Apology Against the Exceptions of Black and Kendall, Section Baxter 1 – Section Blake 2
§. 1.
R. B. THis is a Point of ſo great moment in my eyes, that I reſolve to begin with it. I doubt not but the difference between you and me is only about the bare methodizing of our Notions, and not de Subſtantia rei: But I doubt leſt your doctrine being received by common heads, according to the true importance of your expreſſions, may do more againſt their ſalvation then is yet well thought on: And that not per accidens, but from its proper nature; ſuppoſing the impreſſion of the ſoul to be but anſwerable to the objective doctrinal ſeal. I am no friend to the confuſion that you here ſpeak againſt; and I am glad to find you ſo little in love with it, as to paſs your judgement that it is not to be ſuffered: For now I reſt aſſured that you will not be offended, when here or hereafter, I ſhall open your guiltineſs of it; and that you will not be unwilling of what may tend to your cure. Theſe two or three neceſſary diſtinctions I muſt firſt here premiſe, before I can give a clear anſwer to your words.
1. I diſtinguiſh ſtill between conſtitutive Juſtification or Remiſſion by the Goſpel grant or Covenant, called by moſt Juſtificatio Juris, and Juſtification per ſententiam Judicis. 2. I diſtinguiſh between conſtitutive Legal Juſtification as begun, and as continued or conſummate. 3. Between the Phyſical operation of Chriſt and his Benefits on the intellect of the Beleever per modum objecti apprehenſi, as an intelligible species; and the moral conveyance of Right to Chriſt and his Benefits, which is by an act of Law or Covenant-donation. 4. Between theſe two queſtions, What juſtifieth ex parte Chriſti? and What juſtifieth, or is required to our Juſtification ex parte peccatoris? 5. Between the true efficient cauſes of our Juſtification, and the meer condition, ſine qua non, & cum quâ. 6. Between Chriſts Meriting mans Juſtification, and his actual juſtifying him, by conſtitution or ſentence.
Hereupon I will lay down what I maintain in theſe Propoſitions, which (ſome of them) ſhall ſpeak further then the preſent Point in Queſtion, for a preparation to what followeth.
Prop. 1. Chriſt did Merit our Juſtification (or a power to juſtifie) not as a King, but by ſatisfying the juſtice of God in the form of a ſervant.
Prop. 2. Chriſt dotn juſtifie Constitutivè as King and Lord, viz. ut Dominus Redemptor, i. e. quoad valorem rei, he conferreth it, ut Dominus gratis benefaciens: but quoad modum conditionalem conferendi, ut Rector & Benefactor. For it is Chriſts enacting the new Law or Covenant, by which he doth legally pardon or confer Remiſſion, and conſtitute us Righteous, ſuppoſing the condition performed on our part. And this is not an act of Chriſt as a Prieſt or Satisfier; but joyntly, ut Benefactor & Rector.
Prop. 3. Chriſt doth juſtifie by ſentence, as he is Judge and King, and not as Prieſt.
Prop. 4. Sentential Juſtification, is the moſt full, compleat and eminent Juſtification; that in Law being quoad ſententiam, but virtual Juſtification; though quoad constitutionem debiti & relationis, it be actual Juſtification.
Prop. 5. Faith juſtifieth not by receiving Chriſt as an object which is to make a real impreſſion and mutation on the intellect, according to the nature of the ſpecies: I ſay, To juſtifie, is not to make ſuch a real change: Though ſome joy… with the Papiſts in this, and tell me, that as the Divine Attributes make their ſeveral moral Impreſſions on the ſoul according to their ſeveral natures, ſo do the ſatisfaction and merits of Chriſt, apprehended, procure comfort and joy, and a juſtifying ſentence to be pronounced in the ſoul it ſelf: and ſo the apprehenſion of Chriſts Soverainty cauſeth our ſubjection (which laſt is true.)
Prop. 6 Faith therefore can have no Phyſical Cauſation or Efficiency in juſtifying; ſeeing that the work to be done by us, is not noſmetipſos Justificare, in whole or in part, but only Jus acquirere ad Beneficium gratis ſed conditionaliter collatum: It is a Relative change that is made by Juſtification, and not a Real or Phyſical.
