Of Justification, Letter 7 – Title page 4
To my Reverend Brother Mr. John Warner, Preacher of the Goſpel at Chriſts Church in Hantſhire.
Sir,
THough (through the privacy of my habitation) I never ſo much as heard of your name, before your Book of the Object and Office of faith was in the Preſs; yet upon tht peruſal of it I confidently conclude, that a zeal for God, and that which you verily think to be his Truth, hath moved you to this undertaking; and doubtleſs you think that you have done God ſervice by it. I love your zeal: and your indignation againſt Error; and your tenderneſe of ſo great a point as that of Juſtification. And could I find your Light to be anſwerable to your heat, I hope I ſhould alſo love and honour it: Had you not taken me (with the two Reverened Brethren whom you oppoſe) to be the enemies of the perſon and Grace of the Lord Jeſus, or the followers of them (as you ſay, Epiſt. pag. 6.) I am perſwaded you would not have either called us ſo, or thought your ſelf called to this aſſault. And if I love Chriſt, I muſt love that man that hateth me▪ though miſtakingly, for the ſake of Chriſt. That principle within you that hath made Chriſt and Truth ſo dear to you, that you riſe up for that which ſeemeth to you to be Truth, I hope will grow till you attain perfection in that world of Light that will end our differences, I ſhall not go about to dèprecate your indignation for my plain expreſſions in this Defence, when the nature of your matter did require them: For I am not ſo unreſonable as to expect that fair words ſhould reconcile a good man to thoſe that he takes to be enemies to Chriſt, or to their followers. But as I can truly ſay if I know what is in my heart, that the Reading of your Book hath bred no enmity to you in my breſt, but only kindled a love to your zeal, with a compaſſion of your darkneſs, and a diſlike of your ſo much confidence in the dark; ſo it ſhall be my care as it is my duty, to love you as a miſtaken ſervant of Chriſt, though you ſhould take me for his greateſt enemy. And therefore being conſcious of no worſe affections to you, I deſire that Juſtice of you, as to impute the ungratefull paſſages that you meet with, to my apprehenſion of the badneſs of your cauſe and Arguments, and a compaſſion to the poor Church that muſt be troubled and tempted, and endangered by ſuch groſs miſtakes, and not to any contempt of your perſon, with which I meddle not, but as you are the Author of thoſe Arguments.
In your Preface I find a Law impoſed by you on your Anſwerer, which I have not fully obſerved: 1. Becauſe I had written my Reply to your Arguments a conſiderable time before I ſaw your Preface; For it fell out that I firſt ſaw your Book without the Epiſtle and Preface. 2. Becauſe I thought it fitteſt to follow the Method that my Subject and the Readers …dification did require. 3. Yet did I once purpoſe to have anſwered all that was of moment in your Book againſt the Truth: but upon trial I found your Reaſons ſo inconſiderable, that wearineſs interrupted me and put an end to my Reply, and withal I grew confident that my labour would be to little purpoſe. For I dare venture any Judicious Divine upon your Book without the help of a Reply: And for the reſt, it is not replying that will ſerve turn: but either prejudice will hold them to the ſide that they have taken, or elſe they will think him in the right that hath the laſt word: when they have read mine, they will think that I am in the right; and when they have again read yours, they will think that you carry the cauſe: and when they read my Reply again they will ſay, you were miſtaken; but uſually they will go with the party that is in greateſt credit, or hath moſt intereſt in them, or advantage on them. But yet I think you will find that none of your ſtrength againſt me is neglected: For I can truly ſay, that when I think not meet to Anſwer all that a man hath ſaid, I never paſs by that which I take to be his ſtrength, but purpoſely call out that, and leave that which I think is ſo groſly weak as to need no anſwer: So much of your ten Demands or Laws as I apprehended neceſſary, I have here anſwered; ſuppoſing what I had ſaid of the ſame points in my firſt Diſputation, which I ſaw no Reaſon too often to Repeat.
I am none of thoſe that blame you for too much of the Metaphyſicks, but rather mervail that you feared not leſt your Metaphyſical Reader will wrong you by miſ-applying your cited Schegkius contrary to your better opinion of your ſelf, and take both your Schegkius and your Scaliger for Prophets that could ſpeak as if they had read your Book, and been acquainted with your arguings. But it ſeems you are not the firſt of that way.
