Of Justification, Letter 4
Sir,
FOr the expreſſions of your love in your two Letters, and your offer to meet me for conference; I return you hearty thanks. But I told you of my weakneſs, which is ſo great that I am not able to travel, nor to diſcourſe to any purpoſe if I were with you: a few words do ſo ſpend me (except when I have a little eaſe, which fals out perhaps once in a monethmonth for a few hours unexpected) therefore I am reſolved to importune you once again, and if you now deny me, to ceaſe my ſuit. It is expected at London, Cambridge, &c. that you write a confutation, and you intimate your purpoſe to do ſo hereafter: which I will not diſſwade you from, ſo I might but ſee your Arguments, that before I dye, I might know whether I have erred, and not dye without repenting or recanting: and if I err not, that I might ſhew you my grounds more fully; And if you deny this requeſt to one that hath ſo even unmannerly importuned you, and yet purpoſe to do it, when I can neither be the better for it, nor defend my ſelf, you walk not by that Rule as I thought you did, nor do as you would be done by. But for my part, I have done my endeavour for information, and ſo have ſatisfied my own conſcience. For what ſhould I do? There is none in this Country that will attempt a convincing of me, by word or writing, nor for ought I hear, gainſay: and you are the neareſt from whom I may hope for it. In your laſt you overpaſs all the particulars almoſt touched in your former, and pitch on Juſtification by works. Where you mention Pauls attributing it to Faith, to which I have anſwered, and have no Reply. 1. Where you ſay Paul excludes the Co-operation of any other; I anſwer, So do I. And of Faith too I deny the operations as effective. 2. When you ſay, he excludes works under any notion, I anſwer. 1. Would I could ſee that proved. 2. Then how can James ſay true▪ 3. Then he excludes faith under the notion of an Inſtrument. 4. And Repentance under the notion of a preparative, or condition. 5. But if you mean only that he excludes the co-operation, or efficiency of works, I yield as before. 6. Paul expreſly excludes only the works of the Law, that is, ſuch as are conſidered in oppoſition to Chriſt, or co-ordination as required by the Law of Works, and not ſuch as Chriſt himſelf enjoyneth in ſubordination to himſelf; ſo they keep that place of ſubordination. 7. Pauls Queſtion is, What is the Righteouſneſs which muſt denominate a ſinner juſt at the Bar of the Law? And this he ſaith is no Works (under any notion) no not Faith, but only Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and ſo faith muſt be taken relatively: for certainly it is Chriſt, and not Faith that is that Righteouſneſs. Is not this all that our Divines ſay, or require? and ſo ſay I, over and over. But Paul doth not reſolve there [what is the Condition on which Chriſt makes over this Righteouſneſs of his?] ſo directly, but collaterally. 8. Or if you ſay he do: yet if Paul ſpeak of our firſt poſſeſſion of Juſtification, I ſay it is without, not only the operation, but the preſence of works, which is more then you ſay. 9. Or whether he ſpeak of begun, or continued Juſtification, I ſay we are juſtified without works in Pauls ſenſe: yea that they are not ſo much as a condition of the continuance of Juſtification. For works in Pauls ſenſe relate to the reward, as of debt, and not of Grace. As a man that works to yearn wages, as Paul plainly ſaith, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh, the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. Theſe works I diſclaim as ſinfull in their ends. But obeying the Goſpel, or being willing that Chriſt who hath redeemed us, ſhould rule over us, and running that we obtain, and fighting the good fight of faith, and ſuffering with Chriſt that we may be glorified with him, and improving our Talent, and enduring to the end, and ſo doing good works, and laying up a good foundation againſt the time to come: I think Paul excludes not any of theſe from being bare conditions, or cauſae ſine quibus non of our Juſtification at Judgement, or the continuance of it here. Abrahams faith excluded works in Pauls ſenſe, as before, but not works in this ſenſe, or in James his ſenſe. When you ſay my ſenſe for reconciling Paul and James cannot be admitted. 