Of Justification — Richard Baxter

Of Justification · Richard Baxter

Reverend Sir,

I AM more thankfull to you for theſe free, candid, rational Animadverſions, then I can now expreſs to you: yet being ſtill conſtrained to diſſent from you, by the evidence of Truth, I give you theſe Reaſons of my diſſent.

1. Firſt, You think that [the Scriptures cited, are not to be intepreted of Juſtification in Title of Law, becauſe this is only an Act of God preſcribing or promiſing a way of Juſtification; not the Sentence it ſelf; and is general, and indeterminate to particular perſons, &c.] To which I anſwer. 1. That I am paſt doubt that you build all this on a great miſtake about the nature of Gods Law or Covenant, & Promiſe, & the moral action thereof. For you muſt know that this Promiſe of God, 1. is not a bare Aſſertio explicans de futuro animum qui nunc eſt; (as Grotius ſpeaks:) Nor yet that which he calleth Pollicitatio, cum voluntas ſeipſam pro futuro tempore determinat, cum ſigno ſufficientè ad judicandam perſeverandi neceſſitatem. But it is Perfecta Promiſſio, ubi ad determinationem talem accedit ſignum volendi jus proprium alteri conferre, quae ſimilem babet effectum qualem alienatio Domin…i. Eſt enim aut via ad aliena…ionem rei, aut alienatio particulae cujuſdam noſtrae libertatis. &c. Vid. ultra Grot. de jure Bellili. 2. c. 11. § 2.3, 4.

2. This Promiſe or Covenant of God, is alſo his Teſtament: and who knoweth not that a Teſtament is an Inſtrctment of proper Donation, and not only a Prediction? 3. Moreover this ſame which in one reſpect is a Covenant and Promiſe, and in another a Teſtament, is alſo truly part of Gods Law, even the New conſtitution of Chriſt, the Law-giver and King. But …ndoubtedly a Law which conferreth. Right either abſolutely or conditionally, is the true and proper Inſtrument of that Effect, and not only [the preſenting or promiſing away thereto] The proper Effect or Product of every Law, is Debitum aliquod; Et de hoc debito determinare is its proper Act. Now therefore this Promiſe being part of Chriſts Law, doth determine of and confer on us, the Debitum, or Right to ſentential Juſtification, having firſt given us an Intereſt in Chriſt, and ſo to the Benefit of his ſatisfaction; and this is Juſtificatio conſtitutiva. You know a Deed of Gift (though but conditional) is a moſt proper Inſtrument of conferring the Benefits therein contained. And is not the Promiſe undoubtedly Gods Deed of Gift? And doth he not thereby make over, as it were under his hand, the Lord Jeſus, and all his Benefits to them that will receive him? So that when you ſay, that [his Promiſe to juſtifie upon condition, is not juſtifying] You may ſee it is otherwiſe by all the forementioned conſiderations of the nature of the Promiſe. You may as well ſay, a Teſtament, or deed of Gift conditional, doth not give, or a Law doth not confer Right and Title. And in theſe Relative benefits, to give Right to the thing, and to give the thing it ſelf, or right in it, is all one: (ſtill allowing the diſtance of time limited for both in the Inſtrument) It is all one to give full right to ſon-ſhip, and to make one a Son: or at leaſt they are inſeparable. Yea, (which weigheth moſt of all with me) it being the proper work of Gods Laws to give Duneſs of, or Right to Benefits, it cannot be any other way accompliſhed that is within our Knowledge (I think) For Decree, Purpoſe, and ſo Predeſtination cannot do it, they being Determinations de eventu, and not de debito, as ſuch: And the ſentential declaration preſuppoſeth this Debitum, or true Righteouſneſs an therefore doth not give it. No wonder therefore while you deny this Legal, Teſtamentary, Moral Donation, that you are forced alſo to deny Juſtification conſtitutive; (but very inconveniently and unſafely.) By what way doth God give a father Authority over his Children, and a Husband over his Wife, and a Magiſtrate over the people, and a Miniſter over the Church or Flock, but only by this Moral Legal Action? And even ſo doth he give Power to them that receive him, to become his Sons. And it is the ſame Inſtrument which performeth this, which is called a Promiſe, Covenant, Teſtament, Diſpoſition or Law; the name being taken from different reſpects or accidental conſiderations.

Again, If the word of Chriſt do judge us, then that word doth juſtifie and condemn: (For judging in general containeth theſe ſpecial Actions.) But the word doth judge us, (and ſhall do at the laſt day:) therefore the word doth juſtifie and condemn.

Again: It is a Rule in the Civil Law (as Ʋlpian) that By the ſame way as an Obligation is induced or cauſed, it muſt be removed or deſtroyed: But by the curſe of the Law, or the Threatning of Penalty, was our obligation to puniſhment, and condemnation induced or cauſed: therefore by the way of Law diſſolving that cauſe, muſt it be taken off. Now as Reatus eſt obligatio ad Poenam, ſo pardon is the diſſolving of that Obligation, or diſcharge from it; (Venia & Poena ſunt adverſa:) And therefore the Law of Chriſt, or this his Promiſe or Grant, is the Inſtrument of Pardoning. And methinks, when you are convinced, that God pardoneth by Law or moral Action, you ſhould eaſily yield, that in the like way he juſtifieth. For if you be not of the Judgement, that Remiſſion and Juſtification are all one: yet you muſt needs yield, that they are of ſo near a nature, that the difference is exceeding ſmall, and rather notional and reſpective, then real. I might to theſe Arguments add ſomewhat from the Iſſue, and different tendency of this my opinion and the contrary. As that this doth give Gods Laws their honor and dignity, by aſcribing to them that higher and more noble and effective Action; which the contrary opinion denying it, doth very injuriouſly debaſe the Scriptures or Laws of God. Alſo that this opinion is the only expedient left, (that I can find) to avoid the Antinomian fancy of an Eternal Juſtification, which all they muſt aſſert, that ſay it is an Immanent Act (which you juſtly and truly deny.) For your way lying in the other extream, 1. Overthroweth all conſtitutive Juſtification; which is not to be born. (Whether All Pardon by the Covenant, I yet know not your mind)

2. And it Intepreteth all Scriptures (that ſpeak of a Juſtification in this life) of a ſtrange feigned Juſtification, which for ought I find hath no ground in Scripture at all; and is wholly aliene to our condition; and at leaſt utterly unknown to us, if not known to be untrue. What doth it concern a ſinner to be juſtified or condemned now before a Court of Angels, where he is not preſent, nor knows any thing of it? nor do we know what Angels have to do in ſuch a buſineſs. And what Tranſient Act is it that God then and there puts forth or performeth? Can you tell? or doth Scripture tell you? God ſpeaketh not to Angels by voyce. If you think (as the Schoolmen, ſome) that they ſee our Juſtification, as other things in the face of God; then it is no Tranſient Act. Elſe why may not they ſee it in it ſelf? And then either our Juſtification is Gods Eſſence, and they ſee it in him as his Eternal Being, or elſe God muſt be mutable, as having ſomething to be ſeen in him de novo, which was not in him from Eternity. If you ſay that this Tranſient Act is Gods Illuminating the Angelical underſtanding to know us to be juſtified; then this ſuppoſeth that we are juſtified already by ſome former Act (which can be nothing that I know but the moral Act of his Lawes:) For their knowing us to be juſtified is not a juſtifying us, but preſuppoſeth us to be what they know us to be. I can think of nothing elſe that you can ſay, except this, that Chriſt as man may Vocally (or by ſome equivalent Tranſient Act) pronounce us Juſtified, as he will do at Judgement. But 1. this is without Scripture. 2. and it is God that juſtifieth. 3. And then how were all the faithful juſtified before Chriſts Incarnation and Aſcenſion? Or do you think none were juſtified before?

But I will return to your Exceptions.

You ſay, [This is but Virtual Juſtification] which is in Law Title. Anſw. 1. It is Actual Conſtitutive Juſtification, and not Virtual only 2. But it is indeed but Virtual ſentential juſtification. But yet it is of the higheſt kind of Virtuality. It is that which makes us rectos in curia, (which I take to be the nature of our Juſtification in this life.) And taken diviſi…, it ſeemeth more excellent in ſome reſpect, then the ſentence or declaration it ſelf; for he that by Purchaſe firſt, and Pardon (written) after, maketh Offenders juſt in Law,) i. e. (non obligatos ad poenam,) ſeemeth to do more for them by that act, then after by pronouncing them juſt. Though yet this laſt I know is the moſt perfect Juſtification, taken conjunctim with the reſt, as the end to which they tend, and as that which giveth them their full effect.

