Of Justification, Text 1
Queſt. Whether we are Juſtified by Beliveing in Jeſus Chriſt, as our King and Teacher; as well as by believing in his Blood? Aff.
Though I have oft ſpoken to this Queſtion in the ears of the world, as taking it to be of very great Conſequence; yet upon the Invitation of this opportunity, I ſhall once again attempt a brief Diſcuſſion of it; and the rather, becauſe the Anſwers of a Reverend Brother (Mr. Blake) to my former Arguments, and his Arguments for the contrary opinion, may wrong the Truth and the ſouls of men, if their Fallacy be not manifeſted by a Reply.
And I ſhall firſt ſpeak ſomewhat of the Importance of the Queſtion, and then of the ſense of it, and then endeavour a clear Reſolution, and the Confirmation thereof, and the Confutation of the contrary conceits.
And for the firſt, I ſhall give you my thoughts of it in theſe two Propoſitions.
Propoſition 1. The difference amongſt Proteſtants about this Queſtion is not of ſo great moment, that either party muſt Eonomine be judged to deny the Eſſentials (or Fundamentals) of the faith, and ſo to be of a different Religion from the other, or to fall ſhort of Salvation.
I lay down this Propoſition firſt, Becauſe of the Papiſts who ſtand looking upon all our differences with a mind too like the mind of the Devil; rejoycing in them, and endeavouring to encreaſe them, and to make them ſeem greater in the eyes of the world than indeed they are, that ſo they may make uſe of them for the reproaching of our Profeſſion, and take an advantage from them to make the truth and Servants of Chriſt become odious unto others.
Secondly, And I do it alſo for the ſake of ſome (even too many) among our ſelves, that ſpeak of controverſies as they are concerned in them, or as the party to whom they joyn doth ſpeak of them, or as they appear to them in the dark, or at a diſtance, or upon a haſty ſuperficial ſearch; but have not the skil (nor ſome of them, the will) to open the true ſtate of a Controverſie, and make the difference appear no wider, then indeed it is.
To the proving of the Propoſition, it muſt be obſerved, Firſt, that the Affirmers do yield, that it is not the Doctrine or Government of Chriſt, but his blood that is the Ranſome for one ſins, and his Righteouſneſs that is the ſole Meritorious Cauſe of our Juſtification: and that believing in Chriſt as Prophet and King, is not a proper Inſtrument of our Juſtification; and that Chriſt as a Ranſome for us, and a deſerver of our Juſtification, is the formal Object of that other act (which accordingly believeth in him) and not of this act of believing in him as Prophet and King.
On the other ſide, it is granted by them that are for the Negative, that it is our duty to believe in Chriſt as a Prophet and King and that it is of neceſſity to ſalvation, yet to Juſtification it ſelf; For they yield that it is the Fides quae Juſtificat, the faith by whch we are Juſtified, but not qu… Juſtificat, or that it Juſtifieth not quà talis, as ſuch: They yield alſo that it is a Condition of Juſtification, for ſo they confeſs that Repentance it ſelf is; but they only ſay, that it is not the Inſtrument of Juſtification, as they think the other act is. So that the difference is here: They yield all that we affirm (if I can underſtand them;) but they affirm ſomewhat more themſelves, which we do not yield: They grant that believing in Chriſt as our Teacher and Lord is a Condition of our Juſtification, and the …ides quae Juſtificat; which is all that I deſire: But then they add, that the Belief in Chriſts blood and Righteouſneſs is the Inſtrument of our Juſtification, and that it juſtifieth qu… talis; which we utterly deny, if the words be properly taken; and Tropes ſhould not upon choice be made the terms of our Queſtion, while there are plainer to be had. So that by this time its eaſie to ſee that neither of theſe opinions are ſuch as muſt unchurch or damn us, or make us Hereticks. Firſt, We that are for the Affirmative are out of that danger; for we hold no more poſitively then is yielded us by the other. All that they can charge us with; is this Negative, that [believing in Chriſts blood doth not properly Juſtifie as an Inſtrument (that is, as an efficient Inſtrumental Cauſe of our Juſtification) nor yet qu… talis:] And I think they will not lay our ſalvation on the Affirmative, when they conſider what we yield (of which more anon) And on the other ſide, we are far from paſſing any damning ſentence on them that are for the ſaid Inſtrumentality; eſpecially as we perceive it commonly held. Let no Papiſt therefore inſult over us and ſay, we are diſagreed in our fundamentals, unleſs he be reſolved to do it in deſign againſt the light of his own conſcience. I the rather premiſe this Caution, becauſe I hear that the Papiſts do mutter thus againſt us already to ſilly people that cannot ſee their deceit: They ſay, [Is not the death of Chriſt a fundamental? and yet ſome ſay that he died for All, and ſome ſay he died only for the Elect; ſome ſay he paid the Idem, and ſome but the Tantundem] but they tell not the people the true ſtate of the Controverſie, and wherein we are agreed, or that they differ as much about the extent of the death of Chriſt among themſelves, without ſuch a charge. Chriſt is the Foundation: but yet whether his hair were cut, or not, or whether he were thirty three or thirty five, or fifty years old when he died; or whether he was buried in a Garden, or in a Sepulchre of ſtone, theſe are not the foundation. So much to the firſt Propoſition for narrowing our difference.
Propoſition 2. Though this controverſie be not of ſuch Moment as is denied, yet is it of great weight, and the Conſequents of the Errors of one party hereabout, are ſuch, as if they were held practically and after the proper ſenſe of their expreſsions, would be a great hinderance to ſalvation, if not plainly hazard it. And therefore the queſtion is not to be caſt by, as needleſs or unprofitable. It is ſo neer the great matters of our Redemption, Juſtification, and the nature of faith, that it is it ſelf the greater. And if Ameſius ſay true, that truths are ſo concatenated, that every Error muſt by conſequence overthrow the foundation, then it muſt be ſo in this. The conſequents ſhall be mentioned anon in the Arguments, where it will be more ſeaſonable. And in great matters, it is not a contemptible Error which conſiſteth but in miſ-naming and miſ-placing them: It is a very great help to the clear and full underſtanding of Truths, to have right Notions and Methods. And the contrary may prove dangerous to many others, when the particular Patrons of thoſe miſtakes may be in no danger by them. For perhaps their firſt Notions may be righter than their ſecond; and they may not ſee the conſequents of their miſtakes; and yet when ſuch miſtakes in terms and methods ſhall be commended to the world, other men that hear and read their words, and know not their hearts and better apprehenſions, are like enough to take them in the moſt obvious or proper ſenſe, and by one diſorder to be led to more, and to ſwallow the Conſequents as well as the miſleading Premiſes. And therefore I muſt needs ſay, that this point appeareth of ſuch moment in my eyes, that I dare not deſert that which I confidently take to be the Truth, nor ſacrifice it to the honor or pleaſure of man
For the explication of the terms it is needleſs to ſay much, and I have neither time for, nor mind of needleſs work. By [Juſtification] here we mean not either Sanctification alone, or ſanctification and remiſſion conjunct as making up our Righteouſneſs, as the Papiſts do: (though we deny not but ſometime the word may be found in Scripture in ſome ſuch ſenſe:) For thus it is paſt controverſie, that our juſtification, that is, our ſanctification as to all that followeth faith, is as much, if not much more, from our belief in Chriſt as Teacher and King, as from our belief in him as a Ranſome. But by Juſtification we mean that Relative Change which Proteſtants ordinarily mean by this word; which we need not here define.
The Prepoſition [By] (when we ſpeak of being juſtified by faith) is not by all men taken in the ſame ſenſe. Firſt, Sometime its uſed more ſtrictly and limitedly to ſignifie only an efficiency, or the Intereſt of an Efficient cauſe. And thus ſome Divines do ſeem to take it, when they ſay that we are juſtified by faith in Chriſts blood and Righteouſneſs, and not by faith in him as a Teacher or a Lord: which occaſioneth the Papiſts to ſay our difference is wider then indeed it is: For the word [By] hath an ambiguity and in their ſence, we yield their Negative though not their Affirmative, in the laſt-mentioned concluſion. Secondly, Sometime the word [By] is uſed to ſignifie a Conditionality, or the Intereſt of a condition only in ſpecial. And thus we take it when we explain our ſelves in what manner it is that we are juſtified by faith, and by theſe queſtioned acts in particular. And therefore thoſe Proteſtants that diſpute againſt us who are for the Affirmative, do (if I underſtand them) deny only the propriety of the phraſe which we uſe, but not the thing or ſenſe which we expreſs by it; for they grant that theſe acts of faith are Conditions of our Juſtification, when they have never ſo much diſputed, that we are not juſtified by them, and ſo a ſmall ſyllable of two letters, is much of the matter of their controverſie.
Thirdly, ſometime this word is uſed to ſignifie the Intereſt of any other cauſe as well as the Efficient, and that either generally, or eſpecially of ſome one. This Paper is white By the whiteneſs as the formal cauſe: we are moved to a godly life By God and ſalvation as the final cauſe &c.
Fourthly, Sometime the term [By] is taken yet more largely (and fitly enough) for all or any Means in General, or the intereſt of any means in the attainment of the End. And ſo it comprehendeth all Cauſes, even thoſe Per accidens and Conditions as well as Cauſes, and all that doth but remove impediments. And in this comprehenſive ſenſe we take it here in the Queſtion, though when we come to determine what is the ſpecial Intereſt of faith in Juſtification, I take it in the ſecond ſenſe.
Take notice alſo, That I purpoſely here uſe this phraſe [we are Juſtified by Believing, or by Faith] rather than theſe, [juſtifying faith] or [Faith doth juſtifie us.] And I here foretell you, that if I ſhall at any time uſe theſe laſt expreſſions, as led to it by thoſe with whom I deal, it is but in the ſenſe as is hereafter explained. The Reaſons why I chooſe to ſtick to this phraſe, rather then other, are; Firſt, Becauſe this only is the Scripture phraſe, and the other is not found in Scripture; (that I remember) It is never ſaid, that [Faith doth juſtifie us] though it be ſaid that [we are juſtified by faith.] And if any will affirm, that I may uſe that phraſe which is not found in Scripture, he cannot ſay, I muſt uſe it. And in a Controverted caſe, eſpecially about ſuch Evangelical truths, the ſafety of adhering to Scripture phraſe, and the danger of departing from it is ſo diſcernable, (and ſpecially when men make great uſe of their unſcriptural phraſes for the countenancing of their opinions,) I have the more reaſon to be cautelous. Secondly, Becauſe the phraſes are not alwaies of one and the ſame ſignification. The one is more comprehenſive then the other, if ſtrictly taken. To be juſtified by faith] is a phraſe extenſive to the Intereſt of any Medium whatſoever: And there are Media which are not Cauſes. But when we ſay that [Faith doth juſtifie us] or call it [juſtifying Faith] we expreſs a Cauſality, if we take the word ſtrictly. Though this laſt phraſe may ſignifie the Intereſt of a bare Condition, yet not ſo properly and without ſtraining as the former. The Reverend Author of the ſeond Treatiſe of Juſtification, is of the ſame mind as to the uſe of the terms; but he conjectures another reaſon for the Scripture uſe, then I ſhall ever be perſwaded of, viz. that it is becauſe Credere is not Agere, but Pati; to Believe is to Suffer, and not to Act: that it is a Grammatic all Action, but Phyſically a Paſſion. Though I think this no truer, then that my brains are made of a looking glaſs, and my heart of marble; yet is there ſomwhat in this Reverend mans opinion, that looks toward the truth afar off. For indeed it intimateth that as to Cauſality or Efficiency; faith is not Active in the juſtifying of a ſinner, but is a meer condition or moral diſpoſition, which is neceſſary to him that will be in the neareſt Capacity to be juſtifyed by God.
The laſt words, [Believing in his blood] I uſe not as the only way that is taken by the Opponents; but as one inſtance among divers. For they uſe to expreſs themſelves ſo variouſly, as may cauſe us to think by many (as we know it of ſome) that they take more waies then one in oppoſing us. Firſt, Some of them ſay, that the only Act of faith that juſtifieth, is our believing in Chriſts blood, or ſufferings, or humiliation. Secondly, Others ſay, That it is the believing in, or apprehending, and reſting on his whole Righteouſneſs, even his Obedience as Obedience, to be it ſelf imputed to us. Thirdly, Other Reverend Divines ſay, that it is the apprehending and reſting on his Habitual, as well as Active and Paſſive Righteouſneſs; that his Habits may be imputed to us, as our Habitual Righteouſneſs, and his Acts as our active Righteouſneſs; in both which together we are reputed perfect Fulfillers of the Law; and his ſufferings as our Satisfaction for our breaking the Law. As for thoſe that mention the Imputation of his Divine Righteouſneſs to us, they are ſo few, and thoſe for the moſt part ſuſpected of unſoundneſs, that I will not number it among the Opinions of Proteſtants. Fourthly, Others ſay, that the juſtifying Act of Faith is not the apprehenſion of Chriſts Righteouſneſs or Ranſome; but of his Perſon, and that only as he is Prieſt, and not as Prophet or King. Fifthly, Others think that it is the apprehenſion of Chriſts perſon, but not in his intire Prieſtly office; for he performeth ſome Acts of his Prieſtly office for us (Interceſſion) after we are juſtified: Therefore it is his Perſon only as the Satisfier of juſtice, and Meritor of Life, which they make the adequate Object of the juſtifying Act of Faith. Sixthly, Others ſay, that it is both his Perſon and his ſatisfaction, Merit, Righteouſneſs yet, Pardon and juſtification it ſelf, that is the adequate Object: By which they muſt needs grant that it is not one only ſingle Act, but many. Seventhly. One Reverend man thats now with God (Biſhop Ʋſher) underſtanding that I was engaged in this Controverſie, did of his own accord acquaint me with his Judgement, as tending to reconciliation: And becauſe I never heard any other of the ſame mind, and it hath a conſiderable aſpect; I ſhall briefly and truly report it as he expreſſed it. He told me, that there are two Acts (or ſort of Acts) of Faith. By the firſt we receive the Perſon of Chriſt as a woman in Marriage doth firſt receive the Perſon of her Husband. This is our Implantation into Chriſt the true Vine, and gives us that Union with him, which muſt go before Communion and Communication of his Graces, and ſo before juſtification. The ſecond of Faiths Acts are thoſe that apprehend the Benefits which he offereth; Of which Juſtification is one and this is ſtrictly the Juſtifying Act of Faith, and followeth the former. So that (ſaid he) it is true that the firſt Act which apprehendeth Chriſts perſon doth take him as King, Prieſt, and Prophet, as Head and Husband that we may be united to him: but the following acts which Receive his Benefits do not ſo, but are ſuited to the ſeveral benefits.]
The opinion is ſubtile, and I perceived by his Readineſs in it, that it was one of his old ſtudied points, and that he had been long of that mind; my anſwer to him was this: [You much confirm me in what I have received: for you grant the principal thing that I deſire; but you add ſomething more which I cannot fully cloſe with, but ſhall plainly tell you what are my apprehenſions of it. Firſt, You grant that the act of faith by which we are united to Chriſt, and which goes firſt, is the Believing in, or Receiving whole Chriſt as Prieſt, Prophet, and King. This will do all that I deſire. Secondly, You add, that another act, even the Receiving of his Righteouſneſs is after neceſſary, that we may be juſtified Your reaſon ſeems to be drawn from the difference of the effects: Union goes before Juſtification, therefore the uniting act goes before the juſtifying act. This is it that I deny; My Reaſons are theſe. Firſt, Scripture diſtinguiſheth between our Union with Chriſt and our Juſtification: but no where between the uniting and juſtifying acts of faith. Secondly, The nature of the thing requireth it not, becauſe faith juſtifies not by a Phyſical cauſality, as fire warmeth me; but by the moral intereſt of a condition: and the ſame act may be the Condition of divers benefits. Thirdly, Scripture hath expreſſ, made the Receiving of the perſon in his Relations to be the Condition of the participation of his benefits: [As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the ſons of God; John 1.12. whoever believeth in him ſhall not periſh, but, &c. believe in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, &c.] Fourthly, Your own Similitude cleareth what I ſay: Though the wife have not poſſeſſion of all that is her husbands as ſoon as ſhe is married; yet ſhe hath Right to all that is her part, and poſſeſſion of the benefits meerly Relative, which conſiſt but in a Right. The accepting his perſon in marriage is the condition to be by her performed to inſtate her in his Honours ſo far as ſhe muſt partake of them. When ſhe is made a wife by that Conſent, there needs not any other act before ſhe can be noble, honourable, a Lady, a Queen, &c: For the former was the full condition of the firſt poſſeſſion of this benefit; and the benefit immediately reſulteth from the Union. Fifthly, I conceive that theſe two acts which you mention are but one moral work (though divers Phyſical acts) and to be done without any interpoſition of time, before we can have Chriſt for Union or Juſtification. For the end is Eſſential to Relations: and he that receives Chriſt, muſt take him to ſome end and uſe: and that muſt be to Juſtifie, Reconcile and ſave him; to bring him to God that he may be bleſſed in him. He that doth not receive Chriſt to theſe ends, receiveth not Chriſt as Chriſt, and therefore cannot be united to him: and he that doth thus receive him, doth both thoſe acts in one which you require. Sixthly, And the caſe is much different between Phyſical and Relative benefits: For its true, that when we are united to Chriſt, we may have after need of renewed acts of faith to actuate the Graces of the Spirit Inherent in us; For here Right is one thing, and Poſſeſſion is another: But the Relation of Sonſhip, Juſtification, &c. are benefits that ariſe from the promiſe or free Gift by a meer reſultancy to all that are united to Chriſt; and whoever hath preſent Right to them, even thereby hath poſſeſſion of them, ſo that this anſwereth your Reaſon. For there is no ſuch diſtance of time between our Union with Chriſt and Juſtification, as that any acts of our own muſt interpoſe; but they are in eodem inſtanti, and differ only in order of nature. In ſum, we prove a promiſe of pardon to all that receive Chriſt himſelf, and believe in him: If any will affirm the neceſſity of any other act before we can be juſtified, it is incumbent on them to prove it.