1. I would you had told me what way to do it better: and anſwered what I have ſaid in that. 2. Your reaſon appears to me of no ſeeming force. For firſt you ſay [the one ſaith a Juſtification by faith without works, you make Faith as well as works, &c.] Anſwer 1. Paul ſaith not barely without works, but without the works of the Law. And I have ſhewed you what he means by works, Rom. 4.4. 2. I ſay no more then James, that a man is juſtified by works, and not by faith only: I believe both theſe Scriptures are true, and need no reconciling, as having no contradiction in the terms. And yet I ſpeak not ſo broad uſually, as James doth. Where you ſay that [the Orthodox do ſweetly reconcile them] I know not who you mean by the Orthodox. For I doubt not but you know the variety of interpretations to reconcile them. Piſcator and Pemble have one Interpretation, and way of Reconciliation. Calvin, Paraeus and moſt Divines another. Camero confuteth the beſt eſteemed, and hath another. Brochmond with moſt of the Lutherans have another. Jac. Laurentius, Althemor, and many more tell us of divers: which of theſe you mean by the Orthodox, I know not. But if you exclude all thoſe from the Orthodox, that ſay as I ſay in this, you will exclude as Learned Divines, and well reputed of, as moſt Europe hath bred, viz. excellent Conrad. Bergius, Ludov. Crecius, Johan, Crocius, Johan. Bergius, &c. Who though they all diſpute for Juſtification by faith without works, underſtanding it of the firſt Juſtification (for moſt Divines have taken Juſtification to be rigidly ſimul & ſemel till Dr. Downam evinced that it is a continued Act) yet they both take works for meriting works, that reſpect the reward as of Debt, and they ſay that otherwiſe Obedience is a Condition (or cauſe as they make it) of continuing, or not loſing Juſtification once attained. And is not that to ſay as much as I? And many more I can name you that ſay as much. And you approve of Mr. Bals book, which ſaith that works (or a purpoſe to walk with God) do juſtifie as a paſſive qualification of the Subject capable of Juſtification. You add that [we may diſpute, &c. but you know not how a godly man at his death can look on his Graces as Conditions of the Covenant fulfilled by him, &c.] Which ſpeech ſeems ſtrange to me. I confeſs if I be ſo, I am ungodly. For I have been as oft, and as long in the expectation of death as moſt men, and ſtill am: and yet I am ſo far from being afraid of this, that I ſhould live and dye in horror and deſperation, if I could not look upon the conditions of the Covenant of Grace fulfilled by my ſelf through goes workings. If by our Graces you mean Habits, I think it more improper to call them the fulfilling the conditions of the Covenant. For what you ſay of the Papiſts, you know how fundamentally almoſt they differ from me in this, confounding the Covenants Righteouſneſs, &c. If it were not to one that knows it better then my ſelf, I would ſhew wherein. For your queſtion, How come the imperfections in our conditions to be pardoned? You know I have fully anſwered it, both in the Aphoriſms, and Appendix. And I would rather you had given me one diſcovery of the inſufficiency of that anſwer, then asked the Queſtion again. Briefly thus. Guilt is an obligation to puniſhment (as it is here to be underſtood) Pardon is a freeing from that Obligation, or Guilt and Puniſhment. All Puniſhment is due by ſome Law. According to the Law or Covenant of Works the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obedience, &c. deſerve puniſhment, and Chriſt hath ſatisfied that Law, and procured forgiveneſs of theſe imperfections, and ſo acquit us from Guilt and puniſhment. The new Law, or Covenant of Grace doth not threaten death to any but final Unbelievers, and ſo not to the imperfection