Prop. 7. The Legal, formal intereſt, or conducibility of Faith to our Juſtification, cannot therefore be any other then that of a Condition, in the proper Law-ſenſe, as the word [Condition] is uſed, viz. that ſpecies of conditions which they call Voluntariae vel Poteſtativae, and not Caſuales vel Mixtae.
Prop. 8. Scripture doth not ſay (that I can finde) that Faith juſtifieth; but that we are juſtified by Faith: I therefore uſe the later phraſe rather then the former, both becauſe it is ſafeſt to ſpeak with the Scripture, and becauſe the former ſpeech ſeemeth to import an Efficiency; but the later frequently imports no more then a meer condition. Yet I will not quarrell with any that ſpeaks otherwiſe, nor refuſe to ſpeak in their phraſe while I diſpute with them, as long as I firſt tell them my meaning.
Prop. 9. Though, ex parte Chriſti, our ſeveral changes proceed from his ſeveral Benefits, and parts of his Office exerciſed for us; yet, ex parte noſtri, i.e. fidei, it is one entire apprehenſion or receiving of Chriſt as he is offered in the Goſpel, which is the Condition of our intereſt in Chriſt and his ſeveral Benefits; and the effect is not parcelled or diverſified or diſtinguiſhed from the ſeveral diſtinct reſpects that faith hath to its object. Chriſt meriteth Remiſſion for us as Satisfier of Juſtice; and he actually juſtifieth us as Benefactor King and Judge, and he teacheth us as Prophet, and ruleth us as King. The real mutations here on us, receive their diverſification partly from our faith, becauſe there faith doth efficere or cauſare; As we learn of Chriſt becauſe we Beleeve him, or Take him for our Teacher: We obey him becauſe we Take him for our King, &c. But it is not ſo with the Conveyance of meer Right or Title to Chriſt and his Benefits. Faith doth not obtain Right to Remiſſion and Juſtification diſtinctly as it receiveth his Righteouſneſs, or himſelf as Prieſt; and ſo Right to the Priviledges of Chriſts Government, diſtinctly as it taketh him as King; nor Right to Adoption, as it taketh him as a Father; nor Right to Glory, as it taketh him as Glorifier: no more then all inferiour benefits (as Title to Magiſtracy, Miniſtry, Health, Houſe, Lands, &c.) proceed and are diverſified by the divers aſpects of our faith on Chriſt. The true Reaſon of which is this; That Right to a benefit is the meer effect of the Gift (Donation) or Revealed Will of the Giver: And therefore no Act of the Receiver hath any more intereſt, or any other then it pleaſeth the Donor to aſſign or appoint it to have. So that (ſuppoſitâ actus naturâ) all the formall Civil intereſt comes from Gods meer Will, as Donor: (for to the Abſolute Benefactor doth it belong, as to conferre all Right to his freely-given Benefits, ſo to determine of the Time and Manner of Conveyance, and ſo of the Conditions on the Receivers part.) The nature of the Act of Faith is cauſed by …, as Creator of the old and new Creature; I mean of our natural faculties, and their ſupernatural endowments or diſpoſitions: And therefore this is preſuppoſed in ordine naturae to faiths Legal intereſt: As God is firſt the Maker of earth, before he is the Maker of Adams body: Faith is to be conſidered as being Faith (i. e. ſuch acts exerciſed about ſuch objects) in order of nature, before it can be rightly conſidered as juſtifying or the condition of Juſtification: Seeing therefore it receives all its formal Legal intereſt from God, as Legiſlator and Donor of Chriſt and his benefits, which is after its material aptitude ad hoc officium; its intereſt muſt not be gathered directly, ex natura actus, but ex conſtitutione donantis & ordinantis: And therefore you muſt firſt prove out of the Goſpel, that It is the Ordination of God, that as Chriſts ſeveral actions have their ſeveral effects for us and on us, ſo our faith ſhall be the proper condition of each of theſe various effects, quâ apprehendit, as it Beleeveth or Accepteth each diſtinct effect, or Chriſt diſtinctly as the cauſe of that effect, & etiam conſideratum in modo cauſandi. But, alas, how inviſible is the Proof of this in all your Writings? (I will leave the reſt of the Propoſitions, by which I intended here together to have opened ſome more of my ſenſe, till afterwards, becauſe I will not interrupt the preſent buſineſs.) Here, either my Underſtanding is too ſhallow to reach your ſenſe, or elſe you are guilty, quoad literam, of very great confuſion; (which one would think ſhould have befallen you at any time, rather then when you are blaming others of unſufferable confuſion:) and yet quoad ſenſum involutum, of more dangerous, unſcriptural, unproved Diſtinction.
