Of Justification, Letter 12
Sir, The multitude of my Employments cauſed me to delay the returning you my thoughts of your favourable Animadverſions, til I received your Additional paper, which made me ſo very ſenſible of your Kindneſs, that I could not but ſnatch the next opportunity, thus truly to give you my further Thoughts, as an account of the acceptance and ſucceſs of your Pains.
June 20.
Sir,
YEſterday I received your third Paper dated June 17. to which I thought beſt to give you this ſhort Anſwer together, ſeeing the former were not gone out of my hands.
You here touch (very eaſily) on two Subjects. I will begin with the later, viz. Your four Arguments againſt my Doctrine of Juſtification by the Goſpel Grant or New Law. Your firſt is, that This is per reſultantiam; but Juſtification is an act of Will; but no Act of Will is by neceſſary Reſultancy] Anſwer. As it proceedeth from the Inſtrument or Foundation, it is by Reſultancy: As by that Inſtrument it is the Act of the Legiſlator or Principal Agent, ſo it is an Act of Will. It was his Will at the enacting of the Grant, and ſtill is his Will, that this his Grant, or Deed of Gift ſhould mora…iter agere & …ffecius hos vel illos producore, at ſuch a diſtance upon ſuch and ſuch conditions. The Act and Effect of the Law, or Teſtament, is the Act and Effect of the Legiſlator and Teſtator, whoſe Inſtrument it is: But the ſaid Law or Teſtament doth not efficaciter agere, or produce theſe effects, t… the time that the conditions are performed: (for it is the Nature of a Moral condition to be added for the ſuſpenſion of the Effect or event of the …rant, &c. till it be performed.) Therefore the Rector, Donor or Teſtator doth not efficaciter agere till then. And therefore he acteth by that his Inſtrument then, or not at all If you give by Deed or by Will… ſuch and ſuch portions to ſome Children at ſuch a term of Age, and to others when they marry; The full actual Right is by a meer Reſultancy, as from the Inſtrument ▪ but by an Act of Will, as from you, but really from neither before the Term, or condition performed. This is a moſt obvious Truth.
2. And as eaſie is the Anſwer to your ſecond. [If the Covenant juſtifie without any other Act, then it adopts, ſanctifieth, Glorifieth, without any other.] Anſwer. In the Propoſitions againſt Mr. Bedford, you might have ſeen this diſpelled. For Adoption, I yield the whole. But know you not that as there is great difference between changes Relative and Qualitative; ſo the later reſults not from a mee… Fundamentum, &c. but is effected by a Phyſical Operation? It is Jus ad rem, it is Right or Duneſs, which is the proper immediate product, or (quaſi) effect reſulting from, and given by the Law, or the like Inſtrument; and not the natural thing it ſelf. Now in theſe Relations, either the Right and the thing it ſelf are the ſame; or elſe the difference ſo ſmall, that it is next to undiſcernable, and muſt needs both in e…dem inſtanti reſult, as afore ſaid. But in Phyſical changes, thete is a greater difference between the Right and the Benefit: The Benefit cannot, as the Right doth, proceed per …ndam reſultanti…. If you give your Son 100. l. by a Deed of Gift, this giveth him the Right immediately, but not the Thing. There muſt be a Phyſical Act to that. But Pardon to a Malefactor is given by a written Pardon or Grant, from whence the Right to it, and the Benefit it ſelf, do immediately reſult (being indeed but one thing, except my underſtanding be too groſs to diſtinguiſh them.) If therefore you had ſaid as you ſhould, that Right to Glory and to Sanctity (ſo far as that Covenant giveth it) are beſtowed without any other Act, (except finall Judgement▪ which is neceſſary to full Juſtification as well as Glory) I ſhould yield you all.