of our Faith, Love, Obedience, where they are ſincere. And where the Law threatneth not Puniſhment, there is no obligation to Puniſhment (or Guilt) on the party from that Law, and ſo no work for Pardon. Imperfect believers perform the conditions of the new Covenant truly: and it condemneth none for imperfection of degree▪ where there is ſincerity: No man is ever pardoned, whom the new Law condemneth, that is, final Unbelievers, or Rejecters of Chriſt. So that Chriſt removeth, or forgiveth that obligation to puniſhment, which by the Law of Works doth fall on us for our imperfections. And for the Law of Grace where it obligeth not to puniſhment, that obligation which is not, cannot be taken off: nor that man pardoned, that was never guilty. Your Queſtion occaſioneth me to be unmannerly in opening theſe eaſie things to you, that I doubt not knew them ſure twenty years ago and more. Though I confeſs I had not the clear apprehenſions of them ſeven years ago. What ever I was then thought by others, I confeſs I was ignorant, and am glad that God hath in any meaſure healed my ignorance, though with the loſs of my reputation of being Orthodox. Where you add that conditions have a moral efficiency, either you mean all or ſome; if all, or if this whereof we are in ſpeech, though I am loth to conteſt with you in Philoſophy, yet I muſt confeſs I never read ſo much in any Author, nor can force my ſelf to believe it, Cauſa ſine qua non, eſt cauſa fatua. It is as Schibler and others, a meer Antecedent. The word Moral is ambiguous; but if you mean it as I conjecture you do▪ for an efficiency, interpretative in ſenſe of Law, as if the Law would aſcribe efficiency to him that fulfills the condition: I utterly deny it in the preſent caſe; or if you mean that our fulfilling the conditions hath an efficiency on God to move him to juſtifie us, as an impulſive procatarctick cauſe; I not only deny it, but deny that any ſuch cauſe is properly with God, or hath efficiency on him; nor can it have the operation of the final cauſe, which ſome call moral, ſeeing it is none of Gods end, nor can any thing move God but God, nor be his end but himſelf. If you mean by moral efficiency any thing elſe which is indeed no efficiency, I ſtick not on meer words.
Sir, I ſhould not have preſumed to expect ſo much labour from you as to write a ſheet for my ſatisfaction, had I not perceived that others expect much more to leſs purpoſe, and that your letters expreſs that hereafter you intend more. If you deny me your anſwer to this, I will trouble you no more. And becauſe I would have your labour as ſhort as may be, I ſhall only deſire your anſwer to theſe few Queſtions, which I ground on both your Letters, becauſe the clear reſolving of theſe, will be the readieſt way to ſatisfie me.
Queſt. 1. Hath the Covenant of Grace (which promiſeth Juſtification and Glorification) any condition on our parts, or none? If it have
Queſt. 2. What are the Conditions? Is not Love and Obedience part of the Condition?
Queſt. 3. Muſt not thoſe Conditions be fulfilled by our ſelves? or hath Chriſt fulfi…led them by himſelf for any man.
Queſt. 4. If we muſt fulfill him▪ why may not a dying man look on them? Or what m… Paul to rejoyce in the teſtimony of his Conſcience, that in ſimplicity and godly ſincerity he had his converſation? &c. And that he had fought a good fight, and finiſhed his cour… &c. And that in all good conſcience, &c. and Hezekiah, Remember Lord that I have walked before thee, &c.
Queſt 5. Can a man have any aſſurance ordinarily that death ſhall not let him into …ell, who hath no aſſurance that he hath performed theſe conditions, and how ſhould he have it? Can he know that all ſhall work to him for good, though he know not whether he love God? or that there is no condemnation to him, though he know not that he is in Chriſt, and walk not after the fleſh, but after the Spirit?
Queſt. 6. If our Love and Obedience have no tendency to ſalvation, but as meer figures, then is not the Antinomian Doctrine true, that we may not Act for Salvation?