Your next Objection is, that this Goſpel Juſtification, [is general and indeterminate to particular perſons] Anſwer. It cannot be more certain or effectual. For when it is to all, no man hath reaſon to think himſelf excepted (who excludes not himſelf by non-performance of the conditions.) Every particular man is comprized in All. And for the determination, the Deſcription of the perſon is as certain a way as the naming of him. To give Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs to All that will receive him, is as effectual a determinate Gift to each particular Receiver, as to give him to Peter, Paul, John by name. If a Pardon be proclaimed, or given in the Laws, to all Offenders that perform ſuch a condition; is it not as effectual to each perſon, as if he were named? If a Father bequeath ſuch Lands or Monies to all his Children (or a man to all the poor in the town) on condition that they come by ſuch a day to ſuch a place, and ſignifie their acceptance and gratitude: is not this as ſure and good, as if they were all named?

Next, You object, [This is performed, before the perſon juſtified believes.] Anſwer. I have ſaid enough to you of this already. (of Bapt. pag. 100.) I add this much: you muſt diſtinguiſh between the Phyſical act of making this Law, Promiſe, Covenant, Grant or Teſtament: and the Moral Agency of this Law, Grant or Teſtament once made. The former was before we Believed: but the later was not (properly and fully) till after. Do not all Philoſophers and Divines in the world that meddle with it, tell you that this is uſual with moral cauſes, that they may have all their abſolute Entity and vim agendi, long before they produe their effects? and may be Actu primo, etſi non ſecundo effectum producente, in being long before. The Law that determineth of your right to your Poſſeſſion, or that doth give a Reward to every man that killeth a wild hurtfull beaſt, or that condemneth every man that murdereth or committeth Felony, &c. was in Being before thoſe perſons were born perhaps: And yet it did not hoc agere; it did not Praemiare, Punire, Praecipere, &c. as to this man before. A pardon from a Prince to a Traytor, on condition, doth not perform the moral act of his diſcharge, till he perform the condition, though it were in being before. The like I may ſay of a Teſtament or Deed of Gift: But what need many words in a caſe where the Truth is ſo obvious? If ſome moral cauſes may be cauſes, and Agere moraliter, or produce their effects, even before they are naturally in Being, much more may they ſuſpend it, and ſo produce it long after they are in Being: Cauſae enim moralis ea ratio eſt, ut etiam cum non eſt actu, ſit efficax, modò habe at (ut loquuntur in ſcholis) eſſe cognitums: inquit Rivetus Diſput. 13. de ſatiſfact. Chriſti. pag. 282.

Next you ſay, [Yea it is the ſame, though none were actually juſtified.] Anſwer. This requires no other anſwer, then what is given to the former. It is the ſame Phyſice conſiderata, vel in Entitate naturali: But the moral action of pardoning and juſtifying is not the ſame, nor is at all: A conditional Pardon, Deed of Gift, Teſtament, &c. doth not at all pardon, or Give, till you perform the condition. For it is the proper nature of a condition to ſuſpend the act of the Grant: ſo that till it be abſolute or equal to Abſolute, it is not Actual Remiſſion, Juſtification, &c.) The reaſon of all this is, becauſe theſe Laws, Teſtaments or Promiſes, are but the Lawmakers, Teſtators or Donors Inſtruments, and therefore act when and how he pleaſes: and it is his pleaſure that they ſhould act no otherwiſe then as is aforeſaid, and as in the Tenor of them he ſhall expreſs.

Next you add [To be juſtified, notes a paſſion▪ which preſuppoſeth an Action tranſient, not immanent, or only Gods purpoſe to juſtifie:] Anſwer 1. So far as the Reception of a Relation may be called a Paſſion, this is true: And no doubt you are in the right, that it is not Actus immanens. But now, What tranſient Act it is, I remember very few Divines that once tell us; but only in general ſay, It is a Tranſient Act. Now you and I that have adventured to enquire, do happen to be both ſingular from others, and differing between our ſelves, (only Mr. Rutherford, and ſome few others I find ſaying oft, that we are pardoned and juſtified by the Goſpel: by which they ſeem to mean as I) But for your way of Juſtification by a ſentence before the Angels, as I never met with any that judged that to be our Juſtification by Faith, ſo as I have ſaid, it ſeems to me very groundleſs and ſtrange. And then, if yours ſtand not, mine only muſt, for any thing that is yet diſcovered, that I have ſeen, for I know of none that tells us of any third,

Your next Objection is the ſame before anſwered, that [Gods Promiſe to juſtifie, is only a declaration what he will do, and therefore a man is not by Covenant without a further Act juſtified, but juſtifiable.] Anſwer. Grotius de ſatisfact. will tell you, that Promiſes give right to him to whom they are made: and that therefore they cannot be reclaimed, though threatnings may. But if theſe were only Promiſes that God will by another Act do this or that for us, then it were to the purpoſe that you ſay: but that you cannot prove. Nor needs there any other Act, but the moral Action of the Inſtrument it ſelf to change our Relations here: Et fruſtra fit pro plura, &c. Indeed an Act of ours [Believing] muſt come in before the effect: but you and I are agreed, that this is but conditional, and not effective. Theſe Promiſes therefore being alſo Gods Law, Teſtament (of Chriſt) Deed of Gift, Covenant, &c. they do not only foretell an Event to come to paſs by ſome other Action; but they do confer a Right or make due the benefit or relation, and ſo effect it; only the Author is pleaſed to ſuſpend the effect of his Inſtrument, till we perform the Condition. As if by a Leaſe, or Deed of Sale, there be ſome Office or Dignity made over to you: or ſome command in Army or Court, or Country: or by a Law a Foraigner be Naturalized or Enfranchized, on ſuch or ſuch a Condition; This Leaſe or Deed, or Law doth not only foretel, but effect the thing.

You add that [Juſtification is a Court-term, importing an Act of God as Judge, whereas his promiſing is not his Act as Judge, but Rector.] Anſwer 1. If by a Court-term, you alſo mean a Law-term, (verbum forenſe or judiciarium in the full ſenſe) I agree with you. But if you confine it to the ſentence as pronounced, I require Proof; as alſo proof of any ſuch ſentence before Judgement, particular or general. A Rector is either Supremus or Subaliernus: A Judge is either ſupreme above all Laws, as being the Law-giver, or ſub lege. God is both Rector and Judge, only in the firſt ſenſes: and by judging, he Ruleth; and Rector is but the Genus, whereof Judex is a ſpecies. As Rector ſupremus▪ God is the Legiſlator, and ſo acteth (and juſtifieth by his Laws, Grants, &c.) as Judge he ſentenceth and abſolveth thoſe that were firſt made juſt. A man is accuſed for killing another in fight, at the command of the Soveraign Power. Is it not as fit and proper a ſaying, to ſay [The Law doth juſtifie this man for ſo doing againſt all Accuſers,] as to ſay, [The Judge will juſtifie him▪] Nay, Is it not more ordinary? And in a ſort, the Supream or Soveraign may be ſaid to be (though in a different ſenſe) juſtified, as well as an Inferior; when yet the ſaid perſon in Supremacy hath no Judge, nor is to have any by Law, and ſo cannot be juſtified by ſentence. God will be juſtified in his ſayings, &c. as he hath in a ſort bound himſelf by his own Laws, that is, ſignified his Reſolution to obſerve them; ſo in the ſenſe of theſe Laws, his works are now juſt, and ſhall be hereafter ſo be manifeſted: but not by any ſentence of a Superior. But this I confeſs differeth from our Juſtification.

Next you ſay, [You know not whence it ſhould be that Angels ſhould judge us righteous, and rejoice therein, but by a ſentence paſſed in Heaven.] Anſwer. If you think (and prove) that Angels cannot know us to be righteous, then I will not affirm that they judge us ſo. For I preſuppoſe that that they know us to be ſo made by ſome Act before, and therefore they judge us to be as we are. And if they may know that we are Believers, and know that the New Law juſtifieth all ſuch, then they may judge us to be juſtified without any ſentence in Heaven, even as they know when a ſinner is converted, and rejoice in it; which doubtleſs they may know without a ſentence in Heaven pronouncing us converted; and Gods making them Inſtruments in conferring his Mercies may make them know.

You ſay that [Conſtitutive Juſtification, different from Declarative by ſentence, I do not find expreſſed under the term (Juſtification:) it would be conſidered, whether any other Act beſide the ſentence, doth make a man juſt, but giving of faith.] Anſwer. Theſe two things I ſhall prove to convince you: (becauſe this is of ſome moment.) 1. That ſome Act there muſt be to conſtitute us juſt, before or beſides the ſentence. 2. That neither the ſentence nor the giving of Faith doth firſt and properly conſtitute us Juſt.