3. To your third, [That the Covenant juſtifies but conditionally, therefore not actually.] I anſwered before: for it was one of your former Arguments. Conditio eſt Lex addita negotio quae donec praeſtetur eventum ſuſpendit, ſaith Cujacius. And as Mynſinger ſaith, Ne que actio, ne que obligatio ulla eſt antequam conditio eveniat: quia quod eſt in conditione, non eſt in obligatione: (Schol. in Juſtit. p, 52….) So that it is the Nature of the condition to ſuſpend the effect, but not to make the cauſe to be no cauſe. Indeed if the Condition be never performed, then it deſtroyes or prevents the effect, and ſo the Inſtrument doth not agere: And why? but becauſe it was the Will of the Agent that it ſhould act ſo, and on ſuch terms, or elſe not: ſo that the non-performance doth not undo what the Inſtrument did, nor doth it diſoblige the Author, but it manifeſteth that he was never obliged: (they are Grotius words.) I conclude therefore that when the condition is performed, then the Inſtrument or conditional Grant doth begin verè agere & donar… ; and the Agent by it: but till then it doth not properly act or effect at all. Is not your Teſtament that gives your Legacy, becauſe it gives conditionally? Or muſt there be ſome other Act, to make it an abſolute proper Gift.
4. Your fourth alſo is one of thoſe which you have in the Beginning, where I have anſwered it. The Covenant you ſay, is an Act paſt; and ſo not continued, and ſo the Juſtification by it paſt, and not continued, &c.] Anſwer. The Phyſical Act of Legiſlation or Covenant granting is paſt but this only makes it an Inſtrument, able and fit to produce ſuch and ſuch effects, and not actually to produce them at that preſent, when it is conditional. But the Moral action of this Law or Covenant is not paſt, but continued. The Law or Covenant is not out of Date. And therefore it continueth ſtill to juſtifie. The making of our Laws, are Acts paſt by Parliaments long ago, and ſo not continued. Will you therefore conclude that the Moral Agency or Efficiency of theſe Laws is paſt, and therefore they do not condemn or juſtifie? I know no ground that can bear your concluſions, except with Riſhworth (Dialog) and ſuch other of the more impudent Papiſts, one ſhould vilifie the Scripture, and ſay, that they were only Miſcellaneous occaſional writings, and never intended to be Gods Law, or our Rule of Faith and Life: but I believe you will never come to that. Surely David frequently ſtileth the old Scriptures that were in his Times Gods Law: And why many Divines ſhould ſtrike in with ſome Lutheran… Error in denying the Goſpel or New Scripture to be properly [Chriſts Law,] and ſo inveigh againſt thoſe that call it the New Law, I know no Reaſon: but that the ignis fatuus of contention and prejudice miſleadeth them. O happy Diſputers that are not carried head-long into extreams by the ſpirit of Contradiction! What more proper to the reformed Religion, as ſuch, then to honour the Scriptures? And how do theſe men vilifie them, and rob them of their higheſt honor, that deny them to be the Laws of God? yea deny this to the Goſpel it ſelf? Is not Chriſt the Law-giver? Iſa. 33.22. Pſal. 60.7. and 108.8. and the King? Muſt not the Law go out of Zion, Iſa. 2.3. And is not that the Law and Teſtimony to which we muſt ſeek? Multitudes of Scriptures, and moſt of the Fathers (that ever I read) do call the Goſpel Chriſts Law or the [new law.]