Q. 7. What do you mean your ſelf, when you write againſt thoſe that deny Repentance to be a Condition to qualifie the Subject to obtain forgiveneſs, but a ſign Lect. 20. of Juſtification? And when you ſay that Scripture limits Juſtification, and Pardon only to thoſe Subjects that are ſo and ſo qualified. p. 171. where you inſtance in Repentance, Confeſſion, Turning, Forgiving others, &c. and make faith an Inſtrumental cauſe, but ſay, there are many qualifications in the Subject. p. 172. And what mean you when you ſay, p. 210. In ſome groſs ſins there are many conditions requiſite (beſides humiliation) without which Pardon of ſin cannot be obtained: where you inſtance in Reſtitution. Beſides thoſe, p. 148, 149, 150. Is it not ſafe when a man hath prerformed theſe conditions, to look on them either living or dying? Or what do you ſay leſs then I do here? I know you are none of the men of contention, and therefore will not recant your own Doctrine in oppoſition to me. And if you did not mean that theſe are conditions of Pardon, and Juſtification, when you ſay they are, who can underſtand you? If thoſe groſs ſins be in the unjuſtified, you will not ſay that the conditions of his Pardon are no conditions of his Juſtification. I know that you give more to faith (and ſo to man) then I do, viz. to be the Inſtrument of his own Juſtification, (which I will not contend againſt with any that by an improper ſenſe of the word Inſtrument, do differ only in a term) but what do you give leſs to Repentance, and the reſt then I do? you ſay they are conditions, and I ſay no more.
Qu. 8. And what do the generality of our Divines mean, when they ſay that Faith and new Obedience are our conditions of the Covenant? As I have cited out of Paereus, Scharpius, Willet, Piſcator, Junius, Aretius, Alſtedius, who ſaith, the condition of the new Covenant of Grace is partly faith, and partly Evangelical Obedience, or Holineſs of life, proceeding from faith in Chriſt. Diſtinct. Chap. 17. p. 73. And Wendeli… the like, &c. If it be ſaid that they mean they are conditions of Salvation but not of Juſtification; Then
Queſt. 9. Whether and how it can be proved that our final Juſtification at Judgement (which you have truly ſhewed is more compleat then this Juſtificatio viae, and our Glorification have different conditions on our part, and ſo of our perſevering Juſtification here.
Queſt. 10. And whether it be any leſs diſparagement to Chriſt to have mans works to be the conditions of his Salvation, then to be the bare conditions of his ultimate and continued Juſtification? Seeing Chriſt is a Saviour as properly as a Juſtifier, and Salvation comprizeth all.
Queſt. 11. What tolearable ſenſe can be given of that multitude of plain Scriptures which I have cited? Theſ. 60. For my part, when I have oft ſtudyed how to forſake my preſent Judgement, the bare reading of the 25 of Matthew hath ſtill utterly ſilenced me, if there were no more. Much more when the whole Goſpel runs in the like ſtrain.
Queſt. 12. Is not the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Law or Covenant enough to denominate the party righteous, that is, not guilty of non-fulfilling, or not obliged to puniſhment, or guilty as from that ſame Law or Covenant? And doth not every man that is ſaved ſo fulfill the conditions of the new Covenant? and ſo is Evangelically righteous? The condition is not Believe, and obey perfectly, but ſincerely.
Queſt. 13. If there be no ſuch thing as a perſonal Righteouſneſs neceſſary to ſalvation, beſides imputed Righteouſneſs: 1. What is the meaning of all thoſe Scriptures cited Theſ. 22. that ſay there is? 2. And of our Divines that ſay there is inherent Righteouſneſs? And 3. What real difference between the godly and the wicked, the ſaved and damned?
Queſt. 14. Have you found out any lower place for Love and Obedience, then to be bare conditions, if you acknowledge them any way conducible to final Juſtification, or Salvation? If you have, what place is it? and how called? and why hath it not been diſcovered unto the world? To ſay they are qualifications of the Subject, is too general, and comprizeth qualifications of different Natures; and it ſhews not how they are conducible to the ſaid ends; and why a man may not be ſaved without qualifications, as well as with them, if God have not made them ſo much as conditions?
Queſt. 15. Seeing I aſcribe not to Evangelical Obedience the leaſt part of Chriſts Office or Honor, nor make it any jot of our legal Righteouſneſs, where then lies the error or danger of my Doctrine?
