Of Justification, Letter 5
Sir
I Am ſorry that you are not in capacity for the motion I profered: I thought diſcourſe would not ſo much infeeble you, eſpecially when it would have been in ſo loving a way: And I judged it the more ſeaſable, becauſe I had been informed of a late ſolemn conference you had about Paedobaptiſm, which could not but much ſpend you, I ſhall preſs no more for it, although this very letter doth abundantly confirm me, that letters are but a loſs of time: for one word might have prevented many large digreſſions. Is not that endeavour of yours in your ſeventh queſtion to prove out of my book, that Repentance is a neceſſary condition, or qualification in the Subject to be pardoned, &c. a meer impertinency? You earneſtly deſire ſatisfaction of your conſcience, therefore I cannot think you do wilfully miſtake. For is that the ſtate of the queſtion with us? Is it not this, whether the Goſpel Righteouſneſs be made ours, otherwiſe then by believing? You ſay by believing, and Obedience. I ſay only believing. I ſay faith is only the condition juſtifying, or inſtrument receiving, you make a juſtifying Repentance, a juſtifying Patience: you make other acts of grace juſtifying as well: ſo that whereas heretofore, we only had juſtifying faith, now there are as many other qualities, and all juſtifying, as there are Graces. So that I do firmly hold (and it needs a recantation) that repentance and other exerciſes of Grace are antecedent qualifications, and are media ordinata, in the uſe whereof only pardon can be had. But what is this to you? Who expreſly maintain the righteouſneſs of the Covenant of Grace to be made ours, upon our godly working, as well as believing. If therefore you had ſpent your ſelf to ſhew that faith had no peculiar Inſtrumentality in our Juſtification, but what other Graces have, then you had hit the mark. What is more obvious, then that there are many conditions in juſtificato, which are not in actu juſtificationis? The faſtening of the head to the body is a neceſſary condition in homine vidente, but it is not in actu videntis. You grant indeed ſome precedency to faith, but you make Faith and Works aequè, though not aequaliter, the conditions of Juſtification. I ſhould ſay much more to the ſtate of the queſtion, but I forbear. In other things you ſeem to come off; and though I do not ſay you recede from your Aſſertions, yet you much mollifie them, that I need not therein contend with you. But here is the ſtick. Let it be demonſtrated, that whereas the Scripture in the current of it attributes Juſtification to believing only: as through faith, and by Faith, and through faith in his blood, that you can as truly ſay, its received by love, and its through love of his blood ſhed for our ſakes, &c. This is a little of that much which might be ſaid to the ſtate of the queſtion. This I judge new Doctrine, juſtifying Repentance, juſtifying Charity. And in my Letter I laid down an Argument, Rom. 4. Concerning Abrahams, Juſtification, the Pattern of all others. To this you reckon up many Anſwers, but I ſee not the Argument ſhaken by it. Firſt you ſay, you exclude a co-operation effective, but why do we ſtrive about words? You do not exclude works juſtifying, as well as faith, let the expreſſions be what they will. Whereas Paul ſaith, he would be found having the Righteouſneſs which is by faith, you will add, and which is by love, by zeal. 2. You deſire it to be proved, that Paul excludes all works under any notion; I think its very eaſily done: Firſt, becauſe of the immediate oppoſition between Faith and Works; now you will contradict Pauls Argument, and give a tertium, works that are of Grace. But the Apoſtles oppoſition is ſo immediate here and in other places, between faith and any thing of ours, that he admits of no medium. 2. He inſtances in Abrahams works, and excludes them: now were Abrahams works, works done by the meer ſtrength of the Law? Did not Abrahams Obedience, and other works flow from Grace? Were Abrahams works in oppoſition to Chriſt? Yet even theſe are excluded. 3. He excludes all works under any notion by the oppoſition, juſtifying, covering, all is wholly attributed unto God. 4. The Aſſertion is univerſal: The Apoſtle ſaith, without works in general, ver. 6. And he works not, ver. 5. Laſtly, By the teſtimony he brings from the Pſalmiſt, that bleſſedneſs is where ſin is not imputed, whrere it is forgiven; Theſe reaſons do evidence that he excludes works under all notions in the act of Juſtification, though not from the perſon juſtified. 3. You ſay, how then ſaith James true? But I ask, if there be juſtifying works, how ſaith Paul true? But again, James ſaith true: for this faith which in reſpect of its act ad intra, doth only juſtifie, yet it works ad extra. The old Aſſertion is fides quae viva, not quo viva. You ſpeak of a ſeeming Antilogie among the orthodox in this reconciliation, but though all go not eadem ſemi…â, yet they do eadem viâ againſt works under any notion whatſoever in the act of Juſtification. 4. You argue that faith as an Inſtrument is excluded. Thus Bellarmine alſo, apprehendere eſt opus, therefore faith is excluded: But non ſequitur: Faith is paſſive in its Inſtrumentality; and although to believe, be a Grammatical action, its verbum activum, yet its phyſic…n, or foreign paſſive. A man by believing, doth not operari, but recipere: As videre, audire, are Grammatical actions, but Phyſical or natural paſſions: now you cannot ſay thus of the exerciſes of other Graces: this is the ſeeming ſtrength of your Exceptions. For Repentance is not excluded as qualifying, but as recipient, which is a fifth Exception.