This was the ſubſtance of my Anſwer, to which the Reverend Biſhop ſaid no more; whether ſatisfied or not, I cannot tell: But I thought meet to recite his Judgement, both becauſe it comes ſo neer the matter, and becauſe I know not of any other that ſaith the ſame or ſo much of ſeeming ſtrength againſt us.
Againſt all theſe ſeven particular Opinions, I am now to defend the Theſis; when I have firſt told you, in certain diſtinctions and propoſitions, how much I grant, and what I deny; which I ſhall in ſhort diſpatch.
And here I need but to rehearſe what I have ſaid already to Mr. Blake, pag. 3.4. or to give you ſome ſhort account of my thoughts to the ſame purpoſe.
Firſt, We muſt not confound Juſtification by Conſtitution or Guift, and juſtification by the Sentence of the Judge, and the Execution of that ſentence, which are three diſtinct things.
Secondly, We muſt not confound Juſtification with the aſſurance or feeling of Juſtification.
Thirdly, We muſt diſtinguiſh between our firſt Juſtification from a ſtate of ſin, and our daily Juſtification from particular Acts of ſin.
Fourthly, Between that which is neceſſary on Chriſts part, and that which is neceſſary on our part to our Juſtification.
Fifthly, Between Chriſts purchaſing our Juſtification, and his actual juſtifying of us.
Sixthly, Between theſe two ſenſes of the phraſe [juſtified by Fatih] viz. as by an efficient Cauſe, or as a meer Condition.
Seventhly, Between the Cauſality of faith in the Phyſical effects of ſanctification on the ſoul, and its conducing to the efficacy of the Promiſe in our Juſtification.
Propoſition 1. Ex parte Chriſti, We eaſily grant that it is not his Teaching, or Ruling us, but his Ranſome and Obedience that are the Meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification and Salvation.
Propoſition 2. Therefore if Chriſt did juſtifie us per modum objecti aprehenſi in the neareſt ſenſe, as the Belief of ſacred Truths doth make a Qualitative impreſſion on the ſoul in our Sanctification, and the exciting and acting, of our Graces then I ſhould confeſs that it is only that Act of Faith which is the apprehenſion of this Object, that doth help us directly to the benefit of the Object.
Propoſition 3. But it is not ſo: For the Object juſtifieth us cauſally by way of Merit and Moral procurement, and the benefit of that Merit is partly the Promiſe conveying to us Juſtification, and partly Juſtification conveyed by that Promiſe (not to ſpeak now of other benefits) and the Promiſe conveyeth Juſtification by Moral Donation as a deed of Gift, or a Pardon to a Traytor: Therefore the Gift flowing purely from the Will of the Giver, and the Promiſe or deed of Gift being the Immediate Inſtrumental efficient Cauſe of it, as it is ſignum voluntatis Donatoris, our Belief or Apprehenſion qua talis cannot juſtifie us, nor have any nearer or higher intereſt in our Juſtification, then to be the Condition of it, as it is a free Gift. And therefore the Condition muſt be judged of by the will of the Donor expreſſed in his Promiſe, and not immediately by the conceits of men concerning its natural agreeableneſs to the Object in this or that reſpect.
Propoſition 4. Yea, Even ex parte Chriſti, though he Merit Juſtification by his Ranſome and Obedience, yet he actually juſtifieth us as King of his Church, and that in regard of all the three ſorts or parts of Juſtification. He giveth it conſtitutively by his Promiſe, as Lord and Legiſlator and Benefactor, on theſe terms of Grace. He ſentenceth us Juſt, as our Judg; and he executeth that ſentence as a Juſt Judge, governing according to his Laws. So that if Faith did juſtifie ex natura rei, which they call its Inſtrumentality, I ſee not yet but that the apprehenſion of Chriſt as Lord and Judge muſt juſtifie us, becauſe the Object apprehended doth thus juſtifie us.
Propoſition 5. I eaſily grant that in our Sanctification or the exciting and exerciſe of our Graces, the caſe ſtandeth as the Opponents apprehend it to do in Juſtification. This Intereſt of the Act muſt be judged of by the Object apprehended. For it is not the Belief of a Promiſe that feareth us, but of a Threatning; nor the Belief of a Threatning that Comforteth us, but of a Promiſe. For here the Object worketh immediately on our minds, per modum objecti apprehenſi: But in Juſtification it is not ſo, where God is the Agent as a Donor, and there can be nothing done by us, but in order to make us fit Subjects; and the change is not Qualitative by an Object as ſuch, but Relative by a Fundamentum which is without us in the Goſpel, and nothing within us but a qualifying Condition, without which it will not be done.
Propoſition 6. Accordingly I eaſily grant, that the Senſe, or Aſſurance of Juſtification in our Conſciences is wrought by the Object as an Object: Becauſe this Aſſurance is a part of our Sanctification. But that Object is not directly Chriſts Ranſome, but the Promiſe through his blood, and our own Faith which is the condition of that Promiſe.
Propoſition 7. I eaſily grant that Faith in Chriſt as Lord or Teacher of the Church, is not the Inſtrumental efficient Cauſe of our Juſtification: They need not therefore contend againſt me in this. But withall I ſay, that faith in his Prieſt-hood is not the Inſtrumental efficient Cauſe neither; though I allow it to have a nearer Phyſical Relation to the Ranſome which meriteth our Juſtification.
Propoſition 8. Though there is a greater ſhew of Reaſon to aſſert the Intereſt of the ſingle Belief in Chriſts Prieſt-hood, for a particular Pardon, then for our firſt general Pardon; yet indeed it is but a ſhew, even there alſo. For it is not only the applying our ſelves to his blood or Ranſome, but it is alſo the applying our ſelves to whole Chriſt, to make up the whole breach, that is the Condition of our particular Pardon, (ſo far as a particular Act of ſaith is a Condition) which though it be not a Receiving Chriſt for Union with him, as we did in the beginning, yet is it a receiving him ad hoc et ſecundum quid; and a renewed Conſent to his whole Office, and adheſion to him as our ſpecial, remedy for recovery from that fall, by freeing us both from the guilt and ſtain of Sin.
Propoſition 9. It is undoubtedly the duty of every Sinner, in the ſenſe of his guilt and miſery, to fly to the Ranſome of Chriſts blood and the Merit of his Obedience, as the ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice, and the Purchaſer of our Juſtification. And he that doth not this, how willing ſoever he may ſeem to learn of Chriſt as a Maſter, or to be ruled by him, yet cannot be juſtified or ſaved by him.
Propoſition 10. I eaſily grant that Faith qud Chriſtum Prophetam et Dominum recipit, doth not juſtifie; but only fides quâ Chriſtum Prophetam & Dominum recipit, & quâ eſt promiſſionis Conditio praeſtita. But then I ſay the ſame alſo of Faith in Chriſt as Prieſt, or in his Righteouſneſs.
Having explained my meaning in theſe ten Propoſitions, for preventing of Objections that concern not the Controverſie, but run upon miſtakes, I ſhall now proceed to prove the Theſis, which is this.
Theſis. We are juſtified by God, by our Believing in Chriſt as Teacher and Lord, and not only by Believing in his blood or Righteouſneſs.
Argument 1. My firſt Argument ſhall be from the Conceſſion of thoſe that we diſpute with. They commonly grant us the point contended for: Therefore we may take it for granted by them. If you ſay, What need you then diſpute the point, if they deny it not whom you diſpute with? I Anſwer, ſome of them grant it, and underſtand not that they grant it us, becauſe they underſtand not the ſenſe of our Aſſertion. And ſome of them underſtand that they grant it in our ſenſe, but yet deny it in another ſenſe of their own; and ſo make it a ſtrife about a ſyllable. But I ſhall prove the Conceſſion, left ſome yet diſcern it not.
If it be granted us, that Believing in Jeſus Chriſt as Lord and Teacher, is a real part of the Condition of our Juſtification then is it granted us, that by this believing in him we are juſtified as by a Condition (which is our ſenſe, and all that we aſſert) But the former is true: Therefore ſo is the later.
For the proof of the Antecedent (which is all) Firſt, Try whether you can meet with any Divine that dare deny it, who believeth that Faith is the Condition of the Covenant. Secondly, And I am ſure their writings do ordinarily confeſs it. Their Doctrine that oppoſe us, is, That Faith is both a Condition and an Inſtrument: but other Acts, as Repentance, &c. may be Conditions, but not Inſtruments. And thoſe that have waded ſo far into this Controverſie, ſeem to joyne theſe other Acts of Faith with the Conditions, but not with the Inſtrument. Thirdly, They expreſly make it antecedent to our Juſtification, as of moral neceſſity, ex conſtitutione permittentis; and ſay it is the Fides quae juſtificat: which is the thing deſired, if there be any ſenſe in the words. Fourthly, They cannot deny to Faith in Chriſt, as Lord and Teacher, that which they commonly give to Repentance, and moſt of them to many other Acts. But to be a Condition (or part of the Condition) of Juſtification is commonly by them aſcribed to Repentance; therefore they cannot deny it to theſe acts of faith. So that you ſee I may fairly here break off, and take the Theſis pro Conceſſa, as to the ſenſe. Nothing more can be ſaid by them, but againſt our phraſe whether it be proper to ſay that we are juſtified By that which is but a bare Condition of our Juſtification, which if any will deny: Firſt, We ſhall prove it by the conſent of the world, that apply the word [By] to any Medium: And Dr. Twiſs that told them (contr. Corvinum) over and over that a condition is a Medium, though it be not a cauſe; and I think none will deny it. Secondly, by the conſent of many Texts of Scripture: But this muſt be referred to another Diſputation, to which it doth belong, viz. about the Inſtrumentality of faith in juſtifying us, which, God willing, I intend alſo to perform.
Argument 2. The uſual language of the Scripture, is, that we are juſtified by faith in Chriſt, or by believing in him, without any excluſions of any eſſential part of that faith. But faith in Chriſt doth eſſentially contain our believing in him as Teacher, Prieſt, and King, or Lord: therefore by believing in him as Teacher, Prieſt and Lord, we are juſtified.
The Major is paſt the denial of Chriſtians, as to the firſt part of it. And for the ſecond part, the whole cauſe lyeth on it; For the Minor alſo is paſt all controverſie. For if it be eſſential to Chriſt as Chriſt to be God and man, the Redeemer, Teacher, Prieſt and Lord: then it is eſſential to faith in Chriſt (by which we are juſtified) to believe in him as God and man, the Redeemer, Teacher, Prieſt and Lord. But the Antecedent is moſt certain: therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
The reaſon of the Conſequence, is, becauſe the act here is ſpecified from its Object. All this is paſt further queſtion.
All the Queſtion therefore is Whether Scripture do any where expound it ſelf, by excluding the other eſſential parts of faith, from being thoſe acts by which we are juſtified? and have limited our juſtification to any one act? This lyeth on the Affirmers to prove. So that you muſt note, that it is enough for me to prove that we are juſtified by faith in Chriſt Jeſus: for this Includeth all the eſſential acts; till they ſhall prove on the contrary, that it is but ſecundum quid, and that God hath excluded all other eſſential acts of faith ſave that which they aſſert: The proof therefore is on their part, and not on mine. And I ſhall try anon how well they prove it.
In the mean time, let us ſee what way the Scripture goeth, and obſerve that every Text by way of Authority, doth afford us a ſeveral Argument, unleſs they prove the excluſion.
Firſt, Mark 16.15, 16, 17. [Go ye into all the world and preach the Goſpel to every Creature: he that believeth and is baptized ſhall be ſaved; and he that believeth not ſhall be damned: and theſe ſigns ſhall follow them that believe, &c.] Here the faith mentioned, is the believing of the Goſpel, and the ſame with our becoming Chriſtians: and therefore not confined to one part or act of ſaving ſaith. That Goſpel which muſt be preached to all the world, is it that is received by the faith here mentioned; But that Goſpel doth eſſentially contain more then the doctrine of Chriſts Prieſthood: therefore ſo doth that faith.
Object. It is not Juſtification but Salvation that is there promiſed.
Anſw. It is that Salvation whereof Juſtification is a part: It is ſuch a Salvation as all have right to as ſoon as ever they believe and are baptized, which comprehendeth Juſtification: And the Scripture here and everywhere doth make the ſame faith without the leaſt diſtinction, to be the condition of Juſtification and of our Title to Glorification: and never parcels out the ſeveral effects to ſeveral acts of faith; except only in thoſe Qualities or Acts of the ſoul which faith is to produce as an efficient cauſe. To be juſtified by faith or Grace, and to be ſaved by faith or Grace, are promiſcuouſly ſpoken as of the ſame faith or Grace.
Secondly, John 3.15, 16, 18. He that believeth in him ſhall not periſh, but have everlaſting life.] [He that believeth on him is not condemned.] Not to be condemned, is to be juſtified. Condemnation and Juſtification are oppoſed in Scripture, Rom. 8, 33, 4. Here therefore a ſaving faith and a juſtifying are made all one. And it is [Believing in Chriſt] without excluſion of any eſſential part, that is this faith; It is [Believing in the Name of the only begotten Son of God.] ver. 18. which is more then to believe his Ranſom.
Thirdly, John 3.35, 36. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand, he that believeth on the Son, hath everlaſting life; and he that believeth not the ſon, ſhall not ſee life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.] To have Gods wrath abide on him to be unjuſtified. And the unbelievers oppoſed to the Believers before mentioned, are ſuch as [Believe not the ſon:] which phraſe cannot poſſibly be limited to the affiance in his blood: It is the [foreign] often tranſlated Diſobedient: ſignifying, ſaith Willet, both unbelieving and diſobedient, but rather Diſobedient, properly it is unperſwadable. But of this more anon. And the faith here mentioned is [Believing on the ſon] entirely, without excluſion of any eſſential acts; nay expreſly including the act in queſtion, by ſhewing that it is faith in Chriſt as Lord, into [whoſe hands the Father hath given all things] as the connexion of theſe words to the foregoing doth manifeſt.
Fourthly, Rom. 1.16, 17, 18. I am not aſhamed of the Goſpel of Chriſt, for it is the power of God to ſalvation to every one that believeth—for therein is the Righteouſneſs of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the juſt ſhall live by faith.] where ſaving and juſtifying faith is made the ſame, and that is to be a believer of the Goſpel, or in Chriſt, without limitation to any one eſſential part of it.
Fifthly, Rom. 3.22. [Even the Righteouſneſs of God, which is by faith of Jeſus Chriſt, unto all, and upon all them that believe.] Here it is faith in Jeſus Chriſt by which we are juſtified, which therefore includeth all that is eſſential to it.
Object. Verſ. 25. It is ſaid to be by faith in his blood.
Anſw. 1. But there is not a ſyllable confining it to faith in his blood alone. It ſaith not, (by faith only in his blood) Secondly, The ordinary courſe of Scripture is to call it by that name (faith in Jeſus Chriſt) which comprehendeth all thats eſſential to it. But ſometime upon ſpecial occaſions, its denominated from ſome one notable act or part. And that is, when it is the ſcope of the text, to denote more the diſtinct Intereſt of that part of Chriſts Office which is related to that act of faith, then any ſole Intereſt of that act of faith it ſelf. And ſo the Apoſtle here mentioneth faith in his blood as a ſpecial act, becauſe he now draweth them eſpecially to obſerve that blood which is the Object of it; and in other places he inſtanceth in other acts of faith; but commonly ſpeaks of it entirely. And I think the Opponents will grant that as (only) is not here expreſſed, ſo neither is it implyed: for then it would exclude alſo, faith in the reſt of his ſatisfactory Humiliation, or at leaſt, in his active Righteouſneſs, if not in his Perſon or Relation: of which more anon.
So verſ. 18.30, 31. Its called (faith) entirely, or without reſtriction by which we are juſtified; and therefore none of the eſſentials are excluded.
