer Christ, and Pardon, and Life, by a Conditional Donation en­acting that whosoever will Repent and Believe shall be Justified, and persevering therein with true obedience, shall be finally ad­judged to everlasting life, and possessed thereof. Its tenor is, He that Repenteth and Believeth shall be saved, and he that; doth not shall be damned.

4. That the sense of this Promise and Threatning is, He that Repenteth and Believeth at all in this life, though but at the last hour, shall be saved; and he that doth it not at all shall be damned. Or he that is found a penitent Believer at death, &c. And not, he that believeth not to day or to morrow shall be damned, though afterward he do.

5. That the threatning of the Law of Nature was not at first Peremptory and Remediless; and that now it is so far Re­medyed, as that there is a Remedy at hand for the dissolving of the Obligation, which will be effectual as soon as the Condition is performed.

6. That the Remedying Law of Grace, hath a peculiar pe­nalty, that is, 1. Non-liberation, A privation of Pardon and life which was offered (For that's now a penal privation, which if there had been no Saviour, or Promise, or Offer, would have been but a Negation.) 2. The certain Remediles­ness of their misery for the future, that there shall be no more sacrifice for sin. 3. And whether also a greater degree of pu­nishment, I leave to consideration.

7. I still distinguished between the Precepts and the Sanction of the Law of Grace or New Covenant, and between sin as it respecteth both: And so I said, that Repentance and Faith in Christ (even as a means to Justification) are commanded in spe­cie in the Gospel, which constituteth them duties, but command­ed consequently in genere in the Law of nature under the ge­nerall [Page 144] of Obedience to all particular precepts: and whether al­so the Law of Nature require the duty in specie, supposing God to have made his supernatural preparations in providing and propounding the objects, I left to enquiry. Accordingly I affirmed that Impenitency and Infidelity, though afterward Repented of, as also the Imperfections of true faith and repen­tance, are sins against the General precept of the Law of Na­ture, and the special precept of the Law of Grace, and that Christ dyed for them, and they are pardoned through his blood, upon condition of sincere Repentance and Faith.

8. Accordingly distinguishing between the respect that sin hath to the precept and prohibition on one side, and to the promise and threatning on the other, I affirmed, that the foresaid Impe­nitency and Infidelity that are afterwards repented of, and the Imperfections of true Faith and Repentance are condemned by the Remediable threatning of the Law of Nature only, and that the person is not under the Actual obligation of the pe­culiar Threatning of the Law of Grace; that is, that though as to the Gospel Precept, these sins may be against the Gospel as well as the Law, yet as to the Threatning, they are not such violations of the New Covenant, as bring men under its actual curse; for then they were remediless. And therefore I said, that its only final Impenitency and Unbelief, as final, that so subjects men to that Curse or Remediless peremptory sentence. The reason is, because the Gospel maketh Repenting and Believing at any time before death, the Condition of promised pardon: and therefore if God by death make not the contrary impeni­tency and unbelief final, it is not that which brings a man un­der the Remediless Curse; (except only in case of the Blas­phemy against the Holy Ghost, which is ever final.)

9 Accordingly I affirm that Christ never bore, or intended to bear the peculiar Curse of his own Law of Grace. 1. As not suffering for any mans final impenitency and unbelief, which is proved in his Gospel constitution, which giveth out pardon only on Condition of Faith and Repentance: and therefore the non-performance of his Condition is expresly excepted from all pardon, and consequently from the intended satisfaction, and price of pardon. 2. In that he did not bear that species of [Page 145] punishment, as peculiarly appointed by the Gospel, viz. To be denyed Pardon, Justification and Adoption, and to be Remedi­less in misery, &c.

10. Also I said, that all other sins are pardonable on the Gospel Conditions; but the non-performance (that is, final) of those Conditions is everlastingly unpardonable (and con­sequently no sin pardoned for want of them.)

Reader, this is the face of that Doctrine which Reverend Bre­thren vail over with the darkness and confusion of these Gene­ral words; that I say, [Christ hath not satisfied for sins against the second Covenant.] And all these explications I am fain to trouble the world with, as oft as they are pleased to charge me in that confusion. But what remedy? This is the Legion of er­rours and contradictions; which I leave to thy impartial judge­ment, to abhor them as far as the Word and Spirit shall con­vince thee that they are erroneous, and to bless those Congre­gations and Countries that are taught to abhor them, and to re­joyce in their felicity that believe the contrary.

Treat. pag. 235. 2. If so, then the works of the Law are Conditions of our Justification, and thus he runneth into the ex­tream he would avoid.

Answ. 1. The works which the Law requireth to Justifica­tion, that is, perfect obedience, are not the Conditions of Justi­fication. 2. Nor the fulfilling of the Mosaical Law of Sacri­fices, &c. 3. But from among duties in general required by the Moral Law, after the special Constitution of the Gospel, God hath chosen some to be the Conditions of life. And if you believe not this, I refer you to Mr. Blake, who will undertake to prove more.

2. But your assertion is groundless. I said not that they are works of the Law. What if the Law condemn the neglect of a Gospel duty? Do I call the duty, a work of the Law, be­cause I say the Law condemneth the neglecters of it?

3. But are you indeed of the contrary opinion, and against that which you dispute against? Do you think that the Law doth not threaten unbelievers, when the Gospel hath com­manded [Page 146] faith? Have I so much ado to perswade the men of your party, that the Gospel hath any peculiar threatning or penalty, and that it is truly a Law (which the Lutherans have taught too many) and now do you think that its only the Go­spel that Curseth impenitent unelievers, and that maketh punish­ment due for the remnant of these sins in penitent Believers? Let the Reader judge who runneth into extreams and self-con­tradiction.

Treat. ib. But above all, this is not to be endured, that Christ hath not suffered for the breaches of the New Covenant, and that there is no such breach but final impenitency: For are the defects of our Repentance, faith and love in Christ, other then the partial breaches of the Covenant of Grace? our unthankfulness, unfruit­fulness, yea sometimes with Peter, our grievous revolts and aposta­cies; What are those but the sad shakings of our Covenant-interest, though they do not dissolve it? But it is not my purpose to fall on this, because of its impertinency to my matter in hand.

Answ. I rather thought it your purpose to fall upon it, though you confess it impertinent to your matter in hand. For I thought you had purposed before you had Printed of Preach­ed.

Reader, I suppose thee one that hath no pleasure in dark­ness, and therefore wouldst see this intolerable errour bare­faced. To which end, besides what is said before, understand, 1. That I use to distinguish between a threefold breach of the Covenant. 1. A sin against a meer precept of the Gospel, which precept may be Synecdochically called the Covenant. 2. A sin against our own Promise to God when we Covenant with him. 3. A violation of Gods constitution, [Believe and be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned] making us the proper subjects of its Actual Curse or Obligation to its peculiar pu­nishment. 2. On these distinctions I use to say as followeth; 1. That Christ suffered for our breaches of Gospel precepts. 2. And for our breaches of many promises of our own to God. 3. And for our temporary non-performance of the Gospel Conditions, which left us under a non-liberation for that time, [Page 147] (and therefore we had no freedom from so much as was execu­ted.) 4. But not for such violation of the New Covenant, or Law of Grace, as makes us the actual subjects of its Curse or Obligation to Remediless punishment. These are my usual limi­tations and explications. And do I need to say any more now in defence of this opinion, which my Reverend Brother saith is not to be endured? 1. Is it a clear and profitable way of teach­ing to confound all these, under the general name of Covenant-breaking? 2. Or is it a comfortable Doctrine, and like to make Congregations blessed, that our defects of repentance, un­fruitfulness, and unthankfulness, &c. are such violations of the Law of Grace, or the Conditions of the Gospel, as bring us under its actual obligation to Remediless punishment? That is, in plain English, to say, We shall all be damned.

Treat. ib. Argument 9. If works be a condition of our Justi­fication, then must the godly soul be filled with perpetual doubts, and troubles, whether it be a person justified or no. This doth not follow accidentally through mans perversness from the fore-named Doctrine: but the very Genius of it tends thereunto. For if a Condition be not performed, then the mercy Covenanted cannot be claimed: As in faith; if a man do not believe, he cannot say, Christ with his benefits are his. Thus if he have not works, the Condition is not performed, but still he continueth without this be­nefit. But for works; How shall I know when I have the full number of them? Whether is the Condition of the species or indi­viduums of works? Is not one kind of work omitted when its my duty, enough to invalidate my Justification? Will it not be as dangerous to omit that one as all, seeing that one is required as a Condition?

Answ. Your Argument is an unproved Assertion, not having any thing to make it probable. 1. Belief in Christ as Lord and Teacher, is Works with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he believeth in Christ as King and Prophet, and is his Disciple, as well as when he believeth in him as Priest?

2. Repentance is Works also with the Opponents. Why may not a man know when he Repenteth, as well as when he belie­veth.

[Page 148]3. Do you not give up the Protestant cause here to the Pa­pists in the point of certainty of salvation? We tell them that we may be certain that our faith is sincere. And how? why by its fruits and concomitants, and that we take Christ for Lord as well as Saviour, or to save us from the power of sin as well as the guilt? And is it now come to that pass that these cannot be known? What not the signs by which faith it self should be known, and therefore should be notiora? This it is to eye man, and to be set upon the making good of an opini­on.

4. Let all Protestants answer you, and I have answered you. How will they know when they Repent and Believe, when they have performed the full of these? believed all necessary Truths? Re­pented of all sins that must be Repented of? Whether it be the spe­cies or individual acts of these that are necessary! Will not the omission of Repentance for one sin invalidate it? Or the omission of many individual acts of faith? are not those acts conditions? &c. Answer these, and you are answered.

5. But I shall answer you briefly for them and me. Its no impossible thing to know when a man sincerely believeth, re­penteth and obeyeth, though many Articles are Essential to the Assenting part of faith, and many sins must be Repented of, and many duties must be done. God hath made known to us the Essentials of each. It is not the Degree of any of them, but the Truth that is the Condition. A man that hath imperfect Repentance, Faith and Obedience, may know when they are sincere, notwithstanding the imperfections. Do you not believe this? Will you not maintain it against a Papist when you are returned to your former temper? what need any more then to be said of it?

6. Your Argument makes as much against the making use of these by way of bare signs, as by way of Conditions. For an unknown sign is no sign to us.

7. And how could you over-look it, that your Argument flyeth too boldly in the face of Christ, and many a plain Text of Scripture? Christ saith, John 15.10. If ye keep my Com­mandments, ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept, &c. 14. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you, Mat. [Page 149] 7.21. Not every one that saith Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 23, 24. Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doth them, &c. Mat. 5. throughout. verse 20. Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven. 1 John 3.10. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil: whosoever doth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.] An hundred such passages might be cited. And will you meet all these with your objections, and say, [How shall I know when I have the full number? &c.] Know that you have sincere Faith, Repentance and Obedience, and you may know you perform that Condition of the Gospel: else not.

Treat. pag. 236. That if good works be a Condition of Justi­fication, then none are justified till their death; because in every good work is required perseverance, in so much that perseverance is that to which the promise is made, Mat. 24.6. Heb. 10.38. Rev. 2.7, 20. So that it is not good works simply, but persevered in that is required: and therefore no Justification to the end of our daies, so that we cannot have any peace with God till then. Nei­ther doth it avail to say, Justification is not compleat till then; for it cannot be at all till then, because the Condition that gives life to all is not till then.

Answ. 1. And is not perseverance in faith as necessary as perseverance in obedience? Read Col. 1.23. John 15.2, 3, &c. and many the like, and judge. Will you thence infer that none are justified till death?

2. But a little step out of the darkness of your Confusion, will bring the fallacy of your Argument to the light, and there will need no more to it. The Gospel conveyeth to us several benefits: some without any Condition, and several benefits on several Conditions. 1. Our first Actual pardon and Justificati­on, and right to life, is given on Condition of our first Faith and Repentance: and not on Condition of External works of Obe­dience, nor yet of the persevering in faith it self, much less in that [Page 150] Obedience. 2. Our state of Justification is continued on con­dition of the continuance of Faith and Repentance, with sin­cere Obedience. 3. Our particular following sins have a par­ticular pardon, on Condition of the Continuance of the habits and renewing of the acts of that faith and repentance, for known observed sins. 4. Our full Justification by Sentence at Judgement, is on the same condition as Glorification, viz. On perseverance in Faith, Repentance, Hope, Love and sincere Obedience.

Prove now if you can that perseverance is the Condition of our first pardon. Prove if you can that final perseverance is the Condition of our continuance in a justified state till now. You say, Justification and peace cannot be ours till the condition be performed. But what condition? of that gift? or of another gift? If of that, its granted: but its still denyed that perseve­rance is any of the Condition of our first pardon? If of ano­ther gift; its no reason of your Consequence. If you speak of final Justification and Salvation, I grant you all thus far, that you have no full Right of possessing them but on perseverance▪ nor no Right at all, or certainty of Salvation, but on suppo­sition of perseverance as necessary to the possession. And there­fore if you can prove that we have no certainty of perseverance, I will yield that we have no certainty of salvation.

Treat. Thus we have asserted this truth by many Argu­ments; and though any one singly by it self may not convince, yet altogether may satisfie — Now to the great Objecti­ons

Answ. I heartily wish that wiser Readers may find more truth and satisfaction in them then I can do, if it be there to be found; and to that end that they make their best of them all.

Treat. James saith, Abraham was justified by works— so that in outward appearances these two great Apostles speak con­tradictions, which hath made some deny the Canonical authority of James's Epistle. Yea one said blasphemously, Althameirius, Men­tiris Jacobe in caput tuum. But this is to cut, not untie the knot.

[Page 151]1. The scope of the Apostle Paul is to treat upon our Justification before God, and what is the Instrument and means of obtaining it— But the Apostle James takes Justification for the Declara­tion and Manifestation of it before men.

Answ. This is not the only sense of James (as I have proved before, to which I refer you) no nor any part of the sense of the word Justification with him, though he mention shewing faith by works to men, as an argument for his main conclusion, yet he nowhere expoundeth the word Justification by it. James expresly speaks of Imputation of Righteousness by God, and of that Justification which is meant in the words of Gen. concern­ing Abraham, even the same words that Paul expoundeth; and of that Justification which inferreth salvation.

Treat. Paul informeth us that faith only justifieth, and James, what kind of faith it is, even a lively working faith.

Answ. I have answered this in the beginning of this Dispu­tation.

Treat. Its said, They dare not go against the plain words of the Apostle. But its not the [...] but [...], not the words, but the sense

Answ. Our Question is, How the sense of James shall be known? Will you say, not by the words, but by the sense? The words are to express the sense; and we must take heed of forcing them as much as we can. As to your saying of the Anthropo­morphites, and Hoc est corpus meum; I answer; the Tropical sense is oft the plainest; and in particular in these instances. If any man point to several pictures, and say, This is Caesar, and this is Pompey, &c. I shall by use of speech (the interpreter of words) take the tropical sense to be the plainest, and not the literal; viz. That this is Caesars Image, and not that it is his person. And so here.

2. Give me any cogent Evidence that I must leave the plain sense, and I am satisfied.

[Page 152]3. Remember I pray you, that its not the words, but the sense that you except against. Do not you except hereafter against the saying that (we are Justified by works, and not by faith only] as James doth; but against the ill sense that you can prove to be put upon the words.

Treat. pag. 238. Lastly, They are forced to add to the Apostle; for they say, works justifie as the Condition of the Gospel, which the Apostle doth not speak a Word of.

Answ. 1. We say not that Jams calls them a condition; there­fore we add not to him as his.

2. Every Exposition and application is an addition of ano­ther sort, but not as of the same.

3. I use not the active phrase that Works justifie, agreeing so far with you, who note a difference between these sayings, Faith justifieth, and we are justified by faith: for all that Mr. Blake despiseth the observation, which perhaps he would scarce have done, if he had known that you had being guilty of it also.

4. Scripture supposeth Grammer, Logick, Physicks, &c. and no more is to be expected from it but its own part. If James tell you that we are justified by works, he doth not say that [...] is a verb, and [...] is a noun, and so of the rest; but he war­ranteth you to say so without any unjust addition, supposing that Grammer so call them; If the Scripture say, that God cre­ated the Heavens and the earth, it doth not say here in terms, that God was the efficient cause: but it warranteth you to say so: If it say, that Christ dyed for us, and was a Sacrifice for our sins, and hath obtained eternal redemption for us; yet it saith not that he is the meritorious cause, or the material cause of our Justification: But it will warrant you to say so, without the guilt of unjust additions. If you may say as a Grammarian and a Logitian, when you meet with such words in Scripture, [These are Paronyma, and these Synonyma, and these Homonyma, and this is an universal, that a singular, that a particular, and that an indefinite; this is an efficient cause, that a material, formal or final; this is a noun, that a verb, the other a [Page 153] participle or an adverb; I pray you then why may not I say, when I read in Rom. 10.9. that [If thou confess with thy mouth, and believe in thy heart, &c.] that [If] is a conjunction con­ditional? Is this adding to the Scripture unjustly? If I did, when ever I read that we are justified by faith, collect thence that faith is an Instrumental cause, as if by were only the note of an Instrument, then you might have accused me of unwarran­table addition, or collections, indeed.

Lastly, If you have a mind to it, I am content that you say by the unscriptural names (or additions as you speak) of nouns, pronouns, verbs, antecedents, consequents, efficient, or mate­rial causes, &c. and I will lay by the name of a condition, as you do of an Instrument: and we will only use the Scripture phrase, which is, If you forgive men, your Father will forgive you; if we confess our sins, he is faithfull and just to forgive: we are justified by faith without the works of the Law: A man is justified by works, and not by faith only: By thy Words thou shalt be justified. Every man shall be judged according to his works,] &c. Let us keep to Scripture phrase if you desire it, and you shall find me as backward as any to lay much stress upon terms of Art.

Having gone thus far, I shall in brief give you a truer re­conciliation of Paul and James then you here offer us. 1. They debate different questions. 2. And that with different sorts of persons. 3. And speak directly of different sorts of works. 4. And somewhat differ in the sense of the word Faith. 5. And somwhat about the word Justification. 6. And they speak of works in several Relations to Justification.

1. The Question that Paul disputed was principally Whe­ther Justification be by the works of the Mosaical Law, and consequently by any mercenary works, without Christ, or in Co-ordination with Christ, or any way at all conjunct with Christ? The question that James disputed, was, Whe­ther men are justified by meer believing without Gospel-Obedi­ence?

2. The persons that Paul disputed against, were, 1 The unbelieving Jews, that thought the Mosaical Law was of [Page 154] such perfection to the making of men righteous, that there needed no other, much less should it be abrogate. Where specially note, that the righteousness which the Jews expected by that Law, was not (as is commonly imagined) a righteousness of sinless obedience, such as was required of Adam; but a mixt Righteousness, consisting of accurate Obedience to the Mosaical Law in the main course of their lives, and exact sacri­ficing according to that Law for the pardon of their sins com­mitted, (wherein they made express confession of sin) so that these two they thought sufficient to justifie, and lookt for the Messias but to free them from captivity, and repair their Tem­ple, Law, &c. And 2. Paul disputed against false Teachers, that would have joyned these two together (the Righteous­ness of Moses Law, and Faith in Christ) as necessary to life.

But James disputed against false Christians, that thought it enough to salvation barely to believe in Christ, (or lived as if they so thought) its like misunderstanding Pauls Doctrine of Justification as many now do.

3. The works that Paul speaks of directly, are the services appointed by Moses Law supposed to be sufficient, because of the supposed sufficiency of that Law. So that its all one with him to be justified by the Law, and to be justified by works; and therefore he ofter speaks against Justification by the Law expresly, and usually stileth the works he speaks of, the works of the Law: yet by consequence, and a parity of Reason, he may well be said to speak against any works imaginable that are set in opposition to Christ, or competition with him, and that are supposed meritorious, and intended as Mercenary.

But James speaks of no works, but Obedience to God in Christ, and that as standing in due subordination to Christ.

4. By Faith in the Doctrine of Justification, Paul means our Assent to all the essential Articles of the Gospel, together with our Acceptance of Jesus Christ the Lord, as such, and affi­ance in him; that is, To be a Believer; and so to have faith, is with Paul, to be a Disciple of Christ, or a Christian: Though sometime he specially denominates that faith from one part of [Page 155] the object (the promise) sometime from another (the blood of Christ) sometime from a third (his obedience.) And in other cases he distinguisheth Faith from Hope and Charity: but not in the business of Justification, considering them as respec­ting Christ and the ends of his blood.

But James by faith means a bare ineffectual Assent to the Truth of the Christian Religion, such as the Devils them­selves had.

5. Paul speaks of Justification in its whole state, as begun and continued. But James doth principally, if not only speak of Justification as continued. Though if by works any understand a disposition to work in faith, or conjunct with it (as Dr. Iackson doth) so his words are true of initial Justifica­tion also.

6. The principal difference lyeth in the Relations of works mentioned. Paul speaks of works as the immediate matter of a legal personal Righteousness, in part or whole. But James spoak of Works, not as answering the Law, but as fulfilling the condition of the Gospel, and implyed (as promi­sed or resolved on) in our first believing, and so as subservient to the Sacrifice, Merit and Righteousness of Christ, as the avoiding of poison or dangerous meats (that may kill, though the conrtary cannot cure) is subservient to the curing medicine of a Physician, and implyed in our taking him for our Physician at first.

And so much briefly to satisfie you and the world of the Reasons of my Dissent from you, that I may not differ from so Dear and Reverend a Brother, without making it appear, that necessity did compel me.

That which I have passed over, being about the Instrumen­tality of Faith, I shall speak to, (if God will) together with Mr. Blakes Reasonings on that Subject, in another Disputation.

[Page 156] Oppon. Works are not a Condition, much less a Cause of our Justification, under any Notion whatsoever they are taken: i. e. Neither Faith in Christ as Lord and Teacher, becoming his Disciples, Repentance, Love, Hope, Prayer for Pardon, Confession, Self-denyal, sincere Obedience, &c. are Causes or Conditions of Justification, as begun, continued, or as it is most eminent in the sentence at Judgement. Cons. Erg. This Faith, Repentance, Prayer, Obedience, &c. are not truly means of our Justification now or at Judgement.

Ergo. Not means to the pardon of sin, and freedom from punishment.

Ergo. Not means of Salvation from Hell, or of that Glo­ry to which the final Justification will adjudge us.

Ergo. 1. They are not necessary necessitate medii, and 2. No Man must use them as means to his present pardon, or Justification, or final Justification or salvation.

Ergo. No means must be used for present or final Justifica­tion or Salvation, but only the Instrumental receiving, or ap­prehending of Christs Righteousness, or of Christ as Priest. Ergo.

Object. There are means besides Causes and Conditions.

Answ. Besides Causas & Conditiones proximas, there are: but besides Causas & Conditiones & proximas & remotas, in this case there are none that I know of: if there be, name them.

LETTERS That paſt be …

LETTERS That past between This REVEREND, Much HONOURED BROTHER, And my SELF. 1649, and 1650.

LONDON, Printed by Robert White, for Nevil Simmons, Book-seller in Kederminster.

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.

Dear Sir,

I Have indeed declared to some, who happily may have informed you of it, as I desired, that there were several▪ Doctrinal points asserted in your Book, to which I could not pedibus ire, much less corde; such are many positions about Christs Righteousness, about faiths Justification in your sense, and the Efficacy of new Obe­dience in this work as well as faith. Yea Love made some kind of the actings of Faith: The good old sound definition of Faith waved, and a new one substituted. Not the [...], credere, but the [...] operari also called into Evangelical Righteousness, and this made our personal Righteousness. These things and divers others do make me vehemently dissent from you in the matters asserted. Yet I do really honour you, for your great Abilities and zealous Piety, earnestly desiring of God that he would pro­long your life, and have mercy upon hss Church by sparing this Epaphroditus.

But whereas you have been told, that I had animadversions on your Book, this was a mistake: for the truth is, though I have cast my thoughts upon some part of it, yet I have not any di­gested or prepared considerations about it: but do defer such a work, till I shall have opportunity to discharge that part I have publiquely promised about imputed Righteousness; which Subject I cannot yet prosecute, being hindred by other avoca­tions: It is true, I have had advertisement from some honour­ed friends of mine at London, that it is expected, I should do something in those points, because by your Inscription of my name (which I take as an Act of your real Love and respect to me, though I am unworthy of any such Testimony) they [Page 161] think I am interested. Had I known the Contents of the book before published, I would have most importunately urged you at least to have taken more time of deliberation about the divulgation of them, which you know have much novelty in them. I know things are not to be embraced or rejected, because either old or new; yet Paul doth dislike [...], if we may so read it, and not [...]. I shall con­clude with this: Let not any difference from you in Judgement be any obstruction to improve your utmost Abilities (which are many and lovely) to the finding out, and propa­gating of Truth. If God prolong your life, I hope this next Summer we may have mutual oral Conference together, which is the most conducible way to clear both Truth and our Opi­nions.

Your faithfull Friend and Brother
Decemb. 3. To the Reverend, and his much Honoured Friend, Mr. Baxter, Preacher of the Word of God at Kederminster, those Deliver.

I Received yours, which I acknowledge a Favour: but not so great as I expect. Your dissent is so generally known, that I cannot but hope to know some of the Grounds of it. I hope you cannot so vehemently dissent in points of such Mo­ment, and yet deny me a discovery of mine Error. The defer­ing of such a work till you have wrote another Book, doth intimate what will be injurious to the Church, your self [Page 162] and me: If you intend to publish a Confutation, when I am dead, and deny me any help for conviction while I live. 1. The Church will lose the fruit of my own Recantation. 2. And your self, one part of the fruit of your Labor. 3. And I may dye in error unrecanted, and you (being now importuned for, your help) be guilty of it. If you did but know how gladly I would publiquely recant, you would not deny your help. You that would have so importuned me to deliberate, if you had known before, I hope will not deny your assistance for my recovery. I did not hastily that I did. But though I wanted the oppor­tunity of consulting you before, yet I hope it is not too late. I am confident if you know me, you are not so uncharitable as to think me uncurable. It is therefore your flat duty not to suffer sin upon me. Let me therefore intreat you to send me one or two of your strongest Arguments against some of the weightyest points in difference; and to answer mine. I know it is not an hours work with you to do that much; and I would bestow twenty for you. If you suspect that I will any way mis-imploy your papers, you shall prescribe me the Law therein your self. Whether you will read [...] or [...], I am indifferent, being no friend to either. I thought it a greater novelty to say, Faith justifieth only or primarily as an Instrument, then to say, it justifieth as the Condition, which the free Lawgiver hath promised Justification upon. I knew it was no novelty to say, we must have a personal Righteousness be­sides that imputed: And I took it to be as old as the Gospel, to say, that this consisteth in Faith and sincere Obedience. I called it Evangelical, because I trembled to think of having an inherent Righteousness which the Law of works will so deno­minate. What you say of the [Efficacy of Obedience and Faith] I disclaim both, as never coming into my thoughts: I acknowledge no efficiency as to Justification in either, but a bare conditionality. I aver confidently that I give no more to works, then our Divines ordinarily do, viz. to be a secondary part of the Condition of the new Covenant, and so of Justifica­tion, as continued and consummate, and of Glorification: only if I err, it is in giving less to Faith, denying it to be the Instrumen­tal Cause of Justification, but only a condition. My Defini­tion [Page 163] of Faith is the same (in sense) with Dr. Prestons, Mr. Calverwell, Mr. Throgmorton, Mr. Norton of new England in his Catechism, &c. O how it grieveth me to dissent from my Reverend Brethen! Some report it to be a pernitious Book: others overvalue it, and so may receive the more hunt if it be unsound. Truly Sir I am little prejudiced against your Arguments; But had rather return into the common road then not, if I could see the Light of truth to guide me. I abhor affected singularity in Doctrine: therefore I intreat you again to defer no longer to vouchsafe me the fruit of one hours labour, which I think I may claim from your Charity and the Interest God hath given one member in another, and you shall hereby very much oblige to thankfulness

Your unworthy fellow-servant Richard BAXTER.
To my Reverend and very much valued friend, Mr. — Preacher of Gods Word at — These present.
Dear Sir,

I Received your letter, and I returned some Answer by Mr. Bryan, viz. that now the daies growing longer and warmer, I shall be glad to take occasion to confer with you mouth to mouth about those things wherein we differ, for I conceive that to be a far more compendious way, then by letters, wherein any mistake is not so easily rectified: I shall therefore be ready to give you the meeting at Bremicham any Thursday you shall appoint that may be convenient with your health; that so by an amicable collation, we may find out the truth. In the mean [Page 164] while I shall not wholly neglect your request in your letter, but give you an hint at one of those several Arguments that move me to dissent from you; which although it be obvious, yet such Arguments as most men pitch upon, have the greatest strength: and that is the peculiar and proper expressions the Scripture giveth to faith in the matter of Justification, and that when the Doctrine is purposely handled, as Paul in his Epistle to the Romans. attributing it so to faith, as it excludes not the pre­sence, but the co-operation of any other. He doth so include faith, as that he doth exclude all works under any notion: for Abraham was then godly, and abounded in other Graces, yet the Apostle fastens his Justification upon this: in so much that if a man would have desired the Apostle to make a diffe­rence between faith and other Graces, it could not have been done more evidently. As for the Apostle James, your sence cannot be admitted to reconcile them, but rather makes that breach wider: the one saith, a Justification without works; you make Faith as well as works, though one primarily: where­as the Orthodox both against Papists and Arminians, and Soci­nians, do sweetly reconcile them. By the hint of this, I see a Letter cannot represent the vigor of an Argument. I shall only add one thing: we may hold Opinions, and dispute them speculatively in Books; but practically, and when we come to dye, we dare not make use of them. I know not how a godly man at his death can look upon his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him; though the Grace of God and the Merits of Christ be acknowledged the procuring cause. The Papists also verbally come to that refuge: For how come the Imperfections in the Conditions to be pardoned, and conditions have a moral Efficiency? Raptim. But of these things more fully when I see you.

The Lord preserve you an Instrument in his Church, and di­rect and sanctifie all your parts and abilities for his Glory.

Your loving Brother in the Lord
To his very loving and much respected Friend Mr. BAXTER, Minister of Gods Word at Kederminster, these be delivered.

FOr the expressions of your love in your two Letters, and your offer to meet me for conference; I return you hearty thanks. But I told you of my weakness, which is so great that I am not able to travel, nor to discourse to any purpose if I were with you: a few words do so spend me (except when I have a little ease, which fals out perhaps once in a moneth for a few hours unexpected) therefore I am resolved to importune you once again, and if you now deny me, to cease my suit. It is expected at London, Cambridge, &c. that you write a confutati­on, and you intimate your purpose to do so hereafter: which I will not disswade you from, so I might but see your Arguments, that before I dye, I might know whether I have erred, and not dye without repenting or recanting: and if I err not, that I might shew you my grounds more fully; And if you deny this request to one that hath so even unmannerly importuned you, and yet purpose to do it, when I can neither be the better for it, nor defend my self, you walk not by that Rule as I thought you did, nor do as you would be done by. But for my part, I have done my endeavour for information, and so have satisfied my own conscience. For what should I do? There is none in this Country that will attempt a convincing of me, by word or writing, nor for ought I hear, gainsay: and you are the nearest from whom I may hope for it. In your last you overpass all the particulars almost touched in your former, and pitch on Justification by works. Where you mention Pauls attributing it to Faith, to which I have answered, and have no Reply. 1. Where you say Paul excludes the Co-operation of any other; I answer, So do I. And of Faith too I deny the ope­rations as effective. 2. When you say, he excludes works under any notion, I answer. 1. Would I could see that proved. 2. Then how can James say true▪ 3. Then he excludes faith un­der the notion of an Instrument. 4. And Repentance under [Page 166] the notion of a preparative, or condition. 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation, or efficiency of works, I yield as before. 6. Paul expresly excludes only the works of the Law, that is, such as are considered in opposition to Christ, or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works, and not such as Christ himself enjoyneth in subordination to himself; so they keep that place of subordination. 7. Pauls Question is, What is the Righteousness which must denominate a sinner just at the Bar of the Law? And this he saith is no Works (under any notion) no not Faith, but only Christs Righ­teousness, and so faith must be taken relatively: for certainly it is Christ, and not Faith that is that Righteousness. Is not this all that our Divines say, or require? and so say I, over and over. But Paul doth not resolve there [what is the Condition on which Christ makes over this Righteousness of his?] so directly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you say he do: yet if Paul speak of our first possession of Justification, I say it is without, not only the operation, but the presence of works, which is more then you say. 9. Or whether he speak of begun, or continued Justification, I say we are justified without works in Pauls sense: yea that they are not so much as a condition of the continuance of Justification. For works in Pauls sense relate to the reward, as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly saith, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. These works I disclaim as sinfull in their ends. But obeying the Gospel, or being willing that Christ who hath redeemed us, should rule over us, and running that we obtain, and fighting the good fight of faith, and suffering with Christ that we may be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring to the end, and so doing good works, and laying up a good foundation against the time to come: I think Paul excludes not any of these from being bare conditions, or causae sine quibus non of our Justification at Judgement, or the continuance of it here. Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls sense, as be­fore, but not works in this sense, or in James his sense. When you say my sense for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted. 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better: [Page 167] and answered what I have said in that. 2. Your reason appears to me of no seeming force. For first you say [the one saith a Justification by faith without works, you make Faith as well as works, &c.] Answer 1. Paul saith not barely without works, but without the works of the Law. And I have shew­ed you what he means by works, Rom. 4.4. 2. I say no more then James, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith on­ly: I believe both these Scriptures are true, and need no re­conciling, as having no contradiction in the terms. And yet I speak not so broad usually, as James doth. Where you say that [the Orthodox do sweetly reconcile them] I know not who you mean by the Orthodox. For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them. Piscator and Pemble have one Interpretation, and way of Reconciliation. Calvin, Paraeus and most Divines another. Camero confuteth the best esteemed, and hath another. Brochmond with most of the Lutherans have another. Jac. Laurentius, Althemor, and many more tell us of divers: which of these you mean by the Orthodox, I know not. But if you exclude all those from the Orthodox, that say as I say in this, you will exclude as Learned Divines, and well reputed of, as most Europe hath bred, viz. excellent Conrad. Bergius, Ludov. Crecius, Johan, Cro­cius, Johan. Bergius, &c. Who though they all dispute for Justifi­cation by faith without works, understanding it of the first Justi­fication (for most Divines have taken Justification to be rigidly simul & semel till Dr. Downam evinced that it is a continued Act) yet they both take works for meriting works, that respect the reward as of Debt, and they say that otherwise Obedi­ence is a Condition (or cause as they make it) of continuing, or not losing Justification once attained. And is not that to say as much as I? And many more I can name you that say as much. And you approve of Mr. Bals book, which saith that works (or a purpose to walk with God) do justifie as a passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification. You add that [we may dispute, &c. but you know not how a godly man at his death can look on his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him, &c.] Which speech seems strange to me. I confess if I be so, I am ungodly. For I have been as oft, and as long in [Page 168] the expectation of death as most men, and still am: and yet I am so far from being afraid of this, that I should live and dye in horror and desperation, if I could not look upon the conditi­ons of the Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my self through goes workings. If by our Graces you mean Habits, I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant. For what you say of the Papists, you know how funda­mentally almost they differ from me in this, confounding the Covenants Righteousness, &c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my self, I would shew wherein. For your question, How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned? You know I have fully answered it, both in the Aphorisms, and Appendix. And I would rather you had given me one discovery of the insufficiency of that answer, then asked the Question again. Briefly thus. Guilt is an obligation to punishment (as it is here to be understood) Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation, or Guilt and Punishment. All Punishment is due by some Law. According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obe­dience, &c. deserve punishment, and Christ hath satisfied that Law, and procured forgiveness of these imperfections, and so acquit us from Guilt and punishment. The new Law, or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers, and so not to the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obedience, where they are sincere. And where the Law threatneth not Punishment, there is no obligation to Punish­ment (or Guilt) on the party from that Law, and so no work for Pardon. Imperfect believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly: and it condemneth none for imper­fection of degree▪ where there is sincerity: No man is ever par­doned, whom the new Law condemneth, that is, final Unbe­lievers, or Rejecters of Christ. So that Christ removeth, or forgiveth that obligation to punishment, which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfections. And for the Law of Grace where it obligeth not to punishment, that obligation which is not, cannot be taken off: nor that man pardoned, that was never guilty. Your Question occasioneth me to be unmannerly in opening these easie things to you, that I doubt [Page 169] not knew them sure twenty years ago and more. Though I confess I had not the clear apprehensions of them seven years ago. What ever I was then thought by others, I confess I was ignorant, and am glad that God hath in any measure healed my ignorance, though with the loss of my reputation of being Orthodox. Where you add that conditions have a moral effi­ciency, either you mean all or some; if all, or if this whereof we are in speech, though I am loth to contest with you in Phi­losophy, yet I must confess I never read so much in any Author, nor can force my self to believe it, Causa sine qua non, est causa fatua. It is as Schibler and others, a meer Antecedent. The word Moral is ambiguous; but if you mean it as I conjecture you do▪ for an efficiency, interpretative in sense of Law, as if the Law would ascribe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition: I ut­terly deny it in the present case; or if you mean that our fulfil­ling the conditions hath an efficiency on God to move him to justifie us, as an impulsive procatarctick cause; I not only deny it, but deny that any such cause is properly with God, or hath efficiency on him; nor can it have the operation of the fi­nal cause, which some call moral, seeing it is none of Gods end, nor can any thing move God but God, nor be his end but himself. If you mean by moral efficiency any thing else which is indeed no efficiency, I stick not on meer words.

Sir, I should not have presumed to expect so much labour from you as to write a sheet for my satisfaction, had I not per­ceived that others expect much more to less purpose, and that your letters express that hereafter you intend more. If you deny me your answer to this, I will trouble you no more. And because I would have your labour as short as may be, I shall only desire your answer to these few Questions, which I ground on both your Letters, because the clear resolving of these, will be the readiest way to satisfie me.

Quest. 1. Hath the Covenant of Grace (which promiseth Justification and Glorification) any condition on our parts, or none? If it have

Quest. 2. What are the Conditions? Is not Love and Obedience part of the Condition?

Quest. 3. Must not those Conditions be fulfilled by our selves? [Page 170] or hath Christ fulfi [...]led them by himself for any man.

Quest. 4. If we must fulfill him▪ why may not a dying man look on them? Or what m [...] Paul to rejoyce in the testimony of his Conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity he had his conversation? &c. And that he had fought a good fight, and finished his cour [...] &c. And that in all good conscience, &c. and Hezekiah, Remember Lord that I have walked before thee, &c.

Quest 5. Can a man have any assurance ordinarily that death shall not let him into [...]ell, who hath no assurance that he hath performed these conditions, and how should he have it? Can he know that all shall work to him for good, though he know not whether he love God? or that there is no condemnati­on to him, though he know not that he is in Christ, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit?

Quest. 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to salvation, but as meer figures, then is not the Antinomi­an Doctrine true, that we may not Act for Salvation?

Q. 7. What do you mean your self, when you write against those that deny Repentance to be a Condition to qualifie the Subject to ob­tain forgiveness, but a sign Lect. 20. of Justification? And when you say that Scripture limits Justification, and Pardon only to those Subjects that are so and so qualified. p. 171. where you instance in Repentance, Confession, Turning, Forgiving others, &c. and make faith an Instrumental cause, but say, there are many quali­fications in the Subject. p. 172. And what mean you when you say, p. 210. In some gross sins there are many conditi­ons requisite (besides humiliation) without which Pardon of sin cannot be obtained: where you instance in Restitution. Be­sides those, p. 148, 149, 150. Is it not safe when a man hath prerformed these conditions, to look on them either living or dy­ing? Or what do you say less then I do here? I know you are none of the men of contention, and therefore will not recant your own Doctrine in opposition to me. And if you did not mean that these are conditions of Pardon, and Justification, when you say they are, who can understand you? If those gross sins be in the unjustified, you will not say that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Justification. I know that you [Page 171] give more to faith (and so to man) then I do, viz. to be the Instrument of his own Justification, (which I will not contend against with any that by an improper sense of the word Instru­ment, do differ only in a term) but what do you give less to Re­pentance, and the rest then I do? you say they are conditions, and I say no more.

Qu. 8. And what do the generality of our Divines mean, when they say that Faith and new Obedience are our conditions of the Covenant? As I have cited out of Paereus, Scharpius, Willet, Piscator, Junius, Aretius, Alstedius, who saith, the con­dition of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith, and part­ly Evangelical Obedience, or Holiness of life, proceeding from faith in Christ. Distinct. Chap. 17. p. 73. And Wendeli [...] the like, &c. If it be said that they mean they are conditions of Salvation but not of Justification; Then

Quest. 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Justification at Judgement (which you have truly shewed is more compleat then this Justificatio viae, and our Glorification have different conditions on our part, and so of our persevering Justification here.