2. To your ſecond Exception, [againſt my approving a ſpeech of Dr. W.] I anſ. 1. Do I need to tell you how unlike this ſaying of Dr. Wards is to that of the Council of Tre…t? You know by Juſtification they mean principally Sanctification? But the Dr. ſaith not that theſe are preparatives to Juſtification. Sure you could not ſeriouſly ſuſpect me to join with the Papiſts when they ſpeak of one Subject and I of another. The acts of that Seſſion will tel you more differences between them and me, then is worth the while to repeat: and you know how largely Chemmitius endeavours to prove that by Diſpoſitions and Preparations, The Council mean Merits; and that they would ſubdolouſly introduce the Thing, (Merita de congruo) by changing the name; as out of Oſius words and others he gather…. 2. And know you not that Chemnitius proſeſſeth to yield to the ſoundneſs of that very ſixth Chapter, which you alledge, were it not for theſe guiles that they uſe, and their evil ſenſe to advance Merit? For ſaith he, Omnino certus eſt ſive modus ſive ordo in v…rbo Dei nobis deſignatus & praſcriptus, quo Deus utitur quando vult hominem ad Juſtificationem deduc…re, &c. Et qui ad modum ſive ordi…em illum divinitus praſcriptum, non volunt ſ… ductu ſpiritus accommodare, ſ…d negligunt & conculcant illum, bi ad Juſtificationem non proveniunt. Vult enim Deus à N…titia & Aſſenſu verbi ſui nos ordiri: & ante Juſtificationem oportet praecedere contritionem, hoc eſt, ſeriam agnitionem peccatorum, pavores conſcientiae agnoſcentio iram Dei adverſus noſtra peccat…, & dolentis propter peocatum: in qua contritione non retinetur, ſed abjicitur prapoſitum perſ…verandi & pergendi in ſceleribus. Ad hos vere terrores neceſſe eſt acc…d…r… fidem, que agnitione & fiducia miſericordia Dei promiſſa propter ſilium med ator…m, rurſui erigat & conſoletur animum, ne oppreſſi deſperatione ruamus in aeternum exitium. Sed fides accedat ad Deum, quaerat, defideret, petat, apprahendat & accipiat Remiſſionem peccatorum. Et hoc modo ſe… ordine in v…rbo D…i deſignat… via… p…rari Domino ut in ipſo, per & propteripſum fide conſequamur & accipiamus Juſtificationem, ipſa ſcriptura tradit, &c. this alſo he ſhews Luther approved of.
Now I pray you tell me whether here be not full as much as Dr. Ward or I ſay? And do you think Ghemnitius did join with the Papiſts of Trent, when he confuted them?
3. And if Dr. W. had ſpoak of Sanctification, are there not multitudes of our own beſt approved Divines, that make all theſe acts to be found in men by way of preparation before Sanctification? Mr. Rogers of Dedham in his Treat. of faith: Mr. Hooker in his Epiſt. before that book, and oſt in his own book, affirmeth not only a common preparatory contrition, Hungring and thirſting, Hope, Love, Joy, but even effectual ſpecial Vocation it ſelf, and ſo faith to go before Sanctification and Juſtification. And indeed what man denyeth it? except Mr. Pemble and a very few that with him make Sanctification and Vocation to be all one? which how far I approve my ſelf, I have ſhewed in Tr…at. of Reſt, Part. 1 Chap. 8. ſect. 2.3.4.
4. But look into the words, and find out what error you can! Which of thoſe acts do you think goes not before Juſtification? And if they go before, ſure you will not deny but they do ſome way or other diſpoſe or fit a man for pardon: or elſe God would not have preſcribed them before it. 1. Catholick faith is the Belief of the Catholick Doctrine. I am ſure you take that to go before Juſtification. 2. If Hope of pardon go not before, then Affiance (to which Hope is eſſential) goes not before: Yea, then Believers do deſpair in the Act of Believing to Juſtification. 3. I never knew the man that doubted whether fear of Puniſhment went before. 4. The ſame I may ſay of grief for ſin. 5. And if all the doubt be of Purpoſe againſt ſin, and for Amendment, 1. Sure they that ſay Repentance is pre-requiſite to juſtification, will not exclude a Purpoſe of Amendment. 2. And ſure thoſe that ſay Sanctification and Vocation are all one, and go before Juſtification will hardly exclude it. 3. They that take a turning from Idols to the true God, as the end, to be in order before a Turning from Infidelity to the Mediator as the way, which is by Faith; theſe muſt needs think that ſo much of Actual Amendment goes before Juſtification (ye believe in God, believe alſo in me.) 4. They that ſay, Faith alone juſtifieth, but not the faith which is alone, will ſurely include this Purpoſe as Antecedent. Davenant, Mr. Ball &c. expreſs it, and inſiſt on it. Dr. Twiſs calleth works Media & cauſae diſpoſitivae: But it were endleſs to cite Authors in this Point. 5. But I tell you my mind. I take this Purpoſe of obeying Chriſt de futuro to be very Faith it ſelf. For faith is a Covenant reception of Chriſt, and to take him for Chriſt and King-Redeemer, and to Purpoſe, yea Covenant to obey him, are but one thing. And therefore a Giving up our ſelves as Redeemed-ſubjects, and ſo a purpoſe of being actually ſubject, are faith it ſelf. And then they muſt needs be prerequiſite to Juſtification. So that whether you take theſe Acts for common or ſpecial, ſuely they go before Juſtification as Dr. Ward ſaith. Dare you tell any man of yout Hearers that though he have not ſo much as a Purpoſe to mend, yet he is juſtified by Faith? Truly ſuch paſſages hauehave embittered the minds of Papiſts, and many weak ones againſt our Doctrine of Juſtification: and given great advantage to the Antinomiſts.