But it would be too tedious to recite the particular Texts: Its known, that [by faith] and [by believing] in Chriſt, without excluſion or limitation, is the common pleaſe of Scripture, when it ſpeaks how we are juſtified: as many further be ſeen, Rom. 5.1, 2. & 9.32. Gal. 2.16. (we are juſtified by the faith of Jeſus Chriſt, and by believing in Jeſus Chriſt, as oppoſed to the works of the Law; but not by faith in his Prieſthood, or Ranſom, as oppoſed to faith in him as our Lord and Teacher) Gal. 3.11, 24, 25, 26. & 5.5.6. Eph 2.8, 9. & 3.12, 17. Phil. 3.9. Rom. 9.30. Heb. 11. throughout, John 6 35, 40, 47. Acts 10.42, 43. Rom. 10 10. Acts 23.39. From theſe and many the like I argue thus.
The Scripture doth aſcribe our Juſtification to faith; and doth not limit it to any one part of faith excluding the reſt: Believing in Jeſus Chriſt as Redeemer, Prophet, Prieſt and King, is eſſentially this faith. Ergo, &c.
If the Scripture ſpeaks of faith eſſentially, not limiting it ad partem fidei, then ſo muſt we: But the Scripture doth ſo; Ergo' &c. It is nowhere more neceſſary then in ſuch caſes this to hold to the Rule, of not diſtinguiſhing ubi lex non diſtinguit. Firſt, Becauſe it is an adding to the doctrine of Chriſt in a point of weight. Secondly, Becauſe it ſavoureth of a preſumptuous detraction from the Condition Impoſed by Chriſt himſelf. If a Prince do make a General act of Oblivion, pardoning all Rebels that will enter into Covenant with him, wherein they conſent to Accept his pardon, and take him for their Soveraign Lord; He that ſhall now ſay, that Returning to his Allegiance, or conſenting to the Princes Soveraignty, is no part of the Condition of the Traytors pardon, but that they are pardoned only by accepting of a pardon, and not by the other act, will certainly be guilty of adding to the act of his Prince, and of detracting from the condition by him required; and ſo is it in our preſent caſe.
If God ſpeak of any thing eſſentially, we muſt not preſume without ſufficient proof of the reſtriction, to expound it only de parte eſſentiali. If he invite a Gueſt to his marriage feaſt, he means not the mans head only, or his heart only: for neither of theſe is the man. If he require a lamb in ſacrifice, we muſt not expound it of the head only, or heart only of a Lamb.
To this Argument (briefly in my Apology) Mr. Blake (having firſt excepted at the newneſs of the phraſe [Lord-Redeemer] doth anſwer thus [I ſay, Chriſt is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Maſter or Teacher; but faith in Juſtification eyes Redemption, not Dominion.] Repl. Firſt, The Phraſe [Faith in Juſtification] is as unacceptable to me, as [Lord-Redeemer] is to you: not only for the Novelty, but the ambiguity, if not the falſe Doctrine which it doth import. Firſt, If the meaning be [Faith as it is the Condition of our Juſtification,] then its contrary to your own Conceſſion after, that this ſhould eye Chriſts Prieſt-hood only; and its an untruth, which you utterly fail in the proof, or do nothing to it. Secondly, If you mean [Faith in its effecting of our Juſtification,] then it importeth another miſtake, which you have not proved, viz. that faith doth effect our Juſtification. If you mean [Faith in Receiving Juſtification] either you mean the proper Paſſive Receiving, and this is but Juſtificari, and the man Receiveth it as the Subject, and his faith is but a Condition, or means of it: Or you mean the Moral active Metaphorical Receiving; which is nothing but Conſenting that it ſhall be ours; or accepting: And this is neither part of Juſtification, nor proper Cauſe; but a Condition, and but part of the Condition: And therefore here your meaning muſt be one of theſe two, Either That Act of Faith which is the accepting of Juſtification, is not the …ying of Dominion: To which I reply, Firſt, taking it largely as a moral Act, its not true; for its comprehenſive of both, of which more anon: but taking it ſtrictly as one Phyſical Act, its true: Secondly, But then its nothing to the purpoſe: For we are not more truly juſtifyed by that Act which is the accepting of Juſtification, or Conſenting to be juſtified, then we are by the Accepting of Chriſt for our Lord and Maſter; the reaſon of which, you have had before, and ſhall have more fully anon; or elſe you mean as before expreſſed, That Act of Faith which is our Conſenting to Juſtification, is the whole Condition of our Juſtification, and not the eying of Dominion; But of that before. If I may Judge by your Doctrine elſewhere expreſſed, you mean only That the act of Faith which accepteth of Juſtification, is the only Inſtrument of Juſtification; of which in its due place: It may here ſuffice to ſay again, that I affirm not that in queſtion to the be Inſtrument of it. Be not offended that I enquire into the ſenſe of your ambiguous phraſe, which I truly profeſs, is to me not intelligible, till you have explained in what ſenſe it is that you intend it; and therefore my enquiry is not needleſs.
Ar. 3. If the Scripture doth (not only by the ſpecificke Denomination, as was laſt proved, but alſo) by deſcription, and mentioning thoſe very acts, include the believing in Chriſt as our Lord and Teacher, &c. in that faith by which as a Condition, we are juſtified; then we are juſtified by believing in Chriſt as our Lord and Teacher, &c. not only as a ſacrifice or Meriter of Juſtification. But the Antetedent is true: therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
I prove the Antecedent by many Texts.
Rom. 10 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. For Chriſt is the end of the Law for Righteouſneſs to every one that believeth. — But the Righteouſneſs which is of faith ſpeaketh on this wiſe: Say not in thy heart, Who ſhall aſcend into Heaven? that is to bring Chriſt down from above: or who ſhall deſcend into the deep? that is to bring up Chriſt again from the dead: But what ſaith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is the word of faith which we preach, that if thou ſhalt confeſs with thy mouth the Lord Jeſus, and ſhalt believe in thy heart that God raiſed him from the dead, thou ſhalt be ſaved; for with the heart man believeth unto Righteouſneſs, and with the mouth confeſſion is made unto Salvation.] Here it is evident, that it is a Believing unto Righteouſneſs that is mentioned, and therefore it is the Believing by which we are juſtified. And then it is evident that the faith here called [a believing unto Righteouſneſs] is the believing in the Lord Jeſus; expreſly Chriſt as Lord and Saviour, is made the Object of it; and is not confined to a believing in one part of his Prieſthood only. Alſo [that God raiſed Chriſt from the dead] is the expreſſed object of this faith. And the Reſurrection of Chriſt is no part of his ſacrifice or meer Prieſtly Office.
Rom. 4.24, 25. [But for us alſo, to whom it ſhall be imputed, if we believe on him that raiſed up Jeſus our Lord from the dead.] Here it is evident that it is Juſtification it ſelf that is the Benefit ſpoken of, even the Imputing of Righteouſneſs: And that faith here is mentioned as the Condition of that Imputation [If we believe] And that this faith is deſcribed to be firſt a believing in him that raiſed Chriſt, and not only in Chriſt. Secondly, A believing in Chriſt Jeſus our Lord, who is the expreſs object of it; and ſo his Lordſhip taken in; and thirdly, a believing in his Reſurrection, and not only in his blood or obedience. So that I ſee no room left to encourage any doubting, whether we are juſtified by believing in Chriſt as Lord, and in his Reſurrection, and in God that raiſed him, as the Condition of our Juſtification.
John 1.9, 11, 12. [That was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. — He came to his own, and his own received him not: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the ſons of God, to them that believe in his Name.] Here it is manifeſt, Firſt, that it is the faith by which we are juſtified that is ſpoken of; for its commonly agreed that Juſtification is here included in Adoption, or at leaſt that its the ſame act of faith by which we are adopted and juſtified. Secondly, Alſo that the object of this faith is Chriſt as the Light, which is not his meer Prieſthood. Thirdly, And that it is his perſon in his full office, and not ſome ſingle benefit. Fourthly, that it is called [his Name] and [Believing in his Name] is more then conſenting to be juſtified by his blood; and in Scripture-ſenſe comprehendeth his Nature and Office: and is all one as taking him as the true Meſſiah, and becoming his Diſciples: Fifthly, And its much to be Noted, that it is not by way of Phyſical efficacy by apprehenſion (as I take Gold in my hand, and ſo receive poſſeſſion of it) that faith hath its neareſt Intereſt in our Adoption: but it qualifieth the ſubject diſpoſitively in the ſight of God, and ſo God gives men Power thereupon to become his ſons.
So the forecited words, Iohn 3.31, 35, 36. Where Life is given on Condition that we believe on the Son; and that is expreſſed as the object of that faith, as he is one that [Cometh from Heaven, and is above all, and whom the Father loveth, and hath given all things into his hands.]
And ſo Iohn 5.22 23, 24. [He hath committed all judgement to the ſon, that all men ſhould honour the Son, even as they honor the Father; Verily, verily, I ſay unto you, he that heareth my word and believeth on him that ſent me, hath everlaſting life, and ſhall not come into Condemnation] Here the faith mentioned is that which freeth men from Condemnation, and therefore is it by which we are Iuſtified: And the object of it is the Word of Chriſt (and therefore not only his Prieſthood) and the Father as ſending the Son, even to his whole office of Redemption.
Moreover, that faith by which our Juſtification is continued, it is begun by this (both they and we are agreed in, though ſome yield not that any thing more is required to its continuance.) But the faith by which Juſtification is continued, is the Belief of the Goſpel, which is preached to every Creature and not only one branch of it. Col. 1.21, 22, 23. And it is called, Col. 2.6. a Receiving Chriſt Ieſus the Lord.
John 20.31. Theſe things are written, that ye might believe that Ieſus is the Chriſt, the ſon of God and that believing ye might have life through his Name:] That faith by which we have life, is certainly it by which we are juſtified: for as Juſtification is part of that life, ſo Right to Eternal life is given on the ſame terms as Juſtification is. And the object of this faith here is, Chriſt in Perſon and entire Office, the ſon of God by whoſe Name we have life.
Acts 2.30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. [Knowing that God had ſworn with an Oath to him, that of the fruit of his loynes according to the fleſh, he would raiſe up Chriſt, to ſit upon his Throne, he ſeeing this before ſpake of the Reſurrection of Chriſt, that his ſoul was not left in his Hell, neither his fleſh did ſee Corruption: This Ieſus hath God raiſed up, whereof we are all witneſſes; therefore being by the right hand of God exalted — therefore let all the houſe of Iſrael know aſſuredly that God hath made this ſame Ieſus whom ye have Crucified, both Lord and Chriſt. Now when they heard this — Then Peter ſaid unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Ieſus Chriſt, for the Remiſſion of ſins —.] Here it is evident that Remiſſion of ſins is a Benefit that by this faith they were to be made partakers of; and ſo that it is the faith by which we are juſtified, that they are Invited to: And that the Object of this faith implyed in the terms, Repent and be baptized, &c. is the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, and that eminently in his exaltation, as Riſen, and ſet at the Right hand of God, and as Lord and Chriſt.
So Acts 3.19.22.15. Repent therefore and be Converted, that your ſins may be blotted out — For Moſes truly ſaid, A Prophet ſhall the Lord your God raiſe up —.] Here the Jews are accuſed for killing the Prince of life, verſ. 15. and exhorted to Repent thereof, and ſo of their Infidelity, and be converted (to Chriſt, and ſo to become Chriſtians,) which is more then one act of faith; and this was that their ſins may be blotted out: And Chriſt as Prophet is propounded to them as the object of this faith, which they are exhorted to.
So Act, 10.42, 43. with 36, 37, 38, 40, 41. [And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to teſtifie that it is he that is ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead; to him give all the Prophets witneſs, that through his name, whoſoever believeth in him ſhall receive Remiſſion of ſins.] Here the faith is deſcribed which hath the Promiſe of Remiſſion. And the Object of it is at large ſet out to be Jeſus Chriſt as Lord of all, ver. 36. as anointed with the Holy Ghoſt and with power, raiſed from the dead, and made the Judge of the quick and the dead; and it is called entirely a Believing in him, and the Remiſſion is through his name.
Act. 16.31. The faith of the Jaylor as perſwaded to for life▪ is the believing in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt entirely: and its called a Believing in God, ver. 34.
1 Pet. 2.4, 5, 6, 7. The faith there mentioned is that By which we are juſtified; he that believeth on him ſhall not be confounded; and the Object of it is, whole Chriſt as the Corner ſtone, Elect and Precious.]
John 5.10, 11, 12. [The faith there mentioned, is that by which we have Chriſt and Life]: And the Object of it is, [the Son of God] and [God] and [the record that God gave of his Son] even [that God hath given us eternal Life, and this life is in his Son.]
Mat. 11.27, 28, 29. The faith there mentioned, is called [a comming to Chriſt weary and heavy laden, that he may give them reſt,] which muſt comprehend Reſt from the Guilt of ſin and puniſhment. And the Act of that Faith is directed to Chriſt as one to whom all Power is given by the Father, and as one whoſe yoak and burden we muſt take upon us. But I ſhall add no more for this.
To this laſt Mr. Blake ſaith, pag. 504. This Text ſhows the Duty of men to be, not alone to ſuch reſt and eaſe from Chriſt, but to learn of Chriſt and follow him: But neither their learning nor their imitation, but faith in his blood, is their freedom or Juſtification. Repl. Properly neither one act of faith nor other is our Juſtification. Faith is a Quality in the Habit, and an act in the exerciſe: and Juſtification is a Relation. Faith is a part of our Sanctification; Therefore it is not our Juſtification. But ſuppoſing you ſpeak Metonymically, I ſay both acts of faith are our Juſtification, that is, the Condition of it. And the Text proves it, by making our Subjection not only a Duty, but an expreſs Condition of the Promiſe. And this Conditionality you here before and after do confeſs or grant.
Argument 4. If we are juſtified by Chriſt as Prieſt, Prophet and King conjunctly, and not by any of theſe alone, much leſs by his Humiliation and Obedience alone; then according to the Opponents own Principles (who argue from the diſtinct Intereſt of the ſeveral parts of the Object, to the diſtinct Intereſt of the ſeveral acts of faith) we are juſtified by believing in Chriſt as Prieſt, Prophet and King, and not as Humble and Obedient only. But we are juſtified by Chriſt as Prieſt, Prophet and King, &c. Ergo, &c.
The Conſequence is their own. And the Antecedent I ſhall prove from ſeveral texts of Scripture, and from the nature of the thing, beginning with the laſt.
And firſt it is to be ſuppoſed, That we are all agreed that the blood and Humiliation of Jeſus Chriſt, are the Ranſome and Price that ſatisfieth the Juſtice of God for our ſins, and accordingly muſt be apprehended by the Believer: And many of us agree alſo, that his Active obedience as ſuch, is part of this ſatisfaction, or at leaſt, Meritorious of the ſame effect of our Juſtification. But the thing that I am to prove, is, that the Meritorious Cauſe is not the only Cauſe and that Chriſt in his other actions, is as truly the efficient Cauſe, as in his meriting, and that all do ſweetly and harmoniouſly concur to the entire effect; and that faith muſt have reſpect to the other cauſes of our Juſtification, and not alone to the Meritorious Cauſe, and that we are Juſtified by this entire work of Faith, and not only by that Act which reſpects the ſatisfaction or merit. And firſt, I ſhall prove that Chriſt doth actually juſtifie us as King.
The word Juſtification, as I have often ſaid (and its paſt doubt) is uſed to ſignifie theſe three Acts. Firſt, Condonation, or conſtitutive Juſtification, by the Law of Grace or Promiſe of the Goſpel. Secondly, Abſolution by ſentence in Judgement. Thirdly, The Execution of the former, by actuall Liberation from penalty. The laſt is oftener call'd Remiſſion of ſin; the two former are more properly called Juſtification.
Firſt, As for the firſt of theſe, I argue this: If Chriſt do as King and Benefactor, (on ſuppoſition of his antecedent Merits,) Enact the Law of Grace or promiſe by which we are juſtified, then doth he as King and Benefactor juſtifie us by Condonation, or conſtitution. For the Promiſe is his Inſtrument by which he doth it. But the Antecedent is certain, therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
As the Father by Right of Creation was Rector of the new created world, and ſo made the Covenant of Life that was then made: ſo the Son (and the Father) by Right of Redemption is Rector of the new Redeemed world, and ſo made the Law of Grace, that gives Chriſt and Life to all that will believe. As it is a Law, it is the Act of a King: As it is a Deed of Gift, it is the Act of a Benefactor: as it is founded in his death, and ſuppoſeth his ſatisfaction, thereby it is called his Teſtament. In no reſpect is it part of his ſatisfaction or Humiliation or Merit itſelf, but the true effect of it. So that Chriſts merit is the Remote Moral Cauſe of our Juſtification, but his granting of this promiſe or Act of Grace, is the true natural efficient Inſtrumental Cauſe of our Juſtification, even the Immediate Cauſe.
Secondly, Juſtification by ſentence of Judgement is undeniably by Chriſt as King: For God hath appointed to Judge the World by him. Act. 17.31. and hath committed all Judgement to him, John 5.22. And therefore as Judge he doth juſtifie and Condemn. This is not therefore any part of his Humiliation or Obedience, by which he ranſometh ſinners from the Curſe. To deny theſe things, is to deny Principles in Politicks.