1. If we be not juſt before we are judged as juſt, then Gods Judgement ſhould not be according to Truth. But Gods Judgment is according to Truth: therefore we are juſt before we are ſo judged. 2. He that hath Chriſt, and the Benefits of his ſatiſfactory Righteouſneſs given him by the New Law, Covenant, Teſtament or Grant of Chriſt, is hereby conſtituted righteous. But every Believer hath Chriſt and the ſaid benefits Given him in and by the Law or Covenant: therefore he is thereby made or conſtituted Righteous.

And here by the way take notice, that the New Law or Covenant hath two Offices; the one to Beſtow Right to the Benefit: and hereby it makes Righteous: The other to Declare and manifeſt openly, and to be the Rule of publique Judgement: and ſo it doth both actione morali proclaim believers righteous, and Virtually ſentence them ſo. And therefore in Rom. 10.5. it is called [the Righteouſneſs which is of the Law] And if the Old Law had a power of making Righteous, if man could have performed the condition, ſo alſo hath the New.

2. And that the ſentence doth not conſtitute us Juſt, needs no proof: It is the work of a Judge by ſentence to clear the Guiltleſs, and not to make them Guiltleſs. Pardon indeed may do ſomewhat to it: but that is not the action of a Judge as a Judge, but (as you before diſtinguiſhed) of a Rector (in caſe of tranſgreſſing Lawes.) A Judge pronounceth men to be what they firſt are according to Law; and not makes them to be righteous who are not. He that ſaith to the wicked, thou art Righteous, Nations ſhall curſe him; people ſhall bhor him: Pro. 24.24. He that juſtifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the Juſt, even they both are abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17.15. If this were not ſo, then we muſt believe that no man is juſtified before the day of (particular or general) Judgement, till you have proved that God ſentenceth at a Court of Angels.

And that the Giving of Faith doth not make Righteous (that is, according to the Law of works) effective, I think you confeſs. If I thought you did not, it were very eaſily proved: Faith being but the condition of our univerſal righteouſneſs (which the old Law requireth in its ſtead) cannot be that Righteouſneſs it ſelf: and ſome other efficient there muſt be of our Juſtification here.

Next you ſay [Notwithſtanding Chriſts Death and the Conditional Covenant afore faith, a perſon is only juſtifyable: Conditionalis nihil ponit eſſe.] Anſw. All this is very true: but not any thing againſt me. I like well what you ſay of Chriſts death, becauſe it is (as Aquinas and our Davenant, Ʋſher, &c. ſay,) but Cauſa univerſalis, vel Remedium omnibus applicabile. It is to prepare for and merit, & not directly to effect our Juſtification, (whatſoever the Antinomians dream:) But the Covenant or Teſtament is the very efficient Inſtrumental cauſe of Juſtification: and its Action is Gods Action. Yet its true that Conditionalis nihil ponit in eſſe: that is, till the condition be performed: but then it becometh of equal force to an Abſolute Gift and doth ponere in eſſe: even the ſame Inſtrument doth it, whoſe Action till then was (by the Authors will) ſuſpended.

YOu next paſs to another Point (about Theſ. 59.) whether Juſtification be a continued Act. And you ſay that [being a Tranſient Act, it cannot be well called a continued Act, which imports a ſucceſſive motion between the Terminus a quo and ad quem, whereas this Act, whether by ſentence or Covenant, is not ſuch a motion, &c.] Anſw. 1. All this may be true of a proper natural Action: but you know that it is only a moral Action which I affirm to be continued, and of this you know your Rule de motu holds not, except you take Motus largely and improperly. As paſſive Juſtification, or the effect of the Juſtifying Act is but a Relation, which is the weakeſt of Entities; ſo doth it per nudam reſultantiam ariſe, which is by the weakeſt of Cauſalities; The Act of God giving out and enacting this Law or Covenant at firſt, was indeed a proper tranſient Act, and is ceaſed: but the moral Action of the Law thus enacted is continual. The Law of the land, which condemneth Delinquents, and juſtifieth the obedient, doth both by a continued moral Act. The Leaſe of your Houſe or Lands gives you Title thereto by a continued moral Act. So that this which I aſſert, is not Actus repetitus vel renovatus.

You add that [You incline to think that there is but one Juſtification of a Perſon in this life, though frequent Remiſſion of ſin.] Anſw. In that you judge as moſt of the Orthodox do: And I have ſaid nothing to the contrary. I think alſo, that as Scripture uſeth the phraſe of oft-forgiving, but ſeldom of oft-juſtifying, ſo it is ſafeſt to ſpeak as Scripture doth. Yet as to the thing, me thinks, that as Remiſſion and Juſtification do but reſpectively or very narrowly differ; ſo in this caſe, one may as truly be ſaid to be repeated, as the other: that is, As there is an univerſal Remiſſion of all ſin paſt, upon our firſt true Believing; which univerſal Remiſſion is never iterated, but continued: ſo is there an Univerſal Juſtification of the perſon at the ſame time, by which he is made juſt, (and in Law ſo eſteemed, pronounced or judged) by being acquit from the condemning Power of the Law, which (for his ſins paſt only) was before in force againſt him. And ſo if you look to ſuch a Remiſſion or Juſtification as wholly changeth the ſtate of the perſon, making him Pardoned who was before wholly unpardoned, and fully under guilt of all former ſins; or making him juſtified who was before unjuſtified, and condemned (in Law;) neither of theſe I think, are iterated. But then, as you confeſs a frequently renewed pardon for following ſins, ſo I know no reaſon, but in the ſame ſence there muſt be a frequent Juſtifying: For as our Divines well conclude, that ſin cannot be pardoned before it be committed (for then there ſhould be pardon without Guilt; for no man is Guilty of ſin to come formally;) ſo is it as neceſſary to conclude, that no man is juſtified from ſin before it be committed; that is, from that which is not; and ſo is not ſin: For then Juſtification ſhould go before and without Legal Accuſation and Condemnation: For the Law accuſeth and condemneth no man for a ſin which is not committed, and ſo is no ſin. It is ſaid Acts 13.…9. that (by Chriſt) we are Juſtified from all things, from which we could not be juſtified by the Law of Moſes. Where, as I deſire you to obſerve that phraſe of being Juſtified by the …aw, to ſhew it is an Act of the Law (though ſin maketh tranſgreſſors uncapable.) ſo you ſee it is a Scripture phraſe to ſay▪ we are Juſtified from ſin: And then either there muſt be ſome kind of particular Juſtification from particular ſins after faith, of the nature of our renewed particular Pardon; or elſe what will become of us for them? For ſure if the Law be ſo far in force againſt the actions of Believers as to make and conclude them Guilty and Obliged to Puniſhment (as much as in it lyeth) and ſo to need a frequent pardon (for pardon is a diſcharge from Guilt, which is an Obligation to puniſhment;) then it muſt needs be in force to Judge them worthy condemnation, and ſo to Accuſe (and as much as in it lyeſ to condemn) them; and ſo they muſt need alſo a particular Juſtification. But then according to my Judgement, 1. There is a ſure Ground ſaid of both in the Goſpel or new Law or Covenant. 2. And the ſaid New Law doth perform it, by the ſame Power by which it did univerſally juſtifie and pardon them at the firſt. There needeth no addition to the Law. The change is in them: And the Law is ſaid Moraliter ager… quod antea non actum erat, becauſe of their new Capacity, neceſſity and Relation. As if your Fathers Teſtament do give you a thouſand pound at his Death, and twenty ſhillings a week as long as you live after, and ſo much at your marriage, &c. here this Teſtament giveth you theſe new ſums (after the firſt) without any change in it; and yet by new moral Act; for it was not a proper gift, till the Term expreſſed, or the condition performed: and if that term had never come, nor the condition been performed, you had never had right to it: ſo I concieve, Gods Goſpel Grant or Teſtament doth renew both our Remiſſion and particular Juſtification. If Satan ſay, This man both deſerved death by ſining ſince he Believed (as David) muſt we not be juſtified from that Accuſation?

And here let me ask you one Queſtion, which I forgot before about the firſt Point. Seeing you think (truly) that Pardon is iterated as oft as we ſin, by what Tranſient Act of God is this done? Doth God every moment at a Court of Angels Declare each ſinner in the world, remitted of his particular ſin? (for every moment we commit them.) If you once-ſee a neceſſity of judging the New Covenant or Promiſe Gods Pardoning Inſtrument, I doubt not but you will ſoon acknowledge as much about Juſtification. And ſure a Legal or written Inſtrument is ſo proper for this work, that we uſe to call it [A Pardon,] which a Prince writes for the acquitting of an offendor.