By your Arguments in your Preface, I perceive you think it a matter of very great moment to your cauſe, to prove that there are divers acts of Faith, whereas I am ſo far from denying it, that I am ready to demonſtrate, that even the faith by which we are Juſtified, is liker to have twenty acts then one only, but many certainly it hath. Your firſt Argument is, from the different objects becauſe the Objects ſpecifie the Acts. A ſufficient Argument which no man can confute. But 1. This is no proof, that one act only is it that we are juſtified by. 2. Where you add that Juſtifying Faith hath not reſpect to Chriſt as Lord formaliter, you beg the Queſtion, and aſſert no light miſtake. But where you add [in its act of Juſtifying] you do but obtrude upon us your fundamental Error (which leadeth you to the reſt) by naked affirmations. Faith hath properly no juſtifying act: Juſtificare eſt efficere, Faith doth not effect our Juſtification: we are juſtified by faith indeed, but not as by an efficient cauſe unleſs you will take Juſtification for Sanctification; For real qualitative Mutations it doth effect; but the Jus or Title to any mercy in the world it cannot Effect, but Accept when offered. If you …n… ſee ſo plain a Truth in its Evidence, yet obſerve by the words of the Reverend Brother that is my Opponent in the ſecond Diſputation, and by your Prefacers Dr. Kendals courſe that its a paſſive inſtrumentality that the Defenders of your cauſe at laſt are driven to; and therefore talk not of its act of Juſtifying unleſs you will mean Gods act of Juſtifying which faith is the Condition of. And whereas you make unbelief to be formally a ſlighting and neglecting Chriſt as a Saviour and effectively (you muſt mean only effective & non formaliter) a denying ſubjection to him as Lord. You err ſo great but ſo rare an error, that I ſuppoſe it needleſs to confute it. All Chriſtians as far as I can learn have been till now agreed, that Believing in Chriſt as Prophet and King is a real part of faith, and that unbelief or rejecting him as Prophet and King is a real part of unbelief.
Your ſecond Argument is from the different ſubjects; where you give us two ſuch palpable Fictions, that its a wonder you can make your ſelf believe them, much more that you ſhould lay ſo great a ſtreſs on ſuch abſurdities. The firſt is that the Act of Faith is in ſeveral faculties: and you elſwhere give us to underſtand that it is one Phyſical Act that you mean. And do you think in good ſadneſs that one ſingle Phyſical act can be the act of both the faculties? The ſecond is that the fear, love and obedience to Chriſt as King is but in the Will. But 1. That Readers do you expect, that will take an Aſſertion of Fear-Love, and Obedience, in ſtead of an aſſertion concerning Faith? Were you not comparing faith in Chriſt as King, with faith in Chriſt as Prieſt only? And why ſpeak you not of faith in one part of your compariſon, as well as in the other? Your concluſion now is nothing to the Queſtion? 2. Or if you mean that Faith in Chriſt as King is not in both faculties, as well as Faith in Chriſt as Prieſt or ſacrifice, did you think that any man of ordinary underſtanding would ever believe you without any proof? or that ever ſuch a thing can be proved?
Your third Argument is, [Becauſe they are in a different time exerted; the one, that is, Faith as Juſtifying being precedaneous to the other, (and to other Graces)] Anſw. Wonderfull! Is that man juſtified that believeth not in Chriſt as the King and Prophet of the Church? Do you believe this your ſelf? why then an Infidel is juſtified by Faith. The 'Belief in Chriſt as a Sacrifice or Prieſt only, is not the Chriſtian faith; it is not faith in Chriſt properly, becauſe it is not faith in Chriſt as Chriſt. For Chriſt as Prieſt only is not Chriſt. A Heart only is not Corpus humanum: A Body only is not a Man; where there are three eſſential parts, one of them is not the Thing, without the reſt. The name [Jeſus Chriſt] ſignifieth the office as well as the perſon. It is eſſential to that Office, that he be Prophet and King. And hereby you ſhew that you do not only diſtinguiſh but divide. For where there is a diſtance of time between the Acts, there is a diviſion. Do you think that we are Chriſts enemies, or followers of them, unleſs we will believe you that a man is Juſtified by Believing in Chriſt only as a Prieſt or Ranſom, or in his Righteouſneſs, before ever be believe in him as King and Lord (and ſo as Teacher, &c.) If I had ſaid that you are Chriſts enemy for ſuch Doctrine, which▪ think you, had had the fairer pretence for his cenſure? But I am far from ſaying ſo, or thinking it. I know that the Aſſent to the eſſential Articles of Chriſtianity, containeth many Acts, and that our Conſent and Affiance are many Phyſical Acts, as the parts of Chriſts Office are many Objects. But yet I (do not think but) am certain that all theſe phyſical Acts concur to make up that Moral A… which is called Chriſtian, or ſaving, or Juſtifying Faith; and that he that believeth not in Chriſt as to all that is eſſential to Chriſt, is no Chriſtian. And a man is not juſtified by Faith before he is a Chriſtian. And truly Sir, men that are loth to flie from the Light, and that love the Truth, and diligently ſeek it (as heartily, if not as happily as you) muſt yet needs tell you, that if you produce your Mormolucks an hundred times, and cant over and over [a Papiſt, a Socinian, an Arminian; and an Arminian, a Socinian and a Papiſt] their underſtandings, will never the more be perſwaded to embrace your Deluſions, though you ſhould ſay that the Kingdom of God doth conſiſt in them.