Thirdly, And then for the Execution of the ſentence by actual liberation, there is as little room for a doubt, this being after both the former, and the act of a Rector, and not of a Surety in the form of a ſervant. So that it is apparent, that as the Merit of our Juſtification is by Chriſt in his Humiliation; So our actual Juſtification in all three ſenſes is by Chriſt as King.
And therefore Faith in order to Juſtification, muſt accordingly reſpect him.
Secondly, As the Teacher of the Church; Chriſt doth not immediately juſtifie, but yet mediately he doth, and it is but mediately that he juſtifieth by his Merits. The Goſpel is a Law that muſt be promulgate and expounded, and a Doctrine that muſt be taught and preſſed on ſinners, till they receive it and believe, that they may be juſtified: And this Chriſt doth as the Teacher of his Church. And Faith muſt accordingly reſpect him.
Thirdly, The Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt was part of his exaltation by Power and Conqueſt, and not of his Humiliation; and yet we are juſtified by his Reſurrection, as that which both ſhewed the perfection of his ſatisfaction, & by which he entred upon that ſtate of Glory, in which he was to apply the benefits.
Fourthly, The Interceſſion of Chriſt is a part of his office, as he is a Prieſt for ever after the order of Melchizedeck: but it is no part of his Humiliation or Ranſome. And yet we are juſtified by his Interceſſion: And therefore Faith muſt reſpct it for Juſtification.
Let us now hear what The Scripture ſaith in theſe caſes, Mattthew 9.6. [But that you may know that the Son of man hath Power on earth to forgive ſins, &c.] Here it is plainly made an Act of Power and not of Humiliation, to forgive ſins.
Mat. 11.27, 28, 29. All things are delivered unto me of my Father, &c. Come to me all ye that are weary, &c. ſo Mat. 28.18, 19. compared with Mark 16.15, 16. ſhew that it is an act of Chriſt exalted or in Power, to pardon, or grant the promiſe of Grace.
John 1.12. To give power to men to become the Sons of God, muſt be an act of Power.
John 5.22, 23, 24. it is expreſs of the ſentence.
Acts 5.31▪ [Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repentance to Iſrael and forgiveneſs of ſins.] He forgiveth as a Prince and Saviour.
Act. 10.42, 43. he is preached as the Judge of quick and dead, and ſo made the Object of the faith, by which we have Remiſſion of ſins.
Rom. 4.25. [Who was delivered for our offences, and raiſed for our juſtification.] And this Reſurrection (as is ſaid) was part of his Exaltation. And the Apoſtle thence concludes (as is aforeſaid) that this is the faith that is Imputed to us for Righteouſneſs [If we believe in him that raiſed up Jeſus our Lord from the dead.] verſ. 26.
Rom. 8.33, 34. [Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? it is God that juſtifieth: who is he that condemneth? it is Chriſt that died, yea rather that is riſen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who alſo maketh interceſſion for us.] Here God, and the Reſurrection, and Seſſion at Gods right hand, and the interceſſion of Chriſt, are all made the grounds or cauſes of our Juſtification, and not only Chriſts death; Yea, it is expreſt by [it is Chriſt that died, yea rather that is riſen, &c.]
1 Cor. 15.1, 2.3, 4. The faith by which Paul tells them they were ſaved, had Chriſts Reſurrection for its object, as well as his dying for our ſins.
Phil. 3.8.9, 10. Pauls way of Juſtification was firſt to [win Chriſt, and be found in him] and ſo to have a Righteouſneſs of God by faith in Chriſt (whole Chriſt,) and not that of the Law: that he might know the power of his Reſurrection, &c.
The true Nature of this faith is deſcribed, 1 Pet. 1.21. [Who by him do believe in God that raiſed him from the dead, and gave him Glory, that your Faith and Hope may be in God.]
1 Pet. 3.21. [The like Figure whereunto even Baptiſm, doth now alſo ſave us — by the Reſurrection of Jeſus Chriſt, who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of God; Angels and Authorities, and Powers, being made ſubject to him.] It is certain that the ſalvation of Baptiſm conſiſteth very much in Remiſſion of ſin or Juſtification.
In a word, it is moſt evident in Scripture, that merit and ſatiſfaction are but the moral, remote preparatory Cauſes of our Juſtification (though exceeding eminent, and muſt be the daily ſtudy, and everlaſting praiſe of the Saints) and that the perfecting nearer efficient cauſes, were by other acts of Chriſt; and that all concurred to accompliſh this work. And therefore even ex parte Chriſti, the work is done by his ſeveral acts, though merited by him in his humiliation only. And therefore it is paſt doubt on their own principles, that faith muſt reſpect all, in order to our Juſtification. And the faith by which we are juſtified muſt be that of the Eunuch, Acts 8.37. that believed with all his heart that Chriſt was the ſon of God, and ſo received him as Chriſt entirely.
Argument 5. If it be a neceſſary Condition of our being baptized for the Remiſſion of ſin, that we profeſs a belief in more then Chriſts Humiliation and merits then is it a neceſſary Condition of our actual Remiſſion of ſin, that we really believe in more than Chriſts Humiliation and Merits: But the Antecedent is certain. For the Preſcript, Mat. 28.19, 20, and the conſtantly uſed form of Baptiſm, and the Texts even now mentioned, 1 Pet. 3.21. Act. 8.37. do all ſhew it: And I have more fully proved it in my Diſpute of Right to Sacraments. And the Conſequence is undeniable: And I think all will be granted.
Argument 6. If the Apoſtles of Chriſt themſelves before his death, were juſtified by believing in him as the ſon of God, and the Teacher and King of the Church, (yea perhaps without believing at all in his Death and Ranſom thereby) then the believing in him as the ſon of God, and Teacher and King, conjunct with believing in his blood, are the faith by which we are now juſtified. But the Antecedent is true: therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
The reaſon of the Conſequence is, becauſe it is utterly improbable that the addition of further light and objects for our faith, ſhould null the former, and that which was all or ſo much of their juſtifying faith, ſhould be now no part of ours.
The Antecedent I prove, Matth. 16.21.22, 23. [From that time forth began Jeſus to ſhew unto his Diſciples, how that he muſt go unto Jeruſalem, and ſuffer many things of the Elders and chief Prieſts and Scribes, and be killed, and be raiſed again the third day: then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, ſaying, Be it far from thee Lord, this ſhall not be unto thee] &c. — John 12.16. Theſe things underſtood not his Diſciples at the firſt; but when Jeſus was glorified, then, &c. Luke 28. [Then he took unto him the twelve, and ſaid unto them; Behold, we go up to Jeruſàlem, and all things that are written by the Prophets concerning the ſon of man, ſhall be accompliſhed: For he ſhall be delivered to the Gentiles, and ſhall be mocked and ſpitefully intreated and ſpit upon, and they ſhall ſcourge him and put him to death, and the third day he ſhall riſe again: And they underſtood none of theſe things; and this ſaying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were ſpoken.]
Luke 24.20, 21, 22. [The chief Prieſts and Rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him; but we truſted that it had been be which ſhould have redeemed Iſrael: and beſide all this to day is the third day ſince theſe things were done; and certain women alſo of our company made us aſtoniſhed which were early at the Sepulchre — O fools and ſlow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have ſpoken! Ought not Chriſt to have ſuffered theſe things, and to enter into his Glory? verſ. 45. Then opened be their underſtanding that they might underſtand the Scripture.]
John 20.9. [For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he muſt riſe again from the dead.] By all this it is plain that the Diſciples then believed not Chriſts death or Reſurrection.
Yet that they were juſtified, is apparent in many Texts of Scripture, where Chriſt pronounceth them clean by the word which he had ſpoken, John 15.3. and oft called them bleſſed, Mat. 5. & 16.17 Luke 6. And he ſaith that the Father loved them: John 16.27. They were branches in him the living Vine, and exhorted to abide in him, John 15 5, 6, 7.— And that they were Believers is oft expreſt, and particularly that they Believed in him as the ſon of God, and truſted it was he that ſhould redeem Iſrael: that is by Power, and not by Death: and that they took him for their Maſter and Teacher, and the King of Iſrael; ſome of them deſiring to ſit at his right and left hand in his Kingdom, and ſtriving who ſhould be the greateſt about him, John. 16.27. The Father himſelf loveth you, becauſe ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.] John 1.49. [Nathaniel anſwered and ſaith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the ſon of God: thou art the King of Iſrael] Here was the ſaving faith of the Diſciples, Matth. 16.16. Simon Peter anſwered and ſaid, Thou art Chriſt, the ſon of the living God.]
Object. But was it poſſible for them to be juſtified without the blood of Chriſt?
Anſw. No: as to the Fathers acceptance, his blood even then before it was ſhed, was the meritorious cauſe of their Juſtification: But they were juſtified by it, without the knowledge or belief of it, thought not without faith in Chriſt as the ſon of God, the Meſſiah, the Rabbi, and the King of Iſrael. Which alſo ſhews that faith did not then juſtifie them in the new Notion of an Inſtrumental cauſe apprehending the purchaſing cauſe; or that the effects of Chriſts ſeveral acts were not diverſifyed according to the ſeveral acts of faith to thoſe as Objects.
I hope all that have Chriſtian Ingenuity will here underſtand, that I ſpeak not this in the leaſt meaſure to diminiſh the excellency or neceſſity of that act of faith which conſiſteth in the believing on Chriſt as crucified, or in his blood and Ranſom! Or that I think it leſs neceſſary then the other to us now▪ becauſe the Diſciples then were juſtified without it. I know the caſe is much altered; and that is now of neceſſity to Juſtification that was not then. But all that I endeavour is, to ſhew that we are juſtified by the other acts of faith, as well as this, becauſe it is not likely that thoſe acts ſhould not be now juſtifying, in conjunction with this, by which men were then juſtified without this.
Argument 7. If the ſatisfaction and merits of Chriſt be the only Objects of the juſtifying act of faith, then (according to their own principles) they muſt on the ſame reaſon, be the only obiects of the ſanctifying and ſaving acts of faith. But the ſatisfaction and merit of Chriſt are not the only Objects of the ſanctifying and ſaving acts of faith: therefore not of the juſtifying.
To this Mr. Blake anſwereth, by finding an Equivocation in the word Merit; and four terms in the Syllogiſm (as in other terms I had expreſſed it.) And ſaith [We look at Chriſt for juſtification as ſatisfying Iuſtice, and meriting pardon and remiſſion, not as meriting ſanctification.] Repl. But this is his miſ-underſtanding of plain words The term [Meritor] was not equivocal, but the General comprehending both effects: And that which he nakedly affirms, is the thing which the Argument makes againſt. Here it is ſuppoſed as a granted truth, that we can be no more ſanctified, then juſtified without Chriſts blood and merits: and ſo the ſcope of the Argument is this: Chriſt as a Ranſom and a Meritor of ſanctification, is not the only object of the ſanctifying act of faith: therefore by parity of Reaſon, Chriſt as a Ranſom and Meritor of Juſtification, is not the only object of the juſtifying act of faith. The Antecedent of this Enthymeme or the Minor of the Argument thus explained, is not denied by them. They confeſs that faith for ſanctification doth receive Chriſt himſelf not only as the Meritor of it, but as Teacher Lord, King, Head, Husband; and doth apply his particular promiſes. But the meriting ſanctification by his Blood and Obedience, is no part of Chriſts Kingly or Prophetical Office, but belongs to his Prieſthood, as well as the meriting of juſtification doth. For Chriſts ſacrifice layes the general Ground-work of all the following benefits, both Juſtification, Adoption, Sanctification, Glorification: but it doth immediately effect or confer none of them all; but there are appointed wayes for the collation of each one of them after the Purchaſe or Ranſom. So that if the apprehending of the Ranſom which is the general Ground do only juſtifie; then the apprehending of the ſame Ranſom as meriting ſanctification, ſhould only ſanctify. And neither the juſtifying nor ſanctifying acts of faith ſhould reſpect either Chriſts following acts of his Prieſthood, (Interceſſion) nor yet his Kingly or Prophetical office at all. And therefore as the ſanctifying act muſt reſpect Chriſts following applicatory acts, and not the purchaſe of ſanctification only; ſo the juſtifying act (to ſpeak as they) muſt reſpect Chriſts following Collation or application, and not only his Purchaſe of Juſtification. And then I have that I plead for: becauſe Chriſt effectively juſtifies as King.
Argument 8. It is the ſame faith in Habit and Act by which we are Juſtified, and by which we have right to the ſpirit of ſanctification (for further degrees) and Adoption, Glorification, &c. But it is believing in Chriſt as Prophet, Prieſt and King, by which we have Right to the ſpirit of ſanctification, to Adoption and Glorification: Therefore it is the believing in Chriſt as Prophet, Prieſt and King, by which we are juſtified.
The Minor I ſuppoſe will not be denyed; I am ſure it is commonly granted. The Major I prove thus.
If the true Chriſtian faith be but one in eſſence, and one undivided Condition of all theſe benefits of the Covenant then it is the ſame by which we are juſtified, and have Right to the other benefits (that is, they are given us on that one undivided Condition▪ But the Antecedent is true: as I prove by parts thus.
Firſt, That it is but one in eſſence▪ I think will not be denied; If it be, I prove it, firſt from Epheſ. 4.5. There is one faith.
Secondly, If Chriſt in the Eſſentials of a Saviour to be believed in, be but One, then the faith that receiveth him, can be but One: But the former is true: Therefore ſo is the later. Thirdly, If the belief in Chriſt as Prophet, as Prieſt, and as King, be but ſeveral Eſſential parts of the Chriſtian faith, and not ſeveral ſorts of faith, and no one of them is the true Chriſtian faith it ſelf alone (no more then a Head or a Heart is a humane body,) then true faith is but one (conſiiſting of its eſſential parts) But the Antecedent is undoubted, therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
Secondly, And as Faith in Eſſence is but One faith, ſo this One faith is but One undivided Condition of the Covenant of Grace, and it is not one part of faith that is the Condition of one benefit, and another part of another, and ſo the ſeveral benefits given on ſeveral acts of faith, as ſeveral conditions of them: but the entire faith in its Eſſentials is the condition of each benefit: and therefore every eſſential part is as well the Condition of one promiſed benefit, as of another. This I prove: Firſt, In that Scripture doth nowhere thus divide, and make one part of faith the condition of Juſtification, and another of Adoption, and another of Glorification, &c. and therefore it is not to be done. No man can give the leaſt proof of ſuch a thing from Scripture. It is before proved that its one entire faith that is the Condition. Till they that divide or multiply conditions according to the ſeveral benefits and acts of Faith, can prove their diviſion from Scripture, they do nothing.
Secondly, we find in Scripture not only Believing in Chriſt made the One Condition of all benefits; but the ſame particular acts or parts of this faith, having ſeveral ſorts of benefits aſcribed to them (though doubtleſs but as parts of the whole conditions.) Its eaſie, but needleſs to ſtay to inſtance.
Thirdly, Otherwiſe it would follow by parity of reaſon, that there muſt as many Conditions of the Covenant as there be benefits to be received by it, to be reſpected by our faith: which would be apparently abſurd. Firſt, Becauſe of the number of Conditions. Secondly, Becauſe of the quality of them. For then not only Juſtification muſt have one condition, & Adoption another, and Sanctification another, and Glorification another, and Comfort and Peace of Conſcience another, but perhaps ſeveral graces muſt have ſveral conditions, and the ſeveral bleſſings for our preſent life and Relations and Callings, and ſo how many ſorts of Faith ſhould we have as well as juſtifying faith? even one faith Adopting, another Glorifying, &c.
And (as to the quality) it is a groundleſs conceit that the belief or Acceptance of every particular inferiour mercy ſhould be our title to that particular mercy: For then the covetous would have title to their Riches, becauſe they accept them as from Chriſt, and the natural man would have this title to his health, and life, and ſo of the reſt: whereas it is clear that it is faith in Chriſt as Chriſt, as God and man, King, Prieſt and Prophet, that is the condition of our Title, even to health, and life, and every bit of bread ſo far as we have it as heirs of the Promiſe.
The promiſe is that all things ſhall work together for good (not to every one that is willing to have the benefit, but) to them that love God, Rom. 8.28. If we ſeek firſt the Kingdom of God and his Righteouſneſs, (not righteouſneſs alone, much leſs pardon alone) other things ſhall be added, Matth. 6.33.
Fourthly, If the Receiving of Chriſt as Chriſt, eſſentially, be that upon which we have title to his benefits, then there are not ſeveral acts of faith receiving thoſe ſeveral benefits, neceſſary as the condition of our Title to them. But the Antecedent is true: as I prove thus.
The Title to Chriſt himſelf includeth a title to all theſe benefits (that are made over to the heirs of Promiſe:) But on our acceptance of Chriſt we have title to Chriſt himſelf: therefore upon our acceptance of Chriſt (as the ſimple condition) we have title to all theſe benefits.