1. Your expreſſions confound Chriſt and his Actions, with mans faith in our Juſtification: Or, theſe two Queſtions [By what are we juſtified ex parte Chriſti?] and [By what are we juſtified ex parte noſtri?]
2. Your implied ſenſe, even the heart of your reaſoning, conſiſteth in this aſſertion, that [As our Right, as to the ſeveral benefits received, is to be aſcribed diſtinctly to ſeveral diſtinct Cauſes on Chriſts part, ſo alſo as diſtinctly are the particular Benefits, quoad Debitum vel Titulum, to be aſcribed to the ſeveral diſtinct apprehenſions of theſe Benefits (as moſt ſay) or of Chriſt as diverſly cauſing them (as ſome ſay.)] And here I cannot but complain of a treble injuſtice that you ſeem to me guilty of (even in this elaborate Treat, wherein you correct the Errors of ſo many others.)
1. Againſt the Truth and Word of God, in implying it to have done that, even in the great Point, the Conſtitution of the Condition of Juſtification and Salvation, which is nor to be found done in all the Scripture.
2. Againſt the ſouls of men: 1. In ſuch nice mincing and cutting the Condition of their ſalvation, to their great perplexity, if they receive your doctrine. 2. And alſo in not affording them one word of Scripture or Reaſon for the proof of it, which is injuſtice, when you are Confuting others and Rectifying the world in ſo great a Point. 3. Laſtly (and leaſtly) it is evident injuſtice to your Friend, to Accuſe him (for it is no hard matter to know whom you mean) with confounding the diſtinct parts of Chriſts Mediatorſhip, which he ſtill diſtinguiſheth as exactly as he can: though he do nor diſtribute as many offices to Faith, as there are objects for it, or as he doth to Chriſts ſeveral Works. Why did you not name one line where I do confound the parts of Chriſts Offices? I pray you do it for me in your next.
I will not trouble you much with Arguments for my opinion in this Point, ſeeing you meddle with none already laid down, and ſeeing I have done it over and over to others, and becauſe I am now but Anſwering to your Confutation. Only let me tell you, that the Proof lieth on your part. For when I have once proved, that God giveth Chriſt and his Benefits to man, on Condition he will Beleeve in Chriſt or Accept him: If you will now diſtinguiſh, and ſay, It is Accepting his ſatisfaction, which is the Condition of Juſtification, and Accepting him as King, which is the Condition of Sanctification or Glorification, &c. you muſt prove this to be true. For non eſt diſtinguendum vel limitandum ubi Lex non diſtinguis vel limitat. If God ſay [Beleeve in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved,] and you ſay, [Beleeving in him as Prieſt is the only Condition of ſaving thee from guilt: and Beleeving in him as King, is the only Condition of ſaving thee from the power of ſin, &c.] you muſt prove this which you ſay. Or if you will not ſay [It is the only Condition] but [the only inſtrument] you give up the Cauſe. For the word [Condition] is it that expreſſeth its neereſt Legal Intereſt in juſtifying or conveying any Right: and that which you call its Inſtrumentality, is but the natural Aptitude and Remote Intereſt.
1. It is the Receiving of Chriſt as Chriſt that juſtifieth (as the Condition of Juſtification) But he is not received as Chriſt, if not as Lord-Redeemer.
2. Juſtifying faith is (ſay the Aſſembly) the Receiving of Chriſt as he is offered in the Goſpel: But he is offered in the Goſpel as Saviour and Lord, and not as Saviour only: Therefore, &c.
3. Juſtifying faith is the Receiving of Chriſt as a full Saviour: But that cannot be except he be received as Lord. For to ſave from the power of ſin, is as true a part of the Saviours Office, as to ſave from the guilt.