Beſides, the Goſpel daily juſtifieth by continuing our Juſtification, as your Leaſe ſtill giveth you Title to your Land.

(Mat. 12.37. is of more then the continuance of Juſtification, even of Juſtification at Judgement.)

THe next Point you come to about the Nature and Object of Faith, you are larger upon, through a miſtake of my words and meaning. I know not therefore how to Anſwer your Arguments till I have firſt told you my ſence, and better ſtated the Queſtion.

Indeed that in pag. 11. of Reſt, I apprehended my ſelf, ſo obvious to miſconſtruction, that I have corrected it in the ſecond Edition (which is now printed.) Yet 1. I ſpoke not of faith as Juſtifying, but as the condition of Salvation, which contains more then that which is the condition of our firſt juſtification. 2. I neuer termed thoſe Gospel-Precepts, which are not in ſome way proper to the Goſpel. And for the next words [That ſubjection to Chriſt is an Eſſential part of faith.] I confeſs I do not only take it for a certain Truth, but alſo of ſo great moment, that I am glad you have bent your ſtrength againſt it, and thereby occaſioned me to ſearch more throughly. But then, if you think (as you ſeem to do) that by [Subjection] I mean [Actual Obedience] you quite miſtake me: for I have fully opened my mind to you about this in my Aphoriſ. that ſpeak only of the ſubjection of the Heart; and not of the Actual Obedience, which is the practiſe of it. I ſpeak but of the Acceptation of Chriſt for our Lord, or the Conſent thereto▪ and ſo giving up our ſelves to be his Diſciples, Servants or Subjects. This I maintain to be an Eſſential part of juſtifying Faith, in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe of that word.

Its true that de jure Chriſt is King of Unbelievers, and ſo of them that acknowledge him not to be their King. But in order of nature, the acknowledging of his Dominion, and conſent thereto, and ſo receiving him to be our King, doth go before our obeying him as our King. As a woman in marriage-Covenant, taketh her Husband, as one whom ſhe muſt obey add be faithfull to: But that taking or conſenting, goes before the ſaid Obedience, as every Covenant before the performance of it. Yea though the ſame act ſhould be both an acknowledgement of, and conſent to the Authority, and alſo an obeying of it; yet it is Quatenus a conſent and acceptance of that Authority, and not as it is an obeying of it, that I ſpeak of it when I aſcribe Juſtification to it: as faith in the common ſenſe is certainly an act of Obedience to God: and yet Divines ſay, it juſtifie; not as it is Obedience, but as an Inſtrument. So that by Heart-ſubjection to Chriſt, I mean that act by which we give up our ſelves to Chriſt as his Subjects to be ruled by him; and by which we take him for our Soveraign on his Redemption-title. But when I judge the word Faith to be taken yet in a larger ſenſe, comprehending obedience, I never ſaid or thought that ſo it is the condition of our firſt Juſtification, nor will I contend with any that thinks the word is never taken ſo largely, it being to me a matter of ſmal moment. Now to your Objections.

1. YOU ſay, [Faith worketh by Love, &c.] Anſw. 1. Faith is ſometime taken ſtrictly for a Belief of Gods word, or an Aſſent to its Truth. 2. Sometime more largely for the wills embracing alſo of the objec as an offered good, beſides the underſtandings Aſſent to the Truth of the word which offereth it. The former is by the Apoſtle oft diſtinguiſhed from Love, and is ſaid to work by Love; as the lively acts of the underſtanding produce anſwerable motions in the will. But the later is that faith which juſtifieth; to wit, The Receiving of an offered Chriſt. And this comprizeth both the Act of the Underſtanding and Will (as almoſt all Proteſtant Divines affirm.) But both theſe acts together are called Faith from the former, which is moſt ſtrictly ſo called: becauſe the great difficulty then lay in Believing the Truth of the Goſpel▪ (and would do ſtill, if it were not for the advantages of Credit, Education, Cuſtom, &c.) therefore the whole work is thence denominated: though yet the compleating of the work be in the Will, and the Underſtandings Act but preparatory thereto. 2. You muſt alſo diſtinguiſh between Love to Chriſt the Mediator, and the Grace of Charity in general, as it is extended al;ſo to God as Creator, to Saints, to all men, &c. And between that firſt act of Love, which is in our firſt receiving of Chriſt, and the love which we afterwards exerciſe on him: and ſo I anſwer you. 1. That as the Apoſtle diſtinguiſheth between Faith, Hope and Love, So do I. 2. Faith taken ſtrictly for aſſent to Divine Teſtimony, produceth love in every one of the forementioned ſenſes (of the word Love:) 3. Juſtifying faith (comprizing the wills acceptance) produceth both the grace of Charity, as it is exerciſed on other objects, and alſo the following acts of it towards Chriſt the Mediator: And ſo I acknowledge that Faith worketh by Love, and that Love is not faith. But yet whether Love be not in ſome ſenſe eſſential to juſtifying faith, if you ſpeak only of Love to Chriſt, and that not as a diſtinct grace, but as it is comprized in our Acceptance of him at firſt, I ſhall leave to your conſideration, when you have firſt reſolved theſe things. 1. Whether juſtifying faith be not an act of the Will as well as the Underſtanding? Few but Papiſts deny it, and not all of them. 2. Whether Chriſt himſelf be not the object of it? Few Proteſtants will deny it. 3. Whether Good be not the object of the Will, and ſo Chriſt be not willed as Good? None doubts of it. 4. Whether this willing be not the ſame as Loving, as love is found in the rational appetite? Sure Aquinas ſaith ſo, no man that I know contradicting it. 5. Whether you can call Affiance, or any other act of the will juſtifying faith, excluding this willing, or not principally including it? For 1. This is the Wills firſt act towards it object; and will you ſay that Love goes before juſtifying faith, and ſo before Juſtification? and ſuch a Love as is diſtinct from juſtifying faith as being no part of it? How then is Love the fruit of faith, and as Divines ſay, a conſequent of Juſtification? Yet it is beyond all doubt, that this Velle or Love to Chriſt goes before Affiance on him, or any other act of the Will. vide Aquin. 1.2. Q. 23. a. 33. Et. 1. Q. 20. a. 1 Et Tolet de anima, l. 3. cap. 9. Q. …7, 28 Et Ameſ. contra Gravinchou. pag. 16. 2. And can it be imagined that preceding aſſent, and ſubſequent Affiance, in Chriſt ſhould be conditions of our Juſtification; and yet the Velle Chriſtum oblatum, that Willing which we call Conſent, Election or Acceptance, which goeth between aſſent and Affiance, ſhould be excluded as no part of this condition? 3. Eſpecially conſidering that Affiance contains divers acts, whereof one is of the Iraſcible of the ſenſitive, and ſo is but an imperate act of the Will, and leſs noble then that elicite Act (which I plead for,) as well as Poſterior to it: and if Aquin. be not out in his Philoſophy, when he ſo oft ſaith, that fiducia is ſpes roborata, then our Divines make Hope to juſtifie.

Yet for all this, I have not eſpouſed this ſaying, that Love to Chriſt is Eſſential to juſtifying faith: nor will contend with any man that thinks it unmeet: if we agree in the things of moment▪ I hate to quarrel about words.

Nor do I think it a meet phraſe to ſay, we are juſtified by Love, (though in the ſenſe before mentioned, I think it true,) becauſe it is but a part, or affection as it were of that reception, by which we are juſtified, and ſtands not in ſo full a relation to the object received.