Your fourth Argument is that, [There is a difference in Nature, Efficacy, Energy, and Operation; therefore the Acts are not the ſame.] Anſw 1. I maintained the concluſion (that faith hath different Acts) before ever I heard of your name; and have no reaſon now to denie it. 2. The difference of Nature, I grant you between many Acts of faith; but what you mean by the Efficacy, Energy, and Operation, be that knows can tell; for I cannot.
But ſtill deſire you to know that I deny faith to have any efficient operation in juſtifying us, or that it is an efficient cauſe of our Juſtification; eſpecially its no Phyſical efficient; you add a ſtrange proof of your Aſſertion, [viz. For faith as Juſtifying makes a myſtical Union and relative change on the perſon; but faith as working and ſanctifying produceth a moral union with Chriſt. &c.] Anſw. 1. Faith as juſtifying doth only Juſtifie, and produce no Ʋ …ion; the ſame faith as uniting is the means of Ʋnion. 2. The queſtion is of [Faith in Chriſt as Prieſt, and faith in Chriſt as Prophet and King alſo.] And you talk of [faith as juſtifying, and as working and ſanctifying] A ſmall alteration. 3. What Myſtical Relative Union is that which is not a Moral Union? 4. Faith in Chriſt as Chriſt, and not as a Ranſom only, is the means of our Juſtification; And you give us nothing like a proof of the contrary reſtriction.
In the ſame Preface you tell the world of as threefold Artifice that we uſe; the firſt is [to ſet up a ſecond Juſtification] Anſ. Is it the Name or the Thing that you mean? If the name, 1. cite the words where we uſe that Name. 2. If it anſwer the ſubject, you may bear with the name. If it be the Thing, then tell us what Religion that it that denyeth 1. a Juſtification by ſentence at Judgement. 2. Gods continual juſtifying us to the Death. 3. And his particular pardoning or juſtifying us from the guilt of renewed particular ſins. 4. And that faith is not only in the firſt act, but through all our lives, the means of our Juſtification; Or, juſtifying faith is more then one inſtantaneous Act; or a man ceaſeth not to have juſtifying faith after the firſt Act or moment. Tell us who thoſe be, and what Religion they are of that deny all theſe, that Chriſtians may be acquainted with them, if they be worthy their acquaintance.
Our ſecond Artifice is, [to require Works only as Goſpel-Conditions.] Anſw. Would you have us ſay more of them, or leſs? If leſs, I have ſaid enough of it in the ſecond Diſputation.
Our third Artifice is, [To include works in the Definition of Juſtifying faith, making it a receiving of Chriſt as Saviour, Lord and Law-giver to Juſtification; as alſo confounding our conſummate Salvation or Glorification with our Juſtification.] Anſ. Groſs untruths! contrary to large and plaine expreſſions of my mind in ſeveral Volumes (if you mean me, as you know I have reaſon to judge) 1. I ever took works to be a fruit of faith, and no part of it, unleſs you take the word Faith improperly and laxely; unleſs by [Works] you mean [Acts] And you take faith for ſuch a work your ſelf, that is, an Act. 2. I expreſly diſtiguiſhed what you ſay I confound; Conſummate Sanctification or Glorification, and conſummate Juſtification. But yet as I do in the Definition include Conſent to Chriſts Lordſhip, though not Obedience (thats only implyed to be a neceſſary conſequent,) ſo I ſtill ſay that much of your Juſtitication is yet to come; And if your Religion teach you to ſay, that you will be beholding to Chriſt for no more Juſtification, ſo doth not mine.