Queſt. 16. Do not thoſe men that affirm we have an inherent Righteouſneſs, which is ſo pronounced properly by the Law of works, accuſe the Law of God for bleſſing and curſing the the ſame man and action? And how can that Law pronounce a man, or his action righteous, which curſeth him, and condemneth him to Hell for that ſame Action? It makes me amazed to think what ſhould be the reaſon that Divines conteſt ſo much, that it is the Law of Works that pronounceth them inherently righteous, which they know condemns them; rather then the Law of Grace or new Covenant, which they know abſolveth them that ſincerely perform it. When all Divines acknowledge an inherent Righteouſneſs, and that the Law of Works is fulfilled by none, and that it pronnunceth none righteous, but the fulfillers: and when the condition of the new Covenant muſt be performed by all that will be ſaved: and when the Holy Ghoſt ſaith that it was by faith (and ſo pronounced, and meaſured by the Law of faith) that Abel (the ſecond Righteous man in the world) offered the excellent Sacrifice, and by it obtained witneſs that he was righteous, God teſtifying of his gift, &c. Heb. 11.4.
Queſt. 17. Do not thoſe Divines that will affirm that [our inherent Righteouſneſs is ſo called from its imperfect conformity to the Law of works] and that [it is the Law that pronounceth them righteous] lay a clear ground for Juſtification by works in the worſt ſenſe? for if the Law pronounce their works, and them properly righteous, then it juſtifieth them: and then what need have they (at leaſt ſo far) of Chriſt, or Pardon? yea and what Law ſhall condemn them, if the Law of Works juſtifie them? At leaſt do they not compound their Righteouſneſs (as to the law of Works) partly of Chriſts ſatisfaction, and partly of their own Works?
Queſt. 18. Whether you ſhould not blame Dr. Preſton, Mr. Norton, Mr. Culverwel, Mr. Throgmorton, &c. for laying by the good ſound definition of Faith (as you call it) as well as me? And is it not great partiality to let the ſame paſs as currant from them, which from me muſt be condemned? And why would you agree to ſuch a corrupt definition, being one of the Aſſembly, when theirs in the leſſer Catechiſm (and indeed both) is in ſence the very ſame with mine? And why may not I be judged Orthodox in that point, when I heartily ſubſcribe to the National Aſſemblies Definition? viz. that Faith is a ſaving Grace, whereby we receive, and reſt on Chriſt alone for Salvation, as he is offered to us in the Goſpel.]
Qu. 19. Do I ſay any more then the Aſſembly ſaith in the preceding Queſtion? [What doth God require of us, that we may eſcape his wrath and curſe due to us for ſin? Anſw. God requireth of us (to eſcape the ſaid wrath and curſe, &c.) Faith in Jeſus Chriſt, repentance unto life, with the diligent uſe of all the outward means, whereby Chriſt communicateth to us the benefits of Redemption.] And is not Juſtification one benefit? And is not final Juſtification a freeing us from that Curſe?
Queſt. 20. Which call you the good, ſound definition of Faith? When our famous Reformers placed it in Aſſurance; Camero, and others in perſwaſion (ſuch as is in the underſtanding) others in Aſſent, as Dr. Downam, &c. Others in a Belief of Gods ſpecial Love, and that ſin is pardoned. Others in Affiance or Recumbency. Others in divers of theſe. Some, as Mr. Ball, calling it a fiducial Aſſent. Others an obediential Affiancce. Did not each of theſe forſake that which by the former was accounted the good ſound Definition? And why may not I with Dr. Preſton, Mr. Wallis, &c. ſay it is an Acceptance, or conſent, joyned with Aſſent? or with the Aſſembly, and the reſt, ſay it is a receiving, which is the ſame in a more Metaphorical term.
Queſt. 21. If you judge as Melanchton, John Crocius, Davenant, Ameſius, &c. that Faith is in both faculties; how can you then over-leap the Elicite Acts of the will (which have reſpect to means) Eligere, conſentive, uti?