And yet, if I had ſaid none of all this, I ſee not that I need any more then to deny your conſequence, as being wholly ungrounded: For it followeth not, that if it be an eſſential part, that therefore it muſt have the Denomination of the whole: yea, though the whole be ſaid to work by that part. The Brain and Heart are eſſential parts of the Body: and yet not to be called the Body; and it is more proper to ſay that the body works by the Brain or Heart; or that the vegetative ſoul doth work by the natural heat and Spirits; then to ſay, the Body worketh by the Body, or the vegetative ſoul by it ſelf. I will explain all together in my uſual Similitude, which is Dr. Preſtons (or rather Pauls) A condemned Beggar is offered a Pardon, and alſo to be made a Queen, if ſhe will but take the Prince for her Husband. Now here put your Queſtions. 1. Is Love any part of the Condition of her Pardon and Dignity? Anſwer, Yes: An eſſential part; for Conſent is of the Eſſence of it: and Love is eſſential to true conſent, to receive any offered good: Not love as it is a Paſſion, but as it is an act of the rational Appetite; which is but Velle; And Eligere, Conſentire, Acceptare are nothing elſe but a reſpective Willing. 2. But it is not Love as a Vertue in general, or as exerciſed on any other object, which is this eſſential part of the Condition: but only love to him whom ſhe marrieth: And ſo her firſt love is neceſſary to her Pardon and Dignity as begun; and her continued love (and marriage-faithfulneſs) is neceſſary to them▪ as they are to be continued: (ſuppoſing the Prince to know the heart as Chriſt doth.) Qu. 2. Is it then a meet phraſe to ſay, that ſhe is pardoned and dignified by loving ſuch a Prince? Anſw. It hath ſome Truth in it, but it is not a fit ſpeech; but rather that it is by marrying him, becauſe Love is but a part, or as it were an Affection of that Marriage Covenant or conſent, which indeed doth dignifie her: Love may be without marriage, but not Marriage (cordially) without Love. So in our preſent caſe, juſtifying faith is the very Marriage Conſent or Covenant with Chriſt; It is therfore fitter to ſay, we are juſtified by it, then by love; becauſe the former expreſſeth the full condition: the latter not: Qu. 3. If love be an eſſential part of the Marriage-conſent, then may we not as well ſay, Marriage cauſeth Marriage, as to ſay, Marriage cauſeth Love. Anſwer No. For 1. That Love which it cauſeth, is the following acts of Love. 2. And the name of Love is moſt uſually given only to the Paſſion which is in the ſenſitive; but not uſually to the meer Velle, the elicite act of the rational appetite. I have been the more prolix on this, becauſe it ſerves alſo for anſwer to other of your Objections, eſpecially the third.

2. You object [Goſpel-Precepts are many, if not all, the ſame with the moral Law: if juſtified then by obedience to them; are we not juſtified by the works of the Law? &c. Anſwer. 1. James yields the whole. 2. If you ſpeak of our Juſtification at firſt, by which, of guilty and lyable to condemnation, we become recti in curia, or are acquit, I then yield all that you ſeek here, viz. that we are not juſtified by works. 3. This objection is grounded on your formentioned miſtake of my meaning, as if I thought that juſtifying faith contained eſſentially ſuch obedience or works. 4. We are not juſtified by works of the Law, if you mean the Law of works, or by any works which make the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt, which are the works that Paul ſpeaks of. 5. That which you call the moral Law, viz. the bare Precepts of the Decalogue, taken Diviſion, without the ſanction, viz: the Promiſe or the Commination, is not the Law, but one part of the Law: and the other part, viz. the ſanction adjoined, if diverſified, makes it two diſtinct Laws, though the Duty commanded be the ſame. The Law that commandeth Socrates to drink Cicutam, is not the ſame with that which ſhould command a ſick man to drink ſome for a cure. 6. That our Juſtification is continued, on condition of our ſincere obedience, added to our faith, I maintain with James. 7. Will you anſwer your own objection, and you tell me what to anſwer: Faith is a duty of the moral Law: if we are juſtified by faith, then we are juſtified by a work of the Law. I know you will not evade as thoſe that ſay, Faith is not a work, but a Paſſion: nor as thoſe that ſay, we are juſtified by it not as a work; but as an Inſtrument: for I have heard you diſclaim that. If you ſay it is not as a work, but as a condition by the free Law-giver appointed to this end, then you ſay as I do, both of faith, and ſecondarily of works. For what Divine denyeth works to be a condition of Salvation, or of the final Juſtification? or of our preſent Juſtification as continued, vel nor amittendi Juſtificationem jam recaptam, as Conr. Bergius ſaith; I know but one other evaſion left in the world which I once thought none would have adventured on; but lately an acute Diſputant (with me) maintains, that faith is not conditio moralis, vel ex voluntate conſtituentis, but Conditio phyſica vel ex natura rei. But I think I ſhall eaſily and quickly diſprove this opinion.

Rababs and Abrahams works were works of the New Law of Grace, and not of the old Law of works.

In a word, As there is a two fold Law, ſo there is a two fold Accuſation and Juſtification: when we are accuſed as breakers of the Law of works, that is, as ſinners in common ſort, and ſo as lyable to the penalty thereof, then we plead only Chriſts ſatiſfaction as our Righteouſneſ, and no work of our own: But when we are Accuſed of final non-performance of the conditions of the New Law, that is of being Rejectors of Chriſt the Mediator, we are juſtified by producing our faith and ſincere obedience to him. The former Paul ſpeaks of; and James of the latter. You may ſee Divines of great Name ſaying as I in this, as Mead, Deodate on James the 2. but moſt fully Placaus in Theſ. Salmurienſ. Theſ. de Juſtific. &c.

To your third Objection, That Faith, Repentance, Hope and Love (as before explained) are diſtinguiſhed, I eaſily yield you. But where you ſay (Faith and Love have different Objects, therefore one is no eſſential part of the other) I anſwer, That faith in Chriſt, and Love to the Saints (which your Texts mention) have different Objects, I ſoon confeſs. But faith in Chriſt (as it is the firſt Act of the Will) and love to Chriſt, have one and the ſame Object, beyond all doubt.

Your fourth I wholly yield, if you ſpeak of faith ſtrictly, or as it Juſtifieth, and not in a large improper ſence.

Your fifth is grounded on the forementioned miſtake of my meaning. And there needs no further anſwer, but only to tell you, that though ſincere obedience to all Chriſts Lawes be a part of the condition of our Juſtification as continued and conſummate at Judgement; yet it follows not that every particular duty muſt be done▪ no more then that Adam muſt obey every particular Law before he were actually juſt. It is ſufficient that there be no other defect in our Obedience, but what may ſtand with ſincerity. The ſame Precept may command, or make Duty to one, and not to another, and ſo be no Precept as to him. A man that lives but an hour after his converſion is, bound ſincerely to obey Chriſt according to his Law: but he is not bound to build Churches, nor to do the work of twenty years. Chriſt may be received as King, (and is) in the ſame moment in which he is received as Juſtifier; and in that reception we covenant to obey him, and take him for our Lord to the death; but not to obey him on earth when we are dead; for we are then freed from theſe Lawes, and come under the Lawes of the Glorified.

To your ſixth I anſwer, The Texts alledged have no ſhew of contradicting the Point you oppos;ſe. One ſaith, we are juſtified by his Blood: But doth it thence follow, (therefore not by Believing in him or receiving him as King, are we made partakers of it.) His Blood is the Purchaſing cauſe, but we enquire after the condition on our part. The other Text ſaith, (through faith in his Blood.) But 1. it ſaith not only in his Blood. 2. And his blood is the Ground of his Dominion as well as of his Juſtifying us: for by his blood he bought all into his own hands: For to this end he Died, Roſe and Revived, that he might be Lord of Dead and Living. Rom. 14.9. It may be therefore through faith in his Blood, as the chief part of the ſatisfaction, and yet neceſſarily alſo through faith in himſelf, or the Reception of himſelf as the Chriſt. 3. Yet doth the Apoſtle moſt conveniently ſay, (through faith in his blood) rather then (through faith in his Dominion or Government,) becauſe when he ſpeaks of Faith, he ſpeaks Relatively: not (as ſome underſtand it) by Faith meaning Chriſt, but uſing the name of that Act which fitlieſt and fullieſt relates to its Object; and ſo intending the Object more principally then the Act. And as it is fitter to ſay, that (we are Juſtified by Chriſts blood,) then that (we are Juſtified by his Kingly Power,) therefore the Apoſtle rather ſpeaks of faith in his blood, as neerlieſt relating to the Object. Yet, as he excludes not Chriſts obedience, (for by his obedience many are made Righteous) nor faith in his obedience, and in his whole humiliation as well as his blood; and in his Reſurrection, and Interceſſion and Exaltation; ſo not in his Kingly Office. Look back on the former Example to make this plain. A poor condemned woman is delivered and Dignified by marrying a Prince that hath redeemed her on that condition. When ſhe ſpeaks of her Deliverance, ſhe will ſay, [I am delivered by the Bounty, Goodneſs or Redemption of my Prince, and ſo by marrying him that in mercy Redeemed me.] rather then [I am delivered by marrying a Prince to Rule me.] Becauſe in the former ſhe more fitly & fully expreſſeth more of the cauſe of her Deliverance: Much leſs will ſhe think it a fit ſpeech to ſay, I am delivered by marrying an Avenger of his enemies, a Condemner, a Puniſher, &c.) as you are pleaſed to ſpeak in this our caſe. And yet who doubts, but her marrying or taking him for her Huſband hereafter to Rule her, as well as preſently to Deliver her, is the very true Condition on her part of her Deliverance? Yea, and if you ſpeak not only of her Deliverance, but of her Dignity (being enriched, Honoured and made a Queen,) it is the fitteſt phraſe to ſay (it was by her marrying a Prince.) And ſo if you ſpeak not only of Pardon and Juſtification (which import our Deliverance in ſtatum quo prius,) but alſo of our Adoption to be ſons, and Kings, and Heirs with Chriſt, it is no unfit phraſe to ſay, This is by our marrying King Jeſus; or by receiving Chriſt as the King by Redemption.