Rom. 8.32. [He that ſpared not his own ſon, but gave him up for us all, how ſhall he not with him alſo freely give us all things?] ſo that all things are given in the gift of Chriſt, or with him. Therefore Receiving him is the means of Receiving all.
1 John 5.11, 12. [God hath given us eternal life, and this life is in his ſon: He that hath the ſon hath life; and he that hath not the ſon hath not life.] So that accepting Chriſt as Chriſt, makes him ours (by way of condition;) and then our life of Juſtification and ſanctification is in him and comes with him.
Coming to Chriſt as Chriſt, is the ſole undivided condition of Life, John 5 40. Ye will not come to me that ye may have Life.]
Yet here I muſt crave that Ingenuous dealing of the Reader, that he will obſerve (once for all, and not expect that I ſhould on every call recite it) that though I maintain the unity of the condition, not only in oppoſition to a ſeparating diviſion, but alſo to a diſtributive diviſion of Conditions; yet I ſtill maintain theſe three things. Firſt, that quoad materiale Conditionis, that faith which is the condition, doth believe all the eſſential parts of Chriſt office diſtinctly; and ſo it doth not look to his Exaltation in ſtead of his Humiliation; nor è Contra; but looks to be Ranſomed by him as a ſacrifice, and meritoriouſly juſtified by his Merits, and actually juſtified by him as King, Judge, and Bnefactor, &c. And that it eyeth alſo diſtinctly thoſe Benefits which ſalvation doth eſſentially conſiſt in (at leaſt.) And it takes Chriſt finally to Juſtifie, Adopt, Sanctifie, Glorifie, &c. diſtinctly. But ſtill its but one condition on which we have Title to all this.
Secondly, That I maintain that in the Real work of ſanctification, the ſeveral acts of faith on ſeveral objects are diſtinct efficient cauſes of the acting of ſeveral Graces in the ſoul. The Belief of every attribute of God, and every Scripture truth, hath a ſeveral real effect upon us: But it is not ſo in Juſtification, nor any receiving of Right to a benefit by Divine Donation; for there our faith is not a true efficient cauſe, but a Condition: and faith as a condition is but One, though the efficient acts are divers. The Belief of ſeveral Texts of Scripture, may have as many ſanctifying effects on the ſoul; But thoſe are not ſeveral conditions of our Title thereto. God ſaith not I will excite this Grace if thou wilt believe this Text, and that grace if thou wilt believe that Text. In the exerciſe of Grace God worketh by our ſelves as efficient cauſes: but in the Juſtifying of a ſinner, God doth it wholly and immediately himſelf without any Co-efficiency of our own, though we muſt have the diſpoſition or Condition.
Thirdly, I ſtill affirm, that this One undivided condition may have divers appellations from the Reſpect to the Conſequent benefits (for I will not call them the effects;) This one faith may be denominated (importing only the Intereſt of a condition) a juſtifying faith, a ſanctifying faith, an Adopting faith, a ſaving faith, preſerving faith, &c. But this is only, if not by extrinſick denomination, at the moſt but a Virtual or Relative diſtinction; As the ſame Center may have divers denominations from the ſeveral lines that meet in it: Or the ſame Pillar or Rock may be Eaſt, Weſt, North, or South, ad laevam, vel ad dextram, in reſpect to ſeveral other Correlates: Or (plainly) as one and the ſame Antecedent, hath divers denominations from ſeveral Conſequents. So if you could give me health, wealth, Honor, Comfort, &c. on the condition that I would but ſay One Word [I thank you:] that one word, might be denominated an enriching word, an honouring word, a comforting word from the ſeveral Conſequents. And ſo may faith. But this makes neither the Materiale, nor the Formale of the Condition to be divers: either the faith it ſelf, or condition of the Promiſe.
Argument 9. If there be in the very nature of a Covenant Condition in general, and of Gods impoſed Condition in ſpecicial, enough to perſwade us that the benefit dependeth uſually as much or more on ſome other act, as on that which accepteth the benefit it ſelf: then we have reaſon to judge that our Juſtification dependeth as much on ſome other act, as on the acceptance of Juſtification; but the Antecedent is true, as I prove: Firſt, As to Covenant Condition in general, it is moſt uſual to make the promiſe conſiſt of ſomwhat which the party is willing of, and the condition to conſiſt of ſomewhat which the Promiſer will have; but the Receiver hath more need to be drawn to. And therefore it is that the Accepting of the benefit promiſed is ſeldome, if ever, expreſly made the Condition (though implicitly it be part;) becauſe it is ſuppoſed that the party is willing of it. But that is made the expreſs condition, where the party is moſt unwilling: So when a Rebel hath a pardon granted on condition he come in, and lay down arms, it is ſuppoſed that he muſt humbly and thankfully accept the pardon; and his returning to his allegiance, is as truly the condition of his pardon, as the putting forth his hand and taking it is. If a Prince do offer himſelf in maraiage to the pooreſt Beggar, and conſequently offer Riches and Honors with himſelf, the accepting of his perſon is the expreſſed condition, more then the accepting of the riches and honors; and the latter dependeth on the former. If a Father give his ſon a purſe of gold on condition he will but kneel down to him, or ask him forgiveneſs of ſome fault: here his kneeling down and asking him forgiveneſs, doth more to the procurement of the gold, then putting forth his hand and taking it.
Secondly, And as for Gods Covenant in ſpecie, it is moſt certain, that God is his own end, and made and doth all things for himſelf. And therefore it were blaſphemy to ſay that the Covenant of Grace were ſo free as to reſpect mans wants only, and not Gods Honor and Ends, yea or man before God. And therefore nothing is more certain then that both as to the ends, and mode of the Covenant, it principally reſpecteth the Honor of God. And this is it that man is moſt backward to though moſt obliged to. And therefore its apparent that this muſt be part, yea the principal part of the condition. Every man would have pardon and be ſaved from hell: God hath promiſed this which you would have, on condition you will yield to that which naturally you would not have. You would have Happineſs; but God will have his preeminence; and therefore you ſhall have no Happineſs but in him. You would have pardon: but God will have ſubjection, and Chriſt will have the honour of being the bountifull procurer of it, and will be your Lord, and Teacher, and Sanctifier as well as Ranſom: If you will yield to one, you ſhall have the other. So that your Juſtification dependeth as much on your Taking Chriſt for your Lord and Maſter, as on your receiving Juſtification or conſenting to be pardoned by him. Yea the very mode of your acceptance of Chriſt himſelf and the benefits offered you, (that you take them thankfully, lovingly, humbly, renouncing your own worth, &c.) are neceſſary parts of the condition of your pardon. There is as great a Neceſſity laid upon that part of the Condition which Chriſts honour lieth on, and that in order to your Juſtification, as of that part which directly reſpecteth your Salvation. And me thinks common reaſon and ingenuity ſhould tell you that it muſt be ſo, and that its juſt and meet it ſhould be ſo. And therefore I may ſafely conclude ex natura rei, that the taking of Chriſt for our …eacher and Lord▪ is as truly a part of the condition of our Juſtification, and our Juſtification lieth as much upon it, as the Affiance in Chriſts ſufferings.
If you ſay, [But the efficiency is not equal, though it be equally a Condition] I anſwer; Neither of them have any proper efficiency in juſtifying us, unleſs you will unfitly call the Conditionality an Efficiency, or the Acceptableneſs of believing in the ſight of God, an efficiency; there is no ſuch thing to be aſcribed to our faith as to the effect of Juſtification. But this belongs to another Controverſie.
I know not what can be ſaid more againſt this, unleſs by the Antinomians who deny the covenant of Grace to have any proper Condition, but only a priority and poſteriority of Duties. But the expreſs conditional terms of the Covenant do put this ſo far out of doubt, and I have ſaid ſo much of it in other writings, that I ſhall not trouble my ſelf here with this ſort of Adverſaries: Only to prevent their miſtake, I ſhall tell them this: that in a condition there is ſomewhat Eſſential, and that is found in the conditions of Gods Promiſe; and therefore they are proper conditions: and there is ſomewhat Accidental: as Firſt, ſometime that the thing be Ʋncertain to the Promiſer: This is not in Gods Conditions: It is enough that in their own nature the things be contigent. Secondly, That the matter of the condition be ſomewhat that is gainfull to the Promiſer, or otherwiſe have a merit, or moral cauſality: But this is ſeparable: In our caſe it is ſufficient that it be ſomewhat that God liketh, loveth, or is pleaſing to him, though it properly merit not.
And the evident Reaſon why God hath made ſome Promiſes conditional, is, that his Laws and Promiſes may be perfectly ſuited to the nature of man on whom they muſt work, and ſo may ſhew forth Gods Infinite Wiſdom, and may in a way agreeable to our natures attain their ends: and man may be drawn to that which he is backward to by the help of that which he is naturally more forward to, or by the fear of that evil which naturally he doth abhor: As alſo that the Holineſs of God may ſhine forth in his Word; and it may be ſeen that he loveth Juſtice, Holineſs, Obedience, and not only the perſons of men: and ſo all his Attributes may be ſeen in their conjunction and the beauty that thence reſulteth in the Glaſs of his Word.
Argument 10 If the condemning Unbelief which is the Privation of the faith by which we are juſtified, be the Not-be-believing in Chriſt as King, Prieſt and Prophet, than the faith by which we are juſtified, is the believing in him as King, Prieſt and Prophet. But the Antecedent is true: therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
Only the Antecedent needs proof, though the Conſequence have the hard hap to be denyed alſo.
Here note, that by The condemning Ʋnbelief, I mean that which is the peremptory-condemning ſin according to the ſpecial Commination of the Goſpel: Where I ſuppoſe firſt, that there is a condemnation of the Law of Nature or works which is ſimply for ſin as ſin. Secondly, And a diſtinct condemnation by the New Law of Grace, which is not ſimply for ſin as ſin, but for one ſort of ſin in ſpecial, that is, the final rejection of the Remedy: And of this ſort of condemnation I ſpeak in the Argument. The confirmation of this diſtinction I ſhall be further called to anon by Mr. Blake.
The Antecedent I prove. Firſt, from John 3.18, 19, 20, 21. [He that believeth on him is not condemned, (There's the juſtifying faith:) But he that believeth not, is condemned already. (Theres the condemning unbelief, contradictory to the juſtifying faith) [Becauſe he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God:] (here is a ſpecial condemnation proved, diſtinct from that by the Law of works.) [And this is the condemnation (that is the condemning ſin or cauſe) that light is come into the world, and men loved darkneſs rather then light, becauſe their deeds were evil] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, &c. The 19 verſe deſcribeth the Condemning unbelief, and the 20. gives the reaſon of mens guiltineſs of it. And the unbelief deſcribed is a ſhunning or not coming to Chriſt as he is the Light to diſcover and heal their evil deeds. So that if contradictories will but ſhew the nature of each other, I think our controverſie is here plainly reſolved.
So is it in Pſal. 2.12. [Kiſe the Son left he be angry, and ye periſh from the way; when his wrath is kindled but a little, bleſſed are all they that put their truſt in him.] The faith that ſaves from puniſhment, ſaveth from Guilt: The faith that ſaves from Guilt, is juſtifying faith: The faith here deſcribed, is that which ſaves from puniſhment: And the faith here deſcribed is [kiſſing the Son,] which comprehendeth ſubjection, and dependance, and love; and is the ſame for all that, which is after called [truſting in him.]
So Luke 19.27. [But thoſe mine enemies which would not that I ſhould raign over them, bring hither, and deſtroy them before me.] Unwillingneſs to have Chriſt raign over them, is here made (not a common, but) the ſpecial condemning ſin, called commonly Unbelief; and ſo is the contrary to juſtifying faith.
So John 3.36. [He that believeth on the Son, (this as all confeſs, is juſtifying faith) hath everlaſting life: and he that believeth not the Son, ſhall not ſee life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.] Here it is apparent that this Unbelief is the privation, the contradictory or contrary to juſtifying faith. Firſt, becauſe they are ſo directly oppoſed here denominatively, that elſe the words would be equivocal, and not intelligible. Secondly, Becauſe the contrariety of effects alſo is added to put the thing paſt doubt. [The wrath of God abideth on him▪] is contrary to juſtifying, which takes the wrath of God off him; eſpecially conſidering, that it is curſing, comminatory, obliging wrath that is principally meant; the great executing wrath being not on men till their damnation.
And that materially this unbelief thus oppoſed to juſtifying faith doth conſiſt in contumacy, rebellion, or unperſwadableneſs, is plain in the words, [foreign] which ſignifie [They that are contumacious or diſobedient to the Son, or unperſwadable.]
And 1 John 5.10, 11, 12. This faith and unbelief are oppoſed; and the unbelief conſiſteth in [not believing the record that God hath given of his Son] and that record is not only concerning Juſtification, or the merit of it.
So 2. Theſ. 2.12. [That all they might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleaſure in unrighteouſneſs.] So 2 Theſſ. 1.8, 9, 10. [That obey not the Goſpel of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt] is the deſcription of the Ʋnbelievers, oppoſed to [them that believe,] ver. 10.
So Jo. 8.24. [If ye believe not that I am he, ye ſhall die in your ſins,] which as to the act and effect is contrary to juſtifying faith. And [that I am he] is not only [that I am the Ranſome] but alſo [that I am the Meſſiah and Redeemer.]
So John 16.8, 9. [He willl reprove the world of ſin.— (not only in general that they are ſinners, but of this ſin in ſpecie) becauſe they believed not in me.]
Many texts may be cited where juſtifying faith and condemning unbelief are deſcribed from acts of the underſtanding (though the will be implyed) as believing, or not believing that Chriſt is the ſon of God, &c. which cannot poſſibly be reſtrained to his Ranſom and Merit alone.
The Conſequence cannot be denyed, if it be but underſtood that this unbelief doth thus ſpecially condemn, not in general as ſin, or by the meer greatneſs of it, but as the privation of that faith by which only men are juſtified. For Privatives ſhew what the Poſitives are. And if this unbelief did condemn only as a ſin in general then all ſin would condemn as it doth: but that is falſe. And if it condemned only as a great ſin, then firſt, every ſin as great would condemn as it doth; and ſecondly, it would be Derogatory to the preciouſneſs and power of the Remedy, which is ſufficient againſt the greateſt ſins, as great: It remains therefore that as it is not for the ſpecial worth of faith above all other Graces, that God aſſigned it to be the condition of Juſtification; ſo it is not for a ſpecial greatneſs in the ſin of unbelief that it is the ſpecially condemning ſin, but as it is the Privation of that faith (which becauſe of its peculiar aptitude to that Office, is made of ſuch neceſſity to our Juſtification.
But ſaith Mr, Blake [This is like the old Argument; Evil works merit condemnation: therefore good works merit ſalvation. An ill meaning damns our good meaning; therefore ſaves.]
Repl. Firſt, A palpable miſtake. Meriting, and ſaving by merit, are effects or efficiencies ſo plainly ſeparable from the things themſelves, that the invalidity of the Conſequence eaſily appears: But in good ſadneſs, did you believe when you wrote this, that he that argueth from the deſcription or nature of a privation, to the deſcription or nature of the thing, of which it is the Privation, or that argueth from the Law of oppoſites and contradictions, doth argue like him that argues from the moral ſeparable efficiency, or effect of the one, to the like efficiency or effect of the other?
Secondly, But underſtand me to argue from the effect it ſelf if you pleaſe, ſo it be as affixed by the unchangeable Law or Covenant of God: I doubt not but the Argument will hold good. As under the Law of works it was a good argument to ſay [Not-perfect-obeying is the condemning evil: therefore perfect-obeying is the juſtifying condition.] So is it a good argument under the Covenant of Grace to ſay, Not-believing in Chriſt as King, Prieſt and Prophet, is the ſpecially-condemning unbelief; therefore believing in Chriſt as King, Prieſt & Prophet, is the faith by which we are juſtified] The main force of the reaſon lyeth here, becauſe elſe the Covenant were equivocating, and not Intelligible, if when it ſaith [He that believeth ſhall be ſaved; and he that believeth not ſhall be damned.] it did ſpeak of one kind or act of faith in one Propoſition, and of another in the other. If when it is ſaid, [He that believeth ſhall be juſtified from all things, &c. and he that believeth not ſhall be condemned] [if you believe you ſhall not come into condemnation; but if you believe not, you are condemned, and the wrath of God abideth on you] [He that believeth ſhall be forgiven, and he that believeth not ſhall not be forgiven] I ſay, if the Affirmative and Negative Propoſitions, the Promiſe and the Threatning do not here ſpeak of the ſame believing, but divers, then there is no hope that we ſhould underſtand them, and the language would neceſſitate us to err. Now the Papiſts Argument ab effectis hath no ſuch bottom; Bad works damn, therefore good works ſave. For the Covenant is not [He that doth good works ſhall be ſaved, and he that doth bad works ſhall be condemned] But [he that obeyeth perfectly ſhall be juſtified, and he that doth not ſhall be condemned] Or if they argue from the threatning of the Goſpel againſt bad works, to the merit of good, quoad modum procurandi, it will not hold, viz. that Evil works procure damnation by way of merit: therefore good works procure ſalvation by way of merit. For there is not eadem ratio, and ſo no ground for the Conſequence; Nor did I argue ad modum procurandi;] Rejecting Chriſt as King doth condemn by way of merit; therefore accepting him as King doth ſave by way of merit] This was none of my arguing: But this [Rejecting or not believing in Chriſt as King, is part of that Ʋnbelief which is by the Law of Grace, threatned with condemnation: therefore accepting or believing in Chriſt as King, is part of that faith which hath the Promiſe of Juſtification] And ſo if a Papiſt ſhould argue, not ad modum procurandi, but ad naturam actus & effecti; I would juſtifie his Argument [Raigning ſin, Rebellion, or the abſence of Evangelical good works, is Threatned by the Goſpel with condemnation at Judgement: therefore good works have the Promiſe of ſalvation, or juſtification at Judgement.]