Queſt. 22. If the formal reaſon of juſtifying faith lie in a Belief or Perſwaſion that Chriſt will pardon and ſave us: or in an Affiance or reſting on him, or Truſting to him only for Salvation: or in an Acceptance of him as a Saviour, meerly to juſtifie and ſave from Hell: Why then are not almoſt all among us juſtified and ſaved? when I ſcarce meet with one of an hundred, that is not unfeignedly willing, that Chriſt ſhould pardon, and juſtifie, and ſave them, and do verily truſt, that Chriſt will do it; and the freer it is, the better they like it. If they may whore and drink, and be covetous, and let alone all the practiſe of Godlineſs, and yet be ſaved, they will conſent. If it be ſaid that they reſt not on Chriſt for Juſtification ſincerely; I Ans. They do it really, and unfeignedly, and not diſſemblingly, which as we may know in all probability by others, ſo we may know it certainly by our own hearts, while unregenerate. So that it is not the natural, but the moral Truth, that is wanting: And what is that? And wherein is the Eſſential, formal difference between a wicked mans reſting on Chriſt for Juſtification, and a true Believers? To ſay it is ſeen in the Fruits, is not to ſhew the Eſſential difference.
Queſt. 23. If reſting on Chriſt for Juſtification be the only condition of final Juſtification, What is the reaſon that Perkins, Bolton, Hooker, Preſton, Taylor, Elton, Whately, and all the godly Divines alſo yet living do ſpend moſt of their labour to bring men to obey Chriſt as their Lord, and not the hundreth line or word to preſs them to Truſt that he will pardon and ſave them? All the powerfull Perachers that ever I heard, however they diſpute, yet when they are preaching to the generality of people, they zealouſly cry down lazineſs, lukewarmneſs, negligence, unholyneſs, prophaneſs, &c. As that which would be the liklyeſt cauſe of the damnation of the people. But if only the foreſaid ſaith be the condition, and all other Graces or Duties be but meer ſignal effects of this, and ſignal qualifications of the ſubject, and not ſo much a conditions, what need all this? Were it not then better to perſwade all people, even when they are whoring, or drunk, to truſt on Chriſt to pardon and juſtifie them? And then when they have the tree and cauſe, the fruits and ſignal effects will follow.
Queſt. 24. Yea, Why do the beſt Divines preach ſo much againſt Preſumption? And what is Preſumption, if it be not this very faith which Divines call juſtifying? viz. the Truſting to Chriſt for Pardon and Salvation only, without taking him for their King and Prophet? If it be ſaid that this laſt muſt be preſent, though not juſtifie: How can the bare preſence of an idle Accident ſo make, or marr the efficacy of the cauſe?
Queſt. 25. If to be unwilling that Chriſt ſhould raign over us, be part of the directly condemning ſin, Luke 19.27. why is not the willingneſs he ſhould raign, part of ſaving, juſtifying faith?
Queſt. 26. Seeing reſting in Chriſt is no Phyſical apprehenſion of him (who is bodily in Heaven) nor of his Righteouſneſs (which is not a being capable of ſuch an apprehenſion) How can that Reſting juſtifie more then any other Act, but only as it is the condition to which the Promiſe is made? Reſting on a friend for a Benefit, makes it not yours, but his gift does that. As Perkins (cited by me) To believe the Kingdom of France ſhall be mine, makes it not mine: But to believe Chriſt, and the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. (vid. loc. where he ſaith as much as I) vol. 1. p. 662. If God had not ſaid [He that believeth ſhall be juſtified and ſaved,] would Believing have done it? And if he had ſaid, [He that repenteth, or loveth, or calleth on the name of the Lord, ſhall be juſtified or ſaved] would not theſe have done it? if ſo; then doth not faith juſtifie directly, as the condition of the Gift, Promiſe, or new Covenant? And its apprehenſion is but its aptitude to be ſet apart for this Office: And if it juſtifie as a condition of the Promiſe: muſt not others do it ſo far as they are parts of the Condition?
Sir, If you ſhould deny me the favour I hope for in reſolving theſe doubts, yet let me hear whether I may expect it or not. And in the interim I ſhall ſearch in jealouſie, and pray for direction: But till your Arguments ſhall change my judgement, I remain confident that I can maintain moſt of the Antinomian Dotages againſt any man that denyeth the principles of my Book: and that which is accounted novelty in it, is but a more explicate, diſtinct, neceſſary delivery of common Truths.
Yours, RICHARD BAXTER April 5, 1650