All the Benefits which we Receive from Chriſt (which follow Union) ſuch as are Pardon, Juſtification and Adoption, do flow from our Union with himſelf which precedes them. This Union is by Faith: We are united to him as to a Head, Huſband and Prince, and not only as a Juſtifier? therefore from him received as a Head, Huſband and Prince, do theſe Benefits of Juſtification and Adoption flow.

To your ſeventh Objection I anſwer, by denying the latter part of your Antecedent [that Scripture nowhere makes (Chriſts Dominion you ſay, but) Chriſtum Dominum (you ſhould ſay,) the Object of juſtifying Faith.] I never thought that Chriſts Dominion, nor yet his Redemption was the proper Object of the chiefeſt act of Juſtifying Faith. But Chriſt himſelf as Lord and as Redeemer is. I prove it, 1. Chriſt is the proper Object of juſtifying Faith (as I ſhall anon prove.) But the name Chriſt ſignifieth as directly and fully his Kingly Office as his Juſtifying. If you include not his being King, you Receive him not as Chriſt.

2. To Receive him as Redeemer is to Receive him as King▪ For his very Redeeming was a Purchaſing them into his own hands, (Joh. 13.3. Matth. 28.18 Joh. 17.2. & 3.35. Luke 10.22. Epheſ. 1.20, 21. Joh. 5.26, 27. Rom. 14.9 &c.) though not only ſo.

3. Pſalm 2. Kiſs the Son left he be angry, &c. Kiſſing, or ſubmitting to, and Receiving the Son as King (for ſo the whole Pſalm expounds it) is the condition of eſcaping wrath; therefore of Pardon (for Poena & Venia ſunt aduerſa:) therefore of our Juſtification.

4. Matth. 11.27. Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, (Guilt is the great load:) But under what Notion will Chriſt be come to? Take my yoke and burthen, &c. Learn of me, &c. and ye ſhall find reſt to your ſouls. Reſt! from what? from that they were burdened with: and that was Guilt, among other things: and to remove the burden of the Guilt of ſin or curſe of the Law, is to Pardon and Juſtifie. (I hope you will not ſay, that the only Burden that Chriſt offers here to eaſe them of, was the phariſes rigorous Interpretation of the Law, as I was told you expound it.)

5. Luke 19.27. Theſe mine enemies that would not I ſhould Reign over them, &c. If Rejecting Chriſt as King be the condemning ſin according to the tenor of the New Law; then Accepting him as King is part of the condition of Juſtification. The Conſequence is plain, becauſe the ſaid Rejection condemneth, as it is the non-performance of that condition which muſt be performed to the avoiding of condemnation. More Scriptures might be brought; but the firſt Argument alone is ſuficient, if there were no more.

To your eighth Objection I anſwer. The Object of juſtifying Faith is Chriſt himſelf principally; and the word as both Revealing, Offering him, Promiſing, Threatning: but it is not Chriſt commanding, firſt, but Chriſt as King to Command. This is anſwered in the former.

To your ninth Objection I anſwer; when I ſay that [Receiving Chriſt as Lord is one part of Juſtifying Faith,] I ſpeak not of the Act morally, as if it had two parts where it is entire: It is but one moral Act to Accept of whole Chriſt (if you ſpeak ſimply of Accepting, as diſtinct from preceding Aſſent and ſubſequent Affiance.) But I call it (part) in reference to the Object, whence you ſay ariſeth the Difference: Though Chriſts Office of Mediator be but one; yet from the works of that office we look on his Governing, and Pardoning or Juſtifying as diſtinct parts: and thence I call this act of faith (a part.) For that you ſay of obedience following faith and as an effect and ſign, I eaſily yield it.

But where you ſay, that [Truſt is the Genus where the Object is an incomplex term] I anſwer; if you take faith as it is juſtifying (or the condition of our Juſtification) and not in the ſtricteſt ſenſe, ſo it hath more Acts then one about the incomplex term. And Affiance is the Genus of one only. To accept (an offered Saviour,) is an Act precedent in order of Nature before any other act of the Will; that is, the elicite Acts are before the Imperate: and Truſt is not the Genus of this. Beſides, Truſt is no one act, but many, and that of both faculties, and a Negation of ſeveral acts beſides. A certain Argument that it is no one ſingle Act that juſtifieth, even in their Judgement that ſay Affiance is the juſtifying Act; when the Scripture ſpeaks of faith as Affiance, it includes Acceptance or conſent, which go before Affiance in order of nature; Yea ſome of our moſt Learned, Accurate Divines, when they ſay Affiance is the juſtifying faith, do either by Affiance mean only that elicite act of the Will, which I call Acceptance, Conſent or Election, or elſe (rather) they mean ſeveral acts, whereof this is one. So Ameſius Medul. l. 1. cap. 3. §. 13. Fides iſt a qua credimus non tantum Deum, aut Deo, ſed in Deum, eſt vera ac propia fiducia: non qua hac voca notatur certa & abſoluta perſuaſio de bono futuro, ſed quâ ſignificat Electionem & Apprehenſionem ſufficientis ac idonei medi…, ac in qou perſauſio & expectatio talis fundatur. Quo ſenſu dicuntur homines fiduciam habere in ſapientia, potentia, Amicis ac opibus ſuis, Pſal. 78.22. If therefore you underſtand by Affiance many Acts, of which velle Chriſtum oblatum, (called Acceptation, quia volumus objectum ut oblatum; and Election, quia volumus medium h…s, rejectis aliis; or Conſent, quia volumnus ex alterius Promotione qui prius volui…,) is the firſt and chief, (of thoſe of the Will) as Ameſius doth, then I am of your mind. If you ſay that Velle vel Acceptare is not credere vel fidem babere in the common notation of the word: I anſwer 1. It includes Velle as its principal Act in the common uſe of the word, when its object is an Incompelx term: but indeed it includeth more alſo. 2. Words of Knowledge in Scripture do imply Affection we ſay: but Will much more. 3. I anſwer in the words of Ameſius, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. §. 2, 3 Credere vulgo ſignificat actum intellectus Aſſenſum teſtimonio praebentis: ſed quoniam conſequenter volunt as moveri ſolet, & extendere ſeſe ad amplectendū bonum it a probatum, ideirco fides …tiam hunc Voluntatis actum deſignat ſatis aptè, quomodo hoc in loco neceſſario intelligitur. Eſt enim receptio bond ſub ratione boni, & intima unio cum codē, John 1.12. Hinc fides fertur in bonum; qoud per iſtam fit noſtrum, eſt actus Electionis: eſt actus Totius hominis; qua actui Intellectus nullo modo conveniunt. John 6.35.

Yea further, I doubt not but where this act of the Will is in ſincerity, there is Juſtification certainly conſequent: but the term Affiance contains ſome acts which Divines ſay, do only follow Juſtification: which alſo Ameſi. ſeems to acknowledge, ibid. § 21. Quod vero fiducia dicitur fructus fidei, verum eſt de fiducia prout reſpicit Deum in futurum, & eſt ſpes f…rma, ſed prout reſpicit Deum in Chriſto in praeſentia ſe offerentem, eſt ipſa fides.