For what you ſay of contradicting Dr. Downam… and Mr. Pemble; I anſwer, 1. Though they differ between themſelves in the point of Juſtification, and one hath wrote a confutation of the others Doctrine, yet you will never ſhew me wherein this ſpeech of Dr. Ward doth contradict either of them. Indeed if Dr. Ward had determined whether he meant common Diſpoſitions or ſpecial, perhaps he might have contradicted one of them, they do ſo far differ themſelves. For you know Mr. Pemble not only in his Vindic. Grat. but even in the place you cite (pag. 42.43.) takes thoſe Acts to be of ſpecial Grace, or a part of Sanctification, which moſt Divines do judge to be preparatory thereto. And for my part, I judge as Mr. Pemble, if you take but that point in to qualifie it, which I have aſſerted Treat. of Reſt, ſecond Edit. part 3. cap. 11. that the ſincerity of Grace as ſaving▪ lyeth not in the bare nature of the Act, but in the prevailing degree which Morality may ſpecifie, then I ſay as Mr. Pemble, pag. 43. that theſe Vertues which are (many of them by our Divines) reckoned as Diſpoſitions to Regeneration, are if they be true, the main parts and fruits of Regeneration.
2. But I admire how you ſhould think that ſpeech of Dr. Wards ſhould be a joining with the Papiſts againſt Dr. Downame and Mr. Pemble, when Downame tells you that the Papiſts diſpute of another ſubject then we do; while they mean one thing by it, viz Sanctification, and we another: (upon which ground Mr. Wotton is ready to throw out the Diſpute, as being about one Term, but different ſubjects.) And Mr. Pemble anſwers [that the Argument of Bellarmine from that chapter of the Councils ſixth ſeſſ. is framed on the Error which puts out of frame the whole Diſpute, viz. that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Juſtification, and that to juſtifie a ſinner is nothing elſe but to do away inherent corruption by infuſion of inherent Righteouſneſs.] And ſo Mr. Pemble diſputes againſt it only as thus meant: And Calvin alſo in his Antidot. on this 6. Seſſ. 6. chap. never once finds fault with them here, but only for aſcribing that to free Will which they ſhould aſcribe to effectual Grace; and for making Juſtification to be Sanctification, but not a word for making theſe Acts to be praeparatory to Juſtification, (Tractat. Theologic. pag. 387 388.) Vid. etiam Articulo… facultat. Pariſienſ. Art. 4. de ſenſu Papiſſi…o. Every man that makes Faith to contain many acts (moſt Divines ſay, Notitiam, Aſſenſum & ſiduciam, Ameſius names five,) muſt needs make all thoſe Acts to be pre-requiſite to Juſtification, beſides Repentance, and beſides preparatory acts of common Grace. No man that I know doth ſeem to come nearer you then Dr. Downame in placing juſtifying faith in Aſſent, and ſo not taking it to contain ſo many acts: And yet even he tells you, that [the act of the Will doth concur to Faith▪ and that faith which a habit of the mind, is ſeated as well in the Will as in the Ʋnderſtanding: and this is confeſſed by Farthers, Schoolmen, and the modern Doctors of the Romiſh Church.] Treat. of Juſtif. pag. 358.359. Yea for ought I can underſtand he extended faith as far as I, and meant as I do herein, pag. 348.349 352. he ſaith, [By the former which is a bare Aſſent, we do after a ſort Credere Chriſtum, acknowledge him to be the Saviour of theſe that believe in him: By the latter, which is the lively and effectual Aſſent working on the Heart, we do credere in Chriſtum, and receive him to be our Saviour, whereupon neceſſarily followeth Affiance in Chriſt, and love of him as a Saviour. Thus then by a true Belief we receive and Embrace Chriſt, in our judgement by a lively Aſſent: in our Hearts, deſiring earneſtly to be partakers of him (which Deſire we expreſs by our Prayer,) and in our Wills reſolving to acknowledge and Profeſs him to be our only Saviour, and to reſt upon him alone for Salvation. So that a true lively and effectual faith is