And whereas you cite ſome that ſay, that all our ſins are pardoned in our firſt believing, as if I had queſtioned any ſuch thing, I muſt tell you that I eaſily grant it, that every ſin is then forgiven, and ſo far as that Juſtification is perfect; but what have you yet ſaid to prove, 1. That we are never juſtified be faith, but in that one inſtant. 2. That we need no particular Juſtification from particular ſins that after ſhall be committed. 3. Nor no ſentential Juſtification at Judgement, which Mr. Burgeſs will tell you, is the chief. You and others uſe to ſay, that, that at Judgement, is but Declarative. But 1. It is no common Declaration, but a Declaration by the Judge. 2. And the Sentence doth more then meerely declare; for it doth finally decide, acquit and adjudge to Glory. 3. And methinks this Declarative ſhould be no term of Diminution, but of Aggravation, with thoſe that ſtill uſe to ſay that Juſtification is a judicial… Term. Alas! That theſe matters among the friends of Chriſt and Truth, ſhould need ſo many words.
Some more I had to ſay to you, but you may find it in the Preface to theſe Diſputations. I only add, that if indeed it be true which you write to that Honourable perſon, to whom you dedicate your Labors, viz. That the Subject of your Diſcourſe is ſo excellent and neceſſary to be known; and that He who is Ignorant of the Object and Office of Faith, doth neither know what he believeth, nor how he is juſtified; I ſhould think it is high time, that you call your Ʋnderſtanding once more to an account, and review the Fabrick that you have built on a qua juſtificans not underſtood, or upon a ſpecificative quatenus, where there is no ſuch thing: And if you think me unfit to be hearkned to in this, (as being one of the men of perverſe minds that there you mention,) its more worthy your induſtry, to ſeek the advice of the learned Oxford Divines herein, then that they ſhould be ſought to approve and midwife ſuch a Book into the world: and its likely that their Charity will provoke them to be ſerviceable to you in this: though I hear that their Diſcretion forbad them the other, For all men are not ſo eaſily whiſtled into a Chriſts-Church contention againſt the Truth and Church of Chriſt, as 'Dr. K. and one or two Confidents, that living in a cold and ſ…eril Country, are leſs ſubſtantive, and more adjective, then Innocents and Independents uſe to be.
None's here ſo fruitfull as the Leaning Vine:
And what though ſome be drunken with the Wine?
They'l fight the better, if they can but hit:
And lay about them without fear or—) But ſtay!
See What Example is! As the name of D…. K. and the remembrance of his differtatiuncula (an Appendant to fax pro Tribunali, that could ſalva fide, fidem ſolvere) began to tice me into a jocound vein; ſo your concluding Poetry had almoſt tempted me in an Apiſh imitation to Poetize, when wearineſs made me think of a concluſion. But I had rather conclude with this ſerious motion to you (that my end may meet your beginning,) that before you next write on this Subject, you will better conſider of the queſtion that your qua juſtificans concerneth: And inſtead of telling us, that fides qua juſtificans reſpicit Chriſtum Salvatorem, that is, fides qua juſtificans eſt fides, as if it were juſtifying in order of Nature before it is Faith: you will be pleaſed to tell us, ſub qua ratione fides juſtificat (vel fide juſtificamut?) Whether you will ſay, that fides qua juſtificans, juſtificat, or fides qua fides juſtificat, (which I think you diſown,) or fides qua reſpicit, apprehendit, recipit Chriſtum, which is all one, as fides qua fides, or fides qua Inſtrumentum apprehendens, which Metaphorical expreſſion ſtill ſignifieth no more then [qua credit in Chriſtum, or qua fides?] Or whether you will ſtand to what you have affirmed. chap. 9. pag. 67. that its Gods aſſignation of it to the office, who therefore doth it, becauſe he wills it: and to what you ſaid, pag, 304. The meereſt formal reaſon of a Believers Intereſt to pardon, is—a Believers fulfilling the condition. And if you will ſtand to this that you have ſaid, and underſtand that the Doctrine of us whom you aſſault is the ſame (more carefully expreſſed,) be intreated then to let your next bolt be ſhot at the right mark: which is all thats now requeſted of you, by
Your Chriſtian Brother (whether you will or no) RICHARD BAXTER▪ Decemb. 25. 1657.
Richard Baxters DISCVSSION OF Mr John Tombes his Friendly, Acceptable ANIMADVERSIONS ON HIS Aphoriſms, and other Writings.
About the Nature of Juſtification, and of juſtifying Faith.
LONDON, Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, Book-ſeller in Kederminſter, and are to be ſold by him there, and by Nathaniel Ekins, at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard. 1658.