Of Justification, Title page 3 – Text 2

Of Justification · Title page 3 – Text 2

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.

p. 259Queſtion. 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.

p. 260The 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 p. 261Righteouſneſs 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 p. 262which 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 p. 263doth 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;) p. 264If 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 p. 265of 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 p. 266the 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 p. 267the 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 p. 268righteous, 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 p. 269to 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.

p. 2702. 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 p. 271be 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 p. 272and 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 p. 273to 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.

Anſw.

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 p. 274Divines 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 p. 275Merits 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 p. 276who 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.—

Anſw.

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.

p. 277But, 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.

Anſw.

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 p. 278Condition 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?

Anſw.

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?

p. 279Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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 p. 280have 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

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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.

p. 281Mr. W. 2.

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.

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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 p. 282Gospel, 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.

Anſw.

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.

Anſw.

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 p. 283did conſiſt either in the habit or act of faith and new obedience, then upon the interciſion of thoſe acts, our Juſtification would diſcontinue. But,

Anſw.

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 monethmonth, 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.

Anſw.

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.

p. 284Mr. W. 6.

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.

Anſw.

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. p. 285It 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.

p. 286A 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 p. 287as 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 p. 288pardon. 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 p. 289that 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 p. 290are 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, p. 291without 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. p. 292For 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.

p. 293Mr. W.

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.—

Anſw.

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.—

Anſw.

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.

p. 294Mr. W.

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 p. 265the 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 p. 296no 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 p. 297Minor 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.

p. 298Anſw. 1.

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.

Anſw.

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.

p. 299Anſw. 1.

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

Mr. W.

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

Anſw. 1.

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

Anſw.

Any thing muſt ſerve. 1. Both Major and Minor are ſuch as are not to be ſwallowed in the lump. If by [Call] you mean the call of the voyce, then the conſequence of the Major is vain and groundleſs. For a man may believe in Chriſt with the heart as Lord and Saviour, before he call him ſo with the mouth. But if by [Call] you mean [Believe] then the Minor is falſe & ſo confeſſed by all Proteſtants and Chriſtians that p. 300ever 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

p. 301Anſw. 1.

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

Mr. W.

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

Anſw.

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 p. 302ſelf 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.

Anſw.

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 p. 303Chriſt 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 p. 304that 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 p. 305he 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.