As for your diſcourſe, whether Paul diſputes what is our Righteouſneſs? or upon what terms it is made over to us, it doth not much matter: for indeed Paul ſpeaks to both thoſe only incluſively or collaterally, as you ſay: but that which he chiefly intends, is to ſhew in what manner we are juſtified, whether by believing or working, and theſe he makes two immediate oppoſites, not granting any tertium. You ſpeak of Faith taken relatively for Chriſts Righteouſneſs; but how can you find out ſuch a figure for faith in your ſence, unleſs you will acknowledge Love or Obedience relatively for Chriſts Righteouſneſs? Indeed thoſe that hold Fai…h inſtrumentally, receiving the whole righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and no other Grace, they often ſpeak of faith taken relatively, but ſo cannot you, who hold that not only ſeeing this brazen Serpent, but any other actions of ſence will as well heal the wounded Chriſtian. You ſay you acknowledge the Aſſemblies definition of reſting or receiving, you cannot take in that ſence, as they declare it, as the Scripture words which are Metaphorical, do imply: for its the reſting of a burdened ſoul upon Chriſt only for Righſeouſneſs, and by this Chriſts Righteouſneſs is made over to us; and its a receiving of Chriſt, as the hand embraceth any Object: now you make the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt made over to us in any other exerciſe of Grace as well as this. So that although you would willingly ſeem not to recede from others, yet you plainly do: and although you think your Aſſertions are but more diſtinct explications, yet they are indeed deſtructive Aſſertions to what our Divines do deliver: neither may you, while you intend to diſpute, exactly build upon ſome homiletical or popular expreſsion in any mans book.
You reply to a ſecond part in my Letter: whether a godly man dying, may be affected according to your poſition, and thereupon you inſtance in Hezekiah, Paul, and that no man can dye with comfort without the evidence of theſe works. But is this the ſtate of the queſtion with us? Do you think that I deny a godly life to be a comfortable teſtimony, and a neceſſary qualification of a man for pardon? You cannot think that you ſpeak to the point in this. But here is the queſtion, Can a godly man dying, think the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is made his by working or believing? Is it repent, and Chriſts Righteouſneſs is by this made yours, and reſt in Chriſt? Certainly the dying Chriſtian is in agonies directed to this reſting on Chriſt, to the eying of this brazen Serpent, not to be found in any thing but the Righteouſneſs by faith. Its an act of Dependance, not of Obedience that intereſts us in Chriſts Righteouſneſs. Its that puts on the robes of Chriſt, that our nakedneſs may not appear. And that is very harſh ſtill, which you expreſs, to expect the Righteouſneſs of the Covenant of Grace upon the conditions fulfilled by your ſe;lf, through Gods workings. I am unwilling to parallel this with ſome paſſages that might be quoted out of unſound Authors; but that I am confident, howſoever your Pen-writes, you have a tutiſſimum eſt to reſt only upon Chriſts Righteouſneſs, and that by bare reſting, and beleiving you look for a Righteouſneſs. As Philoſophers ſay, we ſee or hear intus recipiendo, not extra mittendo: otherwiſe Bellarmine argues conſonantly enough, that Love would juſtifie as well as faith; but we ſay that Faith doth pati, Love doth agere. Not but that faith is an active grace, only in this act it is meer recipient.
Sir, I have not time, nor paper to anſwer thoſe many queſtions, the moſt of which I conceive impertinent to this buſineſs: and your Explication of your ſelf, how imperfections in our Graces are done away, and yet the conditions of righteouſneſs, is to me foreign: but I cannot go any further. What I have written with much love and reſpect to you, I ſhould account it a great mercy to be inſtrumental to bring you to the right way again: If there be ſo much Joy for reducing a wandring ſheep, be not offended if I ſay there will be much more for an erring ſhepheard: though I hope at laſt your error may prove in words rather then in ſence: with heartly brotherly love I have written this, and ſo let it be received from your fellow-labourer, who honours Gods gifts in you, and is alſo ſenſible of his own infirmities, and proneneſs to err.