And that I may and muſt thus underſtand the Condemning Threatning, and the Juſtifying promiſe, to ſpeak of one and the ſame faith, I am aſſured by this: becauſe it is uſual with God in ſcripture to imply the one in the other. As in the Law of works with perfect ma…, the promiſe was not expreſt, but implyed in the Threatning [In the day that thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt die.] So in the Goſpel the Threatning is oft implyed in the promiſe [He that believeth ſhall not periſh] When the Lord ſaith [The ſoul that ſinneth ſhall die] It implyeth that [the ſoul that ſinneth not ſhall not die.] And though we cannot ſay the like of the prohibition of Eating the forbidden fruit, that is, becauſe the ſame Law did on the ſame terms prohibite all other ſin as well as it. And [in the day that thou ſinneſt, thou ſhalt die] doth imply [if thou ſin not, thou ſhalt not die.] So [he that believeth, ſhall be ſaved,] doth imply, he that believeth not, ſhall be condemned. And ſo, If thou believe, thou ſhalt be juſtified, implyeth, If thou believe not, thou ſhalt not be juſtified. If you conſent not to this, you then muſt maintain that this Covenant excludeth not Infidels from ſalvation, the term only being not implyed in the promiſe of pardon to Believers: But if you grant all this, (as ſure you will) then it is moſt evident that Believing is taken in the ſame ſenſe in the promiſe, and in the threatning: For no man breathing can tell me, either how a Promiſe to one kind of faith, can imply a threatning againſt the want of another kind or act of faith; or elſe what that other faith muſt be that is ſo implyed, if not the ſame. And if it be the ſame faith that is implyed (which is a moſt evident truth) then it will follow, that if I prove the Threatned unbelief to be a Rejecting of Chriſt as King, the faith then that is made the condition of the promiſe, muſt be the accepting of him as King as well as Prieſt. But I have proved that not believing in Chriſt as King, is part of the unbelief that is ſpecially threatned werth condemnation: therefore believing in him as King is part of that faith which hath the promiſe, or is the Condition of Juſtification.
But ſaith Mr. Blake, [I further anſwer, Rejecting Chriſt as King, is a ſin againſt the moral Law, which damns: Yet ſomewhat more then ſubjection to the Moral Law is required than a ſinner may be ſaved]
Repl. For my part, I know no Law but moral Law. Its a ſtrange Law that is not Moral, as it is a ſtrange Animal that is not quid Phyſicum. But yet I partly underſtand what ſome others mean by the phraſe Moral Law; but what you mean I cannot tell, for all your two volumns. And its to ſmall purpoſe to diſpute upon terms whoſe ſenſe we be not agreed in, nor do not underſtand one another in: And you muſt better agree with yourſelves before you agree with me: I cannot reconcile theſe ſpeeches.
Mr. Blake of the Covenant, pag. 111. I know no other Rule but the old Rule: the Rule of the Moral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.
Mr. Blake here. pag. 563. Yet ſomewhat more then ſubjection to the Moral Law is required, that a ſinner may be ſaved.
I am confident you will allow me to think you mean ſomewhat more ex parte noſtri and not only ex parte Chriſti: And can that ſomewhat more be required without any Rule requiring it? And yet I find you ſometimes ſeeming offended with me, for telling you I underſtand you not.
But I further anſwer you: The rejecting of Chriſt as King, is no further a ſin againſt the Moral Law, then the accepting him as King, is a duty of the Moral Law. Will you not believe this without a Diſpute, when you are told by Paul, that where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion, and elſewhere that ſin is a tranſgreſſion of the Law? And need not ſtand to prove that the ſame Law which is the Rule preſcribing duty, is the Rule diſcovering ſin, even that ſin which is the Privation of that duty. I deſire no Readers that will not receive theſe things without any more arguing.
Mr. Blake adds [Ʋnbelief, if we ſpeak properly, doth not at all condemn, further then as it is a breath of a Moral Commandment. The privation of which you ſpeak, only holds the ſentence of the Law in force and power againſt us: which me thinks ſhould be yeur judgement as well as mine, ſeeing you are wont to compare the new Law (as you call it) to an act of oblivion: And an act of oblivion ſaves many, but condemns none. —]
Repl. It is in more then one thing I perceive that we differ. But this is a truth that you muſt not ſo eaſily take out of our hands. Though having had occaſion to ſpeak largely of it elſewhere, I ſhall ſay but little now.
Firſt, Again, I know no Commandment that is not moral. But if you mean by Moral the Commandment either meerly as delivered by Moſes, or as written in Nature; I am not of your mind, nor ever ſhall be. To be void of the belief of theſe Articles of the faith [that this Jeſus is the Chriſt, that he was actually conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, born of the Virgin Mary, ſuffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried: Roſe again the third day, aſcended into Heaven; ſitteth in our nature at the right hand of God; gave the Holy Ghoſt to his Apoſtles to confirm the Doctrine of the Goſpel] with many more; doth condemn further then as it is a breach either of the Moſaical or Natural Law: yea in ſome reſpects as it is no breach of thoſe Laws.
And yet the ſame ſin materially may be a breach of ſeveral Laws; and condemned by ſeveral.
Secondly you very much miſtake my judgement here, if you think it the ſame with yours: Nor will the mention of an act of oblivion juſtifie your miſtake I ſuppoſe an Act of oblivion may poſſibly have a Penalty anexed, (as, that all that ſtand our, and accept not of this pardon by ſuch a year or day, ſhall be remedileſs, and lyable to a greater Penalty,) And I think if no Penalty be named, there is one implyed.
For my part, I am ſatisfied that the Remedying Law, or the Law of Grace, hath its ſpecial Threatning, when I ſo often read it, [He that believeth ſhall be ſaved, and he that believeth not ſhall be damned] and [unleſs ye believe that I am he, ye ſhall die in your ſins.] And I take it to differ from the Threatning of the law of works, thus.
Firſt, In the matter of the condition; which is not ſin in general; any ſin: but a ſpecial ſin, viz. the final rejecting the Remedy; that is, Refuſing to turn to God by faith in Chriſt.
Secondly, In the Penalty: Firſt, The Goſpel Penalty, is Non-liberation from the curſe of the Law. Not to be forgiven or ſaved. This had been but a Negation, and not Penal, if there had been no Chriſt and Goſpel: But it is a privation and penal, now, becauſe by a ſpecial ſin, we forfeit our hopes and poſſibilities. Secondly, As to the degree, I find it will be a far ſorer puniſhment, Heb. 10.29. The Law of greateſt Grace doth threaten the greateſt puniſhment. Thirdly, And doubtleſs in Hell, Conſcience will have a ſpecial kind of Accuſations and ſelf-tormentings, in reflecting on the refuſals of the remedy, and treading under foot the blood of the new Covenant; which is a puniſhment that was never threatned by the Covenant of works. Fourthly, And there will be a Privation of a greater Glory, then ever was promiſed under the Law of works. Fifthly, As alſo of a ſpecial ſort of eternal felicity, conſiſting in loving the Redeemer, and ſinging the ſong of the Lamb, and being his members, &c.
Thirdly, And as there are theſe five differences in the Penalty, beſides that of the Condition of it, ſo is there a conſiderable modal difference in the conſummation it ſelf. viz. that of the Law of works was not peremptory, excluding a Remedy: but the Threatning of the Law of Grace is peremptory, excluding all further Remedy to all Eternity: which I think is a moſt weighty difference. I know, this is not much pertinent to our preſent Controverſie; but you have made it neceſſary for me thus to touch it: But I ſhall not digreſs now to prove it to thoſe that ſee it not by its own light: But I muſt ſay, that if I ſhould be drawn by you to deny it, I ſhould have but a ſtrange Method of Theology in my underſtanding, and ſhould think I let open the door to more Errors then a few.
So much for the proof of the Theſis.
The Principal work is yet behind, which is to confute the Arguments of the Opponents. I call it the Principal work, becauſe it is incumbent on them to prove, who make the limitation and reſtriction, and add a new propoſition to the Doctrine of the Goſpel: and till they have proved this propoſition, our ground is good; we ſay that [Believing in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt is the faith by which we are juſtified [and this is paſt denyal in the Scriptures. They ſay, that [Believing in him as a Ranſom and Purchaſer, or apprehending his Righteouſneſs, is the only act of faith by which we are juſtified,] and not alſo Believing in him as Lord, Teacher, Interceſſor, &c. When they have proved the reſtriction and excluſion, as well as we prove our Aſſertion that excludeth no eſſential part of faith, then the work is done, and till then they have done nothing.
And firſt, before I come to their Arguments, I ſhall conſider of that great Diſtinction, which containeth much of their opinion, and which is the principall Engine to deſtroy all, our Arguments for the contrary. And it is to this purpoſe.
[Believing in the Lord Jeſus Chriſt as King, Teacher,] &c. is the fides quae Juſtificat, but it juſtifieth not qua talis; but qua fides in Chriſtum ſatisfacientem, &c. Fides qua Juſtificat, muſt be diſtinguiſhed from fides quae Juſtificat. A man that hath eyes doth hear, and that hath ears doth ſee; but he heareth not as he hath eyes, but as he hath ears; and he ſeeth not as he hath ears, but as he hath eyes. So faith which believeth in Chriſt as King doth juſtifie, but not qua talis, as it believeth in him as King, but as it believeth in him, or apprehendeth him as our Righteouſneſs.
Repl. As juſt and neceſſary Diſtinction riddeth us out of the fruitleſs perplexity of confuſed diſputings; ſo unſound Diſtinctions, eſpecially with ſeeming ſubtilty, are Engines to deceive and lead us into the dark. The laſt time I anſwered this Diſtinction, I was ſo improvident as to ſay, that, it [it is the general …heat] meaning no more then a Fallacy, and thinking the word had ſignified no worſe: But Mr. Blake publiſheth this Comment on that ſyllable [And as it ſeems you have met with a pack of Impoſtors, and that of the moſt Learned in the Land, that out of their great Condeſcenſion have written for your ſatisfaction. This word you think ſounds harſhly from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth, and is no ſmall blemiſh to his great pains; you may then judge how it will ſound from your ſelf in the ears of others.
Such inſinuations, as if it were to breed diſſention between thoſe Learned Brethren and my ſelf, are not fair dealing. Firſt, I do not remember one or two at moſt of all thoſe Brethren, that in their Papers to me uſed that diſtinction! How then can you tell the world in print, that it ſeems I have met with a pack of Impoſtors, even them you mention? Did you ever ſee my Papers, or theirs? Did they ever tell you that this diſtinction is in them? I ſolemnly profeſs it was not in my thoughts ſo much as to intimate that any one of their Papers was guilty of that diſtinction. But if you will ſay ſo, what remedy But perhaps I intimate ſo much in my words; In what words? when I ſay, that [all that I have to do with, grant the Antecedent] and whats that to the queſtion in hand? many a hundred may grant that this act is the fides quae, that aſſert not the other act to be the fides quâ, and allow not the uſe of the diſtinction which I reſiſt. But perhaps its my next words that imply it [For the general cheat is by the diſtinction of fides qua and qua, &c.] But ſure it cannot be underſtood, that its general with al the world, nor general as to all that I have had to do with: There is no ſuch thing ſaid or meant by me; for then it muſt extend to all that are of my own mind: and I told Mr. Blake enough of the contrary as to the perſons he mentioneth, by telling him how they owned not the Inſtrumentality of faith, and then they cannot well maintain this uſe of this diſtinction. It is the general deceit or cheat of all that are deceived by it; and of moſt that in this point oppoſe me. But if Mr. Blake think either that all that vouchſafe me their writings, do it by way of oppoſition (when many do it but by explication and reconciliation) or that all that oppoſe me, do oppoſe me in that point, he thinks no truer then here he writes.
Secondly. And as he feigneth me to ſpeak of many reverend perſons that I never meant, ſo he feigneth me to take them actually for Impoſtors, becauſe I take the diſtinction for a cheat. But is it not poſſible that it may cheat or deceive themſelves, though ſome never utter it to the deceiving of others? Much leſs as impoſtors with an intention to deceive: I would you had never learned this art of confutation.
Thirdly, But I perceive how you would take it if I had applyed this to your ſelf. And what is this, but plainly to forbid me to diſpute with you? (which I had never done on other terms then for Defence.) Can I not tell you that your Argument is a Fallacy, but you will thus exclaim of me, as making you an Impoſtor? why then if you be ſo tender, who may deal with you? On the ſame grounds, if I ſay that your Major or Minor is falſe▪ you may tell the world I make you a Lyar; and I muſt either ſay as you ſay, or let you alone; leſt by contradiction I make you a Lyar or an Impoſtor. Prove that ever I blamed Mr. Crandon for ſuch a paſſage as this, if you can. It is not [this word] thus applyed, but other words that I excepted againſt; I will not yet believe it all one to call an Argument or diſtinction a cheat or fallacy, and to call the perſon a Cheater and Deceiver, and that deſignedly, as purpoſely diſſembling his Religion.
Mr. Blake proceeds. [And I much marvel that this diſtinction, that everywhere elſe would paſs, and be confeſſed to be of neceſſity, to avoid confuſion in thoſe diſtinct capacities in which men uſually act, ſhould here not alone be queſtioned, but thus branded. Does not every man that undergoes various relations, variouſly act according to them? And do not men that make addreſs, addreſs themſelves in like variety? He that is at once a Husband, a Parent, a Maſter, a School-maſter, a Phyſician, acts variouſly according to all of theſe capacities. Some come to him as a Father, ſome as a Maſter, ſome as a Teacher; all of them come to him as a Phyſician: But only they that come to him as a Phyſician are cured by him. Believers through faith go to Chriſt that hears all the Relations mentioned. But as they ſeek ſatisfaction in his blood-ſhedding, which is an act of his Prieſthood, they are juſtified.]
Repl. I ever granted that we are juſtified by truſting in Chriſts blood: But not [only] by that.
Secondly, It was God that ſought ſatisfaction in Chriſts blood, the Believer ſeeks for the fruit of that ſatisfactition.
Thirdly, But now to the diſtinction, I ſhall tell you freely my thought of it, and the reaſons of my reſiſting your uſe of it, and then anſwer your reaſons for it.
And firſt, We muſt underſtand what it is that is diſtinguiſhed: whether the Habit of faith, or the Acts? As far as I am able to underſtand them, they that underſtand themſelves, do intend to diſtinguiſh of the Habit by a virtual diſtinction, and their meaning is [The Habit of Faith which produceth both theſe acts doth juſtifie: but not as it produceth the act of believing in Chriſt as Lord, Teacher, &c. but as it produceth the Act of believing in his blood] that is, [The habit is the remote cauſe, and the act is the nearer cauſe; and the habit juſtifieth by this Act, and not by the other.] I verily think this is their meaning; I am ſure this is the moſt probable and rational that I can imagine. But then firſt, This contradicteth their ordinary aſſertion, that it is not the Habit of faith, but the act by which we are juſtified. Secondly, Then they do not mean that the act of believing in Chriſt as Lord, &c. is ſo much as the fides qua, which if they will ſpeak out and make no more ado, the controverſie will be much better underſtood. For then it is a queſtion thats eaſily apprehended, Whether only the act of faith in Chriſts ſatisfaction do juſtifie, or the believing in Chriſt as King, Prieſt and Prophet, or all that is eſſential to Chriſtian faith] This is a plain caſe; which fides qua and qua do not illuſtrate.
But then I muſt add, that this begs the queſtion as uſed by them, but decideth it not. And as [qua] reſpecteth but the Matter of the condition; q. d. The habit as it produceth this act, and not that, is the condition of Juſtification] (for elſe it juſtifieth neither as it produceth the one or the other,) ſo it is the very Queſtion between us, Whether it be one act, or the whole eſſence of the Chriſtian faith that is the Condition?
And this ſuppoſeth the determination of other controverſies that are not yet determined. There are three opinions of the Habit of faith. Firſt, that the ſeveral acts of faith, have ſeveral habits. Secondly, that the divers acts have but one habit of faith diſtinct from the habits of other graces. Thirdly, That faith, love, and all graces have but one habit. If the firſt hold, then the diſtinction as before explained, hath no place. If the laſt hold, then the Habit of Love, or Fear, may be on the ſame ground, ſaid to juſtifie.