Quest. 10. And whether it be any less disparagement to Christ to have mans works to be the conditions of his Salvation, then to be the bare conditions of his ultimate and continued Justification? Seeing Christ is a Saviour as properly as a Justi­fier, and Salvation comprizeth all.

Quest. 11. What tolearable sense can be given of that multitude of plain Scriptures which I have cited? Thes. 60. For my part, when I have oft studyed how to forsake my present Judgement, the bare reading of the 25 of Matthew hath still utterly silenced me, if there were no more. Much more when the whole Gospel runs in the like strain.

Quest. 12. Is not the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righte­ous, that is, not guilty of non-fulfilling, or not obliged to pu­nishment, or guilty as from that same Law or Covenant? And doth not every man that is saved so fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant? and so is Evangelically righteous? The con­dition is not Believe, and obey perfectly, but sincerely.

[Page 172] Quest. 13. If there be no such thing as a personal Righte­ousness necessary to salvation, besides imputed Righteousness: 1. What is the meaning of all those Scriptures cited Thes. 22. that say there is? 2. And of our Divines that say there is inhe­rent Righteousness? And 3. What real difference between the godly and the wicked, the saved and damned?

Quest. 14. Have you found out any lower place for Love and Obedience, then to be bare conditions, if you acknowledge them any way conducible to final Justification, or Salvation? If you have, what place is it? and how called? and why hath it not been discovered unto the world? To say they are quali­fications of the Subject, is too general, and comprizeth qualificati­ons of different Natures; and it shews not how they are con­ducible to the said ends; and why a man may not be saved with­out qualifications, as well as with them, if God have not made them so much as conditions?

Quest. 15. Seeing I ascribe not to Evangelical Obedience the least part of Christs Office or Honor, nor make it any jot of our legal Righteousness, where then lies the error or danger of my Doctrine?

Quest. 16. Do not those men that affirm we have an inherent Righteousness, which is so pronounced properly by the Law of works, accuse the Law of God for blessing and cursing the the same man and action? And how can that Law pronounce a man, or his action righteous, which curseth him, and condemn­eth him to Hell for that same Action? It makes me amazed to think what should be the reason that Divines contest so much, that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently righteous, which they know condemns them; rather then the Law of Grace or new Covenant, which they know absolveth them that sincerely perform it. When all Divines acknowledge an inherent Righteousness, and that the Law of Works is ful­filled by none, and that it pronnunceth none righteous, but the fulfillers: and when the condition of the new Covenant must be performed by all that will be saved: and when the Holy Ghost saith that it was by faith (and so pronounced, and mea­sured by the Law of faith) that Abel (the second Righteous man in the world) offered the excellent Sacrifice, and by it ob­tained [Page 173] witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gift, &c. Heb. 11.4.

Quest. 17. Do not those Divines that will affirm that [our inherent Righteousness is so called from its imperfect conformi­ty to the Law of works] and that [it is the Law that pronoun­ceth them righteous] lay a clear ground for Justification by works in the worst sense? for if the Law pronounce their works, and them properly righteous, then it justifieth them: and then what need have they (at least so far) of Christ, or Pardon? yea and what Law shall condemn them, if the Law of Works justi­fie them? At least do they not compound their Righteousness (as to the law of Works) partly of Christs satisfaction, and partly of their own Works?

Quest. 18. Whether you should not blame Dr. Preston, Mr. Norton, Mr. Culverwel, Mr. Throgmorton, &c. for lay­ing by the good sound definition of Faith (as you call it) as well as me? And is it not great partiality to let the same pass as currant from them, which from me must be condemned? And why would you agree to such a corrupt definition, being one of the Assembly, when theirs in the lesser Catechism (and indeed both) is in sence the very same with mine? And why may not I be judged Orthodox in that point, when I heartily subscribe to the National Assemblies Definition? viz. that Faith is a saving Grace, whereby we receive, and rest on Christ alone for Salvation, as he is offered to us in the Gospel.]

Qu. 19. Do I say any more then the Assembly saith in the pre­ceding Question? [What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin? Answ. God requireth of us (to escape the said wrath and curse, &c.) Faith in Jesus Christ, repen­tance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means, whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption.] And is not Justification one benefit? And is not final Justificati­on a freeing us from that Curse?

Quest. 20. Which call you the good, sound definition of Faith? When our famous Reformers placed it in Assurance; Camero, and others in perswasion (such as is in the understand­ing) others in Assent, as Dr. Downam, &c. Others in a Belief of Gods special Love, and that sin is pardoned. Others in Affi­ance [Page 174] or Recumbency. Others in divers of these. Some, as Mr. Ball, calling it a fiducial Assent. Others an obediential Affiancce. Did not each of these forsake that which by the former was accounted the good sound Definition? And why may not I with Dr. Preston, Mr. Wallis, &c. say it is an Ac­ceptance, or consent, joyned with Assent? or with the Assembly, and the rest, say it is a receiving, which is the same in a more Meta­phorical term.

Quest. 21. If you judge as Melanchton, John Crocius, Da­venant, Amesius, &c. that Faith is in both faculties; how can you then over-leap the Elicite Acts of the will (which have re­spect to means) Eligere, consentive, uti?

Quest. 22. If the formal reason of justifying faith lie in a Belief or Perswasion that Christ will pardon and save us: or in an Affiance or resting on him, or Trusting to him only for Salvation: or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour, meerly to justifie and save from Hell: Why then are not almost all among us justified and saved? when I scarce meet with one of an hundred, that is not unfeignedly willing, that Christ should pardon, and justifie, and save them, and do verily trust, that Christ will do it; and the freer it is, the better they like it. If they may whore and drink, and be covetous, and let alone all the practise of Godliness, and yet be saved, they will consent. If it be said that they rest not on Christ for Justification sincerely; I Ans. They do it really, and unfeignedly, and not dissemblingly, which as we may know in all probability by others, so we may know it certainly by our own hearts, while unregenerate. So that it is not the natural, but the moral Truth, that is wanting: And what is that? And wherein is the Essential, formal difference between a wicked mans resting on Christ for Justification, and a true Believers? To say it is seen in the Fruits, is not to shew the Essential difference.

Quest. 23. If resting on Christ for Justification be the only condition of final Justification, What is the reason that Perkins, Bolton, Hooker, Preston, Taylor, Elton, Whately, and all the godly Divines also yet living do spend most of their labour to bring men to obey Christ as their Lord, and not the hundreth line or word to press them to Trust that he will pardon and save them? All the [Page 175] powerfull Perachers that ever I heard, however they dispute, yet when they are preaching to the generality of people, they zealously cry down laziness, lukewarmness, negligence, unholy­ness, prophaness, &c. As that which would be the liklyest cause of the damnation of the people. But if only the foresaid saith be the condition, and all other Graces or Duties be but meer signal effects of this, and signal qualifications of the sub­ject, and not so much a conditions, what need all this? Were it not then better to perswade all people, even when they are whoring, or drunk, to trust on Christ to pardon and justifie them? And then when they have the tree and cause, the fruits and signal effects will follow.

Quest. 24. Yea, Why do the best Divines preach so much against Presumption? And what is Presumption, if it be not this very faith which Divines call justifying? viz. the Trusting to Christ for Pardon and Salvation only, without taking him for their King and Prophet? If it be said that this last must be pre­sent, though not justifie: How can the bare presence of an idle Accident so make, or marr the efficacy of the cause?

Quest. 25. If to be unwilling that Christ should raign over us, be part of the directly condemning sin, Luke 19.27. why is not the willingness he should raign, part of saving, justifying faith?

Quest. 26. Seeing resting in Christ is no Physical apprehen­sion of him (who is bodily in Heaven) nor of his Righteous­ness (which is not a being capable of such an apprehension) How can that Resting justifie more then any other Act, but only as it is the condition to which the Promise is made? Resting on a friend for a Benefit, makes it not yours, but his gift does that. As Perkins (cited by me) To believe the Kingdom of France shall be mine, makes it not mine: But to believe Christ, and the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. (vid. loc. where he saith as much as I) vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not said [He that believeth shall be justified and saved,] would Believing have done it? And if he had said, [He that repenteth, or loveth, or calleth on the name of the Lord, shall be justified or saved] would not these have done it? if so; then doth not faith justifie directly, as the condition of the Gift, Promise, or new Cove­nant? [Page 176] And its apprehension is but its aptitude to be set apart for this Office: And if it justifie as a condition of the Promise: must not others do it so far as they are parts of the Condi­tion?

Sir, If you should deny me the favour I hope for in resol­ving these doubts, yet let me hear whether I may expect it or not. And in the interim I shall search in jealousie, and pray for direction: But till your Arguments shall change my judge­ment, I remain confident that I can maintain most of the Anti­nomian Dotages against any man that denyeth the principles of my Book: and that which is accounted novelty in it, is but a more explicate, distinct, necessary delivery of common Truths.

April 5, 1650

I Am sorry that you are not in capacity for the motion I pro­fered: I thought discourse would not so much infeeble you, especially when it would have been in so loving a way: And I judged it the more seasable, because I had been informed of a late solemn conference you had about Paedobaptism, which could not but much spend you, I shall press no more for it, al­though this very letter doth abundantly confirm me, that let­ters are but a loss of time: for one word might have prevented many large digressions. Is not that endeavour of yours in your seventh question to prove out of my book, that Repentance is a necessary condition, or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned, &c. a meer impertinency? You earnestly desire satisfaction of your conscience, therefore I cannot think you [Page 177] do wilfully mistake. For is that the state of the question with us? Is it not this, whether the Gospel Righteousness be made ours, otherwise then by believing? You say by believing, and Obedience. I say only believing. I say faith is only the condition justifying, or instrument receiving, you make a justifying Repentance, a justifying Patience: you make other acts of grace justifying as well: so that whereas heretofore, we only had justifying faith, now there are as many other qualities, and all justifying, as there are Graces. So that I do firmly hold (and it needs a recantation) that repentance and other exercises of Grace are antecedent qualifications, and are me­dia ordinata, in the use whereof only pardon can be had. But what is this to you? Who expresly maintain the righteousness of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours, upon our godly working, as well as believing. If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith had no peculiar Instrumentality in our Justification, but what other Graces have, then you had hit the mark. What is more obvious, then that there are ma­ny conditions in justificato, which are not in actu justificationis? The fastening of the head to the body is a necessary condition in homine vidente, but it is not in actu videntis. You grant in­deed some precedency to faith, but you make Faith and Works aequè, though not aequaliter, the conditions of Justification. I should say much more to the state of the question, but I forbear. In other things you seem to come off; and though I do not say you recede from your Assertions, yet you much mollifie them, that I need not therein contend with you. But here is the stick. Let it be demonstrated, that whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Justification to believing only: as through faith, and by Faith, and through faith in his blood, that you can as truly say, its received by love, and its through love of his blood shed for our sakes, &c. This is a little of that much which might be said to the state of the questi­on. This I judge new Doctrine, justifying Repentance, justi­fying Charity. And in my Letter I laid down an Argument, Rom. 4. Concerning Abrahams, Justification, the Pattern of all others. To this you reckon up many Answers, but I see not the Argument shaken by it. First you say, you exclude a co-ope­ration [Page 178] effective, but why do we strive about words? You do not exclude works justifying, as well as faith, let the expressions be what they will. Whereas Paul saith, he would be found ha­ving the Righteousness which is by faith, you will add, and which is by love, by zeal. 2. You desire it to be proved, that Paul excludes all works under any notion; I think its very easily done: First, because of the immediate opposition between Faith and Works; now you will contradict Pauls Argument, and give a tertium, works that are of Grace. But the Apostles opposition is so immediate here and in other places, between faith and any thing of ours, that he admits of no medium. 2. He instances in Abrahams works, and excludes them: now were Abrahams works, works done by the meer strength of the Law? Did not Abrahams Obedience, and other works flow from Grace? Were Abrahams works in opposition to Christ? Yet even these are excluded. 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the opposition, justifying, covering, all is wholly attributed unto God. 4. The Assertion is universal: The Apostle saith, with­out works in general, ver. 6. And he works not, ver. 5. Lastly, By the testimony he brings from the Psalmist, that blessedness is where sin is not imputed, whrere it is forgiven; These rea­sons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the act of Justification, though not from the person justified. 3. You say, how then saith James true? But I ask, if there be justifying works, how saith Paul true? But again, James saith true: for this faith which in respect of its act ad intra, doth only justifie, yet it works ad extra. The old Assertion is fides quae viva, not quo viva. You speak of a seeming Antilogie among the or­thodox in this reconciliation, but though all go not eadem semi­ [...]â, yet they do eadem viâ against works under any notion whatsoever in the act of Justification. 4. You argue that faith as an Instrument is excluded. Thus Bellarmine also, apprehen­dere est opus, therefore faith is excluded: But non sequitur: Faith is passive in its Instrumentality; and although to believe, be a Grammatical action, its verbum activum, yet its physic [...]n, or [...] passive. A man by believing, doth not operari, but recipere: As videre, audire, are Grammatical actions, but Physical or natural passions: now you cannot say thus of the exercises of [Page 179] other Graces: this is the seeming strength of your Exceptions. For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying, but as recipient, which is a fifth Exception.

As for your discourse, whether Paul disputes what is our Righ­teousness? or upon what terms it is made over to us, it doth not much matter: for indeed Paul speaks to both those only inclusively or collaterally, as you say: but that which he chiefly intends, is to shew in what manner we are justified, whether by believing or working, and these he makes two immediate oppo­sites, not granting any tertium. You speak of Faith taken re­latively for Christs Righteousness; but how can you find out such a figure for faith in your sence, unless you will acknowledge Love or Obedience relatively for Christs Righteousness? Indeed those that hold Fai [...]h instrumentally, receiving the whole righte­ousness of Christ, and no other Grace, they often speak of faith taken relatively, but so cannot you, who hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent, but any other actions of sence will as well heal the wounded Christian. You say you acknowledge the Assemblies definition of resting or receiving, you cannot take in that sence, as they declare it, as the Scripture words which are Metaphorical, do imply: for its the resting of a burdened soul upon Christ only for Righseousness, and by this Christs Righteousness is made over to us; and its a receiving of Christ, as the hand embraceth any Object: now you make the Righte­ousness of Christ made over to us in any other exercise of Grace as well as this. So that although you would willingly seem not to recede from others, yet you plainly do: and although you think your Assertions are but more distinct explications, yet they are indeed destructive Assertions to what our Divines do deli­ver: neither may you, while you intend to dispute, exactly build upon some homiletical or popular expression in any mans book.

You reply to a second part in my Letter: whether a godly man dying, may be affected according to your position, and thereupon you instance in Hezekiah, Paul, and that no man can dye with comfort without the evidence of these works. But is this the state of the question with us? Do you think that I de­ny a godly life to be a comfortable testimony, and a necessary qualification of a man for pardon? You cannot think that you [Page 180] speak to the point in this. But here is the question, Can a godly man dying, think the Righteousness of Christ is made his by working or believing? Is it repent, and Christs Righteous­ness is by this made yours, and rest in Christ? Certainly the dying Christian is in agonies directed to this resting on Christ, to the eying of this brazen Serpent, not to be found in any thing but the Righteousness by faith. Its an act of Dependance, not of Obedience that interests us in Christs Righteousness. Its that puts on the robes of Christ, that our nakedness may not appear. And that is very harsh still, which you express, to ex­pect the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your se;lf, through Gods workings. I am unwilling to parallel this with some passages that might be quo­ted out of unsound Authors; but that I am confident, how­soever your Pen-writes, you have a tutissimum est to rest only upon Christs Righteousness, and that by bare resting, and beleiv­ing you look for a Righteousness. As Philosophers say, we see or hear intus recipiendo, not extra mittendo: otherwise Bellar­mine argues consonantly enough, that Love would justifie as well as faith; but we say that Faith doth pati, Love doth agere. Not but that faith is an active grace, only in this act it is meer recipient.

Sir, I have not time, nor paper to answer those many questi­ons, the most of which I conceive impertinent to this business: and your Explication of your self, how imperfections in our Graces are done away, and yet the conditions of righteousness, is to me [...]: but I cannot go any further. What I have written with much love and respect to you, I should account it a great mercy to be instrumental to bring you to the right way again: If there be so much Joy for reducing a wandring sheep, be not offended if I say there will be much more for an er­ring shepheard: though I hope at last your error may prove in words rather then in sence: with heartly brotherly love I have written this, and so let it be received from your fellow-labou­rer, who honours Gods gifts in you, and is also sensible of his own infirmities, and proneness to err.

Dear Sir,

IF you doubt of the truth of my bodily infirmity, it is be­cause you neither know my body nor mind. The dispute at Bewdley, as it was almost at home, so I had the choice of the time, and such strength vouchsafed from God, which I cannot again expect, much less promise my self. I told you I have some lucida intervalla, perhaps a few hours in a moneth: but if up­on such uncertainty I should draw you to a journey, and then ten to one fail you, I should be injurious. But seeing you so far and freely condiscend, if God wil shew me so much Mercy, as to enable this restless uncessantly-pained Sceleton to such a work, I shall be bold to send you word, and claim the favour you offer. In the mean time it is my duty to let you know, I have received your Letter, and to return your hearty thanks for it, though it be not that which I hoped for, and shall now cease to expect. I am convinced now as well as you that Letters are but a loss of time: but your Arguments or direct answers to my Questions, would have been for my advantage, a precious improvement of it: but seeing I may not be so happy, I must rest content. It still seemeth to my weak understanding to be no impertinency to prove that your self affirm Repentance, Confession, Turning, Forgiveing others, &c, to be more then signs, i. e. to be conditions to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveness; and to tell you that I say no more, and to tell you still, that you give more to faith (and so to man) then I; but I give no more to works for ought I descern then you; I am sure then our ordinary Divines do: And if I do mistake herein, you have little reason to suspect me of willfulness; though of weak­ness as much as you please. As for the state of the Question between us, which you speak of, I am a stranger to it, and know not what you mean. I never came to the stating of a Que­stion with you; nor did you state any to me in your letters, but mentioned your vehement dissent from several passages in my book, and therefore I had reason to think that you fell upon the Questions as there they were stated; so that it is intime & me­dullitùs, pertinent to my question, which is impertinent to yours. [Page 182] You say the question is, [Whether the Gospel righteousness be made ours otherwise then by believing?] and tell me that I say [by believing and obedience] when I never stated such a questi­on, nor ever gave such an answer. I suppose by [Gospel Righte­ousness] you mean Christs Righteousness given to Believers: Now I have affirmed that [those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction, and so in him be legally righteous, who do believe and obey the Gospel, and so are in themselves Evangelically righteous.] But your phrase [made ours] doth intimate that our first posses­sion of Christs Righteousness should be upon Obedience as well as Faith; which I never affirmed: But Christs Righteous­ness is continued ours on condition of obeying him, though not made ours so: and we shall be justified at Judgement also on that condition. As it is not marriage duty, but Contract which is the condition of a womans first Interest in her Husband and his riches; but marriage duty and the performance of that Co­venant, is the condition of her Interest as continued. And in­deed it is much of my care in that Book to shun and avoid that question which you say is stated between us: for I knew how much ambiguity is in the Word [By] which I was loth to play with. I know we are justified By God the Father, By Christs satisfaction, By Christs absolution, By the Gospel Co­venant or Promise, By the Sacraments, By Faith, By Works, (for I will never be ashamed to speak the words of the Holy Ghost) By our words (for so saith Christ) Therefore if you will needs maintain in general, that Christs Righteousness is made ours, no otherwise then by beleiving, nor otherwise conti­nued ours; you see how much you must exclude. But to remove such Ambiguity, I distinguish between justifying [By] as an efficient instrumental Cause, and [By] as by a condition: and I still affirm that Works or Obedience do never justifie as any cause, much less such a cause; but that by them as by a condition appointed by the free Lawgiver and Justifier we are finally justi­fied. And truly Sir, it is past my reach at present to understand what you say less in this then I, except you differ only about the word [By], and not the sence; and think that it is improper to say that Pardon or Justification is By that which is but a condition: You seem here to drive all at this, and yet me thinks [Page 183] you should not. 1. Because you affirm your self, that condi­tions have a moral efficiency: and then it seems when you say Repentance, Confession, &c. are conditions, you mean they are morally efficient; which is a giving more to works then ever I did. 2. Because you know it is the phrase of Christ and his Spirit, that we are justified By our words and works; and it is safe speaking in Scripture phrase. 3. Because you say after that my Assertions are destructive of what Divines deliver: but the word By, if we are agreed in the sence, cannot be destru­ctive; and except the phrase only By, &c. be the difference, where is it? When you say Repentance, &c. are conditions, and I say they are no more: and I have nothing from you of any disagreement about the sence of the word condition. Lest you should doubt of my meaning in that, I understand it as in our usual speech it is taken, and as Lawyers and Divines generally do, viz. Est Lex addita negotio, quae donec praestetur, eventum sus­pendit. Vel est modus, vel causa quae suspendit id quod agitur, quoad ex post facto confirmetur, ut Cujacius. And whereas Condi­tions are usually distinguisht into potestativas, causales & mixtas, seu communes, I mean conditiones potestativas. Where you add that you say only faith is the condition justifying. &c. but I make a justifying Repentance, &c. And whereas heretofore we had only justifying faith, now, &c.] I answer, 1. If by justifying Repentance, &c. you mean that which is (as you say Faith is) an instrument or efficient Cause, I never dreamed of any such: If as a Condition; you confess it your self. 2. If you speak against the sence, we are agreed in that for ought I know: If against the phrase, then justifying Faith or Repen­tance is no Scripture phrase: but to be justified By faith, and By works, and By words, are all Scripture phrases. You say, you firmly hold that Repentance and other Exercises of Grace are an­tecedent qualifications, and media ordinat [...], in the use whereof only Pardon can be had: but what is this to me? &c. I answer. 1. Add conditions as you do in your Book, and you say as much as I. 2. If by the other exercises of Grace you mean the particulars in your book enumerated, or the like; and if by Pardon, you mean even the first pardon (as the word Only shews you do) then you go quite beyond me, and give far more to those exer­cises [Page 184] of grace then I dare do. For I say that Christ and all his im­puted Righteousness, is made ours, and we pardoned and justi­fied at first without any works or obedience more then bare faith, (and what is precedent in its place or concomitant) and that bona opera sequuntur justificatum non praecedunt justifican­dum, in regard of our first justification. I dare not say, they are Antecedents or media ordinata. Where you add, what is that to you that make the righteousness of the Covenant of grace to be made ours upon our godly working. &c. I answer, 1. I have shewed it is as much as I say, if not more, [upon] intending but a condition or medium ordinatum. 2. I never said what you say I maintain in phrase or sense (if the word [made] intend either efficiency or any causality, or the first possession of Righteousness. 3. You much use the harsh phrase of [working] as here [Godly working] as mine; which I doubt whether ever I uttered or used; And the term [works] I little use, but in the explication of James. For I told you that I disclaim works in Pauls sense, Rom. 4.4. which make the reward not of grace, but of debt. You add [If therefore you had spent your self to shew that faith hath no pe­culiar instrumentality in our justification but what other graces have, then you had hit the mark.] Answ. I confess Sir you now come to the point in difference. But do you not hereby confess that I give no more to works then you, but only less to faith? Why then do you still harp upon the word [works] as if I did give more to them? the task you now set me is to prove that faith doth no more, and not that works do so much: That faith is not an instrument, and not that love or obedience are conditions. And to this I answer you: 1. I have in my book said somewhat to prove faith no instrument of justifying, and you said nothing against it. Why then should I aim at this mark? 2. I think I have proved there that faith justifieth pri­marily and properly as the condition of the Covenant, and but remotely as A receiving justification, this which you call the in­strumentality, being but the very formal nature of the act, and so the quasi materia or its aptitude to the office of Justifying. And because I build much on this supposition, I put it in the Queries, which you judge impertinent. 3. Yet if you will un­derstand the word instrument laxely, I have not any where [Page 185] denyed faith to have such an instrumentality (that is, receiving or apprehensiveness) above other graces: Only I deny and most confidently deny that that is the formal, proper or neerest cause of faith's justifying: But the formal reason is, because God hath made it the condition of the Covenant, promising justification to such receiving, which else would have no more justified then any other act: And therefore so far as others are made conditions, and the promise to us on them, they must needs have some such use as well as faith: And that they are conditions, you confess as much as I. 4. But what if I be mistaken in this point? what is the danger? If faith should deserve the name of an instrument, when I think it is but a con­dition? 1. Is it any danger to give less to faith then others, while I give no less to Christ? (For if you should think I gave less to Christ then others, I should provoke you again and again to shew wherein) 2. I deny nothing that Scripture saith: It saith not that faith is an instrument: (perhaps you will tell me Veronius argues thus: But I mean it is neither in the letter nor plain sense; and then I care not who speaks it, if true.) 3. You make man an efficient cause of justifying himself. (For the instrument is an efficient cause): And what if I dare not give so much to man? is there any danger in it? or should I be spoke against for the Doctrine of obedience, as if I gave more to man then you, when I give so much less? 4. Those that dissent from me do make the very natural act of faith, which is most essential to it, and inseparable from it, as it from it self, viz. Its apprehension of Christs Righteousness, to be the proper primary reason of its justifying. What if I dare not do so, but give that glory to God, and not to the nature of our own act? and say, that Fides quae recipit Justificat, sed non qua recipit primarily, but as it is the condition which the free justifier hath conferred this honour upon? is there any danger in this? and will there be joy in heaven for reducing a man from such an opinion?

You say, [What more obvious then that there are many conditions in justificato, which are not in actu justificationis: The fastning the head to the body, &c.] Answ. 1. You said before that they are Antecedents & Media ordinata, and then they are [Page 186] sure conditions in justificando as well as in justificato. 2. Your mention of the condition in homine vidente is besides our busi­ness, and is only of a natural condition, or qualification in genere naturae; When we are speaking only of an active con­dition in genere moris: The former is improperly, the later properly called a condition. 3. If this be your meaning, I confess there are many natural or passive qualifications ne­cessary, which are no active or proper moral conditions in a Law-sense; But this is nothing to the matter. 4. The phra­ses of [Conditions in justificato, & in actu justificationis] are am­biguous, and in the Moral sense improper. Our question is whether they are conditions ad justificationem recipiendam: Which yet in regard of time are in actu justificationis, but not con­ditiones vel qualificationes ipsius actus. And if you did not think that repentance is a condition ad justificationem recipiendam, and so in actu justificationis, how can you say it is medium ordina­tum? A medium, as such, essentially hath some tendency or con­ducibleness to its end. 5. As obvious therefore as you think this is, it is past the reach of my dull apprehension to conceive of your conditions in a judiciary sense, which are in justificato for the obtaining of justification, and not be both ad actum & in actu justificationis: for I suppose you are more accurate and serious then by the word condition to mean modum vel affectionem entis Metaphysicam, vel subjecti alicujus adjunctum vel qualificati­onem in sense Physico, when we are speaking only of conditions in sensu forensi. And there are many thousand honest Christi­ans as dull as I, and therefore I do not think it can be any weigh­ty point of faith which must be supported by such subtilties which are past our reach, though obvious to yours: God useth not to hang mens salvation on such School distinctions which few men can understand. 6. And every such Tyro in Philoso­phy as I, cannot reach your Phylosophical subtilty neither; to understand that the fastning of the head to the body is not condi­tio in actu videntis; (though it be nothing to our purpose); Indeed we may think it of more remote use then some other, and but propter aliud, & quasi conditio conditionis; and if you say so of Repentance, &c. we should not disagree.

You say [In other things I come off, and so mollifie my asserti­ons, [Page 187] that you need not contend] Answ. 1. I would you had told me wherein I so come off: For I know not of a word. If you mean in that I now say, obedience is no condition of our first attaining justification, but only of the continuance of it, &c. I said the same over and over in my book, and lest it should be over-lookt, I put it in the Index of distinctions. If you mean not this, I know not what you mean. 2. But if explication of my self will so mollifie and prevent contending, I shall be glad to explain my self yet further: Yea, and heartily to recant where I see my error. For that which you desire, I demon­strate that its By love, and Through love, &c. I have an­swered before by distinguishing of the sense of By and Through: and in my sense I have brought you forty plain Texts in my book for proof of it, which shew it is no new Do­ctrine.

To your argument from Rom. 4. Where you say that Abrahams justification is the pattern of all others, I conceive that an uncouth speech, strange to Scripture for phrase and proper sense, though in a large sense tolerable and true: Certain I am that Paul brings Abrahams example to prove that we are justified by faith without the works of the Law; but as certain that our faith must differ from Abrahams, even in the essenti­als of it: We must believe that this Jesus is he, or we shall dye in our sins; which Abraham was not required to believe. Our faith is an explicite Assent and Consent to the Mediators Of­fices, viz. that he be our Lord and Saviour, and a Covenant­ing with him, and giving up our selves to him accordingly: But whether Abrahams (and all recited in Heb. 11.) were such, is questionable. Too much looking on Abraham as a pattern, seems to be it that occasioned Grotius to give that wretched de­finition of faith, (Annot. in loc.) that [it is but a high estimation of Gods power and wisdom, and faithfulness in keeping his promi­ses, &c.] (yet I know he came short also of describing that faith which he lookt on as the pattern.)

My first answer was that I exclude also any effective co-opera­tion; to which you say, [Why do we strive about words, &c.] I see that mens conceivings are so various, that there is no hopes that we should be in all things of one mind. Because I was loth [Page 188] to strive about words, therefore I distinguished between causa­lity, and conditionality, knowing that the word By was ambigu­ous (when we are said to be justified By faith &c.) now you take this distinguishing to be striving about words, to avoid which, you would bring we back to the ambiguous term again. Whereas I cannot but be most confident, that as guile is most in Generals, so there would be nothing else between us but striving about words, if we dispute on an unexplained term, and without distinction. Do you indeed think, that to be an efficient cause of our justification, and to be a bare condition, is all one? or do you think the difference to be of no moment? You say, I do not exclude works justifying as well as faith, let the expressions be what they will.] Answ. 1. You should have said, [Let the sense, or way of justifying be what it will▪] for sure the difference between an efficient cause and a condition is more then in the expression, or else I have been long mistaken. 2. I do not exclude God justifying, Christ justifying, the Word justifying, &c. and yet to distinguish between the way that these justifie in, and the way in which faith justifies, I take to be no striving about words, but of as high concernment as my salvation is worth. 3. Either you mislike my phrase, or my sense: if the phrase, then you mislike the word of God, which saith, a man is justified by works and not by faith only; If the sense, then you should not fall upon the phrase: and then to distinguish and explain, is not to strive about words. 4. If I do bring faith and obedience neerer in justification then others, it is not by giving more to works then others, but by giving less to faith; And if in that I err, you should have fallen on that and shewed it, and not speak still as if I gave more to works then you. I am sure I give less to man, and therefore no less than you to Christ. I perceive not the least disadvantage herein that I lye open to, but only the odium of the phrase of justification by works, with men that are carried by prejudice and custome. 5. I will not quarrel about such a word; but I like not your phrase of [Faith justifying, and works justifying,] for it is fitter to introduce the conceit of an efficiency in them, then to say, [We are justified by faith and by works] which are only the Scrip­ture phrase, and signifie but a conditionality.

[Page 189]To that you say out of Phil. 3.9. I believe Paul doth most appositely oppose the righteousness which is by faith to that which is by the Law. But then 1. He means not [By faith as an instrument of justification] 2. Nor by faith which is but a meer affiance on Christ for justification, or only as such. 3. Nor doth he exclude Knowledge, Repentance, Obedience, &c. 4. But to say that righteousness or justification is by love, or by obedience, &c. Without adding any more, is not a con­venient speech, as it is to say that righteousness is by faith. 1. Because the speech seems to be of the first receiving of righ­teousness, wherein obedience or works have no hand. 2. Be­cause faith having most clear direct relation to Christ, doth most plainly point out our righteousness to be in him. 3. Because faith as it is taken in the Gospel, is a most comprehensive grace, con­taining many acts, and implying or including many others which relate to Christ as the object also. Even obedience to Christ is implyed as a necessary subsequent part of the conditi­on, seeing faith is an accepting of Christ as Lord and King, and Head, and Husband, as well as a justifier. 5. Yet Scripture saith as well as I, that Christ shall justifie us By his knowledge, and we shall be justified by our words, and by works; and me thinks it should be no sin to speak the words of God, except it be shew­ed that I misunderstand them. It is not so fit a phrase, to say, that a poor ignoble woman, was made rich and honorable by her Love, or Obedience, or Marriage, faithfulness, and conju­gal actions, as to say, it was by marriage with such a Noble man, or consent to take him to be her husband: For the marriage consent and Covenant doth imply conjugal affe­ction, action and faithfulness. Yet are these last as flat conditi­ons of her continuing her enjoyments as the marriage Covenant was of first obtaining them.

To my second Answer, you shew that Paul excludes works under any notion. 1. From his opposition between faith and works, where you say I contradict Paul, and give a tertium. To which I answer, to distinguish of Pauls terms, and explain his meaning in his own words is not to give a tertium, or contradict; but this is all that I do. I distinguish of the word Works; sometime it is taken more largely for Acts or Actions, [Page 190] and so James takes it: sometimes more strictly for only such Actions as a Labourer performeth for his Wages, or which make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of debt. So Paul tells you that he understandeth or useth the term, Rom. 4.4. usually there­fore calling them Works of the Law. Now he that excludes Works only under this notion, doth not therefore exclude them under every notion. Where you add that Pauls opposition is between Faith and any thing of ours: I answer. 1. Is not Faith ours as much Love, &c? 2. Are not Knowledge, Words, Works, ours, by all which God saith, we are justified? 3. There is no such Scripture where Paul makes any such opposition: but only he renounceth his own Righteousness which is of the Law, Phil. 3.8, 9. and any thing of our own that may be called Works in the stricter sence.

Your second is, because Paul excludes Abrahams works, &c. Answer. 1. You make my tertium to be [works that are of Grace] and here again, works that flow from Grace, and say, Abrahams were not by meer strength of the Law: But these are no words of mine; nor is it candid to feign them to be mine; but that I impute it to your haste: I believe you remembred so well the words of Andradius, Bellarmine, and other Papists, that they dropped from your pen in haste in stead of mine; nor is my sence any whit like theirs; for I speak not of the effi­cient cause of works, (Nature or Grace) nor the meer com­mand requiring them, when I speak of Law and Gospel: but the full entire Covenant or Law consisting of all its parts, and so making our Acts the conditions of the Punishment or Re­ward: as I have opened over and over in my Book. 2. You ask, Were Abrahams works in opposition to that, &c? Answer. 1. Paul excludes also works in co-ordination with Christ, and so do I. 2. Yea and works supposed to be subordinate to Christ, which are not capable of a real subordination, 3. but not such as are truly subordinate, from being such conditions as is before said. 4. You seem to me to mistake Paul much, as if he took it for granted, that Abraham had such works which Paul disputeth against, but could not be justified by them; Whereas I doubt not to say, that Paul contrarily supposeth that Abraham had no such Works, (which make the reward to be of Debt, and [Page 191] not of Grace) and therefore could not be justified by them.

Your third Argument is, [because imputing, covering, all is wholly attributed to God.] Answer, I doubt not but that God is the only Principal efficient Cause, and his Promise or Cove­nant the Instrumental: therefore I cannot think as others, that man is the efficient Instrumental by believing, or that Faith is such: But what Is all therefore attributed to God? Even the performance of the Conditions on mans part? Or are there no such conditions which man must perform himself or perish? God only covereth sin, imputeth Righteousness, &c. but to none who have not performed the Conditions. Is Belie­ving attributed to God, or is it an act of man? Or is it exclu­ded? When will you prove the Consequence of this Argument?

Your fifth Argument is, [because the Assertion is universal without works in general] Answer, 1. Doth not the Apostle contradict you by expounding himself in the very next verse before those you cite? Rom. 4.4. That by works he means not simply good Actions, as James doth, but such as make the re­ward to be of debt and not of Grace? Indeed such works are universally excluded. 2. Therefore he excludes the very presence of works, and saith, to him that worketh not, &c. ver. 5. But the presence of good actions you say is not excluded.

Your last Argument seems to me the same with the fourth, and it forceth me to admire that you should think the conse­quence good. Blessedness is when sin is forgiven; therefore no work or good act performed by man is the condition of forgiveness, either as begun or continued, or consummate] If this be not your con­sequence, you say nothing against me: if it be, I assure you it is not in my Power to believe it, nor to discern the least shaddow of probability of truth in it, nor to free it from the charge of being the grossest Antinomianism (si pace tui ità dicam.) And here I must needs tell you also my utter disability to reconcile you with your self; for you before say, they are media ordinata, and here you say, They are excluded under any notion: As if to be a medium were no notion; or the medium did nothing in or to the very justifying of the person.

To my next Answer. If works be excluded under any notion, then James his words cannot be true, that we are justified by works. [Page 192] You reply, If there be justifying works, how saith Paul true? I answer. This is a most evident Petitio principii. It is unde­niable that James includeth works under some notion: and that Paul excludeth them under some other notion: now therefore I might well ask, How saith James true else? Because my sup­position cannot be denyed: But you suppose that Paul exclu­deth works under any notion, (which is the very Question, and is denyed.) When you ask how saith Paul true? Paul saith true because he speaks of works strictly taken, as is by himself explain­ed: James could not say true, if works under every notion (as you say) be excluded.

Next you come to reconcile them by expounding James; where you say, Faith which in respect of its Act ad intra, only justifies, yet it works ad extra: fides quae viva, non qua viva. I answer. Whats this to the Question? The Question is not whether Faith work? Nor whether Faith justifie? Nor what Faith justifieth? But in what sence James saith, we are justified by works, and not by Faith only? You answer by a direct con­tradiction to James, (if I can reach the sence of your Answer) saying, It is by Faith only, and that not as it liveth, &c. So dare not I directly say, it is not by works, when God saith it is: but think I am bound to distinguish, and shew in what sence works justifie, and in what not; and not to say flatly against God, that we are not justified by works under any notion, but only by the Faith which worketh. A denyal of Gods Assertions is an ill expounding of them.

To what you say of the judgement of the Orthodox, [that they go eadem via et si non eadem semita] I answer, you may un­derstand your distinction as you please, but I have shewed the difference: some understand it of justification before God; others before men, &c. And if you please to make the way wide enough, you may take me among the Orthodox, that go eadem via: if not, I will stand out with James.

When you say [they exclude works under any notion in the act of justification.] I answer, 1. Your self include them as antece­dents and concomitants (thought I do not,) 2. I have shewed before that [in the act, &c.] is ambiguous. If you mean [as Agents of Causes], so do I exclude them. If you mean [as [Page 193] conditions required by the new Law to the continuing and consum­mating our justification] I have shewed you that Divines do judge otherwise.

My next answer was [If works under any notion be excluded, then faith is excluded] You reply 1. [Thus Bellarmine, &c.] Answ. I knew indeed that Bellarmine saith so. But Sir, you speak to one that is very neer Gods tribunal, and therefore is re­solved to look after naked truth, and not to be affrighted from it by the name either of Bellarmine or Antichrist; and who is at last brought to wink at prejudice. I am fully resolved by Gods grace to go on in the way of God as he discovereth it to me, and not to turn out of it when Bellarmine stands in it. Though the Divels believe, I will (by Gods help) believe too: and not deny Christ, because the Divels confess him. You say, Non sequitur, I prove the consequence. If all works (or acts) be excluded under any notion whatsoever, and if faith be a work or act then faith is excluded. But, &c. Ergo, &c. By the reason of your denyal I understand and nothing that you deny, but [that faith is a work or act] which I never heard denyed before, and I hope never shall do again. The common answer to Bellar­mine is, that faith which is a work justifieth, but not as it is a work: Which answer I confess to be sound, and subscribe to it. But then according to that, faith which is a work justifieth under some notion (suppose it were under the notion of an in­strument) though not under the notion of a work. But you go another way, and say, 1. Faith is passive in its instrumen­tality, and though to believe, be a grammatical action, its ver­bum activum, yet its physicè, or huper physice passive. A man by believing doth not operari, but recipere. As videre, audire, are Grammatical actions, but physical or natural passions, &c. Answer. 1. These are very sublime Assertions, quite past the reach of my capacity, and of all theirs that I use to converse with; and I dare say it is no Heresie to deny them, nor can that point be neer the foundation that stands upon such props which few men can apprehend. 2. What if Faith were passive in its Instrumentality? Is it not at all an Act there­fore? If it be; Then that which is an Act or Work, is not excluded under the notion of a passive Instrument; and so [Page 194] not under every notion (I speak on your grounds. But) because you told me before that I should have spent my self against this Instrumentality of Faith if I would hit the mark; I will speak the more largely to it now: And 1. Enquire whether videre, audire, be only Grammatical Actions (as you call them) and natural passions? 2. Whether Believing be so, only ver­bum activum, but Physically passive? And so to Believe, is not agere, but pati or recipere? 3. Whether faith be passive in its Instrumentality? 4. Whether the same may not be said as truly of other Graces? 5. Whether Faith be any proper Instrument of our Justification? 6. If it were, Whether that be the primary, formal Reason of its justifying ver­tue? 7. Whether your Opinion or mine be the plainer or safer?