the work of the whole ſoul: that is to ſay, as well of the Heart as of the Mind, Rom 10.10 Act. 16.14. Act. 8.37.] ſo far Dr. Downame. Is not this as much as I ſay? and the very ſame? I only mention him (having many more at hand) becauſe 1. you urge him, and 2. I conjecture, you think you go his way about the nature of faith. If this be not as much as I ſay do but add what he ſaith▪ pag. 15. and I think you have as much: (in this particular.) [The true meaning (ſaith he) of the Queſtion [whether we are juſtified by Faith or by Works?] is not as oppoſing the inward Grace of Faith to the outward acts of Obedience, which indeed a…eths fruits of Faith: But as oppoſing the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt apprehended by Faith, to the righteouſneſs which is Inherent in our ſelves, and performed by our ſelves.
And truly Sir, I uſe to charge my conſcience to enquire what may be the plain meaning of a Text, and to embrace that, and not againſt Light to be carryed by prejudice: and this conſcience tells me that this Reſolution of Dr. Downame being ſo plainly agreeable to Paul, is not to be rejected. When I impartially, conſider what Paul driveth at, my Judgement tells me that it was never his intent to advance any one ſimple Act of the ſoul into the office of juſtifying, excluding all the reſt; but to advance Chriſt againſt mens own works which ſtood up then in competition with him: And that Paul never meant that Aſſent Juſtifies, but not Velle, Acceptare, Conſentire, Elig…re, Fiduciam habere, &c.
Suppoſe there be a mortal Diſeaſe that hath ſeized on a City, which no man can cure but one only Phyſitian: nor he but by a Medicine that will coſt him as much as the lives of the Citizens are worth: This Phyſitian comes and ſends to them, and offers then all without exception, that if they will but take him for their Phyſitian and truſt him with their lives, he will not only manifeſt his skill, that he is able to cure them, but he will do it, and pay for the Phyſick, and not put them to pay a penny. Hereupon ſome that are his enemies, and ſome that are miſtaken in the man upon falſe reports, and ſome that judge of him by his outward appearance, do all conclude, [this is ſome Deceiver, he is not able to do any ſuch matter; none but fools will truſt him, and venture their lives in his hand: Let us ſtir about and labour and we ſhall overcome it, and do well enough.] On the contrary the Phyſitian, having great compaſſion on the poor deluded people, knowing their caſe better then themſelves, and having already bought the remedy for them, doth ſend to them again, to tell them all, that thoſe that will believe him and truſt him, he will certainly cure, and the reſt ſhall dye every man of them, for all they think to labour it away. I pray you now put our Queſtions here impartially: 1. Is believing and truſting the Phyſitian ſome one ſingle act, excluding all others? Or was it ever his intent to advance ſome one act of theirs? 2. Would it not be a learned madneſs to diſpute whether the Phyſitian make the act of Aſſent, or the act of Willing only: or Accepting, &c. or Affiance, or Recumbency to be the Healing act; and of what faculty that act was which muſt heal them? 3. Is it the Truſting and Receiving him only 1. as one that hath brought a Remedy: 2. Or as one that can and will cure us by it: or 3. Alſo as one that muſt be obeyed in the uſe of that remedy for the effecting the cure; which of theſe is it that he intends muſt be the Object of their Act? 4. Doth [Truſting him and Believing him] exclude a Reſolution to obey his Directions and the future actual obedience? Surely no: it includeth both: But it excludeth both their truſting any other Phyſitian, and their thinking to work away the Diſeaſe and cure themſelves. 5 Doth Truſting or Believing him cure theſe men as the Inſtrument? or is it only a condition without which he will not cure them? But this Queſtion with you I may ſpare.