If I have before hit on their meaning, then the diſtinction of the Habit is virtualis, and the diſtinction of the acts is realis, and they totally exclude all acts, ſave that which they fix upon; not from being preſent, but from a co-intereſt. But from what intereſt? Of a Cauſe? that we deny even to all: Of a Condition? that they grant to theſe which they exclude.
Next, we muſt underſtand the members of their Diſtinction: And ſometime they expreſs one branch to be [fides qua juſtificat] and ſometime [fides qua apprehendit Chriſtum ſatisfacienrem, &c.] As to the former, it cannot be contradiſtinct from [faith in Chriſt as Lord,] but from faith as ſanctifying, &c. it being but a denominative or virtual diſtinction of one and the ſame faith, from the ſeveral conſequents. And ſo I eaſily grant that fides qua juſtificat, non ſanct ficat vel glorificat▪ and ſo of all the conſequents of it. As it is the condition of one, it is not the condition of the other: which is no more, then to ſay that there is between the conſequents Diſtinctio realis, from whence the antecedent (Really the ſame) may be denominatively or virtually diſtinguiſhed: As the ſame man that goeth before a hundred particular men, hath a hundred diſtinct Relations to them, as Before them all. The very ſame condition in a free Gift, may be the condition of many hundred benefits, and accordingly be Relatively and denominatively diſtinguiſhed; when yet it is as truly the condition of all as of one, and hath equal intereſt as to the procurement.
And as for the other phraſe that [fides qua recipit Chriſtum ſatisfacientem, juſtificat,] properly it is falſe Docrine; if qua ſignifie the neareſt Reaſon of faiths intereſt in procuring juſtification; for then it is but to ſay that [fides, qua fides, juſtificat] which is falſe. The denomination and the deſcription expreſs but the ſame thing; fides is the denomination; and Receptio Chriſti is the deſcription: if therefore it juſtifie qua Receptio Chriſti, then it juſtifieth qua fides, that is qua haec fides in ſpecie: which is to aſcribe it to the … credere with a witneſs. And elſewhere I have diſproved it by many Arguments.
But if qua be taken leſs properly, as denoting only the aptitude of faith to be the condition of Juſtification, then ſtill the Queſtion is begged. For we ſay, that as the act of believing in Chriſts blood-ſhed hath a ſpecial aptitude in one reſpect, ſo the act of believing in his Reſurrection, Interceſſion, &c. and receiving him as King, Teacher, &c. hath a ſpecial aptitude in other reſpects, upon which God hath certainly made them the Conditions of our Juſtification with the other.
But if any ſhould diſtinguiſh of the act of faith, and not the Habit, and ſay that [fides qua credit in Chriſtum ut Regem, juſtificat, ſed non quâ credit in Chriſtum ut Regem] I accept the former as being all that I deſire, and grant the latter: But then I ſay the like of the other act of faith, that [fides quâ credit in Chriſtum ſatisfacientem non juſtificat, becauſe fides quà fides, non juſtificat, ſed fides quâ conditio praeſtita.] And I think I need to ſay no more for the opening the Fallacy, that this diſtinction uſeth to cover.
And now I come to peruſe all that I can find that is produced to ſupport this diſtinction. And the moſt is certain pretended ſimilitudes, that have little or no ſimilitude as to this.
The common ſimilitude is [A man that is oculatus heareth, but not qua oculatus, but qua auritus, &c.] Repl. Firſt, If you take quà ſtrictly, the affirmative is not true. For then àquatenus ad omne, every man that is auritus would hear: whereas he may ſtop his ears, and be where is no ſound, &c. And a man that hath eyes may wink, and be in the dark, &c. Secondly, If quà ſignifie the aptitude, or cauſal intereſt, I deny the ſimilitude; It is diſſimile: and the reaſon of the difference is evident; for a mans eyes are Phyſical efficient cauſes of his ſight, and his ears of hearing; naturally in their aptitude and potentiality determined to their proper objects: but ſaith is no efficient cauſe of our Juſtification, or of our intereſt in Chriſt at all; much leſs a Phyſical efficient cauſe. But the Intereſt it hath is Moral, which dependeth on the Donors will; and it is no higher then that of a condition: and therefore the act that Phyſically hath leaſt reſpect to the object, may in this caſe if the Donor pleaſe, do as much to procure a Title to it, as that which hath the neareſt phyſical reſpect to it. As if you have a deed of Gift of a Countrey on Condition you will diſcover a Traitor, or marry one that oweth it: here the alien act hath more intereſt in procuring your Title, then your Apprehending, or treading on the ſoil, or taking poſſeſſion, yea or accepting the deed of Gift it ſelf. So God hath made our Accepting of whole Chriſt to be the condition of life and pardon; and conſequently, the Accepting him in other Relations (in which he deſtroyeth ſin, advanceth God, &c.) doth as much to our Juſtification as the accepting him at our Ranſome.
Now to Mr. Blakes Reaſons: when he ſaith that this diſtinction would paſs every where elſe as neceſſary, he is much miſtaken: for as he doth not tell us at all what ſort of diſtinction it is, whether Realis, Rationis, Modalis, Formalis, Virtualis, &c. ſo I could give him an hundred inſtances in which it will not paſs in any tolerable ſenſe, but what are his own ſelect inſtances, from a mans various Relations to the variety of his actions and their effects. But is it Chriſt or the believer that you put in theſe various Relations? Its plain that you mean Chriſt: But thats nothing to the queſtion: I maintain as well as you that Chriſt performeth variety of works, according to the divers parts of his office, and that he meriteth not Juſtification as King, but as a Sacrifice; as he effectively juſtifieth, not as a ſacrifice, but as a King; and he teacheth as a Teacher▪ &c. this was never denyed by me. But the queſtion is whether the Intereſt of the ſeveral acts of our faith be accordingly diſtinct? which I deny, and confidently deny. In the works that Chriſt doth in theſe ſeveral Relations, there is diſtincti… realis, and Chriſt is the proper efficient cauſe of them. But though our faith muſt accept Chriſt in all theſe Relations, and to do the ſeveral works in the ſeveral Relations, yet it is no proper cauſe of the effects, and (as I ſaid) the intereſt it hath in the procurement is meerly moral, and that but of a condition, and therefore it is to be judged of by the will of the Donor.
But you ſay that [only they that come to Chriſt as a Phyſician are cured by him] Repl. Very true: I never denyed it: But not only By coming to him as a Phyſitian; eſpecially as the Worker of this one part of the cure.
You add [Believers through faith go to Chriſt that heareth all … the Relations mentioned: But as they ſeek ſatisfaction in his blood-ſhedding, they are Juſtified.] Repl. Very true (if by as you underſtand only the aptitude of the act to its office, and the certain connexion of the effect: otherwiſe it is not as they believe at all that they are juſtified; but it is not only as they ſeek ſatisfaction in his blood; but alſo as they believe in him as King, Teacher, Riſing, Interceding, &c. Though it be Chriſts blood, and not his Dominion, that Ranſometh us; yet his promiſe giveth the fruit of that blood as well on the condition of believing in him as King, as of the believing in his blood. Hitherto we have come ſhort of your proofs, which next we ſhall proceed to, and freely examine.
Mr. Blake. I ſhall take the bodlneſs to give in my Arguments, to make good that faith in Chriſt qua Lord, doth not juſtifie.
Firſt, That which the types under the law, appointed for atonement and expiation, lead us unto in Chriſt, our faith muſt eye for atonement, expiation, and reconciliation; this cannot be denyed: Theſe Levitical Types lead us doubtleſs to a right object, being Schoolmaſters to lead us unto Chriſt, and ſhaddows whereof he is the ſubſtance: As alſo to that office in him (who is the object of faith) which ſerves for that work: But thoſe types lead us to Chriſt in his Prieſtly office, for the moſt part as ſacrificing, ſometime as interceding, John 1.29. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 1.18. A great part of the Epiſtle to the Heb. is a proof of it.]
Reply I grant you both Major and Minor: but the queſtion is a meer ſtranger to the Juſt concluſion. Firſt, it will not follow, becauſe our faith muſt eye Chriſt as Prieſt for Reconciliation, that therefore it muſt eye him only as Prieſt for Reconciliation. And if only be not in, your excluſion of other acts of faith follows not.
Secondly, No, nor if it were in neither: for ex perte Chriſts for Reconciliation only Chriſts Prieſthood is to be eyed as the meritorious cauſe (ſpeaking in their ſenſe that take the prieſtly office to comprehend not only Chriſt as Sacrificer, but as ſacrifice, yea & as obeying in the form of a ſervant, the ſicneſs whereoff now paſs by:) but ex parte noſtri, the ſo eying him is not the only act of faith by which we are juſtified: ſo that for is ambiguous, and either ſignifieth Chriſts procurement of our Juſtification, or ours: In the former ſenſe grant as aforeſaid, theſe Types ſhew us that Chriſt only as Prieſt and ſacrifice doth ſatisfie for us. But as to the procuring Intereſt of our faith, theſe Types ſhew us not that only this act procureth our Intereſt. Nor is there a word in the texts you mention to prove any ſuch thing: Jo. 1.19. ſaith that, Chriſt [the Lamb of God taketh away the ſin of the world,] but it doth not ſay that only believing in him as the Lamb of God is the faith upon which we have part in his blood. and are juſtified by him. 1 Pet. 1.18. tels us we were Redeemed by his precious blood; but it doth not tell us that only believing in that blood is the faith by which we have intereſt in it; but contrarily thus deſcribes that faith, ver. 21. [Who by him do believe in God that raiſed him from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God.] 2. Cor. 5.21. tells us that he was made ſin for us, &c. but it ſaith not that our believing thus much only, is the full condition of our Intereſt in his Righteouſneſs; But contrarily expreſſeth it by [our own being reconciled to God] to which Paul exhorteth.
Thirdly, The Types which you mention, were not all the Goſpel (or Covenant of Grace, or Promiſe) then extant: If therefore there were any other parts of Gods word then, that led them to Receive Chriſt entirely as the Meſſiah, and particularly as the King and Teacher of his Church, and promiſed life and pardon on this condition, your Argument then from the Types alone is vain; becauſe they were not the whole word (unleſs you prove that they exclude the reſt, which you never can.) And indeed not only the very firſt promiſe of the ſeed of the woman, &c. doth hold out whole Chriſt as Prieſt, and Prophet and King, as the object of juſtifying faith, but alſo many and many another in the old Teſtament. And the Epiſtle to the Hebrews which you cite, doth begin with his Kingly office as the object of our faith in the two firſt chapters, which are almoſt all taken up in proving it.
Fourthly, you confeſs your ſelf that Chriſt as Interceding is the object of juſtifying faith; and if you mean it of his Heavenly interceſſion; that was no part of his meritorious obedidience or humiliation. Its true indeed, that it is for the application or Collation of the fruits of his blood, and ſo is much of his Kingly and Prophetical office too.
Mr. Blake. Secondly, That which the Sacraments under the Goſpel, ſetting forth Chriſt for pardon of ſin, lead us unto, that our faith muſt eye for Reconciliation, Pardon and Juſtification. This is clear. Chriſt in his own inſtituted ordinances will not miſguide us; But theſe lead us to Chriſt ſuffering, dying for the pardon of ſin, Mat 26 28. — A broaken, bleeding, dying Chriſt in the Lords Supper is received.
Reply, Firſt, I hope you would not make the world believe that I deny it; Did I ever exclude a dying Chriſt from the object of juſtifying faith? But what ſtrange Arguments are theſe, that are ſuch ſtrangers ſtill to the queſtion? you prove the incluſion of [faith in Chriſt dying,] but do not ſo much as mention the excluſion of the other acts of faith, which is the thing that was incumbent on you.
Secondly, If you ſay that [only] is meant by you, though not expreſſed, then I further reply, that this Argument labouring of the ſame diſeaſe with the laſt, requireth no other anſwer. Firſt, The Sacraments being not the whole Goſpel, you cannot prove your Excluſion from them unleſs you prove ſomewhat excluſive in them (which you attempt not, that I ſee,) Secondly, If therefore you underſtand the Minor excluſively as to all other parts of Chriſts office, I deny it, and the texts cited ſay not a word to prove it. Thirdly, And if they did, yet faith may eye a dying Chriſt only as purchaſing Pardon; and yet ex parte Chriſti that act that ſo eyeth him may not be the only act that is the condition of our Title to a dying Chriſt or to the pardon purchaſed. Fourthly, And yet (though it would not ſerve your turn) even ex parte Chriſti, your excluſion is ſo far from being proved that its contradicted both by the Sacraments and by Scriptures: much more ex parte noſtri, your excuſion of the other acts of faith. For, Firſt, In Baptiſm its apparent (which is appointed for our ſolemn initiation into a ſtate of Juſtification; which the Lords Supper is not.) Firſt, Chriſt foundeth it in his Dominion, Mat. 28.18. All power is given to me in Heaven and Earth; go ye therefore &c. Secondly, He maketh the very nature of it to be an entering men into a ſtate of Diſciples, and ſo engaging them to him as their Maſter, ver. 19. Go ye therefore and Diſciple (or teach) all Nations baptizing them. Thirdly, The words of the Jews to John (If thou be not that Chriſt nor Elias, nor that Prophet, why baptizeſt thou? John 1.25.) and their flocking to his baptiſm, and the words of Paul, I Cor. 14.15. (I thank God that I baptized none of you, — leſt any ſhould ſay, that I baptized in my own name) do plainly ſhew that baptizing was then taken, as an entering into a ſtate of Diſciples. And I have before proved that baptiſm doth liſt us under Chriſt the Commander, King and Maſter of the Church. Fourthly, And therefore the Church hath ever baptized into the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghoſt, with an abrenunciation of the fleſh, the world and the devil, not only as oppoſite to Chriſts blood, but as oppoſites to his Kingdom and Doctrine. Fifthly, And the very water ſignifieth the ſpirit of Chriſt as well as his blood: Though I think not, as Mr. Mead, that it ſignifieth the ſpirit only. Sixthly, And our coming from under the water was to ſignifie our Reſurrection with Chriſt, as Rom. 6. ſhews. So that it is certain that Chriſt in all parts of his office is propounded in baptiſm to be the object of our faith, and this baptiſm comprizing all this, is ſaid to be [for the Remiſſion of ſin.]
Secondly, And though the Lords ſupper ſuppoſe us juſtified, yet he underſtandeth not well what he doth, that thinks that Chriſt only as dying is there propounded to our faith. For, Firſt, In our very receiving we profeſs Obedience to Chriſt as King, that hath enjoyned it by his Law. Secondly, And to Chriſt our Teacher that hath taught us thus to do. Thirdly, The ſigns themſelves are a viſible word (of Chriſt our Teacher) and teach us his ſufferings, promiſes, our duty, &c. Fourthly, By taking, eating, and drinking, we renew our Covenant with Chriſt; And that Covenant is made with him not only as Prieſt, but as the Glorified Lord and King of the Church. On his part the thing promiſed which the Sacrament ſealeth, is, (not that Chriſt will dye for us, for thats done already, but) that Chriſt will actually pardon us on the account of his merits. And this he doth as King: and that he will ſanctifie, preſerve, ſtrengthen, and glorifie us: all which he doth as King, though he purchaſed them as a ſacrifice. On our part we deliver up our ſelves to him to be wholly his▪ even his Diſciples, and Subjects, as well as pardoned ones. Fifthly, Yea the very bread and wine eaten and drank do ſignifie our ſpiritual Union and Communion with Jeſus, who is pleaſed to become one with us, as that bread and wine is one with our ſubſtance. And ſurely it is to Chriſt as our Head that we are United, and not only as dying for us: and as to our Husband, who is moſt dearly to be loved by us, and is to rule us, and we to be ſubject to him, being made bone of his bone, and fleſh of his fleſh; Ephe. 5.23, 24, 25, 30. Sixthly, We are to do it as in remembrance of his death, ſo alſo in expectation of his comming, which will be in Kingly Glory, when he will drink with us the fruit of the Vine new in the Kingdome of his Father.
Object But Chriſt doth not pardon ſin in all theſe reſpects. Anſw. Firſt▪ But in the Sacrament he is repreſented to be believed in entirely in all theſe reſpects. Secondly, And he pardoneth as King, though he merit it as a ſacrifice. And as his Sacrifice and Merit are the cauſe of all that following, ſo therefore it is ſpecially repreſented in the Sacrament, not excluding but including the reſt. Thirdly, Believing in Chriſt as King and Prophet, even as his offices reſpect his Honor and our ſanctity, may be as truly the condition of our Juſtification, as believing in his blood.
Mr. Blake. As the ſpirit of God guides faith, ſo it muſt go to God for propitiation and …tonement. But the Holy Ghoſt guides faith to go the blood of Chriſt for attonement, Rom. 3.25. & 5.9. Eph. 1.7. 1 John. 1.7.
Reply. Concedo totum: The concluſion can be but this [therefore faith muſt go to the blood of Chriſt for attonement] Who ever queſtioned this I But your Theſis which you ſet at the Head of your Arguments, was [Faith in Chriſt qua Lord doth not juſtifie] which is little kin to any of your Arguments.