4. Juſtifying faith receiveth Chriſt as he juſtifieth us, or as he is to juſtifie us: But he doth juſtifie us as King and Judge and Benefactor; as he ſatisfieth and meriteth in the form of a ſervant under the Law.
5. If receiving Chriſt as a Satisfier and Meriter, be the only faith that gives right to Juſtification, then on the ſame grounds you muſt ſay, It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification: For Chriſt Merited one as well as the other.
6. Rejecting Chriſt as King, is the condemning ſin: Therefore receiving him as King is the juſtifying faith, Luk. 19.27. Thoſe mine enemies that would not that I ſhould reign over them, bring, &c. The reaſon of the conſequent is, becauſe unbelief condemneth (at leaſt partly) as it is the privation of the juſtifying faith: I ſpeak of that condemnation or peremptory ſentence which is proper to the new Law, and its peculiar condemning ſin, eminently ſo called.
7. Pſal. 2. Kiſſing the Son and ſubmitting to him as King, is made the condition of eſcaping his wrath.
8. Matth. 11.28, 29, 30. The condition of Eaſe and Reſt (from guilt, as well as power of ſin) is our coming to Chriſt as a Teacher and Example of meekneſs and lowlineſs, and our Learning of him, and Taking on us his yoke and burden.
9. That faith which is the Condition of Salvation, is the Condition of Juſtification or Remiſſion: But it is the receiving of Chriſt as King, as well as Satiſfier, that is the Condition of Salvation: Therefore, &c. 1. Juſtification at judgement, and Salvation (from hell, and adjudication to Glory) are all on the ſame conditions, Mat. 25. & ubique. 2. Juſtification is but the juſtifying of our Right to Salvation; i. e. ſentencing us as Non reos Paenae (quia Diſsoluta est obligatio) & quibus debetur praemium; Therefore Juſtification and Salvation muſt needs have the ſame conditions on our part. 3. Scripture no where makes our faith, or act of faith, the Condition of Juſtification, and another of Salvation. But contrarily aſcribeth both to one. 4. When Paul argueth moſt zealouſly againſt Works and for Faith only, it is in reſpect to Salvation generally, and not to Juſtification only. Eph. 2.8, 9. By grace ye are ſaved through faith, &c. Not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt. Tit. 3.5. Not by works of righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us, &c. Never more was ſaid againſt Juſtification by Works (which Paul excludes) then againſt Salvation by them: Nor is it any more diſhonour to Chriſt that he ſhould give Juſtification or Remiſſion on Condition of our Accepting him as King, then that he ſhould give Salvation on that Condition. 5. Pardon of ſin and freedom from hell, muſt needs have the ſame Condition: For pardon reſpecteth the puniſhment as truly as the ſin. Pana & Vaenia ſunt adverſa: Pardon diſſolveth guilt; Guilt is the obligation to puniſhment. Yet I ſpeak here only of a plenary and continued pardon.
10. Laſtly, If Accepting Chriſt as Lord-Redeemer, be the Fides quae Juſtificat, i.e. quae eſt conditio Juſtificationis, then it is neerly, ſtrictly and properly the juſtifying act of faith, as the accepting of Chriſts Righteouſneſs is: But the Antecedent is granted by all Divines that I have had to do with: Therefore, &c. For the general cheat is by the diſtinction of Fides quae Juſtificat (that is, ſay they, the Accepting of Chriſt as Saviour and Lord, by a faith diſpoſed to fruitfulneſs in obedience) and Fides quâ Juſtificat (and that is the Accepting of Chriſts Righteouſneſs as our formal Righteouſneſs, ſay ſome: Or the Accepting of Chriſts Righteouſneſs as the meritorious cauſe of our Righteouſneſs, ſay others: Or the Accepting of Chriſt himſelf as Prieſt, ſay others:) Now this Fides [Quâ] either reſpecteth the meer matter of faith, or it reſpecteth the formality of the effect, or it reſpecteth the Formal Reaſon of faiths intereſt in the effect, ut medium, vel cauſa. 1. If [quâ] reſpect only the matter of faith, then 1. it is an unfit phraſe; for [quâ] and [quatenus] are ſtrictly uſed to expreſs the formal Reaſon of things. 2. And then the Accepting of Chriſt as Lord muſt be the Fides Quâ too: for that is confeſſed to be materially an act of that faith which juſtifieth. 