Laſtly, You queſtion, [How I will avoid Tompſons opinion of the Interciſion of Juſtification upon the committing a ſin that waſts the conſcience, when I make Juſtification a continued Act upon condition of obedience.?] Anſw. 1. Do you not diſcern that the Queſtion concerneth you and every man, as much as me? and that it is of aequal difficulty upon your own and others opinion, as upon mine? Dr. Downame will tell you as well as I, that Juſtification is a continued Act. So will Dr. Twiſs, and all that with him do take it for an Immanent Act. Your ſelf, who take it for a tranſient act but once performed, do yet judge (I doubt not,) that our Juſtified eſtate which is the effect of it is permanent: and the relations of Reconciled, Pardoned, Adopted, are continued. Alſo you and they, I hope, will confeſs, that Juſtification paſſive is continued on the condition of continued faith. Now I would know how you will avoid Tompſons Doctrine of Interciſion, upon every notable defect of a Chriſtians faith, when unbelief gives him a foyl, which is too common? as you anſwer, ſo will I. If you ſay his faith is not overcome habitually, when unbelief is prevalent in the preſent Act, I will ſay ſo of his obedience. 2. You know moſt Divines ſay as much as I, that obedience is a condition of the continuance of Juſtification, (only they ſay that faith only is the Inſtrument of Juſtifying,) and how will they anſwer you? 3. You know that all ſay, that obedience is a condition of Salvation, and ſo of our preſent Title to Salvation. Now how will they avoid Tompſons Doctrine of Interciſion of that Title to Salvation, upon the committing of ſuch ſins? 4. It is not perfect obedience which I ſay is the condition, but ſincere: And by ſincere I mean ſo much as may expreſs that we unfeignedly take Chriſt ſtill for our Lord and Saviour: And ſo it is not every ſin that I ſay will forfeit or interrupt our Juſtification and cauſe it to diſcontinue, (that is, loſe our Title, or change our Relation in Law:) no nor every groſs ſin: but only that ſin which is inconſiſtent with the continued Accepting Chriſt for our Soveraign: that ſin which breaks the main Covenant, (of which ſee Dr. Preſton at large,) as Adultery or Deſertion doth in marriage: A denying God to be our God, or Chriſt to be our Chriſt, by our works, while we confeſs him in word: An actual explicite or implicite Renunciation of Chriſt, and taking the fleſh for our maſter, and the pleaſing of it for our happineſs; or as the Mahometans following a falſe Chriſt. Now, I hope that no juſtified perſon doth ever commit this ſin: much leſs any elect and juſtified man, of whom Tompſon ſpeaks. You may ſee through his ninth chap. part 2 that Tompſon erred through miſunderſtanding wherein the ſincerity of Faith as juſtifying doth conſiſt: (I wiſh many more do not ſo.) He thought that Juſtification did follow every act of undiſſembled Faith; but only rooted Faith would certainly perſevere; and therefore the unrooted (Though true Believers) might loſe their Juſtification, if they were Reprobates (Praſcits as he calls them,) or have it interrupted, if they were elect. But if he had known (what I have aſſerted in the aforeſaid cap. 11. part 3. of Reſt, Edit. 2.) that the very ſincerity of faith as juſtifying, lyeth not in the natural being of the act meerly, but the prevalent Degree and moral ſpecification, then he would have known, that his unrooted ones were never juſtified, & therefore never loſt it. And if in aſſerting juſtification by the only act of Faith, he had not over-looked the uſe of the habit, he had not ſpoke ſo much of Interciſion of Juſtification, through interruption of the acts, where the Habits remain. (Of this I muſt further explain my ſelf, where it is more ſeaſonable.) His Objections pag. 21. cap. 5. part. 1. I have anſwered in the place before cited. Yet even Tompſon denyeth that ever ſins once pardoned do return, or Juſtificationem à peccatis ſ…mel remiſſis amitti. (pag. 11 part. 1 cap. 2) ſed …arſonam quae aliquando juſta fuit, poſſe contrabere, & aliquando actu contra…ere per nova peccata, novum reatum ire Divinae & mortis aeternae: So that it is not the loſs of the firſt juſtification that he aſſerteth. I conclude then that as you and others anſwer Tompſon, juſt ſo will I▪ (if you do it well:) for it concerneth my cauſe no more then yours, or other mens.