And for the first, I should not think it worth the looking after, but that I perceive you lay much upon it, and that Philosophers generally suppose that the Sence and Intellect in this are alike; and for ought I discern, it is such a Passiveness of the Intellect that you intend: and therefore we may put all together, and enquire whether videre & intelligere be only Passions? And here you know how ill Philosophers are agreed among them­selves, and therefore how slippery a ground this is for a man to build his Faith upon in so high point as this in hand: you know also that Hippocrates, Galen, Plato, Plotinus, with the genera­lity of the Platonists are directly contrary to you: you know also that Albertus Magnus, and his followers judge sensation to be an action, though they take the potentia to be passive. You know also that Aquinas with his followers judge the very potentia to be active as well as passive; passive while it receiveth the species; and active, Dum per ipsam agit & sensationem producit. And Tolet saith, that this is Scotus his sentence, 2. de Anima. q. 12. & Capreol. & ferè communis. I know Aquinas saith, that intelligere est quoddam pati; but he taketh pati in his third wide improper sense, as omne qu d exit de potentia in actum, potest dici pati: 1. q. 79 a. 2. C. And no doubt every se­cond cause may be said to suffer even in its acting, as it receiveth the Influx from the first, which causeth it to act; but it will not thence follow that the [...] videre, intelligere est for maliter pati: [Page 195] I cannot think that you deny the intellectum agentem: and you know that generally Philosophers attribute Action to the possible Intellect: and that Jandun. Apollina, &c. do accordingly make an Agent and patient sence: and if the reception of the species were formaliter visio & intellectio (which I believe not) yet how hardly is it proved that the Organ and Intellect are on­ly passive in that reception? Yea how great a controversie is it what the sensible and intelligible species are? Yea and whether there be any such thing? Whether they be an image or simili­tude begotten or caused by the Object, as Combacchius and most? which yet Suarez, &c. denyeth. And whether they stick in the air, and have all their Being first there, as Ma­gyrus, and other Peripateticks? Or whether their Being is on­ly in the eye? as some later. Or whether it be Sir Ken. Dig­byes Atomes or number of small bodies which are in perpetual motion? I doubt not you know that Ockam and Henricus quod. lib. 4. q. 4. reject all species as vain, and make the Intellect the only active proper cause of intellection. And Hobs of late in his book of humane Nature saith, that visible and intelligible species, is the greatest Paradox in the world, as being a plain Im­possibility. And indeed it is somewhat strange that every stone and clod should be in perpetual Action, sending forth that which we call its species; for doubtless it sendeth forth as much when we behold it not as when we do. And more strange that a Rock or Mountain should be so active a creature, and so forci­ble in action, as to send forth its species so many miles! Yea, according to this Doctrine, many 1000 miles: for if our Or­gan were capable, we should see it so far. Whether the Angels see these things on earth recipiendo species, or not; sure according to this Doctrine, the species must reach as far as Heaven. And why do not stones wast by such an uncessant emanation? And it is strange to conceive how the Air is be painted with variety of species, if this be true! that every Grass, Flower, Tree, Bird, Stone, &c. and other bodies, have their several distinct species in the Air night and day? How strangely is it painted? What room is there for them all, without confusion, If both color, quantity, odor, and all be there? And its strange if we do not hear the sound nor taste the sweetness, &c. but only the spe­cies [Page 196] of them! and beyond my Capacity how we should dis­cern Distance as well as the Object distant according to the pas­sive opinion! and more hard is it for me to believe this Doct­rine, when I consider how Cats and Owls see in the night: and how a man in a deep study, or that steepeth with his eyes open, seeth not any thing distinctly (though I know the frivolous an­swers to these:) And yet more hardly do I believe it when I feel quanto labore & conatu I must see to read a small print, or dis­cern a thing afar off: but above all when I feel the labor of my studies, I hardly believe that my understanding is not active; though I easily believe that I am also too passive. Why do I not understand with every dull thought? To believe also that every stone is still active, and that the eye and Intellect of the living Creature is but passive, is hard to me; because me thinks Action better agreeth to the living, then the inanimate. And yet the less do I assent when I observe what stress they lay upon the similitude of a looking-glass receiving the species, which I am very confident it did never receive, when I see it moving as my eye moveth, and withdrawing when I withdraw, (though the Object be any stone or other immovable thing) I judge that when I am gone, the glass receiveth no more species from the wall, then the wall from the glass; nor that the water re­ceives any more species of the Moon that there appears, then the earth doth; but that all is in mine eyes by the help of that re­flection. I doubt not but you have read D'Orbellis arguments, (Dist. 3. in 1. sent. par. 3. q. 2.) against both extreams in point of intellection: Against yours his reasons seem to me strong: Quia effectus aequivocus non potest excellere in perfectione cau­sam aequivocam totalem sed deficit necessario ab ea; sed intellectio esset effectus aequivocus speciei intelligibilis, si ab easola causare­tur, & ita esset simpliciter imperfectior specie intelligibili, quod non est verum. Tum etiam quia tunc non posset salvari imago in mente, ut mens est: quia nihil ipsius mentis haberet rationem parentis. Item quomodo causarentur relationes rationis, sive in­tentiones logicae, quae sunt in actu collativo? cum illa intentio di­catur realis quae causatur im̄ediate à re vel specie representante rem in se. Even des Cartes his Doctrine of vibration seemeth to make the sensation and intellection to be formally Action, though the Organ must first be passive to the producing it, before it be [Page 197] Active. Zabarel, Combacchius, &c. say that in sensation there is first a receiving the species. 2. A judging, &c. The first by the Organ which is passive, and the later (which is the very sensa­tion by the sensitive soul, which is active. Therefore Com­bacchius saith▪ Intellectio est operatio animae rationalis, &c. but passio is not operatio. Schibler determineth it (Top. p. 232. that the object doth but 1. Excitare potentiat Acti­vas ad actus. 2. Terminare actus Viguerius Institut. p. 261. besides the intellect Agent, ascribeth to the Possible three offices. 1. To draw and receive the species. 2. Actually to understand. 3. To conserve the species. The same Viguerius, instit. p. 17. & Aquin. 1. q. 18 a 3.1. Suarez Tim. 2. disp 48. §. 6. Scaliger Exercit. 307. s. 2. as also Bradwardine, Scotus, Cajetani ambo, Albert: D'Orbellis, Ruvio, Alstedius, Kec­kerman St [...]ierius, Zanchius, Burgersdicius, A.C. fascic. log. Prideaux Hypomnem. with many more, have taught me to ac­count vision, intellection, and volition for Immanent Acts. And though there be a reception of the species, and so somewhat of passion as well as of action, yet that of passion is but a prepa­ration or quasi materiale, and the formale is in action, as Kec­kerman, Syst. log. p. 110 Physici nonnulli discernunt materiale & formale: sic materiale in visu est receptio specierum visibilium in oculo, quae est passio: est deinde dijudicatio rei visib. lis per il­las species quae est actio: hinc est quod Aristot. sensum modo ad actionem, modo ad passionem refert. Zanchius saith, Vol. 1. T. 3. p. 581. Vim omnem sensitivam esse partim passivum, partim activum, diversis respectibus: Passiva est quatenus, percipit objecta. Activa est quatenus ipsa ab objecto aff [...]cta, parit sen­sum, & rem unam ab alio discernit, Patentia enim visiva post­quam recepit coloris albi speciem, discernit hans à nigro, &c. sic in rebus Divinis vis nostrae mentis & voluntatis & passiva & acti­va est. Passiva quatenus recipit gratiam à Deo i [...] nobis operante: Activa vero quatenus affecta Dei gratia, ipsa Credit, ipsa Amat; Acti enim Agimus. Res sua natura intelligib [...]les vis haec animae Patiens intellectus appellata, efficit suo lum ne, suaque Actione, ut res actu intelligantur. Hoc lumen intellectus Agentis, hoc est, animae nostrae, non minima pars est imaginis Det in qua creati su­mus. Obscurata fuit lux nobis communicata per peccatum Ade, [Page 198] sed illustratur denuo per Christum: unde hac nova luce Deum Deique mysteria intelligimus, quae certe animalis homo percipere non potest. Proinde cum essemus tenebrae, denuo facti sumus & vocantur lux in Domino. Ex hac nova luce donata per Christum, intelligimus quid sit intellectus Agens. Zanch. ibid. p. 596. You see how far Zanchius Philosophy and Divinity is from yours so p. 594. Est autem manifesta ia nobis hec intellectus Actio, nempet intelligere. Et pag. 638. He saith the intellect hath four operations. 1. Simplicium apprehensio. 2 Horum Compositio 3. Compostorum aestimatio, eoque & verorum à falsis divi­sio. 4. Ex his raticcinatio. And you know that Tolet, having formerly thought, with Aegid. Paul. Venet. & Cajet. that sensatio (& ita intellectio) est formaliter passio, did change his judgement, and at last conclude that Visio vel sensatio alia duos motus dicit: unum materialiter, & hic est receptio spe­ciei: alterum formaliter, & hic est Actio: Prior inest Orga­no ratione materiae: posterior ratione potentiae, & a [...]imae: tamen uterque eidem inest Organo. Prior quidem non est substantialiter & essenti [...] liter sensatio, sed concomitans & velut dispositio: poste­rior est essentialiter sensatio.

But I have been too tedious on this, vid. ultra in l. 2. de Ani­ma, p. 76, 77. &c. & l. 3. q. 13. &c. You see my reasons in part why I may think my self excusable, though I build not an Article of my faith on your Philosophical assertion; [that vide­ee, audire, (and so to believe) are Grammatical actions (only) (for you must say [only] or you say nothing) and but physical passions.

Quest. 2. Whether to Believe be only verbum activ [...]m? but phy­cally passive, and a man by believing doth not operari, but recipere.

This Question comes a little closer. By operari I know you mean agere: for if you should mean such an operation as Opera­rius pro mercede ex debito performeth, then you should say nothing, but dispute against what I disavowed even in the letter you answer (which I dare not impute to you) Now the rea­sons that force me to differ vehemently from you (as you said to me) in this point, are partly Philosophical, partly Theologi­cal. And 1. I would sain know what that is which you here call Faith, and say its passive? Is it the Habit? No: For 1. That cannot be passive. 2. That is not it that justifieth. 3. That is not a passion, as you say this is. 4. That is not a Grammatical [Page 199] Action, as you say this is; What then! Is it the Act of Faith? No: For 1. Thats it that you are denying, and say its but ver­bum activum. 2. You say, it is passive. But how an Action can be passive, is so far beyond the reach of my weak under­standing, that I could not believe it, though it were judged He­resie to deny it. P [...]ss [...]o intrinsecum ordinem dicit ad subjectum, & repugnat dari passionem extra subjectum, saith Surrez. Tom. 2. disp. 49. p. 451. And that Action can be the subject of Pas­sion, is Philosophy that I never learned, and I think never shall do. Especially if Schibler and most Philosophers say true that Actio & passio non differunt realiter sed secundum inadaequa­to [...] conceptus. For very many have taught me, that to the Pe­ripateticks it is absurd for the same to be both the Action, Pas­sion and Passum; yea to common reason it is —

Most certainly therefore it is neither Habit, nor Act of faith which you call faith. What is it then? Is it a Passion? so you say your self, and therefore I must take that to be your meaning: And I cannot imagine what else you should call faith. But here you leave me at as great a loss as before. For, 1. You say it is Pas­sive: But I never heard or read before of a Passive Pas­sion, any more then of a Passive Action: And if I should set my understanding on the wrack, it would not apprehend or ac­knowledge any such thing. I cannot imagine that it is the soul it self which you say is passive. 1. Because you say it is faith. 2. Because else your Argument must conclude that the soul only is the instrument: But we are not questioning the instrumentality of the soul now, but of faith. More I might urge to shew that this cannot be your meaning, but that I will not suppose that it is the soul it self which you call faith. It being therefore nei­ther the Soul, Habit, Act, nor Passion which you here say is Passive in its instrumentality, I am forced to confess I know not what you mean: Yet if you should mean any Potentia Pas­sive. 1. Whether there be any such in the rational soul distinct from the soul it self, is a great doubt. 2. If there were, I know not how it can be called faith. 3. Nor is it such a Potentia that is the instrument of justification. Yet afterwards you say, It is an act of dependance, which here you call a Passion.

2. But whether Act or Passion, it must belong either to the [Page 200] Ʋnderstanding, or Will, or both: And 1. If you should place it only in the understanding, you would (besides Dr. Downam) have few but the Papists with you. 2. If in the Will only, then (as Scripture is most plain against it, so) you would also go against the generality of our Divines Melancthon J [...]. Crocius, Amesius, Davenant, &c. make it the common Protestant Tenet, that it is in both. In actu si [...]ei Justificantis tota an ma se convertit ad causam justificantem: Davenant, Determ. Q. 38. pag. 174. Fides illa quam Scriptura justificantem agnoscit, habet in se complicatum actum voluntatis & intellectus. idem. ibid. Q. 37. pag. 166. And to them that think it absurd to have it in both faculties. I answer with the same Author. 1. Quod philos [...]kantur voluntatem & intellectum esse duas potentias re ipsa distinctas, dogma philosophicum est ab omnibus haud receptum, (not of Scotus and his followers, with many more) & The­ologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentū mini­me id [...]neum. 2. Ne (que) nobis absurdum, sed valde consentaneum videtur, actum illum quo tota anima purificatur & justificatur, ad totam animam pertinere: ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium, in voluntate complementum. Idem. ibid.

3. If you say it is in both (as I doubt not but you will, it being the plain Truth) then 1. It cannot possibly by any one single Act or Passion which you call the passive Instrument: and do you think to find out many such? 2. For that which belongeth to the understanding, it must be either a simple appre­hension, a composition or division, or a ratiocination or Judgement. And 1. A simple Apprehension it cannot be: 1. For so the In­tellect receiveth all Objects alike. It receiveth sin, death, un­righteousness, Satan, hell in the same kind as it receiveth Grace, Life, Righteousness, Christ, Heaven. For it understandeth both in the same way, receiving them per modum objecti. 2. And thus it receiveth not the very thing it self Essentially, (though it under­stand the thing it self) but only as is said, the species or action of it, &c. (except you will say as Sir Ken. Digby, and the Lord Brook, that the thing understood is really in the understanding, and become one with it) Now according to this sence, you would not make faith to receive Christ or his Righteousness at all, but only the species or Idea of them. 3. And how oft [Page 201] hath Bellarmine been called Sophister for supposing, we mean such an apprehension? Therefore I will not dare to think that you mean this. 4. And if you did, yet I have shewed how uncertain it is, that this intelligere is only or formally pati. 2. But if you mean not this simple apprehension (as sure you do not) then how is it possible to imagine the understanding should be passive in it? Did ever man that writ of Philosophy once think that the soul did componere, dicidere, ratiocinari, judicare, pati­endo & non agendo? I think no man. When Tolet disputeth utrum ixtelligere sit pati? he saith, Advertendum est quod sermo est de apprehensione; nam de compositione & Jud elo non est du­bium apud omnes. Tol de anima. p. 166. I will not therefore suppose you to differ in your Philosophy from all men. What Act of the understanding you will make to be part of Justify­ing faith, I know not: For I find Divines are very little agreed in it: But the most make Assent to be the only Act of the un­derstanding (though some add notitia) and of them some make it Essential to justifying Faith: and others but as a common prerequisite Act. Now if it were Assensus Noeticus, yet it is impossible it should be formally a Passion: but much more im­possible when it is Assensus dianocticus vel discursivus, as is most evident it is, and our judicious Rob. Baronius truly teacheth, Philos. Theol. An [...]il. Exerc. 3. Art. 16.

Most Divines place the chief Essence of Faith in fiducia: but then they are as ill agreed what to mean by fiducia. Pemble would fain perswade us that to Believe the Truth of a particu­lar Promise, is to trust on the performance of it to me; and that the Assent of Faith which is given to such a Promise, is properly called fiducia or Trust. But this is grounded on his singular opi­nion, that Truth and Goodness are all one, &c. Baronius, pag. 232. tels us of a four-fold fiducia: The first he makes to be but a confident Assent to the Truth of the Promise, and a firm sure Perswasion of the Remission of my own sins and of my Salvation. The second is a Resting on Gods Goodness alone, &c. He placeth the justifying vertue only in the first, which yet containeth but partly Assent (which we plead against the Papists usually not to be the justifying Act) and partly a par­ticular Perswasion or Belief of Pardon, which is properly no [Page 202] Faith, but that commonly called Assurance. Now this kind of fiducia is but the Assent we have spoken of, and is beyond all dispute no meer Passion, but an Act of the Understanding.

2. But most Divines make that fiducia which is an act of the Will to have the chief hand in this work of justfiying: though Baronius is so confident that it is not an act of Faith, but an Ef­fect and Consequent, that he takes it for a thing so manifest, that it needeth no proof, p. 234. And Dr. Downam hath brought not a few, nor contemptible Arguments to the same purpose against Pemble, Append. to Covennat of Gr. Yet though we have found it in the Will, yet it is hard to find what act of the Will they mean. If it be an Elicit Act, it must first either respect the End, and then it is either velle intendere vel frui: But sure fiducia is none of these: and if it were, it is more sure that at least the two first are not Passions; and I think not the last, though it be nothing to the present point: Or else 2. It must respect the Means; and then it must be Eligere, Consentire vel Ʋti (in which joined to Assent, I take justifying Faith to consist): But it is both evident that none of these is fiducia, and if they were, that none of these are pas­sions or passive. So that hitherto we are to seek for this Passive Faith.

Or else it is an Imparate Act; and then we are in a wood to seek among so many that there is little hope of finding it. The Truth seems to me to be beyond dispute, that fiducia is no one single Act (though one word) but a composition of many im­plying or containing the Assent of the understanding, the Election of the Will, especially much of Hope and Adventu­rousness in the Irascible of the Sensitive, together with a suspen­sion of some acts. And if we are justified by this Recumbency or Fiducia, I shall believe we are justified as well by Hope as any thing; for that takes up most here, as Dr. Downam ubi supra proveth. And who ever said that in all or any of these the Soul is Passive and not Active? Indeed Hope and Venturousness are Passions, but in another sense (as Keckerm. and Tolet ubi supra have well opened; its in respect of their quasi materi­ale.) I am content to stand or fall by the vote of Philosophers, giving you 100 to one, whether the Formality of these motions [Page 203] of the Will lie in Passion or Action? And if they are Acts. whether they can be the Subjects of Passion; and so be passive Acts? So that yet I cannot find out your passive Faith.

3. But yet further, if Faith be passive Physically, let us find out first what is the Agent? 2. What the Action? 3. What the Patient or Object? 4. What is the Terminus ad quem?

1. I doubt not but it is agreed that the Agent is God: for it is he that justifieth. 2. The terminus or res motu facta is two-fold. 1. Justification in sensu legis, commonly called con­stitutive Justification (passive.) 2. Publique Justification by plea and sentence at Judgement (passive) 3. The Action must be therefore two-fold, or two Actions according to the two-fold Terminus. Yea in the former we may (if we accurately consider it) find out a two-fold Action and Terminus, though the difference be narrow: In which we are to consider, 1. Of the Instrument: 2. Add the nature of the Actions. 1. The Instrument is the word of Promise or Grant in the Gospel (for if you know any other way of Gods justifying, or any immedi­ate Act of God herein which is Transient, I would it were reveal­ed what Act it is.) Herein I have Mr. Rutherford saying as I, over and over against the Antinomians. 2. The Action there­fore can be no other then a moral Action, as a Lease or Bond, or written-Law may be said to act. Now the Gospel perform­eth to our first Justification a two-fold Action. 1. It doth as a Deed of Gift bestow Christ and his Merits on men, so it be they will Believe. This Action doth not immediately and di­rectly constitute them Righteous: for Righteousness being a Relation, must have its Foundation first laid: This Act there­fore of Donation (which some call Imputation) doth directly lay the Fundamentum, whence the Relation of Righteous doth immediately arise (when the Condition is peformed) per nu­dam resultantiam without any other Act to produce it. And this is most properly called Justificatio constitutiva activa. 2. When the Gospel hath by Gift constituted us Righteous then next in order it doth declare or pronounce us Righteous, and vertually acquit us from Condemnation. This is by the like silent moral interpretative Action only as the other. (And per­haps [Page 204] may be most fitly called the imputing of Righteousness, or esteeming us Righteous, as Piscator.) And for the latter Justi­fication at Judgement, the Action is Christs publique pleading, and sentencing us Acquitt: which is an Action both Phy­sical and Moral in several respects. 4. Now if we enquire af­ter the Patient, or rather the Object of these several Acts, we shall quckly find that the Man is that Object; but that Faith is any Patient here, is past my apprehension. For the first Act of God by the Gospel [giving Christ and his Merit to us,] it is only a moral Action: (Though the writting and speaking the Word at first was a Physical action, yet the Word or Pro­mise now doth moraliter tantùm agere:) And therefore it is impossible that Faith should be Physically passive from it. For Passion being an effect of Action, it must be a Physical proper Action which produceth a physical Passion. I will not stand to make your Assertion odious here by enquiring what Physical ef­fective Influx, Contact, &c. here is, which should manifest Faith to be physically Passive. I know in the Work of effec­tual vocation the Soul is first passive: but that is nothing to our Question, whether Faith be passive in Justification. Do but tell me plainly quid patitur fides, and you do the Busi­ness.

But what if you had only said that Faith is morally passive, and not physically? I answer. It had been less harsh to me, though not fit, nor to the point. For 1. Gods Justification nor Donation of Christ, is not properly of, or to Faith; for then Faith should be made righteous and justified hereby; but to the person, if he Believe. 2. Besides if you should confess only a moral Passiveness (which is somewhat an odd phrase and notion, and is but to be the Object of a moral Action) it would spoil all the common arguments drawn from the physical nature of Faith, and its sole excellency herein in apprehending, re­ceiving, &c. and thereby justifying. And you would bring in all other Graces to which the same Promise may as well be said to be made. 3. The Truth I have and further shall mani­fest to be this; that as it is not to faith or any other act that Righteousness is given, but to the person on condition he Be­lieve; so this condition is no passion but an action, or di­vers [Page 205] actions. This will fully appear in the Theological Reasons following. In the mean time I need not stand on this, because you express your self that Faith is physically pas [...]ive. Indeed you add [or hyperphysically:] but though I meet with some Philosophers, that use in such cases to give [hyperphysice] as a tertium to overthrow the sufficiency of the [...]istinction of physi­ce & moraliter, yet I suppose that is none of your meaning who know that even Intellectus dum efficit intellectionem, & voluntas volitionem, sunt causae physicae, ut Suarez. 1. Tom. disp. 17. §. 2. p. 260. and so Schibler, and many more: yea and that our Divines conclude that Gods action on our souls in conversi­on is first Physical: which yet may be as truly and fully called hyperphysical as our Faith.

Now for the second action of the Gospel, [decla­ring or pronouncing the Believer righteous, and so de ju­re acquitting him;] It is much more beyond my reach to conceive how faith can in respect of it be passive: For 1. Besides that it is a moral action as the former, and so cannot of it self produce a physical passion. 2. It doth not therein speak of or to faith, pronouncing it just, and ac­quitting it, but of and to the Believer. So that if Faith were physically passive in the former, yet here it is impossible. 3. If you say that it is physically (or morally) passive in regard of the latter full Justification by sentence at Judgement, you would transcend my capacity most of all. To say faith is the Patient of Christs judiciary publique sentence, is a sentence that shall never be an article of my Faith: and is so gross, that I con­jecture you would take it ill if I should take it to be your mean­ing: therefore I will say no more against it. Now you know that this is (as you say in your Lect.) the most compleat Justi­fication; and which I most stand upon: and therefore if your arguments fail in respect of this, they yield me almost all I expect.

Next I will tell you my Reasons Theological why I believe not that justifying faith, as such, is passive. 1. All Divines and the Scripture it self hath perswaded me, that Christ and the Pro­mises are the Object of this Faith: but a Passion hath no Ob­ject, but a subject, &c. Therefore according to you Christ, &c. [Page 206] is not the object of it; which is contrary to all that I have heard or read.

2. I have read Divines long contending which is the Act of justifying faith, qua talis. And some say one, and some another; but all say one, or other, or many. Now you cut the knot, and contradict all, in making it (at least quatenus Ju­stificans) no Act at all, but a Passion: unless you will say it is a passive act, which I dare not imagine. And doubtless these Divines shew by their whole speech that by Actus Fidei, they mean Actus secundus vel Actio, and not Actus primus vel ente­tativus vel accidentalis, sive ut informans, sive ut operativus, sed ipsa operatio.

3. I am truly afraid lest by entertaining this opinion I should strike in not only with the Antinomians (who cannot endure to hear of any conditions of life of our performing, but even with the Libertines, who tell me to my face, that man is but Passive, and as the soul Acts the body, so Christ in them moveth the soul to Good, and Satan to evil, while they are meerly Pas­sive, and therefore the Devil shall be damned for sin who committeth it in them, and not they; for who will bite the stone or beat the staff, or be angry at the sword? &c.

4. Else you must depress the excellent grace of faith below all other, in making it meerly Passive while others are active: For doubtless life and excellency is more in Action then Pas­sion.

5. If believing be only suffering, then all Infidels are damned only for not suffering, which is horrid.

6. Scripture frequently condemneth wicked men for Action, for Rebellion, Refusing, Rejecting Christ, Luke 19.27. They hate him and say, we will not have this man reign over us, &c. and this is their unbelief. If they resisted the Holy Ghost only Passivè & non Activè, then it would be only an ineptitudo materiei, which is in all alike at first, and so all should be alike rejecters.

7. If to believe be but Pati, then it is God and not man that should be perswaded: For perswasion is either to Action or forbearing Action; and God is the Agent: But it is in vain to perswade any to be Passive, except it be not to strive [Page 207] against it. This therefore would overthrow much of the use of the Ministry.

8. And then when Christ so extolleth doing the will of God, and doing his Commandments, &c. you will exclude justifying faith, as being no doing.

9. Is it credible, that when Christ cals faith Obeying the Gospel, and saith, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom the father hath sent; and calls it the work of faith, 2 Thes. 1.11. and saith, God giveth to will, (that is, to believe) and to do, &c. that all this is meant of meer Passion? I undertake to bring forty places of Scripture that shew faith to be Action.

10. It seemeth to me so great a debasing of faith, as to make it to be no vertue at all, nor to have any moral good in it. For though I have read of Passio perfectiva in genere entis vel naturae, and conducible to vertue; Yet am I not convinced yet that any Passion as such, hath any moral vertue in it. Indeed Passion may be the quasi materiale, but the vertue is in Acti­on. Yea, even in non-acting, (as silence) the vertue lies formally in the actual exercise of the Authority of Reason, and so obeying God in causing that silence. Sure if men shall be all judged according to their works, and according to what they have done, &c. then it will not be because they did ei­ther Pati vel non pati. And thus you have some of my reasons why I cannot believe that Believing is passion, nor shall be­lieve it I think, till Credere be Pati, and then I may whe­ther I will or no, because pati vel non pati are not in my choice.

3. The third Question is, Whether faith be passive in its instru­mentality?

And I think that is out of doubt, if my former arguing have proved that faith is not passive at all: or if I next prove that faith is no physical instrument. But yet if I should grant both that faith is passive, and that it is an Instrument, yet must I have either more or less Logick before I can believe that it is passive in its instrumentality.

My reasons against it are these. 1. Every Instrumental cause is an efficient cause: but all true efficiency is by action: [Page 208] therefore all instrumentality is by action. That causalitas efficien­tis est Actio; & haec est forma per quam denominatur efficiens; quia agens & efficiens sunt idem, &c. I have been taught so oft and so confidently that I believe it. (For oportet discentem credere): and that by Philosophers of no mean esteem, as Suarez Tom. 1. disp. 18. §. 10. Javel. Metaph l. 9. q. 16. Conim. Colleg. Phys. l. 2. q. 6. art. 2. & 7. Scaliger. Exerit. 254. Aquinas, Ruvio, Porrece, Melancth. Zanchius, Zabarel, Pererius, Schibler, Stierius, Gu. Tempell. in Ram. with many more. And if there be no such thing in rerum natura as a Passive instrument, then faith is none such. I know Keckerm. Alsted. & Burgersdicius do talk of a Passive instrument; but I think in proper speech it is a contradiction, in adjecto and say as Schibler Metaphys. l. 1. cap. 22. Tit. 7. p. 319. Nisi Actionem propriam haberet Instrumentum, ef­ficiens non esset; & proinde passivum instrumentum quod Keckerm. vocat, revera instrumentum non est. Et ut Idem, Topic. cap. 2. num. 34. Instrumentum totum hoc habet quod ad causam efficien­tem adjuvantem (ad quam referimus causam instrumentalem) re­quiritur. Ratio enim communis illarum est haec. Deservire ope­rationi principalis agentis per ulteriorem operationem. Et Idem, Topic. cap. 2. num. 6. Quer. An efficientis Causalitas, Actio? Resp. Ita ponitur in Theor. 36. & sentit it a h [...]die Maxima pars Logi­corum & Metaphysicorum. Vide ultra pro confirmatione ad nu. 9. Sic etiam cap. 3. num. 136. So that if most Logicians judge that there is no passive instrument, and consequently that faith is no passive instrument, then who is more singular, you or I? For sure, Nihil est falsum in Theologia, quod verum est in Philosophia. I deny not but the soul in believing is both Passive and instru­mental, but in several respects: as if Camero's way should hold of infusing grace into the will Mediante actione intellectus, then the intellect would be Passive or receiving grace into it self, and an instrument of conveying it to the will: but then it would be no Passive but an Active instrument: and the action of God on the Passive intellect and of the intellect on the will, are two Acti­ons with distinct effects.

2. Though there were such a thing in the world as a Passive instrument, yet that faith should be such, and that physical, I dare say is either an unfit assertion, or else I am of a stupid ap­prehension. [Page 209] For there must be found in it (if it were such) these four requisites. 1. There must be a physical passion or re­ception. 2. A physical efficiency. 3. This efficiency must be patiendo, non agendo. 4. And it must be such an efficiency as is proper to instruments. I may not stand to enquire exactly in­to all these. 1. The first I have confuted already, and shall add this much more. 1. What doth faith thus receive? 2. How doth it receive it? 3. Whence? Or from what Agent and Act? 1. Is it Christ himself that is physically received by faith? 1. Who dare say so, but the Ʋbiquitarians, and Transubstan­tiation men? and perhaps not they. Christ is in Heaven, and we on earth. A multitude of blasphemers, Libertines, and Fami­lists, I lately meet with that dream of this but no sober man. 2. And indeed if Christs person were thus received, it would not make a man righteous, or justifie him. As all our Di­vines say, his being in the body of Mary would not have justi­fied her: Nor did the kissing of his lips justifie Judas; nor eating and drinking in his presence justifie those that must de­part from him for working iniquity, Matthew 7. If we had so known Christ, we should know him no more: It was necessary to his Disciples that he should go from them; we must not have the Capernaites conceit of eating his flesh. Yea, to talk of a physical receiving by faith, is far grosser: For the mouth was capable of that physical contact, which faith is not. 3. And then this will not stand with their Judgement, that blame me for making Christ himself the object of justifying faith, and not the promise directly. 2. If you say that the thing received is Christs righteousness, (as most do that I read) I answer, 1. Righteousness is but a relation: And therefore a thing which is naturally uncapable of being of it self physically apprehend­ed. This is past doubt. 2. If it be physically received, then either as a principle and quality, or as an object. Not the for­mer: For so we receive our first, (and after) grace in sancti­fication; but none ever said so in justification: Nor indeed can that righteousness which is formally but a relation, dwel in us as a principle or quality▪ If we receive it as an object, then by an Act: Or if the soul were granted to be passive in reception of an object, I have shewed that, 1. It is but in ap­prehensione [Page 210] simplici: None pleadeth for more: But faith is not such. 2. And so it would receive Christ no otherways then it re­ceiveth any object whatsoever it thus apprehendeth. 3. And this is not to receive Christ or his righteousness, but the meer species of it according to your own Philosophers, (and if righ­teousness be but a relation; and a relation, as Durandus, Dr. Twiss, and many another thin be but Ens Rationis, then the species of an Ens Rationis is a very curious Web) Knowledge (as D'Orbellis saith in 2. sent. Dis. 3. q. 3.) is twofold, i. e. sen­sitive and intellective; and each of these twofold, Intuitive and Abstractive. Intuitive knowledge is indeed de objecto ut in se praesens; quando scilicet res in propria existentia est per se motiva: Exemplum de sensitiva est, ut visus videt colorem: (yet this is but Recepiendo speciem, non rem) and this is not it in question): Exemplum de intellectiva est, ut visio Divinae essentiae à beatis: This is utterly denyed to be at all by Doctor Stoughton, Camer▪ and other solid Divines, against the School-mens judge­ment: And if it be, yet doubtless as we know not how, so it is not such as faiths apprehension, which we enquire after, Cognitio Abstractiva est quando species rei movet ad cognoscen­dum rem ipsam, & hoc siveres sit in se praesens, sive absens, sive existat sive non: Exemplum in sensitiva est, ut phantasia imaginatur colorem: Exemplum in intellectiva est ut intelle­ctus cognoscit quidditatem coloris medicante ejus specie. So that if it be either of these, it were at the utmost but a passive rea­ception of the species, and not of Christ or his righte­ousness.

2. By what physical contact faith doth receive this? might be enquired: and 3. By what physical act of the Agent? to neither of which questions can I imagine what tolerable answer can be given, in defence of this cause.

2. And if faith be a passive physical instrument, it must have a Physical Efficiency? and what is that? to justifie? why, even God himself in this life doth that but by a Moral Act (by his word) and not by a physical, (as to parti­culars.)

3. But that which driveth me to the greatest admiration is, How faith should Efficere patiendo! If I should rip up this, [Page 211] or require a demonstration of it in respect to the justification at judgement, yea, or in this life, yea or of any effect, I should lay such an odium on it from its absurdities, that in dealing with you, modesty doth forbid me to insist on it. 4. The fourth re­quisite will be enquired after in the next Question save one.

The fourth Question is, Whether other Graces may not be as properly called physical passive Instruments as Faith, is your sense?

And I doubt not but they may, (though its true of nei­ther) For 1. If there be no physical reception of Christs righteousness imaginable but that which is per modum ob­jecti, and if other gratious acts have Christs righteous­ness for their object, as well as that which you call faith: then other Acts do receive Christs righteousness as well as saith: but both branches of the Antecedent are true, therefore the consequence, the bare knowledge or simple apprehension of Christs righteousness per modum objecti may better pretend to this, then recombency or affiance: Yea, and love it self more fitly then affiance may be said to receive or embrace its object (which is not therefore false neither because Bellarmine hath it: and you know he brings Austines plain words, affirm­ing love to be the hand by which they received him, &c.) I confess if I first renounce not the concurrent Judgement of Philosophers, I cannot approve of the common Answer which our Divines give to Bellarmine in this, viz. [That Faith receiveth Christs Righteousness first to make it ours, but Love only to retain it, and embrace and enjoy it when first we know it to be ours:] For though this say as much as I need to plead for, acknowledging Love to be as properly a physical Recepti­on for retention, as Faith is for first Possession, yet if affiance be taken in any proper ordinary sence, it cannot thus hold good neither: for so Affiance must signifie some act of the will in order of nature after love, or at least not before it. I acknow­ledge that so much of Faith as lyeth in the understanding is be­fore Love in order of nature; sicut ipse intellectus est simpliciter prior voluntate, ut motivum mobili, & activum passivo, ut Aquin. 1. q. §. 2. a. 3.2. and 12. q. 13. a. 1. C. For as he, Intellectus est [Page 212] primum motivum omnium potentiarium animae quoad determinati­onem actus, voluntas verò quoad exercitium actus, Aquin, 12. q. 17. a. 1. C. But for the acts of the will toward Christ, I could give you (but to avoid tediousness I must forbear) at large the Testimony of Aquinas, Tolet, Gerson, Camero, Amesius, Zan­chius, Rob. Baronius, Bradwardine, Ravio, Viguerius, &c. That Love is not only the first of all the Passions, but even the first mo­tion of the Will towards its Object, and little or not at all diffe­rent from Volition, diligere being but intensive velle. I have much more to say to this, which here I must pretermit. But still I speak not of Love as a Passion, but a true closure, as it were of the will with its Object as Good: and expect love to be pro­per to the sensitive, and strange to the intellective soul; we must make it the same with Velle: For Amor & ga [...]dium in quantum significant Actus appetitus sensitivi, passiones sunt; non autem secundum quod significant Actus appetitus intellectivi, in­quit Aquinas. 1. q. 2. a. 1.1.

The fifth Question is, Whether Faith be any Instrument of our Justification?

Answer, Scotus gives many sences of the word Instrument, and so doth Aquinas, Schibler, and most Philosophers that meddle with it: and they give some so large, as contain all causes in the world under God the first cause; In so large a sence, if any will call faith an Instrument of Justification, I will not contend with him; though yet I will not say so my self, as judging faith to be no kind of cause of it at all; but in the proper ordinary sence, as an Instrument, signifieth Causam quae influit in effectum per virtutem inferioris rationis, as Suarez, Stierius, Arnisaeus, &c. Vel Instrumentum est quod ex directione alterius principalis agentis influit ad produce [...]dum effectum se nobiliorem, ut Schibler, &c. So I utterly deny Faith to be an Instrument. But I will first question whether it be a physical Instrument. 2. Whether a moral? 1. And for the first, I have done it already: for seeing our acute Divines have ceased to lay any claim to it as an active Instrument, but only as a Passive; there­fore having disproved what they claim, I have done enough to that. 2. Yet I will add some more: And 1. If it be a phy­sical active Instrument, it must have a physical active Influx to [Page 213] the producing of the Effect; but so hath not Faith to the pro­ducing of our Justification. Ergo &c. The Major is apparent from the common definition of such Instruments: The Minor will be as evident, if we consider but what Gods Act in Justi­fication is, and then it would appear impossible that any act of ours should be such an Instrument. 1. At the great Justification at Judgement Christs act is to sentence us acquit and dischar­ged▪ and doth our Faith activè, sixae influere ad hunc effectum? Doth it intervene between Christ and the effect? and so active­ly justifie us? Who will say so? 2. And the act by which God justifieth us here, is by a Deed of Gift in his Gospel (as I Judge) Now 1. That doth immediately produce the effect (only sup­posing Faith as a condition.) 2. And it is but a moral Instru­mental cause it self, and how faith can be a Physical, I know not. 3. Nay the act is but a moral act, such as a Statute or Bond acteth, and what need Faith to be a physical Instru­ment?

2. My second Reason is this: It is generally concluded, that Tota instrumenti causalit as est in usu & applicatione; It ceaseth to be an Instrument, when it ceaseth to be used or acted by the principal cause: But faith doth most frequently cease its action, and is not used (physically) when we sleep or wholly mind other things: Therefore according to this Doctrine, faith should then cease its Instrumentality; and consequently either we should all that while be unjustified and unpardoned, or else be justified and pardoned some other way, and not by faith. All which is absurd; and easily avoided by discerning faith to be but a Condition of our Justification, or a Causa sine quae non.

3. If Faith be a physical Instrument, then it should justifie from a reason intrinsecal, natural and essential to it, and not from Gods meer ordination of it to this office by his Word of Promise: but that were at least dangerous Doctrine: and should not be entertained by them who (truly) acknowledge that it justifies not as a work; much less then as a Physical re­ception which they call its Instrumentality. The consequence of the Major is evident, in that nothing can be more intrinsecal and essential to faith (this faith) then to be what it is, viz. a Reception or acceptance of Christ or his Righteousness: there­fore [Page 214] if it justifie directly as such, then it justifieth of its own Nature.

4. It is to me a hard saying, that God and Faith do the same thing, that is, Pardon and justifie: and yet so they do if it be an Instrument of Justification: For eadem est Actio Instrumenti & principalis causae, viz. quoad determinationem ad hunc ef­fectum, ut Aquinas, Schibler, &c. I dare not say or think, that Faith doth so properly, effectively justifie and pardon us.

5. It seems to me needless to feign this Instrumentality, be­cause frustra fit per plura quod fieri potest per pauciora.

6. Yea it derogateth from the work; for as Scotus saith, (in 4. dist. 45. q. 1. pag. (mihi) 239. D.) Actio sine instrumento est perfectior quàm actio cum instrumento.