But in the explication, you have here, at laſt, the term Only, and therefore I may take that to be ſuppoſed in the Argument; But then with that Addition. I deny your Minor. The texts mentioned ſay nothing to prove it.
Rom. 3.25. hath no only in it, nor any thing excluſive of the other acts of Chriſt: And if it had, yet it would not follow that all other acts of our faith were excluded. As his blood is the meritorious cauſe, and ſo the foundation of all the benefits, and ſo all the Applying Cauſes are ſuppoſed in the mention of it and not excluded ſo are all other acts of our faith in the mention of that act.
Rom. 5.9. ſaith not that we are juſtified only by his blood. N…r is it any adding to the Scripture, to add more, unleſs you can prove that theſe texts are the whole Scripture, or that the other Scriptures add no more.
Ephe. 1 7. and 1 John 1.7 do neither of them exclude either the other acts of Chriſt, or other acts of faith: Nay John ſeems to make ſomewhat elſe the condition on our part, then the belief in that blood only, when he ſaith there [If we walk in the Light as he is in the Light, we have fellowſhip one with another, and the blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son cleanſeth us from all ſin] Or if you think this [if] denoteth but a ſign, yet other texts will plainly prove more.
To conclude, If I were to go only to the blood of Chriſt for atonement, yet it would not follow, that going to that blood only for it, is the only act of Faith on which Juſtification is promiſed or given me in the Goſpel, as is before declared.
Mr. Blake. You demand, [Will you exclude his Obedience, Reſurrection, interceſſion]? To which I only ſay, I marvell at the queſtion: If I exclude theſe, I exclude his blood: His ſhedding of blood was in Obedience, John 10.18. Phil. 2.8. his Reſurrection was his freedom from the bands of death, and an evidence of our diſcharge by blood: His Interceſſion is founded on his blood. He intercedes not as we by bare petition, but by merit: He preſents his blood as the high Prieſt in the Holy of Holies.
Repl. It was the thing I had to do, to prove that Rom. 3.24. and thoſe other texts, are not excluſive of all but his blood, and that the word Only is no more meant, then it is expreſſed in them. And now you grant it me: And needs muſt do it, while Scripture tells us, that by the Obedience of one, many are made Righteous, Rom. 5.19. and that he is Riſen for our Juſtification, Rom. 4 …5. and that Righteouſneſs ſhall be imputed to us, if we believe on him that raiſed up Jeſus our Lord from the dead. ver. 24. and It is God that juſtifieth: who is he that condemneth? it is Chriſt that dyed, yea, rather that is riſen again, who is even at the right hand of God; who alſo maketh Interceſſion for us, Rom. 8 33, 34. he that believeth all theſe texts will not add only to the firſt, at leaſt if he underſtand them; for they do not contradict each other. Well! but you marvell at my queſtion! I am glad of that! Are we ſo well agreed, that you marvell at my ſuppoſition of this difference? To ſatiſfie you, my queſtion implyed this Argument. If the Reſurrection, Interceſſion, &c. be not in thoſe texts excluded, nor faith in them, then we may not add only to interpret them; but &c. Ergo.
But let us hear the reaſons of your marveling. Firſt, As to Obedience, you ſay His ſhedding of blood was in Obedience. Anſwer. But though all blood-ſhed was in Obedience, yet all Obedience was not by blood-ſhed, nor ſuffering neither. And the text Rom. 5.19 ſeems to ſpeak of Obedience as Obedience, and not only as in blood ſhed.
Secondly, You ſay His Reſurrection was his freedom, &c. Anſ. But Suffering is one thing, and freedom from ſuffering is another thing. I herefore faith to our juſtification muſt eye Chriſts conqueſt and freedom from death as well as his death it ſelf. Moreover, Reſurrection was an act of Power, and his Entrance on his Kingdom, and not a meer act of Prieſthood: Nor will you ever prove that faith (to Juſtification) muſt only look at the Reſurrection as connoting the death from which he riſeth.
Thirdly, You ſay, His Interceſſion is founded on his blood, &c. Anſwer. So is his Kingdom and Lordſhip, Rom. 14 9. Mat. 28.18. Phil. 2.9, 10. It ſeems then faith in order to Juſtification muſt not only look at Chriſts blood, but that which is founded on it. His Government, in Legiſlation, Judgement, Execution, is all founded in his blood. &c. becauſe he hath drank of the brook in the way, therefore did he lift up the Head, Pſalme 110.7.
You add He Interceeds by Merit. Anſwer. Not by new purchaſing Merit, but by the virtue of his former Merit, and the collation of the effects of it from the Father. And ſo he Reigneth and Governeth both by virtue of former Merit, and for the applying that Merit and attaining of its Ends.
Whereas therefore you ſay If I exclude theſe, I ſhall exclude his blood; It is a weighty Anſwer. And the like you may ſay alſo of his Kingly and Prophetical office. The operation of them are ſo woven and twiſted together by infinite wiſdom, that all do harmoniouſly concur to the attainment of the ends of each one; and if you lay by one, you lay by all; you exclude Chriſts blood as to the end of Juſtification, if you include not his Kingly and Prophetical offices, and look not to him as making the Covenant or Grant of pardon in his blood; and as teaching and perſwading and working us into Union with himſelf that we may have part in his blood: and as conferring daily the fruits of his blood as King, in Renewed pardon of daily ſins; and as juſtifying us at Judgement as King and Judge. His blood is a Foundation without a building, if you take it without all theſe: Overlook theſe, and you deny it as well as by over-looking his Reſurrection.
Beſides, Seſſion at Gods Right Hand which is one thing that the Apoſtle inſtanceth in, Romans 8.35. is his Glorification it ſelf.
And when you ſay [He preſents his blood as High Prieſt, &c.] I anſwer. But not as a renewed ſacrifice; preſenting it is not ſhedding it, or offering it in ſacrifice. And the preſentation is not a minding God of what he knows not, or hath forgot, or an arguing with him to extort his Mercy; but as the value and merit of Chriſts ſacrifice hath its continual Being before God, ſo Chriſt doth give out all his benefis to his Church as procured and received from the Father by the merit of his ſacrifice: and this is his Interceſſion. But your arguing yiedeth, that to Juſtification, we muſt not only believe in Chriſt as ſhedding his blood for us on earth, but alſo on Chriſt as preſenting his blood for us in heaven: which is enough to my ends.
Mr. Blake. You tell me further that the thing I had to prove was not the excluſion of faith in his commands, but of faith in Chriſt as Lord and Teacher. I can no more diſtinguiſh Lord and Command than I can Blood and Sacrifice; it being the office of a Lord to Rule, as of blood to make atonement.
Repl. Firſt, If you cannot diſtinguiſh, there's no remedy but you muſt err by confuſion. Its obvious to an ordinary underſtanding that even Blood and Sacrifice may as well be diſtinguiſhed as Earth and Man, or Ink and Writing; [Blood] ſignifying only the matter, yea but part of the matter; and [a Sacrifice] ſignifying that matter with its moral Form.
Secondly, And its as obvious that Lord and Command do otherwiſe differ then Blood and Sacrifice; for Lord, as it ſignefieth principally a Proprietary, is toto caelo diſtinct from command, as ſtanding in another ſeries: And Lord as it ſignifieth a Rector, doth differ from Command, as the efficient from the effect; which is otherwiſe then as part of the matter doth from the whole informed.
It is no Argument againſt the truth which I maintain, that you cannot diſtinguiſh theſe.
Thirdly, If it be the office of a Lord to Rule; then you may well diſtinguiſh betwen the office and the work: But indeed in the firſt ſenſe, Lord ſignifieth a Proprietary, and but in the ſecond a Rulers Power; which is not alwayes properly called an Office neither; no more then the Soveraign is properly an Officer.
Fourthly, To make Atonement is not all one as to be a Sacrifice, which was your former term: for Atonement is the effect of a Sacrifice: not of blood as blood, but as a Sacrifice meritorious and accepted.
Fifthly, And as to the point in difference between us, the difference is palpable and weighty between believing in Chriſt as King, and believing or obeying his Commands. As his Kingly Power belongs to the Conſtitution of his myſtical body or Republike, and his commands that flow from it to the Adminiſtration: ſo Subjection to his Power and Relation, and conſenting to this conſtitution do enter us into the Body and unite us to him: when believing and obeying his Laws for Adminiſtration, do follow as the fruits. If you could have diſtinguiſhed between the Root and Fruits, between Faith and Obedience, between making Diſciples, and teaching to obſerve, &c. Mat. 28.19.2…. or becoming Diſciples, and Learning; you might have diſtinguiſhed between becoming a Subject and obeying. And what ever you do, I am ſure others of your way do grant, that Receiving Chriſt as Lord and Teacher, is the faith that juſtifieth, though not qua talis, but they will not ſay ſo by receiving or obeying his Governing Laws, which are diſtinct from the conſtitution or fundamental Law.
Mr. Blake. You yet tell me it was fitteſt for Paul to ſay, by faith in his blood; becauſe he intends to connote both what we are juſtified by ex parte Chriſti, and what we are juſtified by ex parte noſtri; but the former principally. To this I ſay. If this were fitteſt for Paul, then it is unfit for any to come in with Animiadverſions, and tell us of any other thing ex parte Chriſti, or ex parte noſtri for Juſtification. I pray you reſt here and we are well agreed. Here is Chriſts Prieſtly Office on his part alone, and I am reſolved to look no further.
Repl. Though I may not hope to change you, if you are Reſolved, yet I may take leave to render a reaſon of my contrary as peremptory Reſolution: I am reſolved to look further ex parte Chriſti, then to his blood, yea or his whole Merit yea or whole Prieſt-hood for my Juſtification; even to whole Chriſt, and in ſpecial to his Regal conſtitution and ſentence. Yet I reſt where you deſire me, as to the Truth of what I ſaid; and if we are agreed, its better then I can perceive in your other words. Firſt, Though Paul there mention the Prieſtly office alone, yet that's not all his Epiſtles, nor all the Scriptures; nor doth he here exclude the reſt.
Secondly, It may be fitteſt to Pauls deſign in that particular diſcourſe to mention faith in his blood, and yet it may be fit for another to come in with animadverſions, and tell you of more neceſſary both ex parte Chriſti & noſtri. Its common to expreſs our meaning of a whole in a ſummary notion taken from a chief part: And indeed in Political diſcourſes it is hard to meet with a fitter way of expreſſion.
Thirdly, Paul himſelf was not of your opinion, nor Chriſt neither, and yet it was not unfit for them to diſcover it. The ſame Paul that here thought it fitteſt to mention faith in his blood, did elſewhere think it fit to mention Jusſtification by his Obedience, and that he Roſe again for our Juſtification; and to promiſe Jmputation of Righteouſneſs to us, if we believe on him that raiſed up Jeſus our Lord from the dead, Rom. 4.24, 25. with the like paſſages before mentioned. But moſt frequently it is the comprehenſive phraſe of [believing in Chriſt Jeſus our Lord] that he uſeth. The ſame Chriſt that calleth himſelf ſo oft the Lord and Maſter of his followers, excludeth not thereby his other Relations And when he ſaith in one place [I am the Vine] he may freely ſay elſe where, [I am the good Shepherd:] And he that ſpeaketh of laying down his life for the ſheep, doth not thereby make it unfit to mention other Paſtoral a is for them. And he that tels us of eating his fleſh and drinking his blood, intended not the excluſion of the ſpirit that quickneth. I am therefore Reſolved by his Grace to adhere to whole Chriſt as the object of that faith which is the Condition of Juſtification. And I think this full comprehenſive faith is ſafer then the groundleſly diſtinguiſhing faith; and this Doctrine more agreeable to the Scriptures.
Mr. Blake. Fourthly, Our faith muſt look on Chriſt ſo as to obtain righteouſneſs by him, by virtue of which we may appear before God as righteous: But it is by his Obedience as a ſervant that we obtain righteouſneſs, and ſtand before God as righteous, Rom. 5.19. by the obedience of one many are made righteous.
Repl. Firſt, I grant the whole: but its nothing to our Queſtion. Its a ſtrange error that runs through ſo many Arguments, that they ſhould be impertinent to the queſtion. You ſhould have concluded that Faith in Chriſt qua Lord, doth not juſtifie] which in terminis is the concluſion that you undertook to prove: whereas all that this Argument will conclude, is, that [our faith muſt look at Chriſts obedience for Righteouſneſs, &c.] which I have ſaid no more againſt then you have done.
Secondly, But if [Only] be implyed as adjoyned to [obedience] then it will exclude his ſuffering as ſuffering in that formal reſpect, and take it in only as the Matter of his Obedience.
Thirdly, And by this Argument you deſtroy what you not only mantained, but reſolved to ſtick to in the laſt, that is, that it is not fit for any one to tell us of any other thing then faith in his blood for juſtification, and that you are reſolved to look no further then Chriſts Prieſtly office alone. For Obedience extendeth further then blood-ſhed: therefore if we are juſtified by Chriſts whole obedience, then by more then his blood. Yea you will be put hard to it to prove, that all Chriſts obedience was offered by him as a Preiſt to his Father: It belongs to a Subject, a Servant, a Son to obey; but obedience is far from being proper to a Prieſt.
Fourthly, If you intend the Major excluſively as to all other conſiderations of the object, I ſtill deny it as falſe. Our faith (even as the condition of Juſtification) muſt look at Chriſt, not only to obtain Righteouſneſs by him, but alſo to ſubject our ſelves to his Teaching and Government, and to glorifie him in and for his Mercy.
Fifthly, Yea, the Minor it ſelf is false, if you imply the excluſive Only. For we obtain Righteouſneſs and are juſtified before God effectively by Chriſt as King firſt by conſtitution, and ſecondly, by ſentence, as well as meritoriouſly by Chriſt as Prieſt.
Mr. Blake. Fifthly, That way that Chriſt took to bring us to God, our faith muſt eye and follow: But Chriſt by death the Sacrifice of of himſelf brings us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. Chriſt alſo hath once ſuffered for ſins, the juſt for the unjuſt, &c.
Repl. Still the ſame error: an Ignoratio Elenchi. I grant the whole, but the concluſion's wanting. Did I ever deny that faith muſt eye and follow Chriſts death to bring us to God? yea for Juſtification. But you ſhould have ſaid [by his death alone] or you ſay nothing. And when you prove that by his death alone Chriſt brings us to God, you will do ſomewhat. And yet if you did, it would not follow that we are brought to God in Juſtification only by eying the cauſe of Juſtification as ſuch.
Mr. Blake. Sixthly, As Chriſt freeth us from the curſe, ſo he juſtifies us, and in that notion our faith muſt look to him for Juſtification. This is plain; Juſtification being no other but our acquittal from the curſe, which is the ſentence of the Law of Moſes, Act. 13.8. but Chriſt freeth us from the cauſe in ſuffering as a Sacrifice, not ruling as a Lord, Gal. 3.13. Chriſt hath Redeemed us, &c.
Repl. Firſt [Only] is again left out in the Major propoſition, and ſo I grant it: But if it be implyed that faith muſt look to him for Juſtification only in that notion as he juſtifieth us, yea only as he meriteth Juſtification, then I deny it, and you ſay nothing to prove it. Secondly, The excluſive of your Minor is a dangerous error: Chriſt freeth us from the curſe by Juſtifying us as a King, and teaching, and ruling, and ſanctifying us; and not only by becoming a curſe for us: For if you here put in [Only] you plainly exclude all his Obedience as ſuch, and much of it materially: for it is not a curſed thing to obey God. The Law curſeth for diſobeying: therefore Obeying is not the Curſe, nor is it materially a Curſe to Love God, and Truſt him, and be zealous for his Glory, &c. The whole office of Chriſt is imployed in freeing us from the Curſe: and when Paul ſaith, he was made a Curſe to free us, he never ſaid or thought that he did nothing elſe to free us; for an hundred texts do tell us of more.
Thirdly, And on the by I muſt ſay, that I am not of your mind in the deſcription of Juſtification; for, omitting the controverſie whether Juſtification only free us from the Curſe, I do not believe that this curſe is only the ſentence of the Law of Moſes. If it were, either you muſt prove that all the Gentile world that heard not of it was under the Law of Moſes (which abundance of moſt Learned men deny with better grounds then you have to affirm it) or elſe that all theſe are under no curſe for Juſtification to remove. The Law of Nature was materially part of the Moſaical Law; but the form denominateth.
So much to Mr. Blakes Arguments, which are ſo little to the purpoſe, that if the weight of the cauſe, and the prejudice of ſome Readers did not call more earneſtly for a Reply, then any apperance of ſtrength in them, I had ſpared my ſelf and the Reader this Labor. But that [Chriſt as Chriſt is the object of that faith by which as a Condition we muſt be juſtified] and ſo that we are not juſtified only by believing in his blood, but alſo by believing in him entirely as Jeſus Chriſt our Lord, and by becoming his Diſciples, or true Chriſtians,] this is a truth, that deſerveth more then my Pen to defend it; and that while God affordeth me time and ſtrength, I ſhall never deſert.
Nov. 1656.