But Sir, you have drawn me ſo neer the difficulty which perplexeth me, that I will now open it to you. How to avoid the Interciſion of juſtification, is a queſtion that hath long troubled me: not on any of theſe terms proper to my own judgement; but how on your Grounds, or any Orthodox Divines it will be avoided. I would know 1. whether we are Guilty (not only facti, ſed poenae) of every ſin we commit? or of ſuch ſins as Davids, before Repentance? if not guilty: then what need of Pardon, of daily praying Forgive us our Debts, or of a Chriſt to procure our Pardon? If we are Guilty, how can that conſiſt with a juſtified ſtate? Reatus eſt obligatio ad Pernam. The leaſt ſin unpardoned, makes obnoxious to condemnation and Hell: He that is obnoxious to them, is not at preſent juſtified. Here I am much puzled, and in the dark. In my Aphor. I have ſlightly touched it, but ſo as doth not quietare intellectum. I deny the Interciſion of univerſal Juſtification. Yet I dare not ſay but that a Believers ſins may be unpardoned till he Repent, Believe and ſeek pardon. And I dare not think, that Chriſt teacheth us to pray only for pardon in ſoro conſcientiae, or only of the temporal puniſhment, nor only for continuance of what we had before. But how to make perſonal univerſal uninterrupted Juſtification conſiſt with the Guilt of one ſin, or with one ſin unpardoned, here is the knot. Our Britiſh Divines in Dort ſynod. Act. de Perſever. Theſ. 5. pag. 266. ſay, that Believers by ſuch ſins Reatum mortis incurrunt. Prideaux Lect. 6. de perſev. pag. 80. ſaith, they do reatum damnabilem contrahere, ſic ut ſaltem demeritorie, licet non effectivè, Jus ad regnum caelorum penitus amittant: (This diſtinction doth no good: for we pray not, Forgive us our treſpaſſes, i. e. that they may not deſerve Death) Mr. Burges of Juſtif. Lect. 27. pag. 242. thinks, They have an actual Guilt obliging them to eternal wrath not abſolutely, but conditionally till they take the means appointed of God for their pardon: for God doth not will to them ſalvation while they abide in that ſtate. Mr. Reynolds (Life of Chriſt, pag. 404.442, 443, 496.) ſaith, that they certainly incur Gods diſpleaſure and create a merit of Death, and deſerve Damnation, but de facto bring it not. Now all this openeth not mine underſtanding to ſee, How a man is Reus mortis, and yet perfectly juſtified (and ſo, non-condemnandus etiam in ſententia Legis) at the ſame moment of time. And were it a thing that ſhould be futurum, (which we may ſuppoſe) that he ſhould dye in that ſtate, whether he ſhould be juſtified at Judgement, and ſo be ſaved, or not? Sir, though … reſuſe not to accept your further Animadverſions on the former Points, yet (being indeed ſatisfied pretty well in them) I chiefly intreat that you would communicate to me your thoughts of this one Point as ſoon as you can, if you have any clear way to untye the knot: and if your Grounds conduce to it more then mine, I ſhall like them better.
Sir, pardon the prolixity here, and Acrimony elſwhere of
Your unfeigned well-willer, RICHARD BAXTER.