7. And this Doctrine makes man to be the causa proxima, of his own Pardon and Justification. For it is man that believes and not God: God is the causa prima, but man the causa proxima cre­dendi, and so of justifying, if Faith be an Instrument Or at least man is a cause of his own Pardon and Justification. Yea faith be­ing by Divines acknowledged our own Instrument, it must needs follow that we justifie and forgive our selves. Dr. Amesius saith, (Bellar. Enervat. To. 4. li 6. p. (mihi) 315.) Plurimum refert: quia sicut sacramenta quamvis aliquo s [...]nsu possint dici Instrumenta no­stra, &c. proprie tamen sunt Jnstrumenta Dei: sic etiam fides quam­vis possit vocari Instrumentum Dei, quia Deus justificat nos ex fi­de & per fidem, proprie tamen est Instrumentum nostrum. Deus nos baptizat & pascit, non nosmet ipsi: Nos credimus in Christum, non Deus. Whether faith may be a moral Instrument, I shall enquire, when I have answered the next question: which is, Q 6. If faith were such a Physical Passive (or Active) Instrument, whe­ther that be the formal direct reason of its justifying? and whether (as it is) it do justifie directly and primarily, quatenus est appre­hensio Christi, justitioe, vel Justificationis. And this is it that I most confidently deny, and had rather you would stick to in de­bate then all the rest: for I ground many other things on it. I af­firm therefore, 1. That faith justifieth primarily and directly, as the condition on which the free Donor hath bestowed Christ, with all his benefits in the Gospel-conveyance. 2. And that if it [Page 215] were a meer Physical apprehension it would not justifie; no nor do us any good. 3. And that the apprehension called the recep­tivity which is truly its nature, is yet but its aptitude to its justify­ing office, and so a remote, & not the direct proper formal cause.

These three I will prove in order. 1. And for the first it is proved. 1. From the Tenor of the justifyn [...]g Promise, which still assureth Justification on the condition of Believing. [He that believeth] and [whosoever believeth] and [if thou be­lieve] do plainly and unquestionably express such a condition, upon which we shall be justified, and without which we shall not. The Antinomians most unreasonably deny this. 2. And the nature of Justification makes it unquestioinable: for whe­ther you make it a Law-act, or an act of Gods own Judge­ment and Will determining of our state, yet nither will admit of any intervening cause, (especially any act of ours,) but only a condition. 3. Besides, Conditions depend on the will of him that bestoweth the Gift, and according to his Will they succeed: but Instruments more according to their own fitness: Now it is known well, that Justification is an act of Gods meer free Grace and Will, and therefore nothing can further conduce to Gods free act as on our part, but by way of Condition. 4. And I need not say more to this, it being acknow­ledged generally by all our Divines, not one that I remember excepted, besides Mr. Walker, that [faith justifieth as the condi­tion of the Covenant] Mr. Wotton de Reconcil. part 1. l. 2. cap. 18. brings you the full Testimony of the English Homilies, Fox, Perkins, Paraeus, Trelcatius, Dr. G. Downam, Scharpius, Th. Matthews, Calvin, Aretius, Sadeel, Olevian, Me­lancth. Beza: To which I could add many more: and I never spoke with any solid Divine that denyed it,

2. Now that a physical apprehension would not justifie, as such, is evident. 1. Else Mary should be justified for having Christ in her womb, as I said before. 2. Else justification, as I said, should be ascribed to the nature of the act of faith it self. 3. You may see what is the primary, formal reason why faith Justifies, by its inseparablility from the effect or event; and which is the improper remote cause by its separability. Now such a physical apprehension may be (as such) separated [Page 216] from the effect, and would still be if it had not the further na­ture of a condition. We see it plainly in all worldly things. Eve­ry man that takes in his hand a conveyance of land, shall not possess the land. If you forcibly seize upon all a mans eviden­ces and writings, you shall not therefore possess his estate. If a traytor snatch a pardon by violence out of anothers hand, he is not therefore pardoned. (But more of this under the next). 4. And for your passive faith, I cannot conceive how it should (as passive) have any Moral good in it (as is said,) much less justifie us. And so when God saith that without faith it is impossible to please God we shall feign that to be justifying faith, which hath nothing in it self, that can please God: and how it can justifie that doth not please, I know not. I know in genere entis the Divels please God: They are his creatures; and naturally Good, as Ens & bonum convertun­tur: but in genere moris, I know not yet how pati quatenus pati can please him. For it doth not require so much as liber­ty of the will: The reason of Passion is from the Agent: As Suarez dis. 17. §. 2. Secundum praecisas rationes formales lo­quendo, Passio est ab Actione: & non è converso. Ideoque ve­ra est & propria haec causalis locutio, Quia agens agit, materia recipit. Now sure all Divines as well as the free-will-men, do acknowledge, that there can be no pleasing worth or ver­tue, where there is not liberty. And Suarez saith truly in that (T. 1. disp. 19 pag. (mihi) 340.) Addimus vero hanc faculta­tem quatenus libera est, non posse esse nisi Activam: seu è converso, facultatem non posse esse liberam, nisi sit activa, & quatenus acti­va est. Probatur sic. Nam Paisso ut Passio non potest esse Libe­ra patienti: sed solum quatenus Actio à qua talis Passio provenit, illi est libera: Ergo Libertas formaliter ac praecise non est in po­tentia patiente, ut sic, sed in potentia Agente. (Vide ultra pro­bationem.)

5. Yea I much fear lest this Passive Doctrine do lay all the blame of all mens infidelity upon God, or most at least: For it maketh the unbeliever no otherwise faulty then a hard block for resisting the wedge, which is but by an indisposition of the matter: and so Originall indisposition is all the sin. For as Aquinas saith, Malum in Patiente est vel ab imperfectione, [Page 217] vel defectu agentis, vel indispositione Materiae. 1. q. 49. a. 1. c.

3. My third proposition is, that the Receptivity or apprehension which is truly of the nature of faith, is yet but its aptitude to its Justifying office, and so a remote and not the direct proper formal reason: And this is the main point that I insist on: And it is evident, in all that is said already: and further thus, If faith had been of that apprehending nature as it is, and yet had not been made the condition in the gift or promise of God, it would not have justified: but if it had been made the conditi­on, though it had been no apprehending (but as any other duty,) yet it would have justified: therefore it is evident that the nearest, proper reason of its power to justifie is Gods ma­king it the condition of his gift, and its receptive nature is but a remote reason: 1. If faith would have justified, though it had not been a condition, then it must have justified against Gods will, which is impossible: It is God that justifieth, and therefore we cannot be a cause of his Action. 2. It is evident also from the nature of this moral reception, which being but a willingness and consent, cannot of its own nature make the thing our own, but as it is by the meer will of the donor made the condition of his offer or gift. If I am willing to be Lord of any Lands or Countreys, it will not make me so: but if the true owner say, I will give them thee if thou wilt accept them, then it will be so: therefore it is not first and directly from the nature of the reception, but first because that reception is made the condition of the gift. If a condemned man be wil­ling to be pardoned, he shall not therefore be pardoned: but if a pardon be given on condition he be willing or accept it, then he shall have it. If a poor woman consent to have a Prince for her husband, and so to have his possessions, it shall not therefore be done, except he give himself to her on condi­tion of her consent. If it were a meer physical reception, and we spoke of a possession de facto of somewhat that is so appre­hensible, then it would be otherwise: as he that getteth gold or a pearl in his hand, he hath such a possession: But when it is but a moral improper reception (though per actum physicum volendi vel consentiend [...]), and when we speak of a possession [Page 218] in right of Law, and of a relation and Title, then it must need; stand as aforesaid. Donation, (or Imputation) being the di­rect cause of our first constitutive justification, therefore conditi­onality and not the natural receptivity of faith, must needs be the proper reason of its justifying. This is acknowledged by Divines: Amesius saith, (Bellarm. Enervat. T. 4. p. (m [...]hi) 314. Appre­hensio justificationis per veram fiduciam, non est simpliciter per modum objecti, sed per modum objecti nobis donati: Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum & omni [...]cum eo, Scriptura disertis verbis testatur, Rom. 8.32. 2. And that if any other sort or act of faith, as well as this, or any other grace would have justified, if God had made it equally the condition of his gift, is also past all doubt. 1. Because the whole work of Ju­stifying dependeth meerly on Gods free Grace and will and thence it is that faith is deputed to its office. 2. Who doubteth but God could have bestowed pardon and justification on other terms or conditions, if he would? 3. Yea who doubteth but he might have given them without any condition, even that of acceptance? Yea though we had never known that there had been a Redeemer, yet God might have justified us for his sake. I speak not what he may now do after he resolved of a course in his Covenant: But doubtless he might have made the Covenant to be an absolute promise without any conditi­on on our part if he would, even such as the Antinomians dream it to be. And me thinks those great Divines, that say with Twisse, Ch [...]mier, Walaeus, &c. that God might have pardoned us without a Redeemer, should not deny this especi­ally. 4. And doubtless that faith which the Israelites in the first ages were justified by, did much differ from ours now, whatever that doth which is required of poor Indians now; that never heard of Christ. 5 And God pardoneth and ju­stifieth Infants, without any actual reception of pardon by their faith.

2. And me thinks they that stand for the instrumentality of faith above all should not deny this; for (according to my Logick) the formality of an Instrument is in its actual sub­serviency to the principal cause: and therefore it is no lon­ger causa instrumentalis then it is used: and therefore whatsoe­ver [Page 219] is the materia of the instrument, or whatsoever is natural to it, cannot be its form: Now to be a reception or appre­hension of Christ, is most essentially natural to this act of faith, and therefore cannot be the form of its instrumentality. For as Scotus saith ( [...]n 4. sint. dist. 1. q. 5. Fol. (mihi 13. H.) [...]ru mentii [...]n [...]it [...]s p [...]aeceda naturaliter usum ejus ut instrumentum. And what is the [...] or Aptitude of faith but this? And as Scotus ibid. saith, Nullum instrumentum formaliter est ideo ap­tum ad usum, quia al quis utitur eo ut instrumento: but it is an Instrument quia al quis utitur, &c.

3. And if the reception were the most direct, proper cause, (especially if the physical reception) then it would follow, that justifying faith [...]as such) is the receiving of justification, or of Christs righteousness, but for the receiving of Christ him­self, or that the receiving of Christ would be but a preparato­ry act which is I dare say foul and false Doctrine, and contrary to the scope of Scripture which makes Christ himself the object of this faith; and the receiving of him (John 1.11, 12.) and believing in him to be the condition of justification; and the receiving of righteousness, but secondarily or remotely. Ame­sius saith (ubi supra) hic tamen observandum est accurate lo­quendo, apprehensionem Christi & justitiae ejus esse fidem justi­ficantem, quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Chri­sti, & apprehentio justificationis ut possessionis nostrae praesentis, fructus est & effectum apprehensionis prioris. So in his Medulla he makes Christ himself the object of justifying faith.

4. Also if the said reception were the immediate proper rea­son why faith justifyeth; then it would follow that it is one act of faith whereby we are pardoned (viz the reception of par­don) and another whereby we are justified (viz. the Recep­tion either of righteousness or justification:) and there must be another act of faith for Adoption, and another for every other use according to the variety of the Objects. But this is a vain fiction, it being the same believing in Christ, to which the Pro­mise of Remission, Justification, Adoption, Glorification, and all is made.

Also it would contradict the Doctrine of our best Divines, who say, [...]s Alste dius, Distinct. Theol. C. 17. p. 73. that Christ is [Page 220] our Righteousness in sensu causali, sed non in sensu formali. I conclude this with the plain Testimony of our best Writers. Perkins vol. 1. pag. 662. In the true Gain, saith: And lest any should imagine that the very Act of faith in apprehending Christ justifieth: we are to understand that faith doth not apprehend by Power from it self, but by vertue of the Covenant. If a man believe the Kingdom of France to be his, it is not therefore his: yet if he belive Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven by Christ to be his, it is his indeed: not simply because he believes, but because he believes upon Commandment and Promise. (that is not pro­perly as an Instrument, but as a condition) For in the tenor of the Covenant God promiseth to impute the Obedience of Christ to us for our Righteousness if we believe. Is not this as plain as may be? So Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. p. (mihi) 44. We say faith justifieth for it self, not as it is a quality in our mind, or our own work: but as faith is a gift of Gods grace, having the pro­mise of righteousness and life, &c. Therefore faith justifieth for Christ, and from the grace and Covenant of God.

This being therefore fully proved, that faith justifieth properly and directly as the condition on which God hath made over Christ and all his benefits in the Gospel, the two great points opposed in my Doctrine do hence arise unavoidably. 1. That this faith justifieth as truly and directly as it is the receiving of Christ for Lord, and King, and Head, and Husband, as for a justifier, for both are equally the conditions in the Gospel. But if the physical Instrumental way were sound, then it would justi­fie only as it is a receiving of Justification or Justice. This is the main conclusion I contest for. Yield me this, and I will not so much stick at any of the rest. 2. And hence it follows, that Repentance, forgiving others, love to Christ, Obedience Evan­gelical, do so far justifie as the Gospel-promise makes them con­ditions; and no further do I plead for them.

7. My last Question was, Whether now your Doctrine or mine be the more obscure, doubtfull and dangerous? And which is the more clear, certain and safe?

And here I shall first shew you yet more what my Judge­ment is, and therein whether Faith be a moral Instrument.

I think that conditio sine quâ non, non potest esse efficiens, quia [Page 221] hujus nulla est actio; nec id ad cujus presentiam aliquid contigit c [...]tra illius actionem: nec materialis dispositio est Instrumentum, &c. ut Schibler, Top. c. 3. pag. 102. Even the Gospel-Pro­mise, which is far more properly called Gods moral Instrument of justifying or pardoning, is yet but somewhat to the making up that fundamentum, from whence the relation of justified doth result. And the Fundamentum is called a cause of the re­lation which ariseth from it without any act, but what went to cause the foundation, even by a meer resultancy, as D'Orbellis fully in 1. sent. dist. 17. q. 1. But to call a condition in Law an Instrument, is yet far more improper. The Law or Promise therefore I will call a moral Instrument: the condition which we must perform, I will not call a moral Instrument, either of the Act which God performeth, or yet of the effect which floweth from that act immediately. Yet if any will say that it is properly and principally a condition, and that it so justifieth; and yet that it may be called an Instrument moral in an im­proper sence, as it is a condition first, or else in regard of its receiving use, will stretch the word Instrument so wide, as to apply it to it; I will not contend for a word, when we agree in sence. And thus Mr. Wotton yieldeth as with an ill will to call it an Instrument, proving it first to justifie as a condi­tion. But I am loth to give it any proper causality in justify­ing.

And now let us see whose sence is, 1. More obscure. I avoid and abhor all vain niceties in so fundamental a point as Justification is; therefore I say plainly but [That faith is the condition on which God hath bestowed Christ and all his benefits in the Gospel] What woman cannot understand this at a word? But your Doctrine, what Oedipus is able to unfold? for my part, it is quite past my reach; and most that I converse with, are as silly as my self. Can every poor man or woman reach to know what a passive Action, or a passive Passion, or a Passive Instru­ment is? and how we receive Christ, as a man takes a gift in his hand? or to see through all the difficulties that I have disco­vered here in your Doctrine? Even they that raise questions, what one act of faith doth justifie, whether of the Ʋnderstanding or Will? Whether Assent or Affiance, &c. Do seem vainly and [Page 222] hurtfully curious to me: much more those that reduce all to an unconceivable pat [...]: I plainly therefore asfi [...]m, that faith is not any physical receiving, (as the hand doth receive money, as you would afterward make me believe the Assembly m [...]ns) but a Metaphorical moral receiving: and that it is not by any one act of the soul (much less a Passion) but by the whole soul, Understanding and Will: the former beginning, the later con­summating it, (as Dav [...]nant soundly.) And let us trye by common speech, which of these is the more plain and probable sence. Suppose a Prince will redeem a Turkish condemed slave, and send him word [I have bought thee, and if thou wilt receive (or take) me for thy Redeemer, Deliverer and Lord, and for the future wilt serve me and be thankfull, I will actually set thee free. Here it would sure be a silly thing to fall a questio­ning, what the Prince means by the word [Receive or take] Whether it be an act of this faculty, or that? Whether this or that act? Or whether it is meerly Pati? Though we are too wise to un­derstand this now, I warrant you the foolishest slave would soon understand it: and know that to receive or take the Prince for his Redeemer, is to believe him, and consent, and thankful­ly accept of him as he requires, and of deliverance by him: And he that should ask him, Whether it were the bare act of affiance, or whether gratitude or love were included in the term? would seem but simple to him. If a Prince will deliver a con­demned woman from death, and offer with all to marry her, and give her himself, and all he hath, on condition she will receive or take him for her husband, (and accordingly be a faithfull wife to him till death) He that should here step in, and raise pro­found Scruples, and enter difficult disputes, whether this recei­ving were an act of the Understanding or Will? Whether Af­fiance, Recombency, Assurance, &c. or whether a Passion? would be well judged rid [...]culous; when every man knows at the first word what it is for the woman to receive or take a man for her Husband, even gladly and lovingly to consent and accept the offer, and with all her heart deliver up her self to him ac­cordingly. So if a King of another Nation, that hath right also to this, but not possession, should send to us, to charge us to receive him for our King; what a hard word is this to under­stand? [Page 224] or doth it signifie any one act? or the act of any one single faculty that the people of the land must perform? Oh how too learned Divines (or too unlearned) have puzzled and amazed poor souls, and muddyed the clear streams of the Doctrine of Christ, in this so weighty and plain a point of justi­fication? In a word, Sir, I know there is never a one of my Hearers can understand your Doctrine of instrumentality Active or Passive, nor have they the Logick necessary thereto, and therefore I will not speak to them in such a language. Even while I untye your knots, I am thought a Barba [...]i [...]n, and not understood; how much more if I spoke what I understand not my self nor am able, though I set my wits on the tenter?

2. And then let us see which is the truer and certa [...]ner, your Doctrine or mine. And 1. I have said somewhat already to weaken the credit of yours. 2. And more from what is last said it is unlikely to me to be true because of the obscurity; for I believe God hath spoke plainer in fundamentals, and not laid folks salvation upon that which none but Scholars of a bet­ter or worse judgement then I can understand. I know there is that kind of difficulty in Divine things which requireth the spiritual illumination of the understanding: but not such in foun­dation points that necessarily requireth so much humane learn­ing. 3. Your way hath not one word of Scripture for it: Where doth Scripture say (in phrase or sense) that faith Justifieth as an instrument; or that it is such? Active or Passive? Or that it is this or that only Act?

But now for the Doctrine I teach. 1. Neither your self nor any solid man denyeth it (that faith is a condition and so justifieth:) and that it is a Moral receiving, and by the whole soul, esepcially the hearty consent, and acceptance of the will, most Divines teach, as I could shew but for wasting time. 2. I prove it further, that it is but this plain Moral recep [...]ion, thus. As Christ is offered, so he is received (therefore the Assembly say [as he is offered in the Gosp [...]l]: But Christ is offered Mo­rally in the Gospel, and not Physically; therefore he must be so received. 3. Rejicere est no [...]le; Ergo, reci [...]ere est velle. To reject Christ is the condemning sin of infidelity: but that lies in an unwillingness to have him to be their Redeemer, Saviour, [Page 224] and especially Lord: therefore receiving Christ is a willingness, consent or acceptance of him for Redeemer and Lord, Joh. 1.10. His own received him not; What is that but they refused him? and not that they wree not Passive physical receivers of Justice, Luke 19.27. These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them, bring hither and destroy, &c. Then willingness of his reign is part of that faith which justifies: Even willingness of his Reign, as well as to be pardoned, justified and saved from Hell by him; (or else few among us would perish; For I never met with the man that was unwilling of these.)

3. And then it will easily appear, Whether your Doctrine or mine be the more safe. 1. Yours hath the many inconvenien­ces already mentioned. It maketh man his own justifier, or the causa proxima of his own Justification, and by his own Act to help God to justifie us: for so all instruments do help the prin­cipal cause. And yet by a self-contradiction it maketh faith to be of no Moral worth, and so no vertue or grace. Yea, (I think) it layeth the blame of mans infidelity on God; Many such wayes it seemeth to wrong the Father and the Medi­ator. 2. And it seemeth also to wrong mens souls in point of safety, both by drawing them so to wrong God, and also by laying grounds to encourage them in presumption; For when they are taught that the receiving of Christs righteousness, or of Christ for justification, or the confident expectation of par­don, or resting on Christ for it, or a particular perswasion of it, &c. Is justifying faith, and when they find these in them­selves (as undoubtedly they may will this much, or else they cannot presume), Is it not easie then to think they are safe when they are not? As I said, I never yet met with the man that was not willing to be Justified and saved from Hell by Christ: and I dare say, Really willing: and but with few that did not expect it from Christ, and trust him for it. Now to place Ju­stifying faith only in that which is so common, and to tell the men that yet they believe not truly when they have all that is made essential to faith, as Justifying, is strange. For knowing that the godly themselves have fowly sinned, and that no man can perish that hath Justifying faith, how can they choose but presume when they find that which is called Justifying faith [Page 225] undoubtedly in themselves? And to tell them it is not sincere or true, because they receive not Christ also as King and Pro­phet, and yet that such receiving is no part of justifying faith. This is to tell them that the truth of their faith lyeth without it self (a strange Truth) in a signal concomitant: and who will doubt of his faith for want of a concomitant sign, when he certainly feeleth the thing it self? Will not such think they may sin salva fide? When as if they were rightly taught, that justifying saving faith (as such) is the receiving of Christ for Saviour, and Lord, and so a giving up themselves both to be saved and guided by him, then they would find that faith in Christ and sincere obedience to Christ have a little neerer relati­on; and then a man might say to such a presumer, as I remem­ber Tertullian excellently doth, De poenitent. Operum pag. (mihi) 119. Caeterum non leviter in Domixum peccat qui quum amulo ejus Diabolo poenitentiâ renunciasset, & hoc nomine illum Domino subjecisset, rursus [...]undem regressusuo erigit, & exultati­one ejus seipsum facit, ut denuo malus recuperata praeda sua, adversus Domin [...]m gaudeat. Nonne quod dicere quoque peri­culosum est, sed ad adificationem proferendum est, d [...]abolum Do­mino praeponit? Comparationem enim videtur egisse qui utrum (que) cognoverit, & judicato pronunciasse [...]um meliorem cujus se rur­sus esse maluerit, &c. Sed aiunt quidam, satis Deum habere, si corde & animo suspiciatur, licet actu minus fiat: itaque se salvo metu & Fide peccare: Hoc est salva castitate Matrimonia violare: salva pietate parenti venenum temperare; sic ergo & ipsi salva venia in Gehennans detrudentur, dum salvo metu peccant.

Again, your Doctrine seemeth to me to overthrow the comfort of Believers exceedingly. For how can they have any comfort that know not whether they are justified and shall be saved? and how can they know that, who know not whether they have faith? and how can they know that, when they know not what justifying saith is? and how can they know what it is, when it is by Divines involved in such a cloud and maze of difficulties? some placing it in this, act and some in that, and some in a Passive instrumentality, which few understand, (If any man in the world do.) For the Habit of faith, that cannot be felt or known of it self immediately, but by [Page 226] its acts (for so it is concluded of all Habits, Suarez, Metap. T. 2. disp. 44 §. 1. pag 332.) and instead of the act we are now set to enquire after the passion? and so in the work of examination the business is to enquire, how and when we did passively receive righteousness, or justification, or Christ for these? which let him answer for himself that can, for I cannot.

But now, on the other side, what inconvenience is there in the Doctrine of faith and justification as I deliver it? As it is plain, and certain (saying no more then is generally granted) so I think it is safe. Do I ascribe any of Christs honour in the work to man? No man yet hath dared to charge me with that, to my knowledge: and no considerate man I believe will do it. I conclude that neither faith nor works is the least part of our legal righteousness: or of that righteousness which we must plead against the accuser for our justification: which is commonly called by Divines, the matter of our justification. The Law which we have broken cannot be satisfied (nor God for the breach of it) in the least measure by our faith or obedience, nor do they concur as the least degree of that satisfa­ction: But we must turn the Law over wholly to our Surety. On­ly whereas he hath made a new Law or Covenant containing the conditions on our part of the said justification and salvation▪ I say, these conditions must needs be performed, and that by our selves: and who dare deny this? and I say that the perfor­mance of these conditions is our Evangelical righteousness (in reference to that Covenant,) as Christs satisfaction is our legal Righteousness (in reference to that first Covenant), or as perfect obedience would have been our legal righteous­ness, if we had so obeyed. And for them that speak of inhe­rent Righteousness in any other sense, viz. as it is an imperfect conformity to the Law of works, rather then as a true confor­mity to the Law or Covenant of grace, I renounce their Do­ctrine, both as contradictory to it self, and to the truth, and as that which would make the same Law to curse and bless the same man, and which would set up the desperate Doctrine of Justification by the works of the Law: For if men are righteous in reference to that Law, then they may be so far justified by it.

Nor do I ascribe to works any part of the office or honour of [Page 227] faith (Though that were not so dangerous as to derogate from Christ.) For I acknowledge faith the only condition of our first Remission and justification: and the principal part of the condition of our justification as continued and consummate. And if faith be an instrumental cause, I do not give that honor from it to works, for they are not so: Nay, I boldly again aver, that I give no more to obedience to Christ, then Divines ordinarily do, that is, to be the secondary part of the conditi­on of continued and consummate justification. Only I give not so much as others to faith, because I dare not ascribe so much to man. And yet men make such a noise with the terri­ble name of Justification by works (the Lords own phrase), as if I gave more then themselves to man, when I give so much less.

And thus Sir, I have according to your advice, spent my self (as you speak) in aiming at that mark which you were plea­sed to set me. And now I shall proceed to the rest of your ex­ceptions.

My next answer to you was, that [If works under every no­tion are excluded (as you say they are) then repentance is exclu­ded under the notion of a condition or preparative: But repentance under that notion is not excluded: Therefore not works under every notion. To this you reply, that [Repentance is not excluded as qualifying, but as recipient,] which what is it but a plain yield­ing my Minor, and so the cause: For this is as much as I say. If repentance be a work or act of ours, and not excluded un­der the notion of a qualification, (or as you elsewhere yield) a Medium ordinatum, and a condition, then works are not under every notion excluded. And that repentance is not reci­pient, how easily do I yeild to you? But do you indeed think that when Paul excludeth the works of the Law, that he ex­cludeth them only as Recipient? and not as qualifying? If so, (as this answer seems to import, seeing you will not have me here distinguish between works of Law, and of Gospel, or New Covenant) then you give abundance more to works of the Law then I do or dare: For I aver that Paul excludeth them even as qualifications, yea and the very presence of them: and that the Jews never dreamt of their works being Recipient.

[Page 228]To my next you say, [Whether Paul dispute what is our righ­teousness, or upon what terms it is made ours it doth not much mat­ter] But I think it of very great moment; they being Questions so very much different, both in their sense, and importance. And whereas you think Paul speaks chiefly of the manner, I think he speaks of both, but primarily of the (quasi) materia; and of the manner or means thereto, but secondarily in reference to that. So that I think the chief Question which Paul doth debate, was, Whether we are Justified by our own works or merits, or by Ano­thers, viz. the satisfaction of a surety? which yet because it is no way made ours but by believing, therefore he so puts the Questi­on, whether by works of the Law, or by faith? and so that he makes them two immediate opposites not granting any tertium, I easily yield. (But of that before.)

To the next you say, that [I cannot find such a figure for faith Relatively in my sense.] Answ. And I conceive that faith in my sense may be taken Relatively full as well as in yours▪ Doubtless acceptance of an offered Redeemer and all his bene­fits doth relate as properly to what is accepted (viz. by the assent of the understanding initially, and by the election and consent of the will consummately) as a Physical Passive recep­tion or instrumentality can do. And also as it is a condition I make little doubt, but it relateth to the thing given on that condition: and that the very name of a condition is relative. So that in my sense faith relateth to Christ two ways: Where­of the former is but its very nature, and so its aptitude to its office: The later is that proper respect in which it immediately or directly justifieth. Yet do I not mean as you seem to do, as I gather by your phrase of [putting Love and Obedience for Christs Righteousness]: For I conceive it may be put relatively, and yet not strictly (loco correlati) for the thing related to: when I say my hands or teeth feed me, I do not put them in­stead of my Meat; and yet I use the words relatively, mean­ing my Meat principally, and my teeth secondarily: Nei­ther do I mean that it relateth to Christs righteousness only or principally; but first to himself. And I doubt not but Love to Christ and Obedience to him as Redeemer, do relate to him: but not so fully, clearly and directly express him as related to, as Faith: Faith being also so comprehensive a grace as to in­clude [Page 229] some others. It is a true saying, that a poor woman that is marryrd to a Prince is made honourable by love, and con­tinued so by duty to her husband: But it is more obscure and improper then to say, she is made honourable by Mar­riage, or taking such a man to her husband, which includes love, and implyeth duty and faithfulness, as necessarily subsequent. I conceive with Judicious Doctor Preston, that faith is truly and properly such a consent, contract, or marriage with Christ.

Next to your similitude: you say [that I hold that not only seeing this brazen Serpent, but any other Actions of sense, will as well heal the wounded Christian.] To which I answer. Simi­litudes run not on all four. Thus far I believe that this holds. 1. Christ was lift up on the Cross as the brazen Serpent was lift up. 2. He was lift up for a cure to sin-stung souls, as the brazen Serpent for the stung bodies. 3. That as every one that look­ed on the Serpent was cured (an easie condition,) so every one that believeth Christ to be the appointed Redeemer, and heartily Accepteth him on the terms he is offered, and so trusteth in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. 4. That as the cure of their bodies came not from any natural reason drawn from the eye, or from any natural excellency or efficacy of seeing, above hearing or feeling, but meerly from the free will and pleasure of God, who ordained that looking should be the condition of their cure: So all those Acts (usu­ally comprized or implyed in the word believing) which justi­fie, do it not from any natural excellency, efficacy or instru­mentality, but meerly from the good pleasure of the Law­giver: And therefore the natural Receptivity of Faith (that is its very formal essence) must not be given as the proper direct cause of its Justifying: But that is, its conditionality from the free appointment of God.

But on the other side, 1. It was only one Act of one sense which was the condition of their cure: but you will not say I believe that it is only one act of one faculty which justifieth: however I will not. 2. It was the Act of seeing which cured them, without touch­ing, laying hold on, apprehending, resting on, &c. But you will not say so of justifying faith. 3. The sight, which was the condition of their cure, was no actuall reception of the bra­zen [Page 230] Serpent, but the species of that Serpent by the eye; and so the eye did no otherwise receive the Serpent, then it received every Object it behold, even the Serpent that stung them. But if you say, that our receiving Christ is but per simplicem appre­hensionem objecti, and that it is a receiving of his species, and so that we receive Christ no otherwise then we receive Satan, or any Object of Knowledge, I will not be of that opinion. 4. Their cure was simul & semel: but our Justification is a continued Act; as really in doing all our lives, as at first. 5 Therefore though one act finished their cure, and there was no condition perscribed as requisite for the consummation or continuance: yet when our Justification is begun, and we truly justified, there is further conditions prescribed for its continuance and con­summation. To conclude, I am so far from saying, that any other Act will as well heal the wounded Christian, besides what God hath made the express condition of his cure, that I flatly aver no other will do it. But whether he hath made any one single act (or Passion) to be the whole of that condition, I have elsewhere out of Scripture shewed you, and you do not deny what I say.

My two last Answers to your exposition of Pauls words, you are pleased to overpass; the last of which (the ninth) being the main that I made use of: viz. that Paul taketh the word Work [...] more strictly, for such working as maketh the Reward to be not of Grace but of debt: and in this sence I disclaim all works, not only (as you do) from being receptive, or instrumen­tal, or effective, but from being concomitant: why you said no­thing to this my chief Answer, I do not know.

You next tell me that I cannot take the Assemblies definiti­on in that sence as they declare it, or the Scripture words, which are Metaphorical imply: for its the resting of a burdened soul upon Christ only for Righteousness; and by this Christs Righteousness is made over to us; and its a receiving of Christ as the hand em­braceth any Object, &c. Answer. That the word Receiving and Resting are Metaphorical, I easily grant you; and wonder the more that you still insist on them, and instead of reducing them to more proper expressions, do here add Metaphor to Metaphor, till all your definition be a meer Allegory, when you [Page 231] know how much Metaphors do seduce. But for the Assemblies Definition. I embrace it unfeignedly in that sence as the words seem to me most evidently to import, without using violence with them. But I perceive by this, that you will not think it enough in a man to subscribe to national Confessions and Catechisms in the obvious sence, or that which he judgeth the plain proper sence, except he also agree with you in the explication. Some think it not enough that we subscribe to the Scripture, be­cause we may misunderstand it, and therefore we must subscribe to national Confessions, as more explicate: (which I like well, so we add nothing to Gods word, nor thrust our own Commen­taries into the Text, or obtrude out own Doctrines upon men as Articles of their faith, or at least, as the Bishops did the Ce­remonies, which they made indifferent in word, but necessary indeed:) But now I perceive the matter comes all to one in the issue; when you cannot make a definition of Faith in such Language as is any easier to be understood then the Scrip­ture: when you and I cannot both understand it: and I find that many are of Bellarmines judgement (Apol. c. 7. cited by Mr. Vines in his Sermon against Haeres. pag. 50.) That a man may be an Haeretick though he believe the Scriptures, the three Creeds, and the four great general Councils. But for the sence of the Assemblies definition, 1 I know not what you mean by the words [as they declare it:] If any private declaration, I am not to take notice of it, nor do I know what it meaneth, and could wish they would do, or might have done as Mr. Vines desired in his Sermon, J [...]. 28. 1645. that is, [To second their conclusions with the Reasons and Grounds of them; which will do much to make them pass for currant: seeing (saith he) the Gorgons head which struck all dumb in former times, The Church, The Church, is not likely to have the same operation row in this seeing and searching age; for though men be willing to be subject to Authority, yet as they are men they will be slaves to Reason.] So that if there were any private exposition, I would we had it. But if you mean only what is declared in the words of the De­finition, I am most confident, though I never was in the Assem­bly, that I have hit on their sence far neerer then you seem to have done: and I dare not think otherwise, lest I be hainously [Page 232] censorious of so reverend an Assembly, which I am resolved not to be. 1. Their very words are a receiving of Christ, and not immediately and primarily his Righteousness, but himself; and in the confession they say as I do, that it is an accepting, re­ceiving and resting on Christ. 2. And as Christ the anointed, which Name signifieth the Offices which he is anointed to, viz. King, Priest, &c. 3. It maketh it to consist in no one act, but several, expressed in two phrases: 1. Receiving Christ. 2. Resting on him alone for salvation. 4. It expresly saith, that it is a receiving of him, as he is offered in the Gospel, and that is, not as a justifier only, but as a Lord and Prophet, and that as immediately as the other, and conjunct with it: for he is no where offered as a justifier alone; if he be, shew where it is. 5. And hence it is plain that they mean no Reception but moral, by Willing, Consenting, Accepting (as they expresly say in the confession of Faith) For he is no otherwise offered to us in the Gospel: He is not offered to our Physical Reception. It is not his person in substance that is offered to the Contact of our Spirits, much less of our flesh; but his person as cloathed with his Relations, of Mediator, Redeemer, Lord, Saviour, &c. And can you receive a King, as King, (who is personal­ly distant or invisible) by any other Reception then I have said? If we do receive a King into England, the only Acts of the soul are hearty consenting, and what is therein and thereto im­plyed: though bodily Actions may follow: (which as to Christ we cannot perform.) I think verily this is the plain sound sence of the Assembly, and shall believe so, till the same Au­thority, that thus defined, do otherwise interpret their own defi­nition.

And for your phrase of [Resting a burdened soul on Christ for Righteousness] I doubt not as it intendeth Affiance, but it is as Perkins, Dr. Downam, Rob. Baronius, &c. say, a fruit Of faith strictly taken, rather then faith it self: but if you take faith in a larger sence (as the Gospel not seldom doth, and against which I am no adversary) so Affiance is part of faith it self. But that it is the whole of that faith, I shall never be­lieve without stronger Arguments; where you say, [Its the re­ceiving Christ as the hand embraceth any Object.] I answer. [Page 233] 1. I am glad you here grant Christ himself to be the Object. 2. If you mean, [as verily as the hand, &c.] So I grant it, if a moral receiving may be properly said to be as true as a physical. But if you mean By a Physical Contact and Reception as the hand doth, &c. then I am far from believing that ever Christ or our Assembly so meant, or ever had so gross a thought. Where you say, I take it not the in sence as the Scripture words imply;] I an­swer. When I see that manifested I shall believe it. When it is said John 1. He came to his own, and his own received him not: 1. Is it meant they took him not in their hands, or received not his Person into their houses? the later is true▪ But 1. Only in a second place; but their hearts were the first Receptacle 2. Else those were no Unbelievers where Christ never came in person; And that had no houses; 3. And that receiving cannot belong to us that never saw him, nor to any since his Ascension. 2. Or is it the Intellective Reception of his species? I trow not: I have said enough of that before. 3. Or is it a moral Recepti­on of him as thus and thus related, volendo, eligendo, consentiendo, diligendo (pardon this last, it is but the qualification of the rest) & consequenter fidendo? I think this is it. If you can find a fourth way, you will do that which was never done (to my knowledge) and then you will be a Novellist as well, as I.

For your next expressions, I answer to them, that you do truly apprehend that I am loth to seem to recede from others, (and as loth to do it, but magis amica veritas: And I can­not believe what my list, nor like those that can.) By which you may truly know, that I do it not out of affectation of sin­gularity (as he knoweth that knoweth my heart), nor intend to be any instrument of division in the Church. And if my as­sertions are destructive of what others deliver, it is but what some men, and not what all deliver: Not against the Assembly, nor many learned Divines who from several parts of the Land have signified to me their Assent: besides all those great names that appear for me in print.