2. If [Quâ] reſpect the formality of the effect, and ſo the reſpect of faith to that effect rather then another; then faith is not [juſtifying] quâ recipit Chriſtum, ſed quâ juſtificat: And ſo the diſtinction containeth this truth, That fides quae ſanctificat etiam juſtificat, ſed non quâ ſanctificat: & è contra. But neither of theſe can be the ſenſe of them that uſe this diſtinction in our caſe. 3. It muſt therefore be the former reaſon of faiths intereſt in juſtifying that is expreſſed by [Quâ:] and then it implieth the begging of the Queſtion, or this falſe ſuppoſition [that Fides quâ fides juſtificat] I mean not qua fides in genere, but quâ haec fides, viz quae est fiducia in Chriſtum ſatisfactorem, vel acceptatio Christi. Indeed the term [Accepting] implieth the gift and offer, and the conſtitution of that acceptance for the condition: But the Act it ſelf is but the Matter apt to be the condition: If Chriſt had been given (or pardon) abſolutely, or on ſome other condition; then beleeving in him would not have juſtified. Therefore fides in Chriſtum quâ talis doth not juſtifie; but quâ conditio Teſtamenti praestita: though fides in Chriſtum qua talis had in its nature a ſingular aptitude to be choſen and appointed to this Honour and Office. So much to ſhew the vanity of that diſtinction (of much more that might be ſaid.) Further the conſequence of the major Propoſition of my Argument, is made paſt all diſpute, to them that will but well conſider this: To (be the condition of our Juſtification) ſpeaks the neareſt intereſt of faith in our Juſtification, that is, as it is medium legale; or that kinde of cauſality which it hath; which is to be cauſa ſine qua non, & cum qua: Therefore it is a meer impoſſibility that the Receiving Chriſt as Lord ſhould be the condition of our Juſtification (or the fides quae est conditio, as they ſpeak) and yet that we ſhould not be juſtified by it as a condition, when performed? It is no ſounder ſpeech, then to ſay, that is an efficient cauſe, which doth not effect. Some Conditions (and moſt among men) are Moral impulſive cauſes: Faith is rather a removens prohibens, and ea…h nothing in it that ſo well deſerves the title of a Cauſe, as of a Condition: though unbelief may be ſaid to be the Cauſe of our Not-being juſtified, as ſuch cauſes are ſaid to move God, when we ſpeak according to the manner of men: Indeed if they will ſay (according to their principles) that Fides in Chriſtum Dominum quae eſt conditio non juſtificat per modum inſtrumenti; I ſhall grant it: But then 1. I ſhall ſay as much de fide in Chriſtum ſatisfacientem. 2. Thus they grant it the intereſt of a Condition in our Juſtification: and I intend no more. We are juſtified by faith as the Condition of Juſtification: Therefore we are juſtified by every act of faith which is the Condition: For, A quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia. Thus I have given you a few of thoſe many reaſons which might be given, to prove that the Accepting of Chriſt for Lord-Redeemer, and not only as Satisfier, or not only his Righteouſneſs, is that Faith by which as a Condition we are juſtified. And what ſad effects it may produce to teach the world that the only juſtifying act of faith is, The Accepting of Juſtification as merited by Chriſts blood, or the Accepting of Chriſts Righteouſneſs to juſtifie them; it is not hard for an unprejudiced man to diſcern. For my part, in all my experience of the caſe of the ungodly that I have trial of, I can finde no commoner cauſe of their general deluſion and perdition, then this very doctrine; which they have generally received, though not in ſuch exact terms a… it is taught them. I never met with the moſt rebellious wretch (except now and then one under terrors) but when they have ſinned their worſt, they ſtill think to be ſaved, becauſe they believe: And what is their beleeving? why they beleeve that Chriſt died for them, and therefore God will forgive them, and they truſt for pardon and ſalvation to Chriſts death and Gods mercy: This were good, if this were not all; but if Chriſt were alſo received as their Sovereign and Sanctifier and Teacher: But if this were the only juſtifying act (as they uſually ſpeak) then I ſhould not know how to diſprove him that ſhould tell me that all men in the world ſhall be ſaved that beleeve the Goſpel to be true: or at leaſt, the far greateſt part of the moſt wicked