Yea the ſame Ameſius tells us Medul. lib 2. cap. 5. That five things concur even to that Belief which we call fides Divina; viz. 1. Notitia rei à Deo teſtatae. 2. …ffectio pia erga Deum quae facit ut maxime valeat apud nos ipſius Teſtimonium. 3. Aſſerſus qui praebetur veritati teſt atae propter hanc affectionem erga Deum qui eſt ejus teſtis. 4. Aquieſcentia in Deum ad illud quod prop…nitur conſequendum. 5. Electio vel apprehenſio rei ipſius, quae in Teſtimonio nobis exhibetur. So that even this faith hath many acts. Yea, and he adds, Primum horum eſt in intellectu: ſed non conſtituit fidem, &c. ſecundum, quartum & quintum ſunt in voluntate, & conſtituunt fidem, prout eſt virtus & actus religionis. T…rtium (viz. aſſenſus) eſt in intellectu, ſed prout movetur, à voluntate; neque eſt proprie fidei virtus, ſ…d effectum. So that this Doctrine which 1. makes three acts of faith in the very will, 2. and makes the intellectual acts (even aſſent) to be but an effect of faith, and not the vertue, is far from yours (though I ſcruple not to take in aſſent with the reſt, for all it is in the Intellect,) and if theſe be all in that faith which is a holy vertue, much more muſt that which juſtifies contain as much. And indeed to place juſtifying faith only in the intellect, is ſomewhat ſtrange for thoſe that make it the principal Grace, when Philoſophers will not give it the name of a moral Vertue. For in the underſtanding are only intellectual Habits; but moral vertues are all placed in the Will, or ſenſitive appetite (for that quarrel I will paſs by, whether they be only in the ſenſitive as Burgerſ…icius, &c.) If any therefore wonder that I place faith in ſo many acts, and yet make one the chief compleative Act, I have yet further this moſt accurate Divine ſaying the very ſame as I. Perfectio autom fidei eſt in Electione aut apprehenſione illa, qua bonum Propoſitum fit noſtrum. Hinc fidei natura …ptimè explicatur in Scriptura cum fideles di…untur adhaerer… D…o, Joſ. 23.6. Act. 11.23. & vi… veritatis …ligere, Pſal. 119.30, 31. Where you ſee alſo that by Affiance and Adhaeſion, Ameſius principally means the very Elicit act of the Will as Election is. And indeed he that obſerveth but how the Scripture throughout doth hang mans ſalvation or damnation on his Will mainly, (ſo far as it may be ſaid to depend on our own acts,) rather then on any acts of the underſtanding (but only as they refer and lead to thoſe of the Will) might well wonder, that juſtifying ſaving faith, the great needfull act, ſhould be only intellectual, and not chiefly in or by the Will, as well as all the reſt. Ye will not come to me that ye may have life: How oft would I, and ye would not? Theſe mine enemies that would not I ſhould reign over them, &c. Whoever will, let him take or buy freely, &c. Still almoſt all is laid on the Will: and yet is not Faith in the Will? Aſſent may be compelled by evidence of Truth, and ſo be unvoluntary. And ſo a man may be a Believer thus againſt his Will: and if this will ſerve, men may be ſaved againſt their Wills. I know ſome think it enough that the Will commands the underſtanding to believe. But even thus ſaith Ameſius, Medul. l. 2. c. they place the firſt principle in the Will. Qui fidem collocant iu intellectu, neceſſariam tamen fatentur eſſe aliquam motion… vol…ntatis ad aſſenſum illum praebendum: quemadmodum i… fide humana voluntarium eſſe dicitur adhibere fidem alicui; ſi vero à voluntate pend…at fides, neceſſe eſt ut primū principium fidei ſit in voluntate, …. 20 But this is only commanding the performance, & ſo it is thus no elicit act (for Aquinas and others conclude, that Voluntas eſt Principium determinans actus humanos quo ad exercitium actus; intellectus autem quo ad actus ſpecificationem.) But it is moreover the Wills Elicite Act that I aſſert. And as I ſaid, this imperium voluntatis may poſſibly be wanting, and belief be involuntary for the main. Let me add but one more conſideration, (for I perceive my tediouſneſs) If Infidelity as it is a Privation of ſaving faith, and ſo is the condemning ſin, be in the Will as well as in the Intellect, then faith muſt be in the Will too: But Infidelity is in both. Ergo. &c. That Infidelity which is the Privation of meer aſſent, is rather ſaid to be willing, then in the Will; but that which is oppoſite to juſtifying faith, is in the Will. Luk. 19.27. Thoſe mine enemies that would not I ſhould raign over them, bring them hither, &c. ſaith Ameſius Medul. l. 2. cap. 5. §. 48. Opponuntur iſta (Infidelitas &c. fidei, non tantum qua tollunt Aſſenſum illum Intellectus qui eſt ad fidem neceſſarius: ſed etiam qua inferunt & includunt privationem illius Elections & apprehenſionis fidei quae eſt in Voluntate.

Surely an unwillingneſs to accept Chriſt for our Lord and Saviour, is no ſmall part of the condemning ſin, which we therefore call the rejecting of Chriſt; The treading him under foot; Neglecting ſo great Salvation; Not willing to come to Chriſt for life; Making light of him, when they are invited to the marriage, (Mat. 22.) and making excuſes: Not-kiſſiing the ſon, (Pſal. 2.) with many the like, which import the Wills refuſal of Chriſt himſelf, and not only its unwillingneſs to believe the Truth of the Promiſe or Declaration of the Goſpel.

To your tenth Objection I anſwer by denying the conſequence; we ſpeak of the ſoul as rational, and not as ſenſitive or vegetative. When the underſtanding & Will receive Chriſt, the whole ſoul doth it: that is, every faculty, or the ſoul by a full entire motion in its ſeveral Actings to the Object preſented, both as true and good. Your Joy, Hope, Fear, are in the ſenſitive: And Love as a Paſſion, and as commonly taken. And for Memory, take it for an act of the Underſtanding; or of Underſtanding and Imagination conjunct; or for a third faculty as pleaſe your ſelf, it will not breed any difficulty in the caſe. But whether Fear be properly a Receiving of Chriſt, or any Object as Good, I much queſtion. I take it rather for the ſhunning of an evil, then the Reception of Good. So much for your Objections.

I will next, as impartially as I can, conſider your Anſwers to what I laid down for the proof of the Point in Queſtion. But firſt I muſt acknowledge▪ that I have given you and others great advantage againſt the Doctrine of that Book, by the immethodicalneſs, and neglect of Art, and not giving the Arguments in form, which I then thought not ſo neceſſary as now I perceive it is: (for I was ready to yield wholly to Gibeeufs reaſons againſt formal arguing, Praefat. ante lib. 2. de Libertate.) The preſent expectation of death cauſed me to make that haſte, which I now repent: yet, though I ſee ſome overſights in the manner of expreſſion, I ſee no cauſe to change my mind in the Doctrine of it.

Alſo I muſt deſire you to remember here, that the proof lyeth on your part, and not on mine: Affirmanti incumbit probatio. It is acknowledged by almoſt all, that fides qua Juſtificat, Juſtifying faith is a Receiving of Chriſt as Lord, and not only as Saviour or Juſtifier: And you and I are agreed on it, that Faith juſtifieth not as an Inſtrument, but as a Condition: ſo that they who will go further here, and maintain that yet Faith juſtifieth only As it Receiveth Chriſt as Juſtifier, or as Saviour, and not as King, muſt prove what they ſay. If I prove 1. that Faith juſtifieth as the Condition, on performance whereof the Gift is conferred. 2. And that this Faith which is the Condition, is the Accepting of Chriſt as Chriſt, or the Anointed King and Saviour: (both which are yielded me;) I muſt needs think that I have proved that the Receiving Chriſt as King, doth as truly Juſtifie, as the Receiving him as Prieſt or Juſtifier: (Yet I had rather not ſay that either Juſtifies, (becauſe 1. it is no Scripture phraſe, 2. and ſeemeth to import an Efficiency▪) but rather, that [we are juſtified by it,] which imports here but a conditionality, and is the Scripture phraſe.) Till you have proved your excluſion of faith in one reſpect from the Juſtifying Office, and your confinement of it to the other, my proof ſtands good: I give you the entire condition: and ubi Lex non diſtinguit, non eſt diſtinguendum; multó minus dividendum. And though thoſe that aſſert the proper Inſtrumentality of faith in Juſtifying, or elſe the meer natural conditionality, may have ſomething to ſay for their Diviſion; (though with foul abſurdities) Yet what you can ſay, (who have eſcaped thoſe conceits) I cannot imagine. Me thinks, if faith Juſtifie, as the condition of the Grant or Covenant, and this condition be the Receiving of Chriſt as Lord and Saviour, it ſhould be impoſſible to exclude the receiving Chriſt as King, from Juſtifying, till you firſt exclude it from the ſaid conditionality. A Quatenus ad omne valet conſequentia. To Juſtifie therefore As the condition (on which the Promiſe gives Chriſt, and with him Juſtification,) muſt needs infer that we are juſtified by all whatſoever hath ſuch a conditionality. Yet (as I ſaid before) when we intend to expreſs, not only or principally the Act of the Receiver, but alſo, or principally, the Grace of the Giver, then it is a fitter phraſe to ſay, we are Juſtified by faith in his Blood, or by Receiving Chriſt the Saviour and Juſtifier: becauſe it fullieſt and fitlieſt expreſſeth that Grace which we intend, (and thus Paul oft doth.) So that they who diſtinguiſh between Fides quae Juſtificat, and Fides qua Juſtificat and admit that Act into the former, which they exclude from the latter, muſt prove what they ſay. (Fides qua juſtificat, non Recipit Chriſtum vel ut Regem vel ſacerdotem, ſed tantum Juſtificat. i. e. Qua eſt Conditio, non eſt Receptio: Nec qua Recipit Juſtificat; i. e. Qua Receptio, non eſt Conditio: Materia & forma non ſunt confundenda. Actus fidei eſt quaſi materia, vel Aptitudo tantum ad officium conditionalitatis: Diſtinctio igitur ipſa eſt inepta.) Now to your Anſwers: (Pardon this prolixity.)

Firſt I muſt tell you, that by that phraſe [the whole ſoul] I mean the entire motion of the ſoul by Underſtanding and Willing, to its Object both as True and Good: For I know the whole ſoul may be ſaid to underſtand in every Intellectual Action, and to will in every act of willing. But when it only underſtands or Aſſents, and not willeth, it doth not Act fully according to its Power, nor according to the nature of its Object, when the Goodneſs is neglected, and the Truth only apprehended. And it is not a compleat motion, ſeeing the Acts of the underſtanding are but introductory or preparatory to thoſe of the Will, where the motion of the Rational ſoul is compleat. And ſo my Argument ſtands thus: If Juſtifying faith be the Act both of the underſtanding and the Will, then it is not one ſingle act only: But &c. Ergo, &c. Prob. Anteced. Juſtifying faith is the Receiving of Chriſt: but Chriſt is Received by the Underſtanding and Will; (by the former incompleatly, by the latter compleatly:) therefore Juſtifying faith is the Acting both of the Underſtanding and Will. Probatur Minor. Chriſt muſt be Received as Good, and not only his Word (or himſelf) as true: therefore he muſt be Received by the Will as well as the Underſtanding: for Goodneſs is the object of the Will.

Here you anſwer 1. by confeſſing, that Faith is called a Receiving of Chriſt: 2. by interpreting that ſpeech [He is Received by the receiving his Word, which is received by Aſſent.] This is worth a fuller enquiry, becauſe the diſcovery of the proper Object of Faith, will ſhew the proper Act. The Intellectual Act [Aſſent) hath for its Objectum formale the Veracity of God, or the Authority of Gods Revealing or Teſtifying: This is not it that we enquire after. The material Object (for we muſt uſe the Schools termes in this diſtinction, though perhaps fitter might be found,) is 1. Proximius; that is, the moral Verity of the Teſtimony or Word. 2. Ʋlterius, the Metaphyſical Verity of the Things ſignified (as Chriſts Perſon, God-head, Incarnation, Reſurrection, &c.) The former is but the means to the latter, and for its ſake, and not for its ſelf. In regard of this act of Aſſent, you may ſay as you do, that Chriſt is Received by receiving his Word: becauſe the Belief of the Truth of the Enuntiation is the means of our apprehending the truth of the Thing propounded. But then 1. Theſe are yet two diſtinct Acts as the Objects are diſtinct. 2. And this Intellectual Act is called a Receiving of the Truth Believed but imperfectly becauſe it leads to that Act of the Will which (in morality) is more fitly and fully called a Receiving: and therefore if Aſſent produce not that Acceptation or conſent of the Will, it cannot fitly it ſelf be called a Receiving of Chriſt. (For of the Intellects Reception of the Intelligible Species, I ſuppoſe we neither of us ſpeak.) The material Object of Juſtifying faith as it is in the Will, is 1. Principal, and Adaequate, which is Chriſt himſelf. 2. Subſervient or Inſtrumental, which is the Covenant, Promiſe, or teſtamentary Gift, in & by which Chriſt is offered and Given. Theſe are two diſtinct Acts, as the Accepting of a Teſtament, and of the Legacy: of a Pardon written, and the real Pardon thereby ſignified: or of the Oath of Allegiance, and of the Prince to whom we ſwear. But becauſe of the Relation between the one and the other, Faith may be called a receiving of Chriſt, or a receiving of the Goſpel. Yet ſo, as ſtill the proper principal Object is Chriſt, and the Goſpel but …ediate, as to him. Theſe are my thoughts. Now (if I am able to underſtand you) your words import, that in your Judgement, Chriſt is received two wayes: 1. by Faith, and that is only by Aſſent: and this is only by receiving his Word: that is, in Believing it to be True. 2. By other Graces; and thoſe I think, you refer to the Wills receiving. Againſt this opinion I further alledge, 1. Almoſt all Proteſtant Divines acknowledge faith to be the Act (or rather Acts) of both faculties, even Dr. Downame not excepted (and Ca…ro himſelf ſpeaks ſometime darkly) inſomuch that Melancthon, Joan▪ Cr…cius and many more make it the judgement of Proteſtants in oppoſition to Popery. And ſo doth Ameſius in Bellarm. Enerv. though he judge it (as Camero) not accurate, in M…dul. l. 1. c. 3. ſect 22. Yea he that though it muſt be but in one faculty, chooſeth to place it only in the Will, and excludes Aſſent, as being called faith quia parit fidem. Excellent Davenant ſaith, Insactu fidei juſtifit antis Totu Anima ſe convertit ad cauſam juſtificantem. Determin. Q. 38. pag. 174. And again, Fides illa quam ſcriptura juſtificantem agnoſcit, habet in ſe complicatum actum Voluntatis & Intellectus. Determin. Q. 37. pag. 166▪ Again, Ne que nobis abſurdum ſed valde conſentaneum videtur, actum illum quo tota anima purificatur & Juſtificatur, ad Totam animam pertinere: ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat initium; in Voluntate complementum ibidem. Again, Quod Philoſophantur Voluntatem & Intellectum eſſe duas potentias reipſa diſtinctas, dogma philoſophicum eſt, ab omnibus haud receptum; & Theologicis dogmatibus firmandis aut infirmandis fundamentum minime idoneum▪ Idem ibid.

2. Aſſent is not any full moral Receiving of Chriſt: But faith (which Juſtifieth) is a full moral Receiving of Chriſt, (Job 1.12.) therefore Aſſent alone is not the faith that juſtifieth. I know there is a Metonymie in the word Receive (becauſe in ſtrict ſpeech in Phyſicks, Recipere eſt pati) But it is ſo uſual and near, that in morality it is taken for a proper ſpeech, to call the Acceptation of an offered good [A Receiving.]

3. There is ſuch a thing as the proper accepting of Chriſt, required as of flat neceſſity to Juſtification and Salvation: But this acceptation is not in Scripture called by the name of any other Grace: therefore it is taken for an Act of faith. The Maj. I hope no Chriſtian will deny. For when Chriſt is offered to the world as their Saviour, Redeemer, Teacher, King-Husband; who can think that the accepting of him is not required, yea even in the offer? Not a phyſical Reception which ſome abſurdly and dangerouſly dream of, but a moral; as when a people take a man for their King or Teacher; or a woman takes a man for her Husband. And for the Minor: Receiving Chriſt offered is not uſually expreſſed in the term, Hope, Joy, Charity, Repentance; therefore it is included in the word Faith (unleſs you can name ſome other Grace which it is uſually expreſſed by.)

4. The Grace by which we are united to Chriſt is Faith: But it is receiving Chriſt by which we are ſo united to him; therefore it is faith which is the receiving of Chriſt. I ſuppoſe none will deny that it is Chriſt himſelf that we muſt be united to by believing, and not the Word or Promiſe; and that it is receiving Chriſt which unites us to him, is obvious both from the language of Scripture, and the nature of the thing. A People is united to their Prince, as the head of the Republique, and a Church to their Teacher, and a woman to her Husband, by the Wills conſent or acceptance, and not properly▪ (but only initially, preparatorily, imperfectly and improperly, and if it be alone, not at all) by believing the Truth of their words. Ameſius ſaith, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. §. 18 Fides etiam cum ſit primus actus vitae noſtrae, qua Deo in Chriſto vivimus, conſiſtat neceſſe eſt in unione cum Deo, quam nullo modo facere poteſt Aſſenſus adhibitus veritati quae eſt de Deo.

5. By faith it is that we give up our ſelves to be Chriſts Diſciples, Subjects, Members; (For Scripture aſcribes not this to other Graces uſually or chiefly. And to take him for our Saviour and Head, and give up our ſelves as his redeemed and Members, is all one work.) But it is not by Aſſent only, chiefly or fully at all, that we give up our ſelves to Chriſt as Diſciples, Members, &c. Therefore it is not by Aſſent properly or fully that we receive Chriſt. So Ameſius ubi ſupra, §. 19. Crediturus etiam porro cum ex miſeriae ſenſu, & omnimo…ae liberationis, cum in ſe, tum in aliis defectu, neceſſe habeat ſe dedere Deo in Chriſto tanquam Servatori ſufficienti & fideli, Deditionem iſtam facere non poteſt ullo modo per Aſſenſum Intellectus, ſed per Conſenſum Voluntatis. And indeed I think this Dedition or ſelf-delivery to be part of Faith: and that the covenanting in heart