But you tell me that [I may not build on some Homilitical popular expressions in any mans books.] Answer, Let me again name to you but the men I last named, and try whether you [Page 234] will again so entitle their writings. The first and chief is Dr. Preston, who was known to be a man of most choice notions, and so Judged by those that put out his books, and his credit so great in England, that he cracks his own that seeks to crack it. And his Sermons were preached before as judicious an Audito­ry (at least) as your Lectures, and yet you defend your own expressions. Yea it is not once nor twice, not five times only, but almost through all his Books, that Dr. Preston harpeth upon this string, as if it were the choisest notion that he intended to disclose. Yea it is in his very Definition of faith as justifying; and Dr. Preston was no homiletical Definer. I can produce the like Testimony of Dr. Stoughton: (two as great Divines in my esteem as most ever England or the world bred.) Another is Mr. Wallis: Doubtless, Sir, no homiletical popular man in Writing: nor could you have quickly bethought you of an English Book that less deserves those attributes: His words are these. I assent not to place the saving Act of faith, either with Mr. Cotton (as his Lordship cites him) in the laying hold of, or assenting to that Promise, &c. nor yet in a particular ap­plication of Christ to my self in assurance, or a believing that Christ is mine, &c. But I choose rather to place it in an act of the Will, then in either of these forenamed acts of the Ʋnderstanding. It is an Accepting of Christ offered, rather then an Assenting to a proposition affirmed. To as many as received him, &c. that is, to them that believe in his name. John 1. God makes an Offer of Christ to all (else should not Reprobates be condemned for not accepting of him, as nei­ther the Devils are, because he was not offered to them.) Whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely, Rev. 22.17. Whereupon the believing soul replies, I will: and so takes him. When a Gift is offered to me, that which maketh it to be mine is my Acceptation, &c. If you call this taking of Christ (or con­fenting that Christ shall be my Saviour) a Depending, a Resting or relying on Christ for salvation (if you speak of an act of the Will) it is all one; for Taking of Christ to be my Saviour, and committing my self to Christ to be saved, is the same: Both of them being but a consenting to this Covenant, I will be your God, and you shall be my People, &c. And if you make this the saving Act of faith, then will Repentance (so far as it is distinct from Faith) be a con­sequent [Page 235] of it: Confidence also, &c. Thus Mr. Wallis is clear, that the Nature of Faith is the same that I have affirmed, and in no popular Sermon, but in his Truth tryed. pag. 94, 95. And on these grounds he well answers Bellarmines Dilemma, which else will be but shiftingly answered. The next is Mr. Norton of New England, a man judged one of their best Disputants, or else they would not have chose him to encounter Apolloni­us: And will you call his very Definition of Faith in an accu­rate Catechism, an homiletical popular expression? What then in the whole world shall escape that censure? His Words are: [Quest. What is justifying Faith? Answ. It is a saving grace of the Spirit, flowing from Election, whereby the soul receiveth Jesus Christ, as its Head and Saviour, according as he is revealed in the Gospel.] I subscribe to this Definition from my heart. The next cited was Mr. Culverwell, not in any popular Sermon, but in a solid well approved Treatise of Faith, and not in com­mon passages, but his very definition of faith, pag. 13.17. and after all concludes. pag. 19. [Thus we see that the very nature of faith, consisteth in the true Acceptation of Christ proclaimed in the Gospel] The next I cited (about the Definition of faith) was Mr. Throgmorton, who in his accurate Treatise of Faith (and not in any popular Sermons) and that many times over, doth make Faith to be the receiving Christ for Prophet, and only Rab­bi, to be his Disciples, and as the only Way and Truth, and also as King, Head, Husband, Priest, &c. and by this we are made Partakers of him and all his benefits. pag. &c. And for the great point that you stick at of Justification, I will repeat the words of two of those Authors which I have named: And 1. Of learned Conr. Bergius, in whom you shall have the Testimony of the Augustane Confession, Luther, Meutzer, &c. included, both about the nature and extent of Faith; about works Legal and Evangelical; about Justifica­tion as begun, and as continued, and the distinct conditions, and about the concurrence of Obedience, &c. Praxis Cathol. dissert. 7. pag. 973. &c. §. 41. Nec tamen negat quisquam fidem esse Obedientiam in sano sensu ex Rom. 1.5. & 6.17. & 10.16, & 16 26. 2 Thess. 1 8. Act. 5.3 2. Heb. 5.9. 1 Pet. 1.2, 14, 22. 1. Fides est obedientia quatenus ejus actus proprius respondet prae­cepto [Page 236] Evangelii, Crede in dominum Jesum, &c. Ideo enim, ut Cal­vinus a [...]t ad Rom. 1.5. nomine obedientiae insignitur, quod Do­minus per Evangelium nos vocat, nos vocanti per fidem responde­mus. Et sic fides, (ut loquitur Apol. August. Conf. in resp. ad Arg. pag. 125.) est Obedientia erga Evangelium: quae cum Obe­dientia mandatorum legis minime confundi debet. Nam ut recte Meutzerus (in exeg August Conf. [...]ct. 4 cont. Phot. in. 15.) Quantum ab Evangelio Lex distat, tantum haec obedientia ab il­la disterminatur. 42. 2. Est etiam fides obed entia, quantenus per Synecdochen Metonymicam significat totum cultum à fidelibus praesti [...]um; radicem una cum fructibus, &c. Nota enim est con­suetudo sermonis (ut inquit Apol. Conf. August. de impl. leg. pag. 87.) quod interdum eodem verbo causam & effectus complecti­mur [...]. Ita accipi potest fides, Heb. 13.7. and 12.1, 2. Rom. 1.8. 1 Thess. 1.8. Ier. 7.28. 43. Nec du­bium est cum dicitur, hoc est mandatum ut credamus & Diliga­mus ▪ 1 John 3.23. sicut in praecepto Diligendi & habitus chari­tatis & fructus atque Opera, ad quae habitus ordinatur, mandata sunt: it [...] etiam in praecepto credendi & habitum fidei & fru­ctus ejus nobis mandatos esse. Ʋnde cum ipsa etiam charitas in­ter fructus sit fidei, sit ut tota doctrina Christiana aliquando ver­bum vel pradieatio fidei, tota Religio Christiana, tota oeconomia novi Testamenti fides praecipue appelletur, Gal. 1.23. 1 Tim. 4.6. Gal. 5.6. and 3.23. So he proceeds and alledges Lu­ther taking faith in that large sense, including charity and obe­dience; and by Works, meaning actiones factas cum opinione meriti, & cum expectatione justificationis & vitae aeterne tan­quam mercedis debitae Serm. de mis. & li. de libert. Christiana. Tom. 2. Wit. f. 4.5. & Tom. 5. com. in Zach. 2.8. & aed Gal. c. 2. f. 300. Et ultra p. 977. Cum dicitur [sine operibus legis] excluduntur, 1. Opera facta [...]n veritate obedientiae legalis, ac meriti proinde per innocentiam, cui detur Merces citra remissionem peccati & imputationem secundum gratiam. Rom. 4.3. & s. Quia cau­satus est Apostolus toto capite 1 & 2. & s. Talem Obedientiam à nemine haberi, sed omnes sub peccato esse, &c. 2. Excluduntur etiam opera facta cum opionione verae obedientia legalis ac meriti per innocentiam; quia haec ipsa sunt etiam peccata & mendacia merentia poenam, Phil. 3.7

[Page 237]3. Excluduntur etiam opera facta cum opinione meriti sine obe­dientia, & innocentia legals aut ex qualicunque imperfecta aut par­ticulari obedientia cui aliqualiter detur Merces citra imputa­tionem secundum gratiam, &c. So that this is all the exclusion of Works, that he acknowledgeth: and shews that Bellarmine is driven to this, which he approveth. §. 44. Ex dictis hisce tri­bus modis, primo modo excluduntur vera opera legis, ita ut non adsint, licet diberent adesse primo creationis jure; posterioribus autem duobus modis excluduntur praesumpta pera ita ut non debe­ant adesse sed caveri potius; Et omnibus hisce modis opponitur inter se Lex operum, per quam relinquitur gloriatio homini, & Lex Fidei, per quam excluditur Gloriatio, Rom. 3.27.

Afterwards, one sense in which he saith Fides sola justificat, is this, sola est fides quaten us opponitur legis operum obedientiae; cujus veritas in nullo est hominum, opinio autem in nullo debet esse; & significat contrà obedientiam legis Fidei, sen praecepti, non de ope­rando & expectando vitam ut mercedem debitam citra imputatio­nem secundum gratiam; sed de credendo in Christum & accipien­do & Retinendo vitam gratiae, & expectando vitam gloriae, ut do­num mere gratuitum per imputationem secundum gratiam in Chri­sto, quem praepos [...]it Deus placamentum in sanguine ipsius.

And afterward, Ex dictis facile intelligitur nibil his repugnare Augustinum, (qui praecipue nobis opponitur) cum docet, excludi tantum ab Apostolo opera facta sine fide & spiritu Christi: (hoc est, sine viva fide promissionis, & abnegatione meriti proprii, sicut & Bellarm. supradocebat, excludi opera quibus id quod reddi­tur est merces non gratia) opera vero facta cum fide & Spiritu Christi ad illam movente non excludi. Num neque nos ea ex­cludimus, ne sint, aut debeant esse; sed distinguit etiam Lutherus opera legis & opera Christi in nobis per fidem operantis & viven­tis per omnia. Additque haec non posse magis omitti, quam ipsam fidem, nec esse minus necessaria quam fides; in li. de vot. mon. [...]. 2. Wit. f. 281.

But the chief thing I intend is in the next words. At quem­admodum caeterae actiones significatae per fidem quasi materiaiiter & Synecdochicè per se & directè non ordinantur ad amicitiam Dei & salutem proprie Efficiendam (as he mistakingly thinks faith is) sed vel ad fidem cui quequo modo prosunt, vel ad amicitiam Dei [Page 238] & salutem saltem non amittendam: ita neque Justificabunt & salvabunt proprie & directe. Proderunt tamen ad utrumque quatenus sunt, 1. vel dispositiones ad fidem, ut Pareus. 2. Effectus, &c. 3. Quatenus per illa excludimus & cavemus peccata & in­gratitudinem, quae omnino vera causa amittendae Justitiae & salu­tis futura essent: qualem causam removentem probibeus appellare, & ad causas per accidens referre solent. Omnis enim arbor quae non, &c. (Here he speaks only of the natural conducibility of works, and omitteth the moral conditionality; and so gives a causality per accidens to them, which is more then I do.) §. 54. & in hac fructuum comparatione, sub notione proprie causae finalis (it was not then considered that justification is a continued Act) pertinentis ad non amittendum sed retinendum gratuito data, ordo & respectus operum ad salutem simplicissimè, & commodissimè ad Scripturae filum explicari potest. 2 Pet. 1.10. 2 Joh. 8.

Accordingly before in this Type he makes the conditions to be 1. Acceptation: (that faith) 2. and retention: (this he sheweth is also by Gospel works) among divers allegations of his out of the Apol. Ʋrsin. Davenant, &c. I will add one out of Gualther in 1 Cor. hom. 28. Ʋt filius etsi haeres natus sit, abdicatur tamen, & ab bereditate excidit, si se inobedientem & contumaciorem praebeat: ita nos quoque regni caelorum beredita­tem, quae ex adoptionis gratia nobis debetur, minime quidem no­stris operibus meremur tandem vero nostra contumacia amittimus, & nostro magno merito abdicamur, si tantae gratiae iniqui simus aestimatores.

And he reconcileth Paul and James thus, s. 56. Deinque no­tandum est: alium esse loquendi & docendi modum contra Judais­mum & contemptum gratiae: alium contra securitatem & abusum gratiae cum disputatur praeciput contra Judaismum sive Justitiam operum, uti Paulus in ep. ad Rom. & alibi facit; tunc docemur sola fide Justistcare, hoc est; nihil in nobis placere Deo nisi per ab­negationem meriti & acceptationem contra doni Evangelici. At cum disputatur contra securitatem, & docetur quid respectu ami­citiae Divinae nobis agendum sit (prout Jacobus in Epis. sua fecit, & bodiè, vel maxime necesse est (we may truly say so) ut Dr. Tossanus in sua Cont. Psendevangelicos disputatione et alii prè ac prudenter j [...]msridem monuerunt) tunc negatur solam fidem [Page 239] sufficere, & praecipiuntur omnia quae quoquo modo prosunt: sive disponant ad filem, sive in iis consummetur fides, (sicut quaevis res fine & effictibus suis consummatur: arbor fructibus, potentia animae motibus corporis, non quod ad essentiam sed quod ad usum) sive praesens jam amicitia per illa firmetur ne dissiliat, vel etiam augeatur quod ad effectus aliquos, & hoc modo quasi implea­tur.

And he concludes thus. § 58. Ʋno verbo: solà fide justi­ficamur: hoc est: Nullo nostro merito, sive ipsius fidei, sive al­terius actionis praeter fidem. Probetur evidenter & catholice me­ritum quale à nostris negatur, tunc etiam illud praeter solam fidem admissuri sumus.

Lud. Crocius saith, (Syntag. l. 4. pag. 1123.) Fides etiam sola justificat quatenus notat obedientiam quandam expectantem pro­missionem ut donum gratuitum; quomodo formaliter quidem con­sistit in applicatione promissionis, quam tamen & pracedunt dis­positiones aliquae ad hunc ipsum fidei actum, & sequuntur fructus: unde plures virtutes vel actus tum antecedentes tum consequentes connotat; & opponitur illi obedientia quae non expectat promissionem tanquam donum omnino gratuitum, sed ut mercedem propositam sub conditione operis alicujus praeter acceptationem & gratitudi­nem debitam quae sua natura in omni donatione quamvis gratuitâ requiri solet. Et hujusmodi obedientia peculiariter Opus ab A­postolo, & Latinis propr è meritum dicitur. Et qui hâc conditi­one obediunt operantes vocantur, Rom. 4.4. and 11.6. Atque si it a hac propositio exponatur, ea quidem opera quae cum fide con­sistere nequeant, id est, que fiunt cum fiducia & opinione meriti, prorsus excluduntur, ita ut non solum negentur justifica [...]e, sed & adesse tam in justificate, quàm in justificando.

Joh. Crocius de justifi. disp. 13. pag. 67 [...] Credenti facta est promissio, fide accepturum remissionem peccatorum: mendico & aegro non est facta promissio, si ille manum extendat, datum iri elcemosynam; fi iste pharmacum manu capiat convalitu­rum, &c.

Mr. Gataker against Saltmarsh shadows, &c. pag. 26.40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 64. doth fully give as much to Faith, Repentance, Obedience as I do. Nor know I any reason why, (Johns) Baptism for the substance of it, should not be an example [Page 240] to us also in these times, being the Baptism of Repentance unto Re­mission of sins, that is, if I mistake not, Baptism obsigning remiss­ion of sins upon condition of Repentance. pag. 40. and pag. 41. He saith,[that pardon of sin and salvation are propounded and preached upon condition of Faith, Repentance, and Newness of life, which are the conditions of the Gospel: and yet may obey also be so termed as conditions of peace upon agreement unto, and perfor­mance whereof peace may be had, which otherwise cannot be ob­tained.] And he evinceth this by an Argument drawn from the definition or nature of a condition, thus, [That which is so pro­pounded, as that being performed, life and salvation may undoubted­ly be attained, and without which it cannot be had, may well be termed a condition: but such are the things before mentioned; therefore they may justly be termed conditions] vid. ult. and p. 48. Suppose a King be content at the suit either of the parties them­selves, or any friend, to grant his gracious pardon to a company of notorious Rebels that had risen up against him, &c. upon condition that they acknowledge their offence, and their sorrow for it, with purpose and promise of living loyally for time to come; whether would you deem this to be free grace or no? &c. Were he not a most ungracious wretch, that having his pardon on such terms grant­ed and signed him▪ should in regard of those conditions deny it to be of free Grace? and whether they do not blaspheme Gods free Grace, that deny it to be free Grace, if it be propounded on terms of Re­lief, Repentance and Amendment of life. Sir, Whatsoever you say to us, take heed how you tell Christ, that he doth not freely save you, if he will not save you unless you believe, &c.] In ma­ny more places, and more fully Mr. Gataker shews that Faith, Repentance, Obedience, are jointly conditions of Pardon, &c. Only he gives Faith a peculiar Receptivity, which I never de­nyed: And he yields to call it an Instrument, which so largely taken, I will not contend against. But still I say that this Re­ceptivity is but the aptitude of Faith in a special manner to this work of justifying: and the rest are apt to be conditions in thir place, or else God would not have made them conditions. Even in regard of its natural aptitude and use [Humiliation, (as Mr. Vines saith, Serm. on James 4.8. pag.12.) though it do not properly cleanse the hands, yet it plucks off the Gloves, and [Page 241] makes them bare for washing: and Godly sorrow with its seven Daughters, 2 Cor. 7.11. are clensing things.

Dr. Stoughton, Righteous mans plea for Happ. Serm. 6. pag. 32. Faith comprehends not only the Act of the Ʋnderstanding, but the Act of the Will too, so as the Will doth embrace and adhere, and cleave to those Truths which the understanding conceives: and not only embracing meerly by Assent to the Truth of it, but by closing with the Good of it: (What is that but loving?) tasting and relishing it. As faith in Christ is not only the Assenting of a mans mind that Christ is the Saviour, but a resultancy of the Will on Christ as a Saviour, embracing of him, and loving, esteeming and honouring him as a Saviour. The Scripture comprehends both these together, and there is a rule for it, which the Rabbins give for the opening of the Scripture, viz. Verba sensus etiam denotant af­fectus, as Jo. 17.3. This is eternal life to know thee, &c. It is not bare Knowledge the Scripture means, but Knowledge joined with affe­ctions.] You see Dr. Stoughton took Love to be full as near Kin to Faith as I do. Many the like and more full in him I pass. I cited in my Append. Alstedius, Junius, Paraeus, Scharpius, Aretius, Ball, &c. making Faith, & Obedience, & Gratitude Condi­tions of the new Covenant (& who saith not the same?) If all these be homiletical and popular, I much mistake them; which yet I cite not as if no words might be found in any of these Authors that seem to speak otherwise; but to shew that I am not wholly singular, (Though if I were, I cannot help it when I will.)

On the next Q. Whether a dying man may look on his Faith and Obedience, & Duty as the condition of the N. Cov. by him perform­ed? You would perswade me that I cannot think that I speak to the point in this: but you are mistaken in me: for I can mistake more then that comes to: and indeed I yet think I spoke as di­rectly to the question in your terms laid down, as was possible: for I changed not one of your terms, but mentioned the Affir­mative as your self expressed it: If you did mean otherwise then you spoke, I knew not that, nor can yet any better understand you. Only I can feel that all the difference between you and me must be decided by distinguishing of [Conditions:] but you never yet go about it so as I can understand you. You here ask me, [Whether I think you deny a godly life to be a comforta­ble [Page 242] Testimony, or necessary qualification of a man for pardon?] Answer. 1. But the Question is not of the significancy or Testimo­ny, nor yet of all kind of qualification; that is an ambiguous term, and was not in the Question, but of the conditionality. 2. You yield to the term Condition your self elsewhere, and therefore need not shun it. 3. Qualifications and Conditions are either physical and remote, of which I raise no question: so the Essence of the soul is a condition, and so hearing the Gospel is a natural Condition of him that will understand it; and understanding is a natural Qualification of him that will be­lieve it: For ignoti nulla fides. But it is another sort of condi­tions you know that we are in speech of, which I have defined, and Mr. Gataker before cited: viz. Moral legal conditions so called in sensu forensi vel legali: when the Law of Christ hangs our actual Justification and salvation on the doing or not doing such a thing. Yet do I very much distinguish between the Nature and Uses of the several Graces or Duties contained in the conditions; for though they are all conditions, yet they were not all for the same reason, or to the same use ordained to be conditions: but re­pentance in one sence as preparatory to faith: and Faith. 1. Be­cause it honoureth Christ, and debaseth our selves. 2. Because it being in the full an Acceptation of the thing offered, is the most convenient means to make us Possessors without any con­tempt of the Gift; with other reasons that might be found: So I might assign the reasons (as they appear to us) why God hath assigned Love to Christ, and sincere Obedience, and for­giving others, their several parts and places in this conditionali­ty; (but I have done it in my Aphorisms;) but then all these are drawn from the distinct nature and use of these duties Essen­tially in themselves considered, which is but their Aptitude for the place or conditionality which they are appointed to, and would of themselves have done nothing without such appoint­ment. So that it is one question to ask, Why doth Faith or Works of Obedience to Christ Justifie? (To which I answer; Because it was the pleasure of God to make them the conditions of the Covenant, and not because of their own nature directly:) and its another Question, Why did God choose Faith to the Prece­dency in this work? To which I answer. 1. Properly there is no cause of Gods actions without himself. 2. But speak­ing [Page 243] of him after the manner of men, as we must do, it is be­cause Faith is fitter then any other Grace for this Honor and Office, as being both a high honouring of God, by believing him (thats as for Assent) and in its own Essential nature, a hearty thankfull Acceptance of his Son, both to be our Lord (which is both for the Honor of God and our own good) and our Savi­our to deliver and glorifie us: and so is the most rational way that man can imagine to make us partakers of the procured hap­piness, without either our own danger (if a heavier condition had been laid upon us) or the dishonour of the Mediator: ei­ther by diminishing the estimation of the favour (if we had done any more to the procuring it our selves) or by con­tempt of the Gift, (if we had not been required and conditioned with so much as thankfully and lovingly to accept it.) And then if the Question be, Why God hath assigned sin­cere. Obedience and Perseverance therein to that place of secon­dary Conditionality for the continuance and consummation of Ju­stification, and for the attaining of salvation? I answer. Not because they have any such Receptive nature as faith, but because Faith being an Acceptance of Christ as Lord also, and delivering and resigning up the soul to him accordingly in Covenant, this Duty is therefore necessarily implyed, as the thing promised by us in that Covenant, and so in some sence greater then the co­venanting it self, or the end of it: and Christ never intended to turn man out of his service, and discharge him from Obe­dience; but to lay on him an easier and lighter yoak and burden, to learn of him, &c. and therefore well may he make this the con­dition of their finding Ease and Rest to their souls, Mat. 11.28, 29. For, for this end he dyed, that he might be Lord, Rom. 14.9. And therefore when we are freely pardoned, & bought from hell, it is equal that Christ should rule us, who bought us, and that his Covenant hang till the continuance of our Legal title to pardon justification, and glory, and so the full possession of them upon this perseverance in sincere loving grateful subjection to him that bought us, and by him to the Father. And thus Sir, I have digressed and used many words on this, (which to you I think needless) not only because I perceive that you acknow­ledge the conditionality of obedience in some sense, but tell me [Page 244] not in what sense, but lest you should not discern my sense, who desire to speak as plain as I can, that you may truly see where­in we differ: And that I also may see it when you have as clearly opened your meaning of your term, [Qualifications.]

And for your Question [Whether a godly man can think the Righteousness of Christ made his by working, or only believing.] I answer, causally and efficiently by neither, I think, (though you think otherwise); I dare not so advance faith, and so advance man. I remember good, old, learned, solid Gata­kers words to Saltmarsh (pag. 53,) It is your self rather then any of us that trip at this stone, when you would have faith so much pres­sed in the Doctrine of salvation, in regard of the gloriousness and eminency of the grace it self; which to assert, is not sound: (sic in Animadv in Lucium part. 1. §. 9. v. 7.) The righteousness of Christ is made ours by Gods free gift; but faith and true sub­jection are conditions of our participation; and what interest each hath in the conditionality, and on what grounds, I have shewed. I fear you give too much to faith and man.

You ask [Is it repent, and Christs righteousness by this is made yours?] Answer, It is oftimes, Repent and be forgiven; and re­pent and be baptized; and repent and believe, and be forgiven: but not efficiently by repenting nor believing: but on condition of both: though in ordaining them conditions God might intend one but as preparative or subservient to the other; and not one equal terms, or to equal use immediately.

And when you say, [that the dying Christian is directed to the Resting on Christ, and e [...]ing the brazen Serpent, not to be found in any thing but a righteousness by faith,] I never durst entertain any doubt of this; it is no question between us: only in what sense it is called a Righteousness by faith, I have shewed, even in opposition to Works in Pauls sense, which make the re­ward to be of debt and not of Grace, Rom. 4.4. where you say [It is an Act Dependance not of Obedience that interests us in Christs Righteousness] I answer▪ It is no one Act but many; It is an act of Assent first (and thence the whole hath the name of faith, it being so hard a thing to believe supernatural things, as it would have been to us to be­lieve Christ to have been God when we had seen him in the [Page 245] shape of man, had we lived in those times, when the Doctrine of faith came not with those advantages as now it doth.) And then it is an act of willing, consenting, electing, affecting (which three are but a velle Respectivum, and so in the act all one): in this in order of nature goes before any act which you can in any reasonable propriety call Dependance: and I doubt not are far more essential to justifying faith: yet I am heartily willing to take your acts of dependance (for those al­so are more then one) in the next place. But it confound­eth and abuseth us and the Church in this controversie, that many learned Divines will needs shun the strict Philosophical names of the several Acts of the soul, and overlook also the natural order of the souls motions, and they will use, and stil use the Metaphorical expressions, as apprehension (improper) dependance, relying, resting, recombency, adherence, embracing, with more the like. I know Scripture useth some of these: but then it is not in strict disputing, as Joh. Crocius tels Bellarm. We may use apprehend figuratively, because Scripture saith, apprehendite disciplinans, and lay hold on eternal life: But this would quickly end disputation, or else make it endless. Yet in the places cited, who knows not the same word hath different senses? in the former being used for to accept and stoop to: in the later for an earnest pressing on, and endeavouring after as a runner to catch the prize. And they will be loth to say, these are all and each of them the justifying acts.

And where you add that its not an act of obedience. I answer, 1. I would you had first answered the many Scriptures to the contrary produced in my Aphor. 2. Its true of the first inte­rest in Christ, (further then faith is called obedience) but not of the further continued and consummate interest. 3. Doth not Christ say, Take my yoak learn of me to be meek and lowly, that they may have ease and rest? Ease and Rest? From what? Why from what they came burdened with? and that was sure guile and curse, and what ever is opposed to pardon and justification, Mat. 11. And Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in, &c. Rev. 21.14. And he is the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him, Heb. 5.9. And Mat. 25. is who'ly [Page 242] [...] [Page 243] [...] [Page 244] [...] [Page 245] [...] [Page 246] and convincingly against you. And so is the second Psalm whol­ly, which makes subjection to Christ as King, the great part of the Gospel condition. [Kiss the son] conteineth more then Recombency, in my judgement: and yet no more then that true faith which is the condition of justification.

But no word in your paper brings me to such a stand as your next, where you say, And that is very harsh still which you ex­press, to expect the Righteousness of the Covenant of Grace up­on the conditions fulfilled by your self, through Gods workings.] Answ. Truly it is quite beyond my shallow capacity to reach what you here mean to be so harsh: what should I imagine? That there are conditions upon which the Tenor of the Gospel gives Christ Righteousness, you acknowldge: And that he that performeth them not, the Gospel giveth him none of it: I know you confess these; And that we must needs perform them our selves, through Gods workings (i. e. both enablement and excitation, and co-operation:) I know you doubt of none of these; for you have wrote against the Antinomians: and Mr. Gataker hath evinced the sottish ignorance or impudency of Saltmarsh, in denying Faith, Repentance and Obedience to be the conditions on which, performed by us, we must enjoy the things promised, Pardon, &c. or else not. Yea in this paper you yield to this conditionality. What then is the mat­ter? Is it harsh when yet you never once shew the fault of the Speech? It must be either the falshood, or the unfitness; but you have yet accused it of neither: and yet say it is harsh.

But the reason you intimate, because Bellarmine hath some such phrase: which I never remembred or observed in him: and little do I care whether he have or no: If the Papists be nearer to us then I take them to be, it is cause of joy and not sorrow: But sure I am that Protestant Writers generally use the word Condition; and Wendeline saith, The Papists abuse us in feigning us to say the Gospel is absolute; and saith, the Gospel in each sence is conditional. In one sence Faith is the Condition; in another, Faith and Obedience, &c.

But here you come again to the Labyrinth and transcendent Mysterie of passive Faith: nay you enlarge the Mysterie yet more: 1. You say again, [Faith doth pati. 2. And yet Love [Page 247] doth agere. 3. Else you would yield that Bellarmine argues con­sonantly enough, that Love would justifie as well as Faith. 4. Yet you acknowledge Faith an Active Grace: but only in this Act its meerrecipient.

Answer. I confess my reason utterly at a loss in this; but yet if it were in my Bible (to me Intelligible) I would believe it as I do the Doctrine of the Trinity, and cease enquiring. But I cannot so do by any Creature, to make him the Lord of my faith and Reason. 1. Whether Faith doth Pati, I have enquired already. 2. That Love doth Agere, I verily believe: and yet I have ofter heard Love called a Passion, then Faith: And as Keckeram saith, the Affections are more Passive then the im­manent Elicit Acts of the Intellect and Will. And though as it is in the Rational soul, Love, (saith Aquin.) is no Passion, but a Willing (which causeth me to judge it so near Kin to Faith) yet as it is in the sensitive, it is a Passion. So that I am quite beyond doubt that physically love is more properly called a Passion then Faith. 3. Therefore for ought I know, it is no wonder if Bellarmine bear the Bell, and Papists be unconvinced, if you have no better Arguments then this; especially if no body else had better. 4. But yet the Mysterie is far more un­searchable to me, that faith should be Active in all other, save only this Act. What is this thing called Faith, which you make such a Proteus, to be Active and Passive as to several Objects? Yea when it is acknowledged the same Faith, which receiveth Christ and Righteousness, and the several promises, and resteth on Christ for the Pardon of each sin, for hearing each Prayer, for Assurance, Peace, Comfort, Deliverance from temptations, and dangers and sin, and is thus usefull through all our lives, for the fetching of help from Christ in every streight, yet that this same Faith should be Active in all the Rest, and Passive only in One justifying Act. Oh, For the face of an Argument to prove this! Sure its natural Reception of one Object and ano­ther is in point of Passiveness alike: and its assigned Conditio­nality in Scripture, is of like nature as to each branch of the good on that condition promised. 5. And here also I perceive by your speech you make it consist in some single act. And yet you never tell what that is; and how then can it be in several fa­culties, [Page 248] as Davenant, Amesius, Joh. Crocius, Melancth. with most do affirm? 6. But yet the depth of the mysterie to me lies in understanding and reconciling your words, [Only in this Act its meerly Recipient.] Is this an Act too? and yet meerly Recipient? (which you make a meer Pas [...]ive reception.) A meerly Passive Act is such a contradiction in adjecto to my un­derstanding, that I cannot welcome the notion thither; yea if you had said less, that it is an Act in any Part or Degree Passive. I never knew that an Act could Pati; yet am I more conscious of mine own insufficiency then to contend with one of your knowledge in matter of Philosophy; but I must needs say that your notions are yet so far beyond my reach, that possibly I might take the words as true upon the credit of one whom I so highly value, yet am I not able to apprehend the sence.

The Joy in Heaven which you mention for a wandring sheep, I think is meant of the first, or some eminent recovery to Christ, and not of every Philosophical notion: sure, Sir, if salvation hang on this Doctrine, as thus by you explained, I am out of hope that either I or ever a one in all this countrey should ever come to heaven; except by believing as that part of the Church believes which is of your opinion: When I am yet apt to think, that siding with any party in such opinions will not conduce to any mans salvation: For I am of Bergius his mind, that as it is not the Jew, the Pagan, or the Maho­metan, or any Infidel, (privative,) that shall be saved, but the Christian: so it is not the Papist, the Lutheran, the Calvinist, the Arminian, that shall be saved (qua talis) but the Catholick. However I am in strong hopes that a man may be saved, though he cannot understand how an Act can be a passive instrument; nor do I think that my subscribing to that notion, would make any great rejoycing in Heaven.

I am sorry you had not leisure to answer the Questions, which were very pertinent to the business of my satisfaction, though not to your business.

That my explication of that plain, weighty, necessary point, how imperfect graces or duties can yet be the conditions of the New Covenant, should seem a Paradox to you, I say, to you, makes me yet more possest with admiration; When you know that [Page 249] such conditions there are (suppose it were but faith alone:) and you know your self that this faith is imperfect. But I perceive we know but in part, and therefore must differ in part. He shall see whom God will enlighten. I had far ra­ther you had fallen upon that point then on the term of Justi­fication by works. If you would but grant me, that Justify­ing faith, as such, is an Accepting of Christ for King, and Prophet as well as for a Justifier, and consequently that it is a re­signing our selves to be ruled by him, as well as to be saved by him, I shall then be content for peace sake to lay by the phrase of Justification by work [...] ▪ though it be Gods own phrase, if the Church were offended with it, and required this at my hands: (So they will be satisfied with my silencing it, with­out a renouncing it.) I have written thus largely, that I might not be obscure, and to let you see, that though I have scarce time to eate or sleeep, yet I have time and paper for this work, and that I make not light of your dissent. The Love and Respect which you mention to me I do as little doubt of, as I do whether I have a heart in my breast: and your desires of my reducing I know do proceed from your zeal and sincere affections. That which I take worst is, that you should so desire me not to take it ill to be called an erring shepherd: As if I did not know my Proneness to err, and were not conscious of the weakness of my understanding: or as if the expressions of so sincere love did need excuse; or as if I were so tender and brittle as not to endure so gentle a touch: as if my confidence of your love were Plumea, non Plumbea, and would be blown away with such a friendly breath! Certainly Sir, your sharper smiting would be precious Balm, so it light not on the Truth, but me! I am not so unctuous, nitrous, or sulfureous, as to be kindled with such a gratefull warmth. My Intellect were too much active, and my affections too pas­sive, if by the reception of the beams of such favourable ex­pressions, my soul as by a Burning-Glass should be set on fire. I am oft ashamed and amazed to think of the horrid intolera­ble Pride of many learned Pious Divines, who though they have no worse Titles then Viri docti, reverendi, celeberrimi: yet think themselves abused and unsufferably vilified, if any word do but acrius pungere, or any Argument do faucibus premere (witness Rivet and Spanhemius late angry censure of Amyraldus) Can [Page 250] we be fit Preachers and Patterns of meekness and humility to our people, who are so notoriously proud, that we can scarce be spoke to? My knowledge of your eminent humility and gentelness hath made me also the freer in my speeches here to you: which therefore do need more excuse then yours: And I accordingly intreat you, if any thing have passed that is unman­nerly, according to the natural eagerness and vehemency of my temper, that you will be pleased to excuse what may be excused, and the rest to remit and cover with love, assuring your self it proceeds not from any diminution of his high esteem of you, and love to you, who acknowledgeth himself unfeigned­ly so very much below you, as to be unworthy to be called

Your fellow-servant RICHARD BAXTER.
[Page 251]Postscript.

DEar Sir, while I was waiting for a messenger to send this by, Master Brooksby acquaints me, that you wisht him to tell me, that I must expect no more in writing from you. My request is, that whereas you intimated in your first, a purpose of writing somewhat against me on this subject here­after, you would be pleased to do it in my life time, that I may have the benefit of it, if you do it satisfa­ctorily; and if not, may have opportunity to acquaint you with the reasons of my dissent. Scribunt Asinium Pollionem dixisse aliquando se parasse orationes contra Plancum, quas non nisi post mortem esset editurus; & Plancum respondisse, cum mortuis non nisi lar­vas luctari: ut Lud. Vives ex Plinio, & Dr. Hum­fred. ex illo Jesuit. 2. p. 640.

Also I request that if possible you would proceed on such terms as your Divinity may not wholly depend upon meer niceties of Philosophy: For I cannot think such points to be neer the foundation: Or at least that you will clearly and fully confirm your Philosophical grounds: For as I find that your Doctrine of a Passive Instrumentality of the Act of faith (and that in a Mo­ral [Page 252] reception of righteousness which is but a relation, yet calling it Physical) is the very bottom of the great distance between us in the point of justification: So I am of opinion that I may more freely dissent from a brother in such tricis philosophicis then in an Article of faith: Especially having the greatest Philosophers on my side; and also seeing how little accord there is among themselves, that they are almost so many men, so many minds: and when I find them professing as Combacchius in praef [...]ad Phys. that they write against their own sense to please others, (& quod maximam opinionum in lib. contentarum partem non jam probaret) & Aristote­lem non esse normam veritates, and wishing ut tandem ali­quando exurgat aliquis qui perfectiora nobis principia mon­stret: and to conclude as he, salsitatem opinionum & sen­tentiarum & scientiarum imperfectionem [...]jam pridem vi­deo, sed in veritate docenda deficio. Et Nulli aut paucis certe minus me satisfacturum ac mihi ipsi sat scio. And how many new Methods and Doctrines of Philosophy this one age hath produced? And I am so far sceptical my self herein, as to think with Scali­ger (ibid. cit.) Nos instar vulpis à Ciconia delusae vitreum vas lambere, pultem haud attingere. But I believe not that in any Master point in Divinity, God hath left his Church at such an utter loss, nor hanged the faith and salvation of every honest ordinary Christian, upon meer uncertain Philosophical speculations. I do not think that Paul knew what a Passive instrument was; much less [an act that was physically passive in its instrumentality in a moral causation.] You must give me leave to remain confident that Paul built not his Do­ctrine of justification on such a philosophical founda­tion, [Page 253] till you have brought one Scripture to prove that faith is an instrument, and such an instrument; which can neither be done. Especially when the same Paul professeth that he came not to declare the Testimony of God, [...]: and that he determined not to know any thing among them save Iesus Christ and him crucified; and that his speech and preaching was not [...]) that so their faith might not stand [...]: & that he spoke the my­steries of the Gospel [...], 1 Cor. 2. I am past doubt therefore that to thrust such Philosophical dictates into our Creed or Confession, and make them the very touchstone of Orthodoxness in others, is a dangerous presumptuous adding to the Doctrine of the Gospel, and a making of a new Do­ctrine of justification and salvation, to the great wrong of the Prophet and Lawgiver of the Church.

I was even now reading learned Zanchius proof that believers before Christ did by their faith receive Christs flesh, or humane nature (as promised and future) as well as the Divine, and his heavy censure of the con­trary Doctrine, as vile and unsufferable; which occasio­neth me to add this Quere, Whether that believing was a physical reception, when the object had no real being or did not exist? Or whether meer morral reception (by Accepting, Choosing, Consenting) as a people receiving the Kings Heires for their future Governours before they are born; or as we receive a man for our King, who dwels far out of our sight; Or as Princes wives do use to take them both for their Husbands and Soveraign Lords, even [Page 254] in their own Native Countrey, before they come to sight of the man; the match being both driven on and made, and the marriage or contract performed and imperfectly solemnized at that distance by an Em­bassador or Delegate? just so do we receive Christ, (whose humane nature is far off, and his Divine out of our sight) to be our Saviour, Soveraign (by redempti­on) and Husband; even here in our native Country; the match being moved to us by his Embassadors, and imperfectly solemnized upon our cordial consent, and giving up our selves to him by our Covenant: (but it shall be perfectly solemnized at the great Mar­riage of the Lamb.) This is my faith of the nature of true justifying faith; and the manner of its receiving Christ.

[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.


A DISPVTATION, Proving the Necessity of a two-fold Righteousness to Justification and Salvation.

And defending this and many other Truths about Iustifying Faith, its Object and Of­fice, against the confident, but dark Assaults of Mr. Iohn Warner.

By Richard Baxter.

Acts 5.31.

Him hath Gad axalted with his right hand, a Prince and a Saviour, to give Repentance unto Israel, and for­giveness of sins.

Rom. 4.22, 23▪ 24, 25.

And 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; who was delivered for our offen­ces, and was raised again for our Justification.

LONDON, Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, Book seller in Ke­derminster, and are to be sold by him there, and by Natha­niel Ekins, at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard, 1658.

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.

Mr. W.

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.)

Mr. W. 2.

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.

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

If nothing ought to be asserted by us which ever-throws Apostolical writings, then the necessity of a two-fold righteousness ought not to be asserted; But — Ergo. — The Sequel is proved by this Dilemma. Apostolical writings are utterly against a two-fold Righteousness in this work; therefore to assert both these kinds is to overthrow their writings. For to what pur­pose did Paul dispute against Justification by works of the Law, if the righteousness of Faith were not sufficient? And certainly if both were required as absolutely necessary, it would argue ex­tream ignorance in Paul if he should not have known it, and as great unfaithfulness if, &c.—


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.

Mr. W. 4.

If both Legal and Evangelical righteousness were thus required to the purpose of justifying, then it must be because the Evangelical is of it self insufficient. But—For if Christs righ­teousness be insufficient to Salvation, he were not a sufficient Savi­our, and if the Righteousness of Faith in him were of it self insuffi­ent.


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.

Mr. W.

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.

Mr. W. 5.

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?

[Page 279]

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.

Mr. W. 6.

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.

Mr. W. 7.

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.

Mr. W. 8.

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.

Mr. W. 9.

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.

Mr. W. 10.

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.

Mr. W. 2.
[Page 281]

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Mr. W. 2.

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.

Mr. W. 3.

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?

Mr. W. 4.

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.

Mr. W. 5.

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.

Mr. W. 6.
[Page 284]

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.

Mr. W.
[Page 293]

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Mr. W.
[Page 294]

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.

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

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

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Answ. 1.

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.

Mr. W.

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.

Answ. 1.
[Page 298]

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?

Mr. W.

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.

Mr. W.

Argument 10. If Christ only as crucified be the Me­ritorious Cause of our Redemption and Justification, then Christ crucified is the only object of faith as Justifying. But—Ergo.

Answ. 1.
[Page 299]

The consequence of the Major is vain and an proved. More then the Meritorious Cause of our Redempti­on is the object of justifying faith. 2. The Minor is no small errour in the Judgement of most Protestants, who maintain that Christs active Obedience, and suffering life, are also the Meritorious cause of our Justification, and not only his Cru­cifixion.

Mr. W.

Argument 11. If Christ as a servant did satisfie Gods Justice, then he is so to be believed on to Justification. But as a servant he did satisfie Gods Justice.—Ergo.

Answ. 1.

I grant the conclusion. Christ as a servant is to be believed in. 2. But if [only] was again forgotten, I further answer. 1. I deny the consequence of the Major, because Christ is to be believed on for Justification in other respects, even in all essential to his Office, and not only as satisfying. I instanced before in Obeying, Rising, Judging, from express Scripture. 2. If the conclusion were granted, 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.

Mr. W.

Argument 12. If none can call Christ [Lord] before he be justified by faith, then faith as justifying is not an Ac­cepting him as Lord. The Minor is true, because none can call him Lord, but by the Spirit: and the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith, after we believe.


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.

Mr. W.

Argument 13. If the promise of Salvation be the proper object of justifying faith, then not the commands of Christ as Lord and Law-giver. But—Ergo

Answ. 1.
[Page 301]

The conclusion is nothing to our Question, which is not of Commands, but of Christ as Lord. It may be you know no difference between the Relation and subsequent Du­ties, between the Authority and the Command, between sub­jection and obedience. 2. The Minor is false, If by proper, you mean Only (and if not, the consequence is vain and null.) For the Person of Christ, and his Office, and the fruits of his Office, even Pardon, yea and Glory, are the true Ob­jects of justifying Faith.

Mr. W.

Argument 14. If we are not justified both by Righ­teousness Inherent and Imputed, then not by obeying Christ as Lord and Law-giver. But—Ergo.


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.

Mr. W.

Argument 15. If our accepting of Christ as Lord and Law-giver be not properly or formally faith, nor properly to be called obedience, then we are not formally justified by faith in him as Lord, nor by our obedience to him as 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.

Some other of Mr. Warners passages of most importance considered.

Pag. 385. MR. W. saith [It's worth the observing how to evade the Distinction of the Acts of faith, he saith that faith is one act in a moral sense, as Taking a man to be my Prince, Teacher, Physitian, &c. and not in a physical sence; for so it is many acts, &c.] And he confuteth me thus: [Here, Reader, see the wit or forgetfulness of the man, who to maintain his own ground, doth often consider faith as Physically seated in the understanding and will; but when we assault him, will not allow us, any Physical, but a moral Acception of it.]

Answer A most gross untruth! (and thats an Arguing that Faith needeth not) Your forgery is not only without ground, and contrary to my plain and frequent words, but con­trary to the express words that you draw your Observation from. I say faith Physically taken, is many acts; but moral­ly taken it is one work: Hence you call out to the Reader to observe, that I will not allow you any Physical but a Moral Acception of it.] Is it fit to Dispute with such dealing as this? Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Physical Act (except them of late that take it to be but a Passion and a Nominal action?) Surely all know that it is an Act in order of Nature, before it is a moral act. Actus moralis, is first actus Physicus. Though Moraliter actus, i. e. actus Reputativus, may be but a non-acting Physically: He that wilfully famisheth his own child, doth kill him morally or reputatively, and so is moraliter agens, that is, Reputative. But he that cherisheth him is an Agent natural and moral, that is, [Page 306] Ethical or Vertuous. I wonder what made you think me of such an opinion that I have so much wrote against?

He next saith, that [Though by one moral act we receive di­vers benefits, yet we receive them to divers purposes.] Answer, True! But many such passages of yours are to no purpose; and such is this: impertinent to the business.

Page 391. He comes to my Distinction, where I say, that ex parte Christi he satisfieth Justice as a Ransom, and Teach­eth us as our Master, and Ruleth us as our King, yet ex parte nostri, it is but one and the same entire faith that is the conditi­on of our Title to his several benefits: From hence he ingeni­ously gathereth that I say, [That faith hath but one respect to those benefits, and is not diversified by several acts; and deny the necessity of these distinct acts in reference to the several benefits of Christ.] Whereas I only maintained, that though the acts be Physically distinct, yet they are not distinct conditions of our Interest in the benefits, but the same entire faith is the one condition of them all. Hereupon he learnedly addresseth him­self to prove that faith hath several acts. And he that think­eth it worth his time to transcribe and confute his Arguments, let him do it, for I do not.

Page 401. He thinks [We need not dispute whether the Re­ception of Christ by faith, be moral or Physical: however it is not an improper, but proper reception.] Answ. 1. It seems then we need not dispute whether Christs body be every where, and whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat? 2. And whereas Recipere, in its first and proper signification was wont to be pati, now it is agere: And whereas consent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically, now it is becoma a pro­per Reception.

Page 303.304. Reasoning against me, he saith, [The near­est formal Reason of a Believers Interest, is not Gods making it a condition, which is the remote reason thereof, but a Believers fulfilling the condition, &c.] Answ. 1. Here he changeth the question, from [What is the nearest reason of saiths Interest] to [What is the nearest reason of the Believers Interest.] To the first I say, [Its being made the condition of the Promise.] To the [Page 307] second I say, [The Promise or grant it self.] 2. He findeth a learned Confutation for me, viz. That it is not Gods making, but the fulfilling the condition that is the formal Reason. Answ. Per­formance, that is, Believing maketh faith to be faith, and exist: but the Promise makes that the condition. I spoke de esse, and he de existere: And yet I usually say, that [The nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification, i [...], as it is the condition of the Pro­mises fulfilled] that I might joyn both. 3. Note that in this his Assertion he granteth me the sum of all that I desire. For if this be true, then it is not the Nature or the Instrumenta­lity of faith that is the nearest reason, as is usually said.

Page 200. He doth as solemnly call his Adversarie ad par­tes, as if he were in good sadness to tell him what is the causa­lity of works is Justification: And falling to his enumeration, he tells us that [The particle A or Ab notes the peculiar causali­ty of the efficient: the particle Ex notes the material cause: the particle P [...]r or By, the formal cause: the particle Propter, the final cause.] Answ. I must erave pardon of the Reader while I suppose all this to be currant, that I may answer ad homin [...]m. And then 1. It seems faith is not the efficient cause, and there­fore not the Instrumental cause: For A or ab is not affixed to it, in this business. 2. It seems then that faith is the formal cause of Justification, because we are said to be Justified [...] Rom. 3.22, 25, 30, & passim [By Faith] So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Instrumental effici­ent cause. 3. Hence it seems also that faith, even the same faith is [the material cause] too: For most certainly we are said to be justified ex fide: [...]: Rom. 3.26, 30. Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16. & 3.8, 7, 5, 9, 22, 24. & 5.5. Jam. 2.24 Whether ex fide [...] do indeed express an Instrumental efficient, I leave to consideration: But sure I am it fitly expresseth the In­terest of a condition. And if Mr. W. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Righteousness, it must be but of our subordinate particular Evangelical righteousness, which consisteth in fulfilling the condition of Justification.

Chap. 5. pag. 29.30, 31. He spends a Chapter to open to us the meaning of [fides qua Justificat.] And prosesseth that it is the Carad controversia; yea it was the remembrance of [Page 308] this distinction and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Discourse; and that it is the basis of his following exercitation. And what think you is the happy Light that deserveth all this ostentation? Why 1. On the Negative we are satisfied that he means not [What fides qua fides can do:] And then we are secure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adversaries cause. 2. The Light then is all but this [That qua here is not taken Reduplicative, but specifica­tive, when by the particle qua or quatenus, there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposi­tion: as when we say, man as a reasonable creature feeleth: In this latter sence (saith he) I believe the particle qua or quate­nus is taken, when we do not say, faith as faith, but faith as Justi­fying, viz. as a Grace designed to this act or operation of Justify­ing, looks on Christ as Saviour.]

Answ. This Chapter was worth the observing. For if this be the Basis of all the Exercitation, and the Light that Gene­rated all the rest, the dispatch of this may serve for all. It seems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Distinctions in the end of Castaneus, and meeing with Reduplicative and specificative, admired the distinction as some rare Discovery: and this preg­nant fruitful Distinction begot a Volume, before it was half understood it self. Had he but read the large Schemes for ex­plaining Qua or Quatenus in others, its like it would have either begot a larger Volume, or by informing or confounding him, have prevented this. First, he disowneth the Reduplica­tive sence; and then owneth the specificative. But 1. He seeth not, it seems, the insufficiency of this distinction; 2. Nor the meaning of it; 3. Nor could well apply it to the subject in hand. Of the first I shall speak anon. The second appear­eth by his Description, his Instance, and his Application. He describeth it to be [When there is some new or singular kind of Denomination added to the subject of the Proposition.] 1. And why may it not be added also to the Predicate, as well as it may Reduplicatively? as Motus est actus mobilis quatenus est mobile.

2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not serve for your specificative Quatenus. The instance you give is, [as when we say man as a Reasonable creature faileth]. [Page 309] This was but an unhappy Translation of [Homo quatenus ani­mal est sensibilis] and its true in the Latine▪ how false soever in the English. For the Application, 1. You say [you [Be­lieve] its thus taken. As if you did but Believe, and not know your own meaning in the Basis of your Exercitation. 2. Your Specificative Quatenus is Causal, or signifieth the Reason of the thing, either of the Predication or the thing predicate: But so cannot your Basis hold good. For faith doth not look on Christ as a Saviour (as you please Metaphorically to speak) because it Justifieth: for its Nature is before the effect, and therefore cannot the effect be given as the cause of it; (unless it were the final cause, of which anon.)

Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common use signifieth the proper reason of the thing or predication; and is appliable only to that which is spoken [...]. As to the terms, sometimes there is a Reduplication of the same term, sometimes that reduplication is of the matter, but in other terms, as in a definition, or synominal words, or it is implyed: some­times it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Re­duplicate; sometimes it is without a Reduplication: And then sometimes it giveth a Reason from an Essential Part: some­time from the Generical Nature; sometime from the Specifick Nature: sometime from an Accident: and those are divers: sometime from a Quality: sometime from Quantity: some­time from Relation; and that is multifarious: If we should run into all the sences of this Term which Mr. W. doth lap up in the word [Specificative] the words might exceed the pro­fit. And its to be noted that usually the term is respective as to some other thing excluded which is contradistinct: & so we give sometimes a more Remote and General, & sometime a neer­er and more special Reason by Qua or quatenus. As if you mix a purging Electuary in your Drink, I say that Purgeth quate­nus medicated, which is to exclude the Drink from being Pur­gative. If I speak of the Electuary, I may say that it purgeth quatenus Diagridiate, to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative. But if I speak of the Diagridium, I may say that it Purgeth as having an Elective faculty, &c. to exclude other Reasons of its operation.

[Page 310]Now for the opening of the matter in hand, let us try cer­tain Propositions that may be supposed to be laid down con­cerning Faith.

[1. Faith as faith justifieth] This is True, taken laxely, for the excluding of [faith as a meer Physical act, or meritori­ous &c.] but it is false strictly taken, as signifying the formal or nearest reason.

So [2. Fades in Christum qua talis Justificat] that is, haec sides in specie] is true, taken Laxely and materially to exclude all other Faith: q. d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul, but faith in Christ as such that is the matter deputed, to be the condition of Justification. But its false taken strictly, deratione formali.

3. So [This faith as it is an Apprehension or Acceptance of Christ, justifieth.] Its true, Materialiter & Remotius, Laxly: but false formaliter & stricte de ratione proxima. For this is the same in other terms with the second.

So [4. Faith justifieth as an Instrumental effitient cause of our Justification.] Its false in every tolerable sence.

So [5. Faith justifieth as an Instrument of receiving Christ.] Its true, 1. taking the word [Instrument] Metaphorically, and meaning only the Nature of this faith, which is [to Believe in and Accept Christ.] 2. and taking Quatenus remotely, laxely and materially only, q.d. Faith is the Elected matter of the condi­tion (or is chosen to be the condition of Justification) for this Aptitude, as, or because it is a Reception or Acceptance of Christ. But its false, 1. Taking an [Instrument] strictly and Logical­ly. 2. and speaking de ratione formali.

So [6. Faith as a believing in Christs sacrifice, justifieth.] Its true, Laxly, Materialiter & partialiter: that is, This act of faith is part of the matter of the condition. But its false, forma­liter de ratione proxima.

So [7. Faith justifieth only as it is a Believing in Christs sa­crifice or Righteousness.] Its false both de materia & de ratione formali.

So [8. Faith as Justifying is only a Believing in, or Accept­ing Christ as our Ransom] Here is darkness, and either non­sence or false doctrine. 1. [As Justifying] signifieth either [as a justifying efficient cause] 2. Or [as the merit or matter of [Page 311] our Righteousness.] 3. Or [as the means i. e. condition of our Righteousness, of which Justification is a consequent and final cause.] In the first sense it is every way false. In the second sense it is every way false, speaking of our Universal Righte­ousness. In the third sense, if spoken laxely de materia, its false, because of the exclusive [Only.] And if spoken de ratione for­malivel proxima, 1. Its preposterous to put the Consequent before the Antecedent, if you speak de ordine exequendi: 2. And it is false: For [qua Justificans] speaketh of Justification as the consequent, or as an act, and not of the Nature of Faith it self. And therefore [qua Justificans] faith is nothing (much less that act alone.) For it is not de esse fidei that the term speaks, but of the consequent; So that the [Fides qua justifi­cans est] what ever act you mention, is absurd and unsound: For as non justificat quatenus est, it a non est quatenus Justificat, its Essence being pre-supposed. But if you speak de ordine In­tentionis, viz. [Faith as elected a means or condition of Justifi­cation is only a Believing in Christs sacrifice.] then Laxely & Materially it would be True, if it were not for the [only.] But because of that it is false, both de materia & de ratione for­mali. The nature of it is before its Office.

So [9. Faith as designed to this act or operation of Justifying, looks on Christ as a Saviour.] This is Mr. Ws. Assertion. But 1. justifying is not an act or operation of faith; but of God on the Believer. 2. But if you mean but constituting it the con­dition of Justification, then 1. the wrong end is set first: For it doth not look at Christ, as its made the condition; but its made the condition, because being an Accepting of Christ, its Apt for that Office. So that Materially and Laxely, its thus true; (a Saviour, comprehendeth Christs Kingly and Prophe­tical Offices, and everlasting Priesthood in Heaven) But this is nothing to the formal Reason of its Interest in Justifica­tion.

But lest you think that [qua Justificans] hath no proper place, I further instance [9. Faith as justifying is distinst from faith as entitling to Heaven, or other promised mercies.] This is true (supposing Justification and the said Title to Glory to differ.) But this is but a denomination of the same faith from [Page 312] its divers consequents. As my lighting a candle being one acti­on is Actioilluminans (ut causa moralis,) & calefaciens; & quailluminans non est calefaciens. So a womans marrying a Prince, is an Honouring, enriching act: and qua honouring, it is not enriching. But its the same entire undivided act or An­tecedent Means, or Condition, that is thus variously denomi­nated from several Benefits. And thus Relations may give divers denominations to the same person; the same man may, be considered as a Father, as a Physitian, as a Subject, &c.

So 10. FAITH WHICH IS AN EFFECTUAL AC­CEPTANCE OF and AFFIANCE IN CHRIST AS CHRIST, was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the Condition of Justification and Life, because his Wisdom saw it fit for that Office, and that fitness lyeth in its respect to the Object and Gods ends (supposing we may assign Reasons or causes of Gods Will.) By this faith (so constituted the Condition) we are actually JUSTIFIED AS TIS THE PERFORMED CONDITION OF GODS PROMISE.] This is the plain Truth in few and easie words.

By what is said you may see that when they say [faith as Ju­stifying] is this or that, it is both preposterous, and the [qua] as distinct from the [quae] de ratione formali, causally spoken, is plainly false: But in other cases, Laxely and Materially, the [qua] signifieth the same as the [quae] with the exclusion of other matter. And when they have raised never so great a dust, the Question is but this: Whether we are justified by Believing in Christ as Christ, or only in Christ as a Ransom] (and yet as a Ransom and as dying he purchaseth Sanctification as well as Justification.) Or. [Whether faith in Christ as Christ, or only faith in Christ as Purchasing Justification, be the condition of our Justification.]

Reader, Having shewed the darkness of that Light that caused Mr. Ws. Exercitation, and overthrown its Basis, I shall put thee to no further trouble.

To my Reverend Brother Mr. John Warner, Preacher of the Gospel at Christs Church in Hantshire.


THough (through the privacy of my habitation) I never so much as heard of your name, before your Book of the Object and Office of faith was in the Press; yet upon tht perusal of it I confidently conclude, that a zeal for God, and that which you verily think to be his Truth, hath moved you to this undertaking; and doubtless you think that you have done God service by it. I love your zeal: and your indignation against Error; and your tendernese of so great a point as that of Justification. And could I find your Light to be answerable to your heat, I hope I should also love and honour it: Had you not taken me (with the two Re­verened Brethren whom you oppose) to be the enemies of the per­son and Grace of the Lord Jesus, or the followers of them (as you say, Epist. pag. 6.) I am perswaded you would not have either called us so, or thought your self called to this assault. And if I love Christ, I must love that man that hateth me▪ though mista­kingly, for the sake of Christ. That principle within you that hath made Christ and Truth so dear to you, that you rise up for that which seemeth to you to be Truth, I hope will grow till you attain perfection in that world of Light that will end our differences, I shall not go about to dèprecate your indignation for my plain ex­pressions in this Defence, when the nature of your matter did re­quire them: For I am not so unresonable as to expect that fair words should reconcile a good man to those that he takes to be ene­mies to Christ, or to their followers. But as I can truly say if I know what is in my heart, that the Reading of your Book hath [Page 314] bred no enmity to you in my brest, but only kindled a love to your zeal, with a compassion of your darkness, and a dislike of your so much confidence in the dark; so it shall be my care as it is my du­ty, to love you as a mistaken servant of Christ, though you should take me for his greatest enemy. And therefore being conscious of no worse affections to you, I desire that Justice of you, as to im­pute the ungratefull passages that you meet with, to my apprehen­sion of the badness of your cause and Arguments, and a compassion to the poor Church that must be troubled and tempted, and endan­gered by such gross mistakes, and not to any contempt of your per­son, with which I meddle not, but as you are the Author of those Arguments.

In your Preface I find a Law imposed by you on your Answe­rer, which I have not fully observed: 1. Because I had written my Reply to your Arguments a considerable time before I saw your Preface; For it fell out that I first saw your Book without the Epistle and Preface. 2. Because I thought it fittest to fol­low the Method that my Subject and the Readers [...]dification did require. 3. Yet did I once purpose to have answered all that was of moment in your Book against the Truth: but upon trial I found your Reasons so inconsiderable, that weariness interrupted me and put an end to my Reply, and withal I grew confident that my la­bour would be to little purpose. For I dare venture any Judici­ous Divine upon your Book without the help of a Reply: And for the rest, it is not replying that will serve turn: but either preju­dice will hold them to the side that they have taken, or else they will think him in the right that hath the last word: when they have read mine, they will think that I am in the right; and when they have again read yours, they will think that you carry the cause: and when they read my Reply again they will say, you were mistaken; but usually they will go with the party that is in great­est credit, or hath most interest in them, or advantage on them. But yet I think you will find that none of your strength against me is neglected: For I can truly say, that when I think not meet to Answer all that a man hath said, I never pass by that which I take to be his strength, but purposely call out that, and leave that which I think is so grosly weak as to need no answer: So much of your ten Demands or Laws as I apprehended necessary, I have [Page 315] here answered; supposing what I had said of the same points in my first Disputation, which I saw no Reason too often to Re­peat.

I am none of those that blame you for too much of the Meta­physicks, but rather mervail that you feared not lest your Meta­physical Reader will wrong you by mis-applying your cited Scheg­kius contrary to your better opinion of your self, and take both your Schegkius and your Scaliger for Prophets that could speak as if they had read your Book, and been acquainted with your ar­guings. But it seems you are not the first of that way.

By your Arguments in your Preface, I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cause, to prove that there are divers acts of Faith, whereas I am so far from denying it, that I am ready to demonstrate, that even the faith by which we are Justified, is liker to have twenty acts then one only, but many certainly it hath. Your first Argument is, from the different ob­jects because the Objects specifie the Acts. A sufficient Argument which no man can confute. But 1. This is no proof, that one act only is it that we are justified by. 2. Where you add that Justi­fying Faith hath not respect to Christ as Lord formaliter, you beg the Question, and assert no light mistake. But where you add [in its act of Justifying] you do but obtrude upon us your funda­mental Error (which leadeth you to the rest) by naked affirma­tions. Faith hath properly no justifying act: Justificare est ef­ficere, Faith doth not effect our Justification: we are justified by faith indeed, but not as by an efficient cause unless you will take Justification for Sanctification; For real qualitative Mutati­ons it doth effect; but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect, but Accept when offered. If you [...]n [...] see so plain a Truth in its Evidence, yet observe by the words of the Re­verend Brother that is my Opponent in the second Disputation, and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals course that its a passive instrumen­tality that the Defenders of your cause at last are driven to; and therefore talk not of its act of Justifying unless you will mean Gods act of Justifying which faith is the Condition of. And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a slighting and neglecting Christ as a Saviour and effectively (you must mean only effective & non formaliter) a denying subjection to him [Page 316] as Lord. You err so great but so rare an error, that I suppose it needless to confute it. All Christians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed, that Believing in Christ as Prophet and King is a real part of faith, and that unbelief or rejecting him as Pro­phet and King is a real part of unbelief.

Your second Argument is from the different subjects; where you give us two such palpable Fictions, that its a wonder you can make your self believe them, much more that you should lay so great a stress on such absurdities. The first is that the Act of Faith is in several faculties: and you elswhere give us to under­stand that it is one Physical Act that you mean. And do you think in good sadness that one single Physical act can be the act of both the faculties? The second is that the fear, love and obe­dience to Christ as King is but in the Will. But 1. That Rea­ders do you expect, that will take an Assertion of Fear-Love, and Obedience, in stead of an assertion concerning Faith? Were you not comparing faith in Christ as King, with faith in Christ as Priest only? And why speak you not of faith in one part of your comparison, as well as in the other? Your conclusion now is nothing to the Question? 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Christ as King is not in both faculties, as well as Faith in Christ as Priest or sacrifice, did you think that any man of ordinary understand­ing would ever believe you without any proof? or that ever such a thing can be proved?

Your third Argument is, [Because they are in a different time exerted; the one, that is, Faith as Justifying being precedane­ous to the other, (and to other Graces)] Answ. Wonderfull! Is that man justified that believeth not in Christ as the King and Prophet of the Church? Do you believe this your self? why then an Infidel is justified by Faith. The 'Belief in Christ as a Sacri­fice or Priest only, is not the Christian faith; it is not faith in Christ properly, because it is not faith in Christ as Christ. For Christ as Priest only is not Christ. A Heart only is not Corpus humanum: A Body only is not a Man; where there are three essential parts, one of them is not the Thing, without the rest. The name [Jesus Christ] signifieth the office as well as the person. It is essential to that Office, that he be Prophet and King. And here­by you shew that you do not only distinguish but divide. For where [Page 317] there is a distance of time between the Acts, there is a division. Do you think that we are Christs enemies, or followers of them, unless we will believe you that a man is Justified by Believing in Christ only as a Priest or Ransom, or in his Righteousness, before ever be believe in him as King and Lord (and so as Teacher, &c.) If I had said that you are Christs enemy for such Doctrine, which▪ think you, had had the fairer pretence for his censure? But I am far from saying so, or thinking it. I know that the Assent to the essential Articles of Christianity, containeth many Acts, and that our Consent and Affiance are many Physical Acts, as the parts of Christs Office are many Objects. But yet I (do not think but) am certain that all these physical Acts concur to make up that Mo­ral A [...] which is called Christian, or saving, or Justifying Faith; and that he that believeth not in Christ as to all that is essential to Christ, is no Christian. And a man is not justified by Faith before he is a Christian. And truly Sir, men that are loth to flie from the Light, and that love the Truth, and diligently seek it (as heartily, if not as happily as you) must yet needs tell you, that if you produce your Mormolucks an hundred times, and cant over and over [a Papist, a Socinian, an Arminian; and an Arminian, a Socinian and a Papist] their understandings, will ne­ver the more be perswaded to embrace your Delusions, though you should say that the Kingdom of God doth consist in them.

Your fourth Argument is that, [There is a difference in Nature, Efficacy, Energy, and Operation; therefore the Acts are not the same.] Answ 1. I maintained the conclusion (that faith hath different Acts) before ever I heard of your name; and have no reason now to denie it. 2. The difference of Nature, I grant you between many Acts of faith; but what you mean by the Efficacy, Energy, and Operation, be that knows can tell; for I cannot.

But still desire you to know that I deny faith to have any efficient operation in justifying us, or that it is an efficient cause of our Justification; especially its no Physical efficient; you add a strange proof of your Assertion, [viz. For faith as Justifying makes a mystical Union and relative change on the person; but faith as working and sanctifying produceth a moral union with Christ. &c.] Answ. 1. Faith as justifying doth only Justi­fie, [Page 319] and produce no Ʋ [...]ion; the same faith as uniting is the means of Ʋnion. 2. The question is of [Faith in Christ as Priest, and faith in Christ as Prophet and King also.] And you talk of [faith as justifying, and as working and sanctifying] A small alterati­on. 3. What Mystical Relative Union is that which is not a Moral Union? 4. Faith in Christ as Christ, and not as a Ran­som only, is the means of our Justification; And you give us no­thing like a proof of the contrary restriction.

In the same Preface you tell the world of as threefold Artifice that we use; the first is [to set up a second Justification] Ans. Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean? If the name, 1. cite the words where we use that Name. 2. If it answer the subject, you may bear with the name. If it be the Thing, then tell us what Religion that it that denyeth 1. a Justification by sentence at Judgement. 2. Gods continual justifying us to the Death. 3. And his particular pardoning or justifying us from the guilt of renewed particular sins. 4. And that faith is not only in the first act, but through all our lives, the means of our Justification; Or, justifying faith is more then one instantaneous Act; or a man ceaseth not to have justifying faith after the first Act or moment. Tell us who those be, and what Religion they are of that deny all these, that Christians may be acquainted with them, if they be worthy their acquaintance.

Our second Artifice is, [to require Works only as Gospel-Conditions.] Answ. Would you have us say more of them, or less? If less, I have said enough of it in the second Disputati­on.

Our third Artifice is, [To include works in the Definition of Justifying faith, making it a receiving of Christ as Saviour, Lord and Law-giver to Justification; as also confounding our consummate Salvation or Glorification with our Justificati­on.] Ans. Gross untruths! contrary to large and plaine expressi­ons of my mind in several Volumes (if you mean me, as you know I have reason to judge) 1. I ever took works to be a fruit of faith, and no part of it, unless you take the word Faith improperly and laxely; unless by [Works] you mean [Acts] And you take faith for such a work your self, that is, an Act. 2. I expres­ly distiguished what you say I confound; Consummate Sanctifica­tion [Page 318] or Glorification, and consummate Justification. But yet as I do in the Definition include Consent to Christs Lordship, though not Obedience (thats only implyed to be a necessary con­sequent,) so I still say that much of your Justitication is yet to come; And if your Religion teach you to say, that you will be beholding to Christ for no more Justification, so doth not mine.

And whereas you cite some that say, that all our sins are par­doned in our first believing, as if I had questioned any such thing, I must tell you that I easily grant it, that every sin is then for­given, and so far as that Justification is perfect; but what have you yet said to prove, 1. That we are never justified be faith, but in that one instant. 2. That we need no particular Justification from particular sins that after shall be committed. 3. Nor no sentential Justification at Judgement, which Mr. Burgess will tell you, is the chief. You and others use to say, that, that at Judgement, is but Declarative. But 1. It is no common Declaration, but a Declaration by the Judge. 2. And the Sentence doth more then meerely declare; for it doth finally decide, acquit and adjudge to Glory. 3. And methinks this Declarative should be no term of Diminution, but of Aggravation, with those that still use to say that Justification is a judicial [...] Term. Alas! That these matters among the friends of Christ and Truth, should need so many words.

Some more I had to say to you, but you may find it in the Pre­face to these Disputations. I only add, that if indeed it be true which you write to that Honourable person, to whom you dedicate your Labors, viz. That the Subject of your Discourse is so ex­cellent and necessary to be known; and that He who is Igno­rant of the Object and Office of Faith, doth neither know what he believeth, nor how he is justified; I should think it is high time, that you call your Ʋnderstanding once more to an account, and review the Fabrick that you have built on a qua justificans not understood, or upon a specificative quate­nus, where there is no such thing: And if you think me unfit to be hearkned to in this, (as being one of the men of perverse minds that there you mention,) its more worthy your industry, to seek the advice of the learned Oxford Divines herein, then [Page 320] that they should be sought to approve and midwife such a Book in­to the world: and its likely that their Charity will provoke them to be serviceable to you in this: though I hear that their Discre­tion forbad them the other, For all men are not so easily whist­led into a Christs-Church contention against the Truth and Church of Christ, as 'Dr. K. and one or two Confidents, that living in a cold and s [...]eril Country, are less substantive, and more adjective, then Innocents and Independents use to be.

None's here so fruitfull as the Leaning Vine:
And what though some be drunken with the Wine?
They'l fight the better, if they can but hit:
And lay about them without fear or—) But stay!

See What Example is! As the name of D [...]. K. and the remem­brance of his differtatiuncula (an Appendant to fax pro Tri­bunali, that could salva fide, fidem solvere) began to tice me into a jocound vein; so your concluding Poetry had almost tempted me in an Apish imitation to Poetize, when weariness made me think of a conclusion. But I had rather conclude with this se­rious motion to you (that my end may meet your beginning,) that before you next write on this Subject, you will better consider of the question that your qua justificans concerneth: And in­stead of telling us, that fides qua justificans respicit Christum Salvatorem, that is, fides qua justificans est fides, as if it were justifying in order of Nature before it is Faith: you will be pleased to tell us, sub qua ratione fides justificat (vel fide justificamut?) Whether you will say, that fides qua justifi­cans, justificat, or fides qua fides justificat, (which I think you disown,) or fides qua respicit, apprehendit, recipit Christum, which is all one, as fides qua fides, or fides qua Instrumentum apprehendens, which Metaphorical expression still signifieth no more then [qua credit in Christum, or qua fi­des?] Or whether you will stand to what you have affirmed. chap. 9. pag. 67. that its Gods assignation of it to the office, who [Page 321] therefore doth it, because he wills it: and to what you said, pag, 304. The meerest formal reason of a Believers Interest to pardon, is—a Believers fulfilling the condition. And if you will stand to this that you have said, and understand that the Doctrine of us whom you assault is the same (more carefully expressed,) be intreated then to let your next bolt be shot at the right mark: which is all thats now requested of you, by

Your Christian Brother (whether you will or no) RICHARD BAXTER▪
Decemb. 25. 1657.
Richard Baxters DISC …

Richard Baxters DISCVSSION OF Mr John Tombes his Friendly, Acceptable ANIMADVERSIONS ON HIS Aphorisms, and other Writings.

About the Nature of Justifi­cation, and of justifying Faith.

LONDON, Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, Book-seller in Ke­derminster, and are to be sold by him there, and by Natha­niel Ekins, at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard. 1658.


UPON reading of the Postscript in your late Book, I have sent you these Ani­madversions. You say Aphor. of Ju­stification. [...]ag. 184. [All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life, I understand of Justifi­cation in Title of Law. So Rom. 5.1. and 4 2. and 5.9. Jam. 2.21, 25, &c.] I conceive Justification, being Gods Act, Rom. 3.30. Rom. 8.33. consequent upon Faith, and calling, and importing a sentence opposite to Condemnation; Rom. 8.30, 33, 34. and 5.1. terminated on particular persons, Rom. 4.2, 3 Rom. 8.30. it must be more then the Vertual Justification in Law-Title; which is only an act of God pre­scribing or promisig a way of Justification, not the sentence it self, and is general, and indeterminate to particular persons, and is performed before the person justified believes: Yea is the same, though none were actually justified: and therefore in my apprehension, that Act of Gods Covenanting or pro­mising, in which I conceive you place the Justification by Law-Title. Thes. 38. Is not the Justification by faith meant, Rom. 5.1, &c.

Besides, to be justified notes a Passion, which presupposeth an Action; an Act Transient, not Immanent; or only Gods purpose to justifie: nor can it be Gods Promise to justifie: [Page 326] For the Act, though it be Transient, yet it is only a Declarati­on what he will do; his promise to justifie upon condition, is not Justifying, and therefore a man is not by the Covenant, without a further Act, Denominated Justified, though he be made justifyable by it. I conceive Justification is a Court term, Importing an Act of God as Judge, whereas his promising is not his Act as Judge, but Rector, thes. 42. you mention the An­gels judging us Righteous, and Rejoycing therein; which whence it should be, but by a sentence passed in Heaven, I know not. Constitutive Justification, different from Declarative by sentence, I do not find expressed under the term [Justification] It would be considered whether any other Act besides the sen­tence, doth make a man just, but giving of faith; notwithstand­ing Christs Death, and the conditional Covenant before faith, a person is only justifyable; Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse. A per­son is upon giving of Faith justified; but not by giving of faith (thats an act of Sanctification) but by a sentence of God, Thes. 59. You make justification a continued act; now it being a tran­sient act, I suppose it may not be well called a continued Act, which imports a successive motion between the terminus a quo, and terminus ad quem; whereas the act, whether by sentence, or Covenant, is not such a Motion. Its not to be denyed, that the Benefit and Vertue of it is continued, but I think not the Act. If it be not s [...]mel, but saepe, yet it should be rather called Actus Renovatus, Repetitus, Iteratus, then continued I incline to think there is but one Justification of a person in this life, though there be frequent remissions of sin. Of this you may Consider.

In the Saints Everlasting Rest, pag. 11. Doubtless the Gos­pel takes faith for our obedience to All Gospel Precepts. Be­lieving doth not produce subjection to Christ as King, as a fi­nite, but contains it as an Essential part, &c. Aphor. p. 25.5. Faith doth as Really and Immediately Receive Christ as King (as Saviour, or Priest) and so Justifie, Thes. 65. Scripture doth not take the word [Faith] for any one single Act; nor yet for various Acts of one only faculty; but for a compleat en­tire motion of the whole soul to Christ its Object, Thes. 57. It is the Act of faith which justifies men at Age, and not the Habit.

[Page 327]Against this I object; 1. Faith worketh by Love, Gal. 5.16. If one be an essential part of the other, and faith a com­pleat entire motion of the soul, then when it is said, Faith work­eth by Love, it might be said, it worketh by Faith.

2. Gospel Precepts are many, if not all, the same with the Moral Law; if Justified then by obedience to them, are we not justified by the works of the Law? You conceive the Justifi­cation, Jam. 2. to be by works in a proper sence, and that be­fore God; and Rahabs act was a work of Hospitality, ver. 25. commanded in the Law; and Abrahams work was a sacrifi­cing, or offering a work of the Ceremonial Law, ver. 21.

3. Repentance is obedience to one Gospel Precept, yet Faith and Repentance are distinguished, Mar. 1.15.6, 1. Love, Faith, Hope, are three, 1 Cor. 13.13. 1. Tim. 1.5. 2 Thes. 1.3. faith and Love have different Objects, Col. 1.4. Phil. 5. 1 Thes. 1. [...]. Therefore not the same; nor one an Essential part of the other.

4. Obedience is a sign to prove faith, Jam. 2.18. and there­fore not an Essential part.

5. If Faith include obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an Essential part, then actual faith includes actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts as an essential part; and if the Act of faith Ju­stifie men at Age, not the Habit; and receiving Christ as King, as immediatly Justifie, as believing in Christ as Saviour, then a person of Age is not Justified without actual obedience to all Gospel Precepts, and this may be not till Death; if then, and so, no Justification in this Life.

6. If Faith justifie as immediatly by receiving Christ as King, as by receiving him as Saviour, then it justifies by receiving Christ as Judge, Matth. 25.34. as Law-giver, Avenger of his enemies, and so a man is justified By receiving Christs Judging, Punishing, Condemning, Commanding, Avenging, as well as saving by his Death; which is contrary to Rom. 3.25. & 5.9

7. The Scripture makes the object of justifying faith Christs Death, Resurrection, Blood, Rom. 3.25. & 10.9. Gal. 2.20, 21. Nowhere Christs dominion. Ergo. Subjection to Christ as King is not an essential part.

8. The object of Faith is nowhere made to be a Gospel [Page 328] Precept, such as forgiving others, using Sacraments, &c. nor Christ as commanding; but the Declaration of the Accom­plishments of Christ, and the counsel of God in him, 1 Cor. 15.1. &c. Rom. 1 16, 17. Gal. 3.8. Ergo Obedience is not an Es­sential part.

9. If it be an essential part, then either Genus or Diffe­rence; for no other Essential parts belong to a quality or Acti­on: not the Genus, that's Assent. Aph. p. 254.274. when the object is a Proposition: when it is an Incomplex term, Trust is the Genus: not the Difference, thats chiefly taken from the object. Keker. syst. Logic. l. 1. sect. 2. c. 2. can. Defin. Accid. 5.7. Obedience may make known Faith as a sign, but not as a part, its at least in order of Nature after; the cause is afore the effect: the Antecedent before the Consequent; and faith is such, Heb. 11.8. &c.

10. If Faith be a compleat entire motion of the whole soul to Christ, then it should be Love, Joy, Hope, Understanding, Will, Memory, Fear; But this is not to be said. Ergo.

It is alleadged, 1. Faith must be the Act of the whole soul; else part should receive him, part not.

Answ. Faith is expressed by the Metaphor of Receiving, Joh. 1.12. Col. 2.6. And he is Received by the Receiving of his Word, Joh. 12.48. 1 Thes. 2.13. which is Received by Assent. 2. The whole soul receives Christ, though by other Graces be­sides faith.

2. Acts 8.37 Rom. 10.10. Answ. The term [Whole] notes not every inward faculty; but (as after) sincerely, not feign­edly, as Simon Magus. So Illyricus.

3. Faith is called Obeying the Gospel, Rom. 10.16. 1 Pet. 1.22. & 4.17. 2 Thes. 1.8. Gal. 3.1. & 5.7. Heb. 5.9. But the Gospel commandeth All thus to obey Christ as Lord, forgive others, love his people, bear what sufferings are Imposed, dili­gently use his Means and Ordinances, confessing, bewailing sins, praying for pardon sincerely and to the end.

Answ. Heb. 5.9. speaks of obeyng Christ, but doth not call faith obeying Christ: but be it granted, Faith is called obeying of Christ, or the Gospel; doth it follow that it is obedience in doing those named Acts? It may be obedience by Assent to [Page 329] the Doctrine of Christ, that he is the Messiah, died for sins, &c. commanded 1 Cor. 15.3. 1 Joh. 3.23. which the terms [...] and [...] do rather Import, then the other Acts mentioned. The Gospel and Truth are restrained to the Doc­trine of Christs coming, dying, &c, nowhere applyed, that I know, to the Precepts of forgiving others, suffering death, re­ceiving the Lords Supper, &c.

4. The fulfilling the condition of the new Covenant is called faith, Gal. 3.12, 23, 25.

Answer. Neither of these places make faith the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant, nor any place else In Gal. 3.12. Its said, the Law, that is the Covenant of the Law, is not of Faith. i. e. doth not assign Life to Faith in Christ▪ Faith Gal. 3, 23, 25. is put, saith Piscat. for the time of the Gospel, or Christ, say others, or the Doctrine of Faith. By Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justifi­cation in this life is fulfilled, not concerning every Benefit of the new Covenant. Repentance is the condition of Remissi­on of sins; forgiving others, doing good to the Saints, of enter­ing into Life.

5. The Gospel reveals not Christs offices as separate. Ergo. They mnst be so believed.

Answ. The conclusion is granted, but proves not faith to justifie in receiving Christ as King.

6. It offers Christ as King, and so must be received. Answer the same.

7. Scripture nowhere tieth Justification to the receit of him as priest only. Ar. The contrary is proved from Rom. 3.25. & 5.9.

8. Commonly Christ is called our Lord and Saviour. Answ. True; But we are justified by his blood.

9. If we receive him not as a King, then not as an entire Saviour. Answ. True; Yet Justification is by his death, 2 Cor. 5.21. Gal. 2.21. Rom. 3 25 and 59.

10. Christ is not received truly, if not entirely as King. An­sw. True; But this proves not that obedience is an essential part of faith; or that subjection to Christ as King, justifies as im­mediatety, as receiving him as Saviour.

11. The exalting of his proper Kingly office, is a Principal End of Christs dying. Psal. 2. Rom. 14.9.

[Page 330] Answ. True; But it follows not that either Obedience is an Essential part of faith▪ or subjection to Christ as King justifieth as immediately as receiving him as Saviour or Priest.

Yours in the Truth I.T.

ITs to be considered, 1. Whether these words answer to Va­ledict▪ orat at B. pag. 191. [Nothing but the satisfaction of Christ, is that which our Divines call the matter of our Justifica­tion, or the Righteousness which we must plead to Acquit us in Judgement.] And it is said Rom. 3.25. through faith in his Blood, and Rom. 5.9. by his Blood, Do not prove Christs Death either the sole or chief Object of faith as Justifying; and how this stands with Aphorism of Justification, Thes. 66. and its Explication.

2. Whether the words, Luk. 12.14. import not a dis­claiming or denial of a Title to judge, and so your answer be not insufficient, pag. 276. which seems to suppose a Title, and only a Suspension of Exercise in that state of Humi­liation.

3. Whether if Magistrates be Officers of Christ as King, by Office they be not in his Kingdom, and so Infidel Magi­strates in Christs Kingdom, contrary to Col. 1.14.

4. If it be maintained, That Christ died for every Child of Adam conditionally, It would be well proved from Scripture, that the procuring of such a conditional Law or Covenant, was the End or Effect of Christs death; and whether the so Interpreting Texts that speak of his dying for all, will not serve for Evasions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Christs Satisfaction aad Merit, proper to the Elect. For if they may be Interpreted so, He died to procure the conditi­onal Covenant for every one, this may be alledged justly; then you can prove no more thence, for that is the sense; and then we cannot prove thence, he died loco nostro, &c. It is a matter of much moment, and needs great Circumspection.


BEsides what hath been formerly suggested to you, these words in your Scripture proofs, pag. 323. And where he next saith, that in the aged several dispositions are required to fit a man to receive pardon, (and so justification) viz Catholike faith, hope of pardon, fear of punishment, grief for sin, a purpose against sin­ing hereafter, and a purpose of a new life, all which dispose the Re­ceiver; and I agree to him, though all do not] are so like the Doctrine of the Trent Council. sess. 6. c. 6. that it will be expected you declare, whether by avowing that speech of Dr. Ward, you do not join with the Papists, contrary to Bi­shop Downam of Justification. l. 6. c. 7. §. 1.2. Mr. Pemble vin­dict. fidei. §. 2. c. 3.

And when you make Justification a continued Act upon condition of obedience, its to be considered how you will avoid Tompsons opinion of the Intercifion of Justification, upon the committing of a sin that wasts the conscience, refuted by Dr. Rob. Abbot. but vented after by Moutague in his appeal, and opposed by Dr. Preston, and others.

As for Justification by Law-Title, by the Covenant upon actual Believing, without any other act of God, consequent on Faith; if it were so; 1. Then it should be by necessary Resultancy; But Justification is an Act of Will, and no act of Will is by necessary Resultancy.

2. If the Covenant justifie without any other Act of God, then it Adops, Glorifies, Sanctifies, &c. without any other Act, which is not to be said. The reason of the Sequel is, because the Covenant of it self doth in the same manner produce the one as well as the other.

3. The Justification of the Covenant is only conditional, therefore not Actual; Actual Justification is not till Faith be put: and then Posit â conditione, it is Actual: A conditional, is only a possible Justification; its only in potentia, till the Condition be in act; Now the Covenant doth only assure it on condition, as a future thing, not therefore as actual, or present.

[Page 332]4 The Covenant is an Act past, Tit. 1.2. Gal. 3.7, 8. so not continued; and consequently, the Justification barely by it, without any other Act, must be past long since, and not conti­nued; and he neither Justification Actual, and in purpopse; or virtual, will be confounded, or an effect shall be continued, without the cause.

Yours. I.T.
Reverend Sir,

I AM more thankfull to you for these free, candid, rational Animadversions, then I can now express to you: yet being still constrained to dissent from you, by the evidence of Truth, I give you these Reasons of my dissent.

1. First, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be in­tepreted of Justification in Title of Law, because this is only an Act of God prescribing or promising a way of Justification; not the Sentence it self; and is general, and indeterminate to particu­lar persons, &c.] To which I answer. 1. That I am past doubt that you build all this on a great mistake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant, & Promise, & the moral action thereof. For you must know that this Promise of God, 1. is not a bare Assertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc est; (as Grotius speaks:) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio, cum voluntas seipsam pro futuro tempore determinat, cum signo sufficientè ad judicandam perseverandi necessitatem. But it is Perfecta Promissio, ubi ad determinationem talem accedit signum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre, quae similem babet effectum qualem alienatio Domin [...]i. Est enim aut via ad aliena­ [...]ionem rei, aut alienatio particulae cujusdam nostrae libertatis. &c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili. 2. c. 11. § 2.3, 4.

2. This Promise or Covenant of God, is also his Testament: and who knoweth not that a Testament is an Instrctment of proper Donation, and not only a Prediction? 3. Moreover this same which in one respect is a Covenant and Promise, and in another a Testament, is also truly part of Gods Law, even the New constitution of Christ, the Law-giver and King. But [...]ndoubtedly a Law which conferreth. Right either absolutely [Page 333] or conditionally, is the true and proper Instrument of that Effect, and not only [the presenting or promising away thereto] The proper Effect or Product of every Law, is Debitum ali­quod; Et de hoc debito determinare is its proper Act. Now therefore this Promise being part of Christs Law, doth deter­mine of and confer on us, the Debitum, or Right to sententi­al Justification, having first given us an Interest in Christ, and so to the Benefit of his satisfaction; and this is Justificatio constitutiva. You know a Deed of Gift (though but con­ditional) is a most proper Instrument of conferring the Bene­fits therein contained. And is not the Promise undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift? And doth he not thereby make over, as it were under his hand, the Lord Jesus, and all his Benefits to them that will receive him? So that when you say, that [his Promise to justifie upon condition, is not justifying] You may see it is otherwise by all the forementioned considerations of the nature of the Promise. You may as well say, a Testament, or deed of Gift conditional, doth not give, or a Law doth not confer Right and Title. And in these Relative benefits, to give Right to the thing, and to give the thing it self, or right in it, is all one: (still allowing the distance of time limited for both in the Instrument) It is all one to give full right to son-ship, and to make one a Son: or at least they are insepa­rable. Yea, (which weigheth most of all with me) it being the proper work of Gods Laws to give Duness of, or Right to Benefits, it cannot be any other way accomplished that is within our Knowledge (I think) For Decree, Purpose, and so Predestination cannot do it, they being Determinations de eventu, and not de debito, as such: And the sentential decla­ration presupposeth this Debitum, or true Righteousness an therefore doth not give it. No wonder therefore while you deny this Legal, Testamentary, Moral Donation, that you are forced also to deny Justification constitutive; (but very inconveniently and unsafely.) By what way doth God give a father Authority over his Children, and a Husband over his Wife, and a Magistrate over the people, and a Minister over the Church or Flock, but only by this Moral Legal Action? And even so doth he give Power to them that receive him, to [Page 334] become his Sons. And it is the same Instrument which per­formeth this, which is called a Promise, Covenant, Testament, Disposition or Law; the name being taken from different re­spects or accidental considerations.

Again, If the word of Christ do judge us, then that word doth justifie and condemn: (For judging in general con­taineth these special Actions.) But the word doth judge us, (and shall do at the last day:) therefore the word doth justi­fie and condemn.

Again: It is a Rule in the Civil Law (as Ʋlpian) that By the same way as an Obligation is induced or caused, it must be re­moved or destroyed: But by the curse of the Law, or the Threatning of Penalty, was our obligation to punishment, and condemnation induced or caused: therefore by the way of Law dissolving that cause, must it be taken off. Now as Rea­tus est obligatio ad Poenam, so pardon is the dissolving of that Obligation, or discharge from it; (Venia & Poena sunt ad­versa:) And therefore the Law of Christ, or this his Pro­mise or Grant, is the Instrument of Pardoning. And me­thinks, when you are convinced, that God pardoneth by Law or moral Action, you should easily yield, that in the like way he justifieth. For if you be not of the Judgement, that Remission and Justification are all one: yet you must needs yield, that they are of so near a nature, that the dif­ference is exceeding small, and rather notional and respec­tive, then real. I might to these Arguments add somewhat from the Issue, and different tendency of this my opinion and the contrary. As that this doth give Gods Laws their honor and dignity, by ascribing to them that higher and more noble and effective Action; which the contrary opinion de­nying it, doth very injuriously debase the Scriptures or Laws of God. Also that this opinion is the only expedient left, (that I can find) to avoid the Antinomian fancy of an Eter­nal Justification, which all they must assert, that say it is an Immanent Act (which you justly and truly deny.) For your way lying in the other extream, 1. Overthroweth all constitutive Justification; which is not to be born. (Whether All Pardon by the Covenant, I yet know not your mind)

[Page 335]2. And it Intepreteth all Scriptures (that speak of a Justi­fication in this life) of a strange feigned Justification, which for ought I find hath no ground in Scripture at all; and is wholly aliene to our condition; and at least utterly un­known to us, if not known to be untrue. What doth it con­cern a sinner to be justified or condemned now before a Court of Angels, where he is not present, nor knows any thing of it? nor do we know what Angels have to do in such a business. And what Transient Act is it that God then and there puts forth or performeth? Can you tell? or doth Scripture tell you? God speaketh not to Angels by voyce. If you think (as the Schoolmen, some) that they see our Justification, as other things in the face of God; then it is no Transient Act. Else why may not they see it in it self? And then either our Justifi­cation is Gods Essence, and they see it in him as his Eternal Be­ing, or else God must be mutable, as having something to be seen in him de novo, which was not in him from Eternity. If you say that this Transient Act is Gods Illuminating the An­gelical understanding to know us to be justified; then this sup­poseth that we are justified already by some former Act (which can be nothing that I know but the moral Act of his Lawes:) For their knowing us to be justified is not a justifying us, but presupposeth us to be what they know us to be. I can think of nothing else that you can say, except this, that Christ as man may Vocally (or by some equivalent Transient Act) pro­nounce us Justified, as he will do at Judgement. But 1. this is without Scripture. 2. and it is God that justifieth. 3. And then how were all the faithful justified before Christs Incarnation and Ascension? Or do you think none were justified before?

But I will return to your Exceptions.

You say, [This is but Virtual Justification] which is in Law Title. Answ. 1. It is Actual Constitutive Justification, and not Virtual only 2. But it is indeed but Virtual sentential justifica­tion. But yet it is of the highest kind of Virtuality. It is that which makes us rectos in curia, (which I take to be the na­ture of our Justification in this life.) And taken divisi [...], it seem­eth more excellent in some respect, then the sentence or decla­ration it self; for he that by Purchase first, and Pardon (writ­ten) [Page 336] after, maketh Offenders just in Law,) i. e. (non obligatos ad poenam,) seemeth to do more for them by that act, then after by pronouncing them just. Though yet this last I know is the most perfect Justification, taken conjunctim with the rest, as the end to which they tend, and as that which giveth them their full effect.

Your next Objection is, that this Gospel Justification, [is general and indeterminate to particular persons] Answer. It can­not be more certain or effectual. For when it is to all, no man hath reason to think himself excepted (who excludes not himself by non-performance of the conditions.) Every par­ticular man is comprized in All. And for the determination, the Description of the person is as certain a way as the naming of him. To give Christ and his Righteousness to All that will receive him, is as effectual a determinate Gift to each particular Receiver, as to give him to Peter, Paul, John by name. If a Pardon be proclaimed, or given in the Laws, to all Offenders that perform such a condition; is it not as ef­fectual to each person, as if he were named? If a Father be­queath such Lands or Monies to all his Children (or a man to all the poor in the town) on condition that they come by such a day to such a place, and signifie their acceptance and gratitude: is not this as sure and good, as if they were all named?

Next, You object, [This is performed, before the person justified believes.] Answer. I have said enough to you of this already. (of Bapt. pag. 100.) I add this much: you must distinguish between the Physical act of making this Law, Promise, Covenant, Grant or Testament: and the Moral Agency of this Law, Grant or Testament once made. The former was before we Believed: but the later was not (pro­perly and fully) till after. Do not all Philosophers and Di­vines in the world that meddle with it, tell you that this is usual with moral causes, that they may have all their absolute Entity and vim agendi, long before they produe their effects? and may be Actu primo, etsi non secundo effectum producente, in being long before. The Law that determineth of your right to your Possession, or that doth give a Reward to every man [Page 337] that killeth a wild hurtfull beast, or that condemneth every man that murdereth or committeth Felony, &c. was in Be­ing before those persons were born perhaps: And yet it did not hoc agere; it did not Praemiare, Punire, Praecipere, &c. as to this man before. A pardon from a Prince to a Traytor, on condition, doth not perform the moral act of his discharge, till he perform the condition, though it were in being before. The like I may say of a Testament or Deed of Gift: But what need many words in a case where the Truth is so obvi­ous? If some moral causes may be causes, and Agere mora­liter, or produce their effects, even before they are naturally in Being, much more may they suspend it, and so produce it long after they are in Being: Causae enim moralis ea ratio est, ut etiam cum non est actu, sit efficax, modò habe at (ut loquun­tur in scholis) esse cognitums: inquit Rivetus Disput. 13. de satis­fact. Christi. pag. 282.

Next you say, [Yea it is the same, though none were actu­ally justified.] Answer. This requires no other answer, then what is given to the former. It is the same Physice considerata, vel in Entitate naturali: But the moral action of pardoning and justifying is not the same, nor is at all: A conditional Pardon, Deed of Gift, Testament, &c. doth not at all par­don, or Give, till you perform the condition. For it is the proper nature of a condition to suspend the act of the Grant: so that till it be absolute or equal to Absolute, it is not Actu­al Remission, Justification, &c.) The reason of all this is, be­cause these Laws, Testaments or Promises, are but the Law­makers, Testators or Donors Instruments, and therefore act when and how he pleases: and it is his pleasure that they should act no otherwise then as is aforesaid, and as in the Te­nor of them he shall express.

Next you add [To be justified, notes a passion▪ which pre­supposeth an Action transient, not immanent, or only Gods purpose to justifie:] Answer 1. So far as the Reception of a Rela­tion may be called a Passion, this is true: And no doubt you are in the right, that it is not Actus immanens. But now, What transient Act it is, I remember very few Divines that once tell us; but only in general say, It is a Transient Act. [Page 338] Now you and I that have adventured to enquire, do happen to be both singular from others, and differing between our selves, (only Mr. Rutherford, and some few others I find saying oft, that we are pardoned and justified by the Gospel: by which they seem to mean as I) But for your way of Justificati­on by a sentence before the Angels, as I never met with any that judged that to be our Justification by Faith, so as I have said, it seems to me very groundless and strange. And then, if yours stand not, mine only must, for any thing that is yet discovered, that I have seen, for I know of none that tells us of any third,

Your next Objection is the same before answered, that [Gods Promise to justifie, is only a declaration what he will do, and therefore a man is not by Covenant without a further Act justified, but justifiable.] Answer. Grotius de satisfact. will tell you, that Promises give right to him to whom they are made: and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed, though threatnings may. But if these were only Promises that God will by another Act do this or that for us, then it were to the purpose that you say: but that you cannot prove. Nor needs there any other Act, but the moral Action of the Instrument it self to change our Relations here: Et frustra fit pro plura, &c. Indeed an Act of ours [Believing] must come in before the effect: but you and I are agreed, that this is but conditi­onal, and not effective. These Promises therefore being also Gods Law, Testament (of Christ) Deed of Gift, Cove­nant, &c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to pass by some other Action; but they do confer a Right or make due the benefit or relation, and so effect it; only the Author is pleased to suspend the effect of his Instrument, till we perform the Condition. As if by a Lease, or Deed of Sale, there be some Office or Dignity made over to you: or some command in Army or Court, or Country: or by a Law a Foraigner be Naturalized or Enfranchized, on such or such a Condition; This Lease or Deed, or Law doth not only foretel, but effect the thing.

You add that [Justification is a Court-term, importing an Act of God as Judge, whereas his promising is not his Act as [Page 339] Judge, but Rector.] Answer 1. If by a Court-term, you also mean a Law-term, (verbum forense or judiciarium in the full sense) I agree with you. But if you confine it to the sen­tence as pronounced, I require Proof; as also proof of any such sentence before Judgement, particular or general. A Rector is either Supremus or Subaliernus: A Judge is either supreme above all Laws, as being the Law-giver, or sub lege. God is both Rector and Judge, only in the first senses: and by judging, he Ruleth; and Rector is but the Genus, whereof Judex is a species. As Rector supremus▪ God is the Legislator, and so acteth (and justifieth by his Laws, Grants, &c.) as Judge he sentenceth and absolveth those that were first made just. A man is accused for killing another in fight, at the command of the Soveraign Power. Is it not as fit and proper a saying, to say [The Law doth justifie this man for so doing against all Accusers,] as to say, [The Judge will justifie him▪] Nay, Is it not more ordinary? And in a sort, the Supream or Soveraign may be said to be (though in a diffe­rent sense) justified, as well as an Inferior; when yet the said person in Supremacy hath no Judge, nor is to have any by Law, and so cannot be justified by sentence. God will be justi­fied in his sayings, &c. as he hath in a sort bound himself by his own Laws, that is, signified his Resolution to observe them; so in the sense of these Laws, his works are now just, and shall be hereafter so be manifested: but not by any sentence of a Superior. But this I confess differeth from our Justifica­tion.

Next you say, [You know not whence it should be that Angels should judge us righteous, and rejoice therein, but by a sentence passed in Heaven.] Answer. If you think (and prove) that Angels cannot know us to be righteous, then I will not affirm that they judge us so. For I presuppose that that they know us to be so made by some Act before, and therefore they judge us to be as we are. And if they may know that we are Believers, and know that the New Law justifieth all such, then they may judge us to be justified without any sentence in Heaven, even as they know when a sinner is converted, and rejoice in it; which doubtless they may know without a sentence in [Page 340] Heaven pronouncing us converted; and Gods making them Instruments in conferring his Mercies may make them know.

You say that [Constitutive Justification, different from De­clarative by sentence, I do not find expressed under the term (Ju­stification:) it would be considered, whether any other Act be­side the sentence, doth make a man just, but giving of faith.] Answer. These two things I shall prove to convince you: (be­cause this is of some moment.) 1. That some Act there must be to constitute us just, before or besides the sentence. 2. That neither the sentence nor the giving of Faith doth first and pro­perly constitute us Just.

1. If we be not just before we are judged as just, then Gods Judgement should not be according to Truth. But Gods Judg­ment is according to Truth: therefore we are just before we are so judged. 2. He that hath Christ, and the Benefits of his satisfactory Righteousness given him by the New Law, Cove­nant, Testament or Grant of Christ, is hereby constituted righ­teous. But every Believer hath Christ and the said benefits Gi­ven him in and by the Law or Covenant: therefore he is there­by made or constituted Righteous.

And here by the way take notice, that the New Law or Co­venant hath two Offices; the one to Bestow Right to the Be­nefit: and hereby it makes Righteous: The other to Declare and manifest openly, and to be the Rule of publique Judgement: and so it doth both actione morali proclaim believers righteous, and Virtually sentence them so. And therefore in Rom. 10.5. it is called [the Righteousness which is of the Law] And if the Old Law had a power of making Righteous, if man could have performed the condition, so also hath the New.

2. And that the sentence doth not constitute us Just, needs no proof: It is the work of a Judge by sentence to clear the Guiltless, and not to make them Guiltless. Pardon indeed may do somewhat to it: but that is not the action of a Judge as a Judge, but (as you before distinguished) of a Rector (in case of transgressing Lawes.) A Judge pronounceth men to be what they first are according to Law; and not makes them to be righteous who are not. He that saith to the wicked, thou art [Page 341] Righteous, Nations shall curse him; people shall bhor him: Pro. 24.24. He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the Just, even they both are abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17.15. If this were not so, then we must believe that no man is justified before the day of (particular or general) Judgement, till you have proved that God sentenceth at a Court of Angels.

And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous (that is, according to the Law of works) effective, I think you confess. If I thought you did not, it were very easily proved: Faith being but the condition of our universal righteousness (which the old Law requireth in its stead) cannot be that Righ­teousness it self: and some other efficient there must be of our Justification here.

Next you say [Notwithstanding Christs Death and the Con­ditional Covenant afore faith, a person is only justifyable: Con­ditionalis nihil ponit esse.] Answ. All this is very true: but not any thing against me. I like well what you say of Christs death, because it is (as Aquinas and our Davenant, Ʋsher, &c. say,) but Causa universalis, vel Remedium omnibus applicabile. It is to prepare for and merit, & not directly to effect our Justification, (whatsoever the Antinomians dream:) But the Covenant or Testament is the very efficient Instrumental cause of Justifica­tion: and its Action is Gods Action. Yet its true that Condi­tionalis nihil ponit in esse: that is, till the condition be perform­ed: but then it becometh of equal force to an Absolute Gift and doth ponere in esse: even the same Instrument doth it, whose Action till then was (by the Authors will) suspended.

YOu next pass to another Point (about Thes. 59.) whether Justification be a continued Act. And you say that [be­ing a Transient Act, it cannot be well called a continued Act, which imports a successive motion between the Terminus a quo and ad quem, whereas this Act, whether by sentence or Cove­nant, is not such a motion, &c.] Answ. 1. All this may be true of a proper natural Action: but you know that it is only a moral Action which I affirm to be continued, and of this you know your Rule de motu holds not, except you take Motus [Page 342] largely and improperly. As passive Justification, or the effect of the Justifying Act is but a Relation, which is the weakest of Entities; so doth it per nudam resultantiam arise, which is by the weakest of Causalities; The Act of God giving out and enact­ing this Law or Covenant at first, was indeed a proper transient Act, and is ceased: but the moral Action of the Law thus ena­cted is continual. The Law of the land, which condemneth Delinquents, and justifieth the obedient, doth both by a conti­nued moral Act. The Lease of your House or Lands gives you Title thereto by a continued moral Act. So that this which I assert, is not Actus repetitus vel renovatus.

You add that [You incline to think that there is but one Ju­stification of a Person in this life, though frequent Remission of sin.] Answ. In that you judge as most of the Orthodox do: And I have said nothing to the contrary. I think also, that as Scripture useth the phrase of oft-forgiving, but seldom of oft-justifying, so it is safest to speak as Scripture doth. Yet as to the thing, me thinks, that as Remission and Justification do but respectively or very narrowly differ; so in this case, one may as truly be said to be repeated, as the other: that is, As there is an universal Remission of all sin past, upon our first true Be­lieving; which universal Remission is never iterated, but con­tinued: so is there an Universal Justification of the person at the same time, by which he is made just, (and in Law so estee­med, pronounced or judged) by being acquit from the con­demning Power of the Law, which (for his sins past only) was before in force against him. And so if you look to such a Re­mission or Justification as wholly changeth the state of the per­son, making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardon­ed, and fully under guilt of all former sins; or making him ju­stified who was before unjustified, and condemned (in Law;) neither of these I think, are iterated. But then, as you con­fess a frequently renewed pardon for following sins, so I know no reason, but in the same sence there must be a frequent Justi­fying: For as our Divines well conclude, that sin cannot be pardoned before it be committed (for then there should be pardon without Guilt; for no man is Guilty of sin to come formally;) so is it as necessary to conclude, that no man is ju­stified [Page 343] from sin before it be committed; that is, from that which is not; and so is not sin: For then Justification should go be­fore and without Legal Accusation and Condemnation: For the Law accuseth and condemneth no man for a sin which is not committed, and so is no sin. It is said Acts 13. [...]9. that (by Christ) we are Justified from all things, from which we could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Where, as I desire you to observe that phrase of being Justified by the [...]aw, to shew it is an Act of the Law (though sin maketh transgressors unca­pable.) so you see it is a Scripture phrase to say▪ we are Justi­fied from sin: And then either there must be some kind of par­ticular Justification from particular sins after faith, of the na­ture of our renewed particular Pardon; or else what will be­come of us for them? For sure if the Law be so far in force against the actions of Believers as to make and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Punishment (as much as in it lyeth) and so to need a frequent pardon (for pardon is a discharge from Guilt, which is an Obligation to punishment;) then it must needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and so to Accuse (and as much as in it lyes to condemn) them; and so they must need also a particular Justification. But then ac­cording to my Judgement, 1. There is a sure Ground said of both in the Gospel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the said New Law doth perform it, by the same Power by which it did universally justifie and pardon them at the first. There needeth no addition to the Law. The change is in them: And the Law is said Moraliter ager [...] quod antea non actum erat, because of their new Capacity, necessity and Relation. As if your Fa­thers Testament do give you a thousand pound at his Death, and twenty shillings a week as long as you live after, and so much at your marriage, &c. here this Testament giveth you these new sums (after the first) without any change in it; and yet by new moral Act; for it was not a proper gift, till the Term expressed, or the condition performed: and if that term had never come, nor the condition been performed, you had never had right to it: so I concieve, Gods Gospel Grant or Testament doth renew both our Remission and particular Ju­stification. If Satan say, This man both deserved death by sin­ing [Page 344] since he Believed (as David) must we not be justified from that Accusation?

And here let me ask you one Question, which I forgot be­fore about the first Point. Seeing you think (truly) that Par­don is iterated as oft as we sin, by what Transient Act of God is this done? Doth God every moment at a Court of Angels Declare each sinner in the world, remitted of his particular sin? (for every moment we commit them.) If you once-see a ne­cessity of judging the New Covenant or Promise Gods Par­doning Instrument, I doubt not but you will soon acknowledge as much about Justification. And sure a Legal or written In­strument is so proper for this work, that we use to call it [A Pardon,] which a Prince writes for the acquitting of an offen­dor.

Besides, the Gospel daily justifieth by continuing our Justifi­cation, as your Lease still giveth you Title to your Land.

(Mat. 12.37. is of more then the continuance of Justificati­on, even of Justification at Judgement.)

THe next Point you come to about the Nature and Object of Faith, you are larger upon, through a mistake of my words and meaning. I know not therefore how to Answer your Arguments till I have first told you my sence, and better stated the Question.

Indeed that in pag. 11. of Rest, I apprehended my self, so ob­vious to misconstruction, that I have corrected it in the second Edition (which is now printed.) Yet 1. I spoke not of faith as Justifying, but as the condition of Salvation, which contains more then that which is the condition of our first justification. 2. I neuer termed those Gospel-Precepts, which are not in some way proper to the Gospel. And for the next words [That subjection to Christ is an Essential part of faith.] I confess I do not only take it for a certain Truth, but also of so great mo­ment, that I am glad you have bent your strength against it, and thereby occasioned me to search more throughly. But then, if you think (as you seem to do) that by [Subjection] I mean [Actual Obedience] you quite mistake me: for I have [Page 345] fully opened my mind to you about this in my Aphoris. that speak only of the subjection of the Heart; and not of the Actual Obedience, which is the practise of it. I speak but of the Acceptation of Christ for our Lord, or the Consent thereto▪ and so giving up our selves to be his Disciples, Servants or Subjects. This I maintain to be an Essential part of justifying Faith, in the strict and proper sense of that word.

Its true that de jure Christ is King of Unbelievers, and so of them that acknowledge him not to be their King. But in or­der of nature, the acknowledging of his Dominion, and consent thereto, and so receiving him to be our King, doth go before our obeying him as our King. As a woman in marri­age-Covenant, taketh her Husband, as one whom she must obey add be faithfull to: But that taking or consenting, goes before the said Obedience, as every Covenant before the performance of it. Yea though the same act should be both an acknowledgement of, and consent to the Authority, and also an obeying of it; yet it is Quatenus a consent and accep­tance of that Authority, and not as it is an obeying of it, that I speak of it when I ascribe Justification to it: as faith in the common sense is certainly an act of Obedience to God: and yet Divines say, it justifie; not as it is Obedience, but as an Instrument. So that by Heart-subjection to Christ, I mean that act by which we give up our selves to Christ as his Sub­jects to be ruled by him; and by which we take him for our Soveraign on his Redemption-title. But when I judge the word Faith to be taken yet in a larger sense, comprehend­ing obedience, I never said or thought that so it is the condition of our first Justification, nor will I contend with any that thinks the word is never taken so largely, it being to me a matter of smal moment. Now to your Objections.

1. YOU say, [Faith worketh by Love, &c.] Answ. 1. Faith is sometime taken strictly for a Belief of Gods word, or an Assent to its Truth. 2. Sometime more largely for the wills embracing also of the objec as an offered good, besides the understandings Assent to the Truth of the [Page 346] word which offereth it. The former is by the Apostle oft distin­guished from Love, and is said to work by Love; as the live­ly acts of the understanding produce answerable motions in the will. But the later is that faith which justifieth; to wit, The Receiving of an offered Christ. And this comprizeth both the Act of the Understanding and Will (as almost all Prote­stant Divines affirm.) But both these acts together are called Faith from the former, which is most strictly so called: be­cause the great difficulty then lay in Believing the Truth of the Gospel▪ (and would do still, if it were not for the ad­vantages of Credit, Education, Custom, &c.) therefore the whole work is thence denominated: though yet the com­pleating of the work be in the Will, and the Understandings Act but preparatory thereto. 2. You must also distinguish between Love to Christ the Mediator, and the Grace of Cha­rity in general, as it is extended al;so to God as Creator, to Saints, to all men, &c. And between that first act of Love, which is in our first receiving of Christ, and the love which we afterwards exercise on him: and so I answer you. 1. That as the Apostle distinguisheth between Faith, Hope and Love, So do I. 2. Faith taken strictly for assent to Divine Testi­mony, produceth love in every one of the forementioned senses (of the word Love:) 3. Justifying faith (comprizing the wills acceptance) produceth both the grace of Charity, as it is exercised on other objects, and also the following acts of it towards Christ the Mediator: And so I acknowledge that Faith worketh by Love, and that Love is not faith. But yet whether Love be not in some sense essential to justifying faith, if you speak only of Love to Christ, and that not as a distinct grace, but as it is comprized in our Acceptance of him at first, I shall leave to your consideration, when you have first resol­ved these things. 1. Whether justifying faith be not an act of the Will as well as the Understanding? Few but Papists de­ny it, and not all of them. 2. Whether Christ himself be not the object of it? Few Protestants will deny it. 3. Whether Good be not the object of the Will, and so Christ be not wil­led as Good? None doubts of it. 4. Whether this willing be not the same as Loving, as love is found in the rational ap­petite? [Page 347] Sure Aquinas saith so, no man that I know contra­dicting it. 5. Whether you can call Affiance, or any other act of the will justifying faith, excluding this willing, or not principally including it? For 1. This is the Wills first act to­wards it object; and will you say that Love goes before justi­fying faith, and so before Justification? and such a Love as is distinct from justifying faith as being no part of it? How then is Love the fruit of faith, and as Divines say, a consequent of Justification? Yet it is beyond all doubt, that this Velle or Love to Christ goes before Affiance on him, or any other act of the Will. vide Aquin. 1.2. Q. 23. a. 33. Et. 1. Q. 20. a. 1 Et Tolet de anima, l. 3. cap. 9. Q. [...]7, 28 Et Ames. contra Gravin­chou. pag. 16. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding assent, and subsequent Affiance, in Christ should be conditions of our Justification; and yet the Velle Christum oblatum, that Willing which we call Consent, Election or Acceptance, which goeth be­tween assent and Affiance, should be excluded as no part of this condition? 3. Especially considering that Affiance contains di­vers acts, whereof one is of the Irascible of the sensitive, and so is but an imperate act of the Will, and less noble then that eli­cite Act (which I plead for,) as well as Posterior to it: and if Aquin. be not out in his Philosophy, when he so oft saith, that fiducia is spes roborata, then our Divines make Hope to justifie.

Yet for all this, I have not espoused this saying, that Love to Christ is Essential to justifying faith: nor will contend with any man that thinks it unmeet: if we agree in the things of moment▪ I hate to quarrel about words.

Nor do I think it a meet phrase to say, we are justified by Love, (though in the sense before mentioned, I think it true,) because it is but a part, or affection as it were of that recep­tion, by which we are justified, and stands not in so full a rela­tion to the object received.

And yet, if I had said none of all this, I see not that I need any more then to deny your consequence, as being wholly ungrounded: For it followeth not, that if it be an essen­tial part, that therefore it must have the Denomination of the whole: yea, though the whole be said to work by that part. The Brain and Heart are essential parts of the [Page 348] Body: and yet not to be called the Body; and it is more pro­per to say that the body works by the Brain or Heart; or that the vegetative soul doth work by the natural heat and Spirits; then to say, the Body worketh by the Body, or the vegetative soul by it self. I will explain all together in my usual Similitude, which is Dr. Prestons (or rather Pauls) A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon, and also to be made a Queen, if she will but take the Prince for her Hus­band. Now here put your Questions. 1. Is Love any part of the Condition of her Pardon and Dignity? Answer, Yes: An essential part; for Consent is of the Essence of it: and Love is essential to true consent, to receive any offered good: Not love as it is a Passion, but as it is an act of the rational Appe­tite; which is but Velle; And Eligere, Consentire, Acceptare are nothing else but a respective Willing. 2. But it is not Love as a Vertue in general, or as exercised on any other object, which is this essential part of the Condition: but only love to him whom she marrieth: And so her first love is necessary to her Pardon and Dignity as begun; and her continued love (and marriage-faithfulness) is necessary to them▪ as they are to be continued: (supposing the Prince to know the heart as Christ doth.) Qu. 2. Is it then a meet phrase to say, that she is pardon­ed and dignified by loving such a Prince? Answ. It hath some Truth in it, but it is not a fit speech; but rather that it is by marrying him, because Love is but a part, or as it were an Af­fection of that Marriage Covenant or consent, which indeed doth dignifie her: Love may be without marriage, but not Marriage (cordially) without Love. So in our present case, justifying faith is the very Marriage Consent or Covenant with Christ; It is therfore fitter to say, we are justified by it, then by love; because the former expresseth the full conditi­on: the latter not: Qu. 3. If love be an essential part of the Marriage-consent, then may we not as well say, Marriage caus­eth Marriage, as to say, Marriage causeth Love. Answer No. For 1. That Love which it causeth, is the following acts of Love. 2. And the name of Love is most usually given only to the Passion which is in the sensitive; but not usually to the meer Velle, the elicite act of the rational appetite. I have [Page 349] been the more prolix on this, because it serves also for an­swer to other of your Objections, especially the third.

2. You object [Gospel-Precepts are many, if not all, the same with the moral Law: if justified then by obedience to them; are we not justified by the works of the Law? &c. Answer. 1. James yields the whole. 2. If you speak of our Justifi­cation at first, by which, of guilty and lyable to condemna­tion, we become recti in curia, or are acquit, I then yield all that you seek here, viz. that we are not justified by works. 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned mistake of my meaning, as if I thought that justifying faith contained essentially such obedience or works. 4. We are not justified by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt, which are the works that Paul speaks of. 5. That which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue, taken Division, without the sanction, viz: the Promise or the Commination, is not the Law, but one part of the Law: and the other part, viz. the sanction adjoined, if diversified, makes it two distinct Laws, though the Duty com­manded be the same. The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam, is not the same with that which should com­mand a sick man to drink some for a cure. 6. That our Justi­fication is continued, on condition of our sincere obedience, added to our faith, I maintain with James. 7. Will you answer your own objection, and you tell me what to answer: Faith is a duty of the moral Law: if we are justified by faith, then we are justified by a work of the Law. I know you will not evade as those that say, Faith is not a work, but a Passion: nor as those that say, we are justified by it not as a work; but as an Instru­ment: for I have heard you disclaim that. If you say it is not as a work, but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end, then you say as I do, both of faith, and secondarily of works. For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation, or of the final Justification? or of our present Justi­fication as continued, vel nor amittendi Justificationem jam re­captam, as Conr. Bergius saith; I know but one other evasion left in the world which I once thought none would have ad­ventured [Page 350] on; but lately an acute Disputant (with me) main­tains, that faith is not conditio moralis, vel ex voluntate consti­tuentis, but Conditio physica vel ex natura rei. But I think I shall easily and quickly disprove this opinion.

Rababs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace, and not of the old Law of works.

In a word, As there is a two fold Law, so there is a two fold Accusation and Justification: when we are accused as breakers of the Law of works, that is, as sinners in common sort, and so as lyable to the penalty thereof, then we plead only Christs satisfaction as our Righteousnes, and no work of our own: But when we are Accused of final non-performance of the con­ditions of the New Law, that is of being Rejectors of Christ the Mediator, we are justified by producing our faith and sincere obedience to him. The former Paul speaks of; and James of the latter. You may see Divines of great Name saying as I in this, as Mead, Deodate on James the 2. but most fully Pla­caus in Thes. Salmuriens. Thes. de Justific. &c.

To your third Objection, That Faith, Repentance, Hope and Love (as before explained) are distinguished, I easily yield you. But where you say (Faith and Love have different Objects, there­fore one is no essential part of the other) I answer, That faith in Christ, and Love to the Saints (which your Texts mention) have different Objects, I soon confess. But faith in Christ (as it is the first Act of the Will) and love to Christ, have one and the same Object, beyond all doubt.

Your fourth I wholly yield, if you speak of faith strictly, or as it Justifieth, and not in a large improper sence.

Your fifth is grounded on the forementioned mistake of my meaning. And there needs no further answer, but only to tell you, that though sincere obedience to all Christs Lawes be a part of the condition of our Justification as continued and con­summate at Judgement; yet it follows not that every particu­lar duty must be done▪ no more then that Adam must obey eve­ry particular Law before he were actually just. It is sufficient that there be no other defect in our Obedience, but what may stand with sincerity. The same Precept may command, or make Duty to one, and not to another, and so be no Precept [Page 351] as to him. A man that lives but an hour after his conversion is, bound sincerely to obey Christ according to his Law: but he is not bound to build Churches, nor to do the work of twenty years. Christ may be received as King, (and is) in the same moment in which he is received as Justifier; and in that recep­tion we covenant to obey him, and take him for our Lord to the death; but not to obey him on earth when we are dead; for we are then freed from these Lawes, and come under the Lawes of the Glorified.

To your sixth I answer, The Texts alledged have no shew of contradicting the Point you oppos;se. One saith, we are jus­tified by his Blood: But doth it thence follow, (therefore not by Believing in him or receiving him as King, are we made parta­kers of it.) His Blood is the Purchasing cause, but we enquire after the condition on our part. The other Text saith, (through faith in his Blood.) But 1. it saith not only in his Blood. 2. And his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of his Justi­fying us: for by his blood he bought all into his own hands: For to this end he Died, Rose and Revived, that he might be Lord of Dead and Living. Rom. 14.9. It may be therefore through faith in his Blood, as the chief part of the satisfaction, and yet necessarily also through faith in himself, or the Reception of himself as the Christ. 3. Yet doth the Apostle most conveni­ently say, (through faith in his blood) rather then (through faith in his Dominion or Government,) because when he speaks of Faith, he speaks Relatively: not (as some understand it) by Faith meaning Christ, but using the name of that Act which fitliest and fulliest relates to its Object; and so intending the Object more principally then the Act. And as it is fitter to say, that (we are Justified by Christs blood,) then that (we are Justified by his Kingly Power,) therefore the Apostle rather speaks of faith in his blood, as neerliest relating to the Object. Yet, as he excludes not Christs obedience, (for by his obedience many are made Righteous) nor faith in his obedience, and in his whole humiliation as well as his blood; and in his Resurrecti­on, and Intercession and Exaltation; so not in his Kingly Office. Look back on the former Example to make this plain. A poor condemned woman is delivered and Dignified by marrying a [Page 352] Prince that hath redeemed her on that condition. When she speaks of her Deliverance, she will say, [I am delivered by the Bounty, Goodness or Redemption of my Prince, and so by marry­ing him that in mercy Redeemed me.] rather then [I am deliver­ed by marrying a Prince to Rule me.] Because in the former she more fitly & fully expresseth more of the cause of her Delive­rance: Much less will she think it a fit speech to say, I am deli­vered by marrying an Avenger of his enemies, a Condemner, a Punisher, &c.) as you are pleased to speak in this our case. And yet who doubts, but her marrying or taking him for her Hus­band hereafter to Rule her, as well as presently to Deliver her, is the very true Condition on her part of her Deliverance? Yea, and if you speak not only of her Deliverance, but of her Dig­nity (being enriched, Honoured and made a Queen,) it is the fittest phrase to say (it was by her marrying a Prince.) And so if you speak not only of Pardon and Justification (which import our Deliverance in statum quo prius,) but also of our A­doption to be sons, and Kings, and Heirs with Christ, it is no un­fit phrase to say, This is by our marrying King Jesus; or by re­ceiving Christ as the King by Redemption.

All the Benefits which we Receive from Christ (which follow Union) such as are Pardon, Justification and Adoption, do flow from our Union with himself which precedes them. This Union is by Faith: We are united to him as to a Head, Hus­band and Prince, and not only as a Justifier? therefore from him received as a Head, Husband and Prince, do these Benefits of Justification and Adoption flow.

To your seventh Objection I answer, by denying the latter part of your Antecedent [that Scripture nowhere makes (Christs Dominion you say, but) Christum Dominum (you should say,) the Object of justifying Faith.] I never thought that Christs Do­minion, nor yet his Redemption was the proper Object of the chiefest act of Justifying Faith. But Christ himself as Lord and as Redeemer is. I prove it, 1. Christ is the proper Object of justifying Faith (as I shall anon prove.) But the name Christ signifieth as directly and fully his Kingly Office as his Justify­ing. If you include not his being King, you Receive him not as Christ.

[Page 353]2. To Receive him as Redeemer is to Receive him as King▪ For his very Redeeming was a Purchasing them into his own hands, (Joh. 13.3. Matth. 28.18 Joh. 17.2. & 3.35. Luke 10.22. Ephes. 1.20, 21. Joh. 5.26, 27. Rom. 14.9 &c.) though not only so.

3. Psalm 2. Kiss the Son left he be angry, &c. Kissing, or submitting to, and Receiving the Son as King (for so the whole Psalm expounds it) is the condition of escaping wrath; there­fore of Pardon (for Poena & Venia sunt aduersa:) therefore of our Justification.

4. Matth. 11.27. Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, (Guilt is the great load:) But under what Noti­on will Christ be come to? Take my yoke and burthen, &c. Learn of me, &c. and ye shall find rest to your souls. Rest! from what? from that they were burdened with: and that was Guilt, among other things: and to remove the burden of the Guilt of sin or curse of the Law, is to Pardon and Justifie. (I hope you will not say, that the only Burden that Christ offers here to ease them of, was the pharises rigorous Interpretation of the Law, as I was told you expound it.)

5. Luke 19.27. These mine enemies that would not I should Reign over them, &c. If Rejecting Christ as King be the con­demning sin according to the tenor of the New Law; then Ac­cepting him as King is part of the condition of Justification. The Consequence is plain, because the said Rejection con­demneth, as it is the non-performance of that condition which must be performed to the avoiding of condemnation. More Scriptures might be brought; but the first Argument alone is suficient, if there were no more.

To your eighth Objection I answer. The Object of justify­ing Faith is Christ himself principally; and the word as both Revealing, Offering him, Promising, Threatning: but it is not Christ commanding, first, but Christ as King to Command. This is answered in the former.

To your ninth Objection I answer; when I say that [Recei­ving Christ as Lord is one part of Justifying Faith,] I speak not of the Act morally, as if it had two parts where it is entire: It is but one moral Act to Accept of whole Christ (if you speak [Page 354] simply of Accepting, as distinct from preceding Assent and sub­sequent Affiance.) But I call it (part) in reference to the Ob­ject, whence you say ariseth the Difference: Though Christs Office of Mediator be but one; yet from the works of that of­fice we look on his Governing, and Pardoning or Justifying as distinct parts: and thence I call this act of faith (a part.) For that you say of obedience following faith and as an effect and sign, I easily yield it.

But where you say, that [Trust is the Genus where the Ob­ject is an incomplex term] I answer; if you take faith as it is justifying (or the condition of our Justification) and not in the strictest sense, so it hath more Acts then one about the incomplex term. And Affiance is the Genus of one only. To accept (an offered Saviour,) is an Act precedent in order of Nature before any other act of the Will; that is, the elicite Acts are before the Imperate: and Trust is not the Genus of this. Besides, Trust is no one act, but many, and that of both faculties, and a Negation of several acts besides. A certain Argument that it is no one single Act that justifieth, even in their Judgement that say Affiance is the justifying Act; when the Scripture speaks of faith as Affiance, it includes Accep­tance or consent, which go before Affiance in order of nature; Yea some of our most Learned, Accurate Divines, when they say Affiance is the justifying faith, do either by Affiance mean only that elicite act of the Will, which I call Acceptance, Con­sent or Election, or else (rather) they mean several acts, whereof this is one. So Amesius Medul. l. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. Fides ist a qua credimus non tantum Deum, aut Deo, sed in Deum, est vera ac propia fiducia: non qua hac voca notatur certa & absoluta persuasio de bono futuro, sed quâ significat Electionem & Apprehensionem sufficientis ac idonei medi [...], ac in qou persau­sio & expectatio talis fundatur. Quo sensu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in sapientia, potentia, Amicis ac opibus suis, Psal. 78.22. If therefore you understand by Affiance many Acts, of which velle Christum oblatum, (called Acceptation, quia volumus objectum ut oblatum; and Election, quia volumus me­dium h [...]s, rejectis aliis; or Consent, quia volumnus ex alterius Promotione qui prius volui [...],) is the first and chief, (of those [Page 355] of the Will) as Amesius doth, then I am of your mind. If you say that Velle vel Acceptare is not credere vel fidem babere in the common notation of the word: I answer 1. It includes Velle as its principal Act in the common use of the word, when its object is an Incompelx term: but indeed it includeth more also. 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affec­tion we say: but Will much more. 3. I answer in the words of Amesius, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. §. 2, 3 Credere vulgo significat actum intellectus Assensum testimonio praebentis: sed quoniam conse­quenter volunt as moveri solet, & extendere sese ad amplectendū bonum it a probatum, ideirco fides [...]tiam hunc Voluntatis actum designat satis aptè, quomodo hoc in loco necessario intelligitur. Est enim receptio bond sub ratione boni, & intima unio cum codē, John 1.12. Hinc fides fertur in bonum; qoud per istam fit no­strum, est actus Electionis: est actus Totius hominis; qua actui Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt. John 6.35.

Yea further, I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in sincerity, there is Justification certainly consequent: but the term Affiance contains some acts which Divines say, do only follow Justification: which also Amesi. seems to acknowledge, ibid. § 21. Quod vero fiducia dicitur fructus fidei, verum est de fiducia prout respicit Deum in futurum, & est spes f [...]rma, sed pro­ut respicit Deum in Christo in praesentia se offerentem, est ipsa fides.

Yea the same Amesius tells us Medul. lib 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divina; viz. 1. Notitia rei à Deo testatae. 2. [...]ffectio pia erga Deum quae fa­cit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipsius Testimonium. 3. Assersus qui praebetur veritati test atae propter hanc affectionem erga Deum qui est ejus testis. 4. Aquiescentia in Deum ad illud quod prop [...]ni­tur consequendum. 5. Electio vel apprehensio rei ipsius, quae in Testimonio nobis exhibetur. So that even this faith hath many acts. Yea, and he adds, Primum horum est in intellectu: sed non constituit fidem, &c. secundum, quartum & quintum sunt in voluntate, & constituunt fidem, prout est virtus & actus religio­nis. T [...]rtium (viz. assensus) est in intellectu, sed prout movetur, à voluntate; neque est proprie fidei virtus, s [...]d effectum. So that this Doctrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very [Page 356] will, 2. and makes the intellectual acts (even assent) to be but an effect of faith, and not the vertue, is far from yours (though I scruple not to take in assent with the rest, for all it is in the Intellect,) and if these be all in that faith which is a holy vertue, much more must that which justifies contain as much. And indeed to place justifying faith only in the intel­lect, is somewhat strange for those that make it the principal Grace, when Philosophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue. For in the understanding are only intellectual Habits; but moral vertues are all placed in the Will, or sensitive appe­tite (for that quarrel I will pass by, whether they be only in the sensitive as Burgers [...]icius, &c.) If any therefore wonder that I place faith in so many acts, and yet make one the chief compleative Act, I have yet further this most accurate Divine saying the very same as I. Perfectio autom fidei est in Electione aut apprehensione illa, qua bonum Propositum fit nostrum. Hinc fi­dei natura [...]ptimè explicatur in Scriptura cum fideles di [...]untur adhaerer [...] D [...]o, Jos. 23.6. Act. 11.23. & vi [...] veritatis [...]ligere, Psal. 119.30, 31. Where you see also that by Affiance and Adhaesion, Amesius principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is. And indeed he that observeth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans salvation or damna­tion on his Will mainly, (so far as it may be said to depend on our own acts,) rather then on any acts of the understanding (but only as they refer and lead to those of the Will) might well wonder, that justifying saving faith, the great needfull act, should be only intellectual, and not chiefly in or by the Will, as well as all the rest. Ye will not come to me that ye may have life: How oft would I, and ye would not? These mine enemies that would not I should reign over them, &c. Whoever will, let him take or buy freely, &c. Still almost all is laid on the Will: and yet is not Faith in the Will? Assent may be compelled by evi­dence of Truth, and so be unvoluntary. And so a man may be a Believer thus against his Will: and if this will serve, men may be saved against their Wills. I know some think it enough that the Will commands the understanding to believe. But even thus saith Amesius, Medul. l. 2. c. they place the first principle in the Will. Qui fidem collocant iu intellectu, necessariam tamen [Page 357] fatentur esse aliquam motion [...] vol [...]ntatis ad assensum illum prae­bendum: quemadmodum i [...] fide humana voluntarium esse dici­tur adhibere fidem alicui; si vero à voluntate pend [...]at fides, necesse est ut primū principium fidei sit in voluntate, [...]. 20 But this is on­ly commanding the performance, & so it is thus no elicit act (for Aquinas and others conclude, that Voluntas est Principium de­terminans actus humanos quo ad exercitium actus; intellectus au­tem quo ad actus specificationem.) But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Act that I assert. And as I said, this imperium volun­tatis may possibly be wanting, and belief be involuntary for the main. Let me add but one more consideration, (for I perceive my tediousness) If Infidelity as it is a Privation of saving faith, and so is the condemning sin, be in the Will as well as in the Intellect, then faith must be in the Will too: But In­fidelity is in both. Ergo. &c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer assent, is rather said to be willing, then in the Will; but that which is opposite to justifying faith, is in the Will. Luk. 19.27. Those mine enemies that would not I should raign over them, bring them hither, &c. saith Amesius Medul. l. 2. cap. 5. §. 48. Opponuntur ista (Infidelitas &c. fidei, non tantum qua tollunt Assensum illum Intellectus qui est ad fidem necessarius: sed etiam qua inferunt & includunt privatio­nem illius Elections & apprehensionis fidei quae est in Volun­tate.

Surely an unwillingness to accept Christ for our Lord and Saviour, is no small part of the condemning sin, which we therefore call the rejecting of Christ; The treading him under foot; Neglecting so great Salvation; Not willing to come to Christ for life; Making light of him, when they are invited to the marriage, (Mat. 22.) and making excuses: Not-kissiing the son, (Psal. 2.) with many the like, which import the Wills refusal of Christ himself, and not only its unwillingness to believe the Truth of the Promise or Declaration of the Gos­pel.

To your tenth Objection I answer by denying the conse­quence; we speak of the soul as rational, and not as sensitive or vegetative. When the understanding & Will receive Christ, the whole soul doth it: that is, every faculty, or the soul by a [Page 358] full entire motion in its several Actings to the Object pre­sented, both as true and good. Your Joy, Hope, Fear, are in the sensitive: And Love as a Passion, and as commonly ta­ken. And for Memory, take it for an act of the Understand­ing; or of Understanding and Imagination conjunct; or for a third faculty as please your self, it will not breed any difficul­ty in the case. But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of Christ, or any Object as Good, I much question. I take it ra­ther for the shunning of an evil, then the Reception of Good. So much for your Objections.

I will next, as impartially as I can, consider your Answers to what I laid down for the proof of the Point in Question. But first I must acknowledge▪ that I have given you and others great advantage against the Doctrine of that Book, by the im­methodicalness, and neglect of Art, and not giving the Argu­ments in form, which I then thought not so necessary as now I perceive it is: (for I was ready to yield wholly to Gi­beeufs reasons against formal arguing, Praefat. ante lib. 2. de Li­bertate.) The present expectation of death caused me to make that haste, which I now repent: yet, though I see some over­sights in the manner of expression, I see no cause to change my mind in the Doctrine of it.

Also I must desire you to remember here, that the proof ly­eth on your part, and not on mine: Affirmanti incumbit pro­batio. It is acknowledged by almost all, that fides qua Justifi­cat, Justifying faith is a Receiving of Christ as Lord, and not only as Saviour or Justifier: And you and I are agreed on it, that Faith justifieth not as an Instrument, but as a Condition: so that they who will go further here, and maintain that yet Faith justifieth only As it Receiveth Christ as Justifier, or as Sa­viour, and not as King, must prove what they say. If I prove 1. that Faith justifieth as the Condition, on performance whereof the Gift is conferred. 2. And that this Faith which is the Condition, is the Accepting of Christ as Christ, or the Anointed King and Saviour: (both which are yielded me;) I must needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Christ as King, doth as truly Justifie, as the Receiving him as Priest or Justifier: (Yet I had rather not say that either Justifies, [Page 359] (because 1. it is no Scripture phrase, 2. and seemeth to import an Efficiency▪) but rather, that [we are justified by it,] which imports here but a conditionality, and is the Scripture phrase.) Till you have proved your exclusion of faith in one respect from the Justifying Office, and your confinement of it to the other, my proof stands good: I give you the entire condition: and ubi Lex non distinguit, non est distinguendum; multó minus dividendum. And though those that assert the proper Instru­mentality of faith in Justifying, or else the meer natural condi­tionality, may have something to say for their Division; (though with foul absurdities) Yet what you can say, (who have escaped those conceits) I cannot imagine. Me thinks, if faith Justifie, as the condition of the Grant or Covenant, and this condition be the Receiving of Christ as Lord and Saviour, it should be impossible to exclude the receiving Christ as King, from Justifying, till you first exclude it from the said conditio­nality. A Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia. To Justifie therefore As the condition (on which the Promise gives Christ, and with him Justification,) must needs infer that we are justi­fied by all whatsoever hath such a conditionality. Yet (as I said before) when we intend to express, not only or principal­ly the Act of the Receiver, but also, or principally, the Grace of the Giver, then it is a fitter phrase to say, we are Justified by faith in his Blood, or by Receiving Christ the Saviour and Justifier: because it fulliest and fitliest expresseth that Grace which we intend, (and thus Paul oft doth.) So that they who distinguish between Fides quae Justificat, and Fides qua Justifi­cat and admit that Act into the former, which they exclude from the latter, must prove what they say. (Fides qua justifi­cat, non Recipit Christum vel ut Regem vel sacerdotem, sed tan­tum Justificat. i. e. Qua est Conditio, non est Receptio: Nec qua Recipit Justificat; i. e. Qua Receptio, non est Conditio: Ma­teria & forma non sunt confundenda. Actus fidei est quasi ma­teria, vel Aptitudo tantum ad officium conditionalitatis: Distin­ctio igitur ipsa est inepta.) Now to your Answers: (Pardon this prolixity.)

First I must tell you, that by that phrase [the whole soul] I mean the entire motion of the soul by Understanding and Wil­ling, [Page 360] to its Object both as True and Good: For I know the whole soul may be said to understand in every Intellectual Action, and to will in every act of willing. But when it on­ly understands or Assents, and not willeth, it doth not Act fully according to its Power, nor according to the nature of its Ob­ject, when the Goodness is neglected, and the Truth only ap­prehended. And it is not a compleat motion, seeing the Acts of the understanding are but introductory or preparatory to those of the Will, where the motion of the Rational soul is compleat. And so my Argument stands thus: If Justifying faith be the Act both of the understanding and the Will, then it is not one single act only: But &c. Ergo, &c. Prob. Anteced. Justifying faith is the Receiving of Christ: but Christ is Recei­ved by the Understanding and Will; (by the former incom­pleatly, by the latter compleatly:) therefore Justifying faith is the Acting both of the Understanding and Will. Probatur Minor. Christ must be Received as Good, and not only his Word (or himself) as true: therefore he must be Received by the Will as well as the Understanding: for Goodness is the ob­ject of the Will.

Here you answer 1. by confessing, that Faith is called a Re­ceiving of Christ: 2. by interpreting that speech [He is Re­ceived by the receiving his Word, which is received by Assent.] This is worth a fuller enquiry, because the discovery of the pro­per Object of Faith, will shew the proper Act. The Intellec­tual Act [Assent) hath for its Objectum formale the Veracity of God, or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Testifying: This is not it that we enquire after. The material Object (for we must use the Schools termes in this distinction, though per­haps fitter might be found,) is 1. Proximius; that is, the moral Verity of the Testimony or Word. 2. Ʋlterius, the Metaphy­sical Verity of the Things signified (as Christs Person, God-head, Incarnation, Resurrection, &c.) The former is but the means to the latter, and for its sake, and not for its self. In re­gard of this act of Assent, you may say as you do, that Christ is Received by receiving his Word: because the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded. But then 1. These are yet [Page 361] two distinct Acts as the Objects are distinct. 2. And this Intellectual Act is called a Receiving of the Truth Believed but imperfectly because it leads to that Act of the Will which (in morality) is more fitly and fully called a Receiving: and there­fore if Assent produce not that Acceptation or consent of the Will, it cannot fitly it self be called a Receiving of Christ. (For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Species, I suppose we neither of us speak.) The material Object of Justifying faith as it is in the Will, is 1. Principal, and Adaequate, which is Christ himself. 2. Subservient or Instrumental, which is the Covenant, Promise, or testamentary Gift, in & by which Christ is offered and Given. These are two distinct Acts, as the Ac­cepting of a Testament, and of the Legacy: of a Pardon writ­ten, and the real Pardon thereby signified: or of the Oath of Allegiance, and of the Prince to whom we swear. But because of the Relation between the one and the other, Faith may be called a receiving of Christ, or a receiving of the Gospel. Yet so, as still the proper principal Object is Christ, and the Gospel but [...]ediate, as to him. These are my thoughts. Now (if I am able to understand you) your words import, that in your Judge­ment, Christ is received two wayes: 1. by Faith, and that is only by Assent: and this is only by receiving his Word: that is, in Believing it to be True. 2. By other Graces; and those I think, you refer to the Wills receiving. Against this opinion I further alledge, 1. Almost all Protestant Divines acknow­ledge faith to be the Act (or rather Acts) of both faculties, even Dr. Downame not excepted (and Ca [...]ro himself speaks sometime darkly) insomuch that Melancthon, Joan▪ Cr [...]cius and many more make it the judgement of Protestants in oppo­sition to Popery. And so doth Amesius in Bellarm. Enerv. though he judge it (as Camero) not accurate, in M [...]dul. l. 1. c. 3. sect 22. Yea he that though it must be but in one faculty, chooseth to place it only in the Will, and excludes Assent, as being called faith quia parit fidem. Excellent Davenant saith, Insactu fidei justifit antis Totu Anima se convertit ad causam ju­stificantem. Determin. Q. 38. pag. 174. And again, Fides illa quam scriptura justificantem agnoscit, habet in se complicatum actum Voluntatis & Intellectus. Determin. Q. 37. pag. 166▪ [Page 362] Again, Ne (que) nobis absurdum sed valde consentaneum videtur, actum illum quo tota anima purificatur & Justificatur, ad To­tam animam pertinere: ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium; in Voluntate complementum ibidem. Again, Quod Philosophan­tur Voluntatem & Intellectum esse duas potentias reipsa distin­ctas, dogma philosophicum est, ab omnibus haud receptum; & Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentum minime idoneum▪ Idem ibid.

2. Assent is not any full moral Receiving of Christ: But faith (which Justifieth) is a full moral Receiving of Christ, (Job 1.12.) therefore Assent alone is not the faith that justi­fieth. I know there is a Metonymie in the word Receive (be­cause in strict speech in Physicks, Recipere est pati) But it is so usual and near, that in morality it is taken for a proper speech, to call the Acceptation of an offered good [A Receiving.]

3. There is such a thing as the proper accepting of Christ, requi­red as of flat necessity to Justification and Salvation: But this acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other Grace: therefore it is taken for an Act of faith. The Maj. I hope no Christian will deny. For when Christ is offered to the world as their Saviour, Redeemer, Teacher, King-Husband; who can think that the accepting of him is not required, yea even in the offer? Not a physical Reception which some absurdly and dan­gerously dream of, but a moral; as when a people take a man for their King or Teacher; or a woman takes a man for her Husband. And for the Minor: Receiving Christ offered is not usually expressed in the term, Hope, Joy, Charity, Repen­tance; therefore it is included in the word Faith (unless you can name some other Grace which it is usually expressed by.)

4. The Grace by which we are united to Christ is Faith: But it is receiving Christ by which we are so united to him; therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Christ. I sup­pose none will deny that it is Christ himself that we must be united to by believing, and not the Word or Promise; and that it is receiving Christ which unites us to him, is obvious both from the language of Scripture, and the nature of the thing. A People is united to their Prince, as the head of the [Page 363] Republique, and a Church to their Teacher, and a woman to her Husband, by the Wills consent or acceptance, and not pro­perly▪ (but only initially, preparatorily, imperfectly and im­properly, and if it be alone, not at all) by believing the Truth of their words. Amesius saith, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. §. 18 Fides etiam cum sit primus actus vitae nostrae, qua Deo in Christo vivimus, consistat necesse est in unione cum Deo, quam nullo modo facere potest Assensus adhibitus veritati quae est de Deo.

5. By faith it is that we give up our selves to be Christs Di­sciples, Subjects, Members; (For Scripture ascribes not this to other Graces usually or chiefly. And to take him for our Sa­viour and Head, and give up our selves as his redeemed and Members, is all one work.) But it is not by Assent only, chief­ly or fully at all, that we give up our selves to Christ as Disci­ples, Members, &c. Therefore it is not by Assent properly or fully that we receive Christ. So Amesius ubi supra, §. 19. Cre­diturus etiam porro cum ex miseriae sensu, & omnimo [...]ae liberati­onis, cum in se, tum in aliis defectu, necesse habeat se dedere Deo in Christo tanquam Servatori sufficienti & fideli, Dediti­onem istam facere non potest ullo modo per Assensum Intellectus, sed per Consensum Voluntatis. And indeed I think this Dediti­on or self-delivery to be part of Faith: and that the covenant­ing in heart with God in Christ, is the very justifying faith, taking him for ours, and giving up our selves to him as his: and the external Covenanting is the profession of Faith: and that Baptism is the marriage-solemnization, and engaging sign and means.

6. That Act which cannot be discerned in a Saint (in it self) from what may be in the wicked, is not the receiving of Christ (fully or properly) which justifies: But the Act of Assent to the Truth of the Gospel, as it is in a Saint, cannot in it self be discerned from what may be in the wicked. Therefore the Act of Assent is not the Receiving of Christ which justi­fies.

The Major is hence evident: In that justifying faith being the condition of our Justification, must needs be the great Mark to know by, whether we are justified or no: But if it could not be known to be sincere it self, in vain is it made a [Page 364] Mark to know our state by: yea or a Condition, almost, when a man can never tell when he performeth it. The Minor I have endeavoured to prove in an Additional Chap. to the third part of my Book of Rest, to which for brevity, I refer you. Dr. Stoughton, I have there shewed you, saith as I: A [...]esius saith, Medul. l. 1. c. [...]. §. 4. quāvis fides praesuppmat semper notitiā Evangelii, nulla tamen datur in quoquā cognitio salutifera, & ab illa quo in quibusdam non salvandis reperitur, diversa, nif [...] conse­quenter ad actum istū voluntatis, & ab ipso dependens. Job. 7.17. and 8.31.32. 1 John. 2.3. I doubt not but (in the Intens­ness of Degree) there is a difference between the Intellec­tual acts (as Knowledge and Assent) in a Saint and a wicked man: but if any think that they are in themselves discernable, I would he would tell me one Mark of the difference. In their diffe­rent Effects on the Will, I know they are discernable.

7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith, and receiving of Christ doth make him ours, and so justifie; then you must acknowledge that other Graces justifie as well as faith; (yea not secondarily only, but as Prin­cipally as Faith:) But that you will be loth to do. The con­sequence will not be avoided, but by shewing that there is a twofold receiving of Christ, and that one justifieth, and the other not: which when you have proved from Scripture, I will yield: but then at least I shall gain this, that receiving Christ justifies not properly ex natura actus, sed ex voluntate Ordinan­tis: and if I get that, I get the main part of the cause in contro­versie.

8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Act of the Will: But Affiance is judged by the same Divines to be the justifying Act: Therefore they judge that the justifying Act (and con­sequently the Reception of Christ) belongs to the Will.

9. The Velle or Elicite act of the Will which I insist on, is the very first Act, and goes before Affiance (as it denotes any other Act of the Will:) Therefore either this Velle must be the justifying Faith and Reception of Christ, or else they must say that there is a saving reception of Christ that goes be­fore the justifying or Reception: which sure they will not grant, that make that Faith the actus primas vitae spiritualis.

[Page 365]10. Lastly, The opinion seems to me so Improbable, without and against reason, and so dangerous [that God doth assign one only Act of the soul to the Office of justifying, especially the act of assent] that I dare not entertain it without proof It is im­probable that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the Holy Ghost should speak, as if it were in the strictest discourse of Physicks. It is improbable that God should speak to man in such a Moral discourse, so as no men use to speak, and therefore so as men could not, without a further explication understand. Doth he that speaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, King, Master, &c. mean it of one only Act? (though I know Consent is the chief.) Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of such Receiving, Doth he mean that any one single Act is that Condition? Much less Assent.

Or is there any likelyhood, that when other Acts do receive the same Object, Christ, in a way of as high honouring him, that yet God should confine Justification to one Act, setting by all the rest? Yea when the rest are acknowledged to be part of the Condition? (and Receiving as Lord, to be the fides quae?) I know God is not bound to give man a Rea­son of his Laws: but yet he usually doth it: and we must take heed of asserting that to be Gods Law, which appears unrea­sonable, till we can prove what we say. Yea what a dangerous loss will Christians then be at, who will hardly ever be able to find out this single Act, what it is and when they have it? And he that knows how quick Spirits are in their actings, and withall how little able we are to observe and discern them, perhaps many doubt, whether you can find a name for any sin­gle act of a soul, or know when it is one Act, and when many. In the forementioned Instance, A woman is condemned for Treason; the Prince writeth to her, that he hath dearly paid her Ransom & will not only deliver her, but also make her his Queen, if she will Believe this, and Receive him accordingly; If now the Lawyers should dispute the case, what single act it was that she was Delivered and Dignified by, whether an act of the Intellect only, or of the Will only? whether Assent on­ly, or Affiance? Yea whether agendo vel patiendo (as many here do.) would not men think that learning made them dote? And I would entreat you to consider, whether it were Gods [Page 366] Design in the Gospel, to advance any one Act of mans soul above the rest, and so to honour it? or rather to advance the Lord Jesus whom faith Receiveth? as Mr. Gataker tels Sal [...] ­marsh, Many speak dangerously in over-magnifying their own faith, when they should magnifie Christ whom it relates to. I know the great thing that sticks with some, is that the Scrip­ture oft seems to describe faith by the Act of Assenting. But consider, so it doth in other places by Trusting, Resting, Taking, Receiving, Coming, Eating and Drinking, (which Metaphors must needs signifie acts of the Will,) &c. which shew that it is not any single Act. Again, as I said, the whole is denomina­ted from the first leading and most difficult Act: the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the per­sons to whom it was spoken. Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Messias or Mediator must be Re­ceived, Welcomed, Honoured, Loved, submitted to: but they could not Believe that Christ was he; And this was foolishness to the Gentiles also, as well as a stumbling-block to the Jews; that one that lived and walked among them, and seemed a poor contemptible man, and at last was crucified, should be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world. I tremble sometimes to think, if we had lived our selves in those times, how hard it would have been even to us to believe; so that when the great Difficult act is named, the other (Consent and Affiance) are still implyed, and included. I will end with Ame­sius true observation to this purpose, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. Quam­vis in scripturis aliquando Ascensus veritati quae est de Deo & Christo, Joh. 1.50. habetur pro vera fide; includitur tamen semper specialis fiducia: at (que) adeo omnibus in locis ubi sermo est de salutari fide, vel praesupponitur fiducia in Messiam, & indica­tur tantum determinatio, vel applicatio ejus ad personam Christi; vel per Assensum illum designatur, tanquam effectum per suam causam, Joh. 11.25, 26, 27. (§ 20.)

The second Argument which you answer, lyeth thus. If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart, then it is not only in the Understanding, but in the Will also. But the former is the words of Scripture, Act. 8.37. Rom. 10.10. Ergo, &c.

[Page 367]Here you answer that [the whole heart notes not every inward faculty, but (as often) sincerity.] To which I Reply, 1. The word [whole] I yield to Illyricus signifies the sincerity, which is usually expressed by Integrity, but the word [Heart] signi­fies the subject; and is commonly taken for the Will, and oft for the whole soul, Ʋnderstanding and Will, (as most Fathers, Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point, though the two former placed too much of it in the Assent:) but where and how oft do you find the word [Heart] used for the sole Intel­lect? I pray shew the place. 2. The proverbial speech [with all the Heart] is not used in Rom. 10.10. but only subject barely expressed: with the Heart man believeth to Righteous­ness.

My third Argument (as you place it) was to another use, which is of less moment. As I judge Faith to be taken, 1. some­times more strictly for meer Assent to a Testimony: (so James takes it when he saith, the Devils believe.) 2. And sometimes more fully for Assent and Acceptance, or Consent: (so Paul takes it; and so it Justifieth.) So 3. I suppose it is sometime taken most largely and improperly, for the full performance of the conditions of the New Covenant. If any deny this, I have no mind to contend for it, because it is but about a word, and not the thing. Your answer is twofold: 1. that Heb. 5.9. speaks of obeying Christ, but doth not call faith obeying Christ. I Reply. That Obedience which containeth the Condition of salvation by Christ (whereof Justification is a part) must needs include Faith: But the word Obedience Heb. 5 9 containeth the condition of salvation by Christ; therefore it includes faith. He is become the Author of Eternal salvation to all them that obey him.

Your second answer is, [It may be obedience by Assent, that Christ is the Messiah, died, rose, &c.] Repl. 1. If Obedience of meer Assent be not made the condition of Eternal salvati­on in Scripture, then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned: But the former is true: therefore the latter. 2. The first Assent to these Gospel Truths is not in a full proper sence called Obedience to Christ at all: therefore not here to be so understood. As subjection, so obedience is a term of Relati­on [Page 368] on supposing the Authority of a Superior, the acknowledge­ment of that Authority, A command from that Superior, and that the action be therefore done because so commanded. Now the first Assent to, or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Of­fice and Soveraignty, must needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a Soveraign. I confess improperly a man may be said to obey, when he yields to the Reason and perswa­sion of another; but this wants the very form of obedience pro­perly so called. If it be true that the first Acceptance of Christ for our Soveraign as Redeemer, by the Wills consent, may be both the Reception of him for King, and Obedience to him: Yet in order of Nature it is respectively a Reception first; though in time it is both at once. But the first Assent to Christs Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign. And for the understanding the Text, when I find Christ give the world, a systeme of Precepts, and tell them that he is become the Au­thor of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him, I dare not without Reason restrain that obedience (in the sence of it) to some one or two acts: Especially when I find that he hath made the like promise on condition of other acts of ours be­sides Believing: as in many Text I have shewed in those A­phor. Take my yoke and burden, &c. Learn of me to be meek and lowly, &c. and I will ease you, and ye shall find rest: For­give and ye shall be forgiven. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin shall have mercy, with multitudes of the like. And Rom. 10. that is called Faith, ver. 14, 17. which is called obeying the Gospel, ver. 16. And if the Gospel do as directly and urgent­ly command Consent as Assent; yea if it command love to Christ as of equal necessity with both, I have reason to think that in this large sence, Faith includes it. Why should obeying the Gospel, and obeying the Truth, be made Synonima's with Belie­ving as it is one single Act, when the Gospel commands many other Acts as of aequal necessity and excellency? Let me ar­gue thus ex concessis, from your self and others. Most Divines affirm that the proper Reason why Faith justifieth, is its Rela­tion to Christ; because it is a Receiving of him (it justifies Re­lative i.e. A Christ received Justifies:) but Mr. Tomb [...]s con­fesseth that other Graces receive Christ as well as Faith: there­fore [Page 369] other Graces justifie as well as Faith. The Consequence is a Quatenus ad Omne.

What [...] and [...] import in their first significati­on, is not to our business so much as in what sense they are commonly used: No doubt they may signifie properly our yielding to perswasion, improperly called Obeying: but that they are put for proper Obeying usually in Scripture, most In­terpreters affirm. You may therefore as well draw to your purpose the Latin Obedire, because it is but quasi ob-audire. Indeed the Obedience to a Teacher (as to Christ and his Mi­nisters, and of Scholars to their Master) who useth both Ar­gument and Authority, is fully and fitly expressed in those words. The word [Gospel] is principally spoken of the Doc­trine of Good tidings or Mercy by Christ (but sure not only of the Historical or Declaratory part, but also, yea principally of the Promise or Offer:) but the whole New Covenant or Law of Christ (for so it is, and so the Ancients unaminously call it) containing Precepts and Threatnings also, is called his Testament, Covenant, Gospel, being so denominated from the more excellent part. Heb. 7.18.19, 22. The Testament of Jesus is opposed to the Commandments of the Law, and called Better: therefore it comprizeth Christs Commands, proper to him. And is it not Christs whole Law which is of force when he is dead, and called his Testament? Heb. 9.17. And when the Apostle saith, They were made able Ministers of the New Testament, doth he mean only of the History, or the Precept of faith, and not of Love, Hope, Repentance, &c. Let his preaching witness, as the Expositors, (2 Cor. 3.6.) Or let Christ in giving them their Commission tell you what that New Testament is, Mat. 28. Go Disciple all Nations, &c. teach­ing them to observe all things what ever I command. And not to strive about words, you know that New Law of Christ, which is called his Testament, Covenant, Gospels, &c. hath all the Precepts in it which you mention. Is it not Precepts as well as Narrations which Mark calls the Gospel, Mar. 1.1.? Was it not the Gospel which Christ and the Apostles preach­ed? And they preached Repentance and Faith▪ and so com­manded Duty: If a man loose his Life for publishing or obey­ing [Page 370] Christs Precepts, doth not the Promise belong to him, Mar. 8.35. and 10 29? Or is that Promise to them only that suffer for the Declarative part only? Is the Gospel that must be published among all Nations, the History only? Mar. 13.10 Was the Precept of Accepting Christ, loving him in sin­cerity and obeying him &c. no part of that Gospel▪ to which Paul was separated? Rom. 1.1. in which he served in Spirit, ver. 9. of which he was not ashamed, ver. 16. and which he was put in trust With, 1 Thess 2.2, 4. Was it only the Declaration of Christs Death, Resurrection, &c. which is the Gospel ac­cording to which mens secrets must be judged? Rom. 2.16. or according to which the Jews are enemies, Rom. 11.28. com­pared with Luk. 19.27. Is not it larglyer taken, 2 Cor. 8.18? And subjection to the Gospel implies it preceptive, 2 Cor. 9.13. Peters withdrawing and separating from the uncircum­cision, and fearing the Jews, and dissembling, and Barnabas with him, was A not walking according to the Truth of the Gos­pel, Gal. 2.14. The false Apostles preached another Gospel, and the Galathians turned to another Gospel, when the former preached, and the later received the Doctrine of the Necessi­ty of being circumcised, and keeping Moses Law, Gal. 1.6, 7. so that the word [Testament] and [Gospel] includes Laws or Precepts of Duty.

4. To that of the sense of Gal. 3.12.23. about the largest extent of the word Faith, it being as I said, of so small mo­ment, I intend not to insist on it. My meaning is but this; that some other Graces are intended reductively, and the chief named for all. But by your answer I understand, 1. That you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant: which concession shall satisfie me, what ever you think of the sense of the Word, of these Texts. 2. but the rest of your Ans. I am unsatisfied in. You say [by Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Justificaiion in this Life is fulfilled: not concerning every benefit of the New Cove­nant: Repentance is the condition of Remission of sins: forgive­ing others, doing good to the Saints, of entering into Life.] Repl. 1. You know that not Wotton and many great Divines of England only, but of the most famous Transmarine, do take [Page 371] Justification and Remission to be one and the same thing. I have received Animadversions from divers learned Divines lately on these Aphorisms, and three or four of them blame me for making any difference between Justification and Remission; though I make as little as may be. And can you think then that Remission and Justification have several conditions? If they are not wholly the same, yet doubtless the difference is exceeding small, and rather notional then real. The same Commination of the Law doth both condemn and oblige to punishment. Remission is a discharge from the Obligation to Punishment; and Justification is a discharge from the condem­nation. So much then as that Obligation to Punishment, differs from the Laws condemnation, (which is nothing, or so little as it is not obvious to be discerned,) so much doth Re­mission differ from Justification. Yea even those Divines that in pleading for the interest of the active Righteousness to Justification, do to that end make Justification to have two parts; yet one of them, they say, is Remission of sin; as the other is the Imputation of Righteousness. And I pray how then can these two parts of the same Justification have two di­vers conditions, so as one is appropriated to one, and excluded from the other? I remember no reformed Divines, but they either make Justification and Remission to be all one; or Remission to be part of Justification, or else to be two Rela­tions (or other effects) immediately and at once (in order of time, if not of nature) resulting or proceeding from the same foundation (materially) or other cause. Though Ga­taker and Bradshaw make them to differ, it is but in this nar­row (and almost unconceivable way) but in time to concur. I must therfore differ from you in this, that they have divers conditions: and wait for your proof of it. But it seems you will give us leave to say, A man is not pardoned by faith only; And yet he is justified by faith only! and that as a condition! Faith then it seems can do the whole, but not one half (as some judge) or can do, and not do the same thing (as others.)

2. But do you think that Repentance is not necessarily Antecedent to Justification, as well as to Remission? If you say No; the current of the Gospel Doctrine will confute you: [Page 372] which usually putteth Repentance before Faith: and those Divines that say it followeth after it, do yet make them con­cur in order of time. But if Repentance do necessarily pre­cede Justification, (as I doubt not but you will yield) then let me know to what purpose, or under what notion or respect, if not as a Condition? Can you find any lower place to give it? 3. But if you should mean that Faith and Repentance are the condition of our first Justification and Remission, but afterwards only of our Remission. I Answer, 1. According to your Judgement (who take Justification to be one act tran­sient, once only performed, and neither a continued Act, nor renewed, or repeated,) neither Faith nor Repentance after­wards performed, are any conditions of our Justification in this Life. This may seem a heavy charge, but it is a plain Truth. For that Justification which we receive upon our first believing hath only that first Act of faith for its condition (or as others speak, its Instrumental cause) We are not justified to day by that act of Faith, which we shall perform to Morrow, or a Twelvemonth hence; so that according to your opinion, and all that go that way, it is only one (the first) Act of Faith which justifies; and all the following Acts through our whole life, do no more to our Justification, then the works of the Law do. I would many other Divines that go your way (for it is com­mon as to the dispatching of Justification by one Act) would think of this foul absurdity. (You may add this also to what is said before, against your opinion herein,) Where then is the Old Doctrine of the just living by faith, as to Justifica­tion? I may bear with these men (or at least, need not won­der,) for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Justification as continued, when they will not admit faith it self. Who speaks more against faith, they or I? When I admit as necessary that first act, and maintain the ne­cessity of repeated acts, to our continued Justification; and they exclude all save one Instantaneous act? 2. And what rea­son can any man give, why Repentance should be admitted as a condition of our first Justification, and yet be no condi­tion of the continuance of it? or what proof is there from Scripture for this? I shall prove that the continuance of our [Page 373] Justification hath more to its condition then the beginning; (though learned men, I know gain-say it:) but surely less it cannot have.

4. But why do you say only of Repentance that [it is the condition of Remision] and of forgiving others, that [it is the condition of entring into life?] Have you not Christs express words, that forgiving others is a condition of our Remission? if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you forgive not men, &c. Nay, is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveness? I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphorisms: Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings, &c. then if your sins be as crimson, &c. He that confesseth and forsaketh his sin, shall have mercy. And I would have it considered, if Remission and Ju­stification be either the same, or so neer as all Divines make them, whether it be possible, that forgiving others, and Re­format on or new Obedience should be a condition of the con­tinuance or renewal of a pardoning Act, and not of Justifica­tion? Doubtless, the general Justification must be continued, as well as the general pardon: and a particular Justification I think after particular sins, is needfull as well as particular par­don: or if the name should be thought improper, the thing cannot be denyed. Judicious Ball saith as much as I (yet men were not so angry with him,) Treat. of Covenant. pag. 20.21. [A disposition to good works is necessary to Justification, being the qualification of an active lively faith. Good works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification, and so to our final Absolution, if God give opportunity: but they are not the cause of, but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveness and Eternal bliss.] And pag. 21. [This walk­ing in the light as he is in the light, is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Christs Righteousness, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification, taken for Remission of sins or actual appro­bation with God.] And pag. 73. [Works then, or a purpose to walk with God, justifie as the passive qualification of the subject capable of Justification, or as the qualification of that faith which justifieth.] So he.

[Page 374]5. How will you ever prove, that our Entering into Life, and our continued remission or Justification have not the same con­ditions? that those Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other. Indeed the men that are for Faiths▪ Instrumenta­lity, say somewhat to it; but what you can say, I know not. And for them, if they could prove Faith Instrumental in justi­fying co nomine, because it receives Christ by whom we are justified; they would also prove it the Instrument of Glorify­ing, because it Receives Christ by and for whom we are saved and Glorified. And so if the Instrumentality of Faith must exclude obedience from justifying us, it must also exclude it from Glorifying us. And I marvel that they are so loose and easie in admitting obedience into the work of saving, and yet not of continuing or consummating Justification, when the A­postle saith, By Grace ye are saved, by Faith, and so ex­cludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Justification in particular.

6. But lastly, I take what you grant me in this Section, and profess that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cause that I stand upon. For, as you grant, 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant. 2. That Repentance also is the condition of Remission (which is near the same with Justification.) 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification (which hath the same conditions with final and continued Justification.) 4. So you seem to yield all this, as to our full justifi­cation at Judgement. For you purposely limit the conditiona­lity of meer faith to our Justification in this Life. But if you yield all that I desire (as you do, if I understand you) as to the last justification at Judgement, then we are not much dif­fering in this business. For I take (as Mr. Burges doth, Lect. of Justification 29▪) our compleatest and most perfect Justifica­tion to be that at Judgement. Yea, and that it is so eminent and considerable here, that I think all other Justifica