men: For I am certain that they are willing not to be damned, and therefore Accept, or are Willing of Chriſt to ſave them from damnation: and I am ſure they are Willing to be pardoned as faſt as they ſin, and that is, to be juſtified: and therefore muſt needs be Willing of Chriſt to pardon them (ſuppoſing that they beleeve the Goſpel to be true) What therefore ſhall I ſay if a wicked wretch thus argue: He that hath the only juſtifying act of faith is juſtified: But that have I; for I Accept of Chriſt to forgive and juſtifie me by his blood: Therefore, &c? Shall I tell him that he diſſembleth, and is not Willing? Why 1. Long may I ſo tell him before he will beleeve me, when he feels that I ſpeak falſly and ſlander him. 2. And I ſhould know that I ſlander him my ſelf: Suppoſing that he beleeve that there is no pardon but by Chriſts blood, (as the devils and many millions of wicked men do beleeve:) For I know no man in his wits can be willing to be unpardoned and to burn in hell. Shall I give him the common anſwer (the beſt that ever was given to me,) that though the only juſtifying act be the receiving Chriſt or his Righteouſneſs to juſtifie us, yet this muſt be ever accompanied with the receiving him as Sovereign, and a reſolution to obey him? Perhaps I may ſo puzzle him for want of Logick or Reaſon; but elſe how eaſily may he tell me, that this receiving Chriſt as Lord, hath either the nature of a medium ad finem, or not? If it be no medium, the want of it in this caſe cannot hinder the Juſtification of that man that is ſure he hath the ſole juſtifying act it ſelf: For as meer ſigns or idle concomitants do nothing to the effect, ſo the want of them hinders not the effect where all cauſes and means are preſent▪ But if I ſay, that this act of faith is a means to Juſtification; then I muſt either make it a Cauſe, or a Condition, or invent ſome new medium not yet known.
But you ſay [Soveraignty doth not cleanſe us, nor doth blood command us.] Anſ. 1. How ill is Soveraignty put in ſtead of the Soveraign? I ſay not that the reception of Chriſts Soveraignty doth …uſtifie (thoſe words may have an ill ſenſe) but we are juſtified by receiving Chriſt as our Soveraign (which much differs from the former.) 2. Chriſt as Soveraign doth cleanſe us, both from the guilt and power of ſinne, by actual Remiſſion or Juſtification, and by Sanctification. 3. Suppoſe you ſpeak true, as you do, if you mean it only of Meriting our cleanſing: What is this to our Queſtion? But you adde [Faith in his blood, not faith yeelding to his Soveraignty doth juſtifie us.] Anſ. This is ſomething to the purpoſe, if it had been proved. But will a nude and crude Aſſertion change mens judgements? or ſhould you have expected it? A text you cite, and therefore it might ſeem that you thought it ſome proof of this, Rom. 3.24. But all the force of your Argument is from your dangerous addition, which, who will take for good Expoſition? The text faith, He is ſet forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his Blood. And you adde [Not through faith in his Command.] 1. Sed quo jure neſcio. Your excluſion is either upon ſuppoſition, that faith in his Blood is equipollent to faith in his Blood only; or elſe it is on ſome myſterious ground, which you ſhould the rather have revealed, becauſe it is not obvious to your ordinary Reader to diſcover it, without your revelation. If the former; 1. By what authority do you adde [only] in your interpretation? 2. Will you exclude alſo his Obedience, Reſurrection, Interceſſion, &c? When by the obedience of one many are made righteous? and Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that juſtifieth, who is he that condemneth? It is Chriſt that died, yea rather that is riſen again; who is even at the right hand of God, who alſo maketh interceſſion for us. 2. But the thing that you had to prove was not the excluſion of [faith in his Command] but of [faith in Chriſt as Lord and Teacher] or either: Receiving Chriſt as Ruler, goeth before the receiving of his particular Commands. And for the text, Rom. 3.24. It was fitteſt for Paul to ſay [by faith in his blood] becauſe he intends to connot… both what we are juſtified by, ex parte Chriſti, and what ex parte noſtri, but the former p…incipally. I will explain my thoughts by a ſimilitude or two.
Suppoſe a Rebell be Condemned, and lye in priſon waiting for Execution; and the Kings Son being to raiſe an Army, buyeth this Rebell, with all his fellow priſoners, from the hand of Juſtice, and ſendeth to them this meſſage; If you will thankfully acknowledge my favours, and take me hereafter for your Prince or General, and liſt your ſelves under me, I will pardon you (or give you the pardon which I have purchaſed) and moreover will give you places of Honour and Profit in my Army:] Here now if the Queſtion be, What it is on the Princes part that doth deliver the priſoner? It is his ranſom, as to the Impetration or Preparation: and it is his free-Grant, which doth it, as to the actual Deliverance. If it be askt What is it that Honoureth or Enricheth him? It is the place of Honour and Riches that by the Prince is freely given him. But if you ask on the offenders part, What it is that delivereth him as the condition? It is not his accepting Pardon and Deliverance (or the Prince as a Pardoner or Ranſomer) that is the ſole Condition of his pardon and deliverance from death: Nor is it the Accepting of the Honour (or of the Prince as one to honour him) that is the ſole condition of his Honour: Nor is it accepting of Riches, that is the ſole condition of enriching him. But it is entirely the accepting of the Prince for his General, and thankfull acknowledging his Ranſom, that is the Condition of all together, and hath as near an intereſt in one part of the Benefit, as another.
Or ſuppoſe the condemned priſoner be a woman, and the Prince having Ranſomed her, doth ſend this offer to her, That if ſhe will thankfully acknowledge his favour, and take him for her Redeemer and Husband and Prince (to love, honour and obey him) he will deliver her, and make her his Queen, and ſhe ſhall partake of all his Honour and Riches.] Here now if the Queſtion be, What it is on his part that Redeemed her? What that Delivered her? What that honoured her? What that enriched her? each effect muſt be aſcribed to its proper cauſe, and the cauſes not confounded: And ſhe muſt diſtinctly apprehend, by what way and cauſe each priviledge comes. But if you ask only, What it is on her part that is the condition of enjoying theſe Benefits? Why it is but one entire, undivided Condition before mentioned: Will you here ſubtilly diſtinguiſh and ſay, that her taking him to deliver her, is the ſole act which is the condition of her Deliverance? and her taking him to Dignifie her, is the ſole condition of her Dignity? and her taking him as Rich, or to enrich her, is the ſole condition of her enriching? No, It is one undivided condition that equally gives her intereſt in all. Much leſs is it the Accepting of his Riches, that is the ſole condition of enriching her. Yet if any ſhould in one Queſtion include both, What on his part did ſave her from death? and what on her part? then it muſt be expreſt as Paul did in the forementioned text, in our caſe: It is her Marrying or Accepting a Mercifull Redeemer. I ſhould wrong you, by ſeeming to imply a doubt of your Apprehenſiveneſs, if I ſhould ſpend words in application of this to our caſe. Having been ſo much too tedious already, I will only adde; That the common doctrine in this Point, requires that there be as many acts of faith as there are Benefits from Chriſt to be received; and that each one is the Inſtrument of receiving that particular benefit: and ſo one act of faith Juſtifieth, another Adopteth, &c. And that act which receiveth Juſtification, which they call the Paſſive inſtrument thereof, in the upſhot of all their Diſputes they ſo deſcribe, that it is apparent they mean ipſam Juſtificationem paſſivam: And ſo with them Credere & Juſtificari muſt be Synonimall termes: For ſo to receive Juſtification, is nothing but to be Juſtified.
§. 2.
Mr Bl. THere are ſeveral acts of Juſtifying faith, Heb. 11. but thoſe are not acts of Juſtification. It is not Abrahams obedience, Moſes ſelf-deniall, Gideon or Sampſons valour, that were their Juſtification: but his Blood who did enable them in theſe duties by his ſpirit. Paul went in theſe duties as high as they, living in more clear light and under more abundant grace. I doubt not but he out-tapt them, and yet he was not thereby Juſtified; as 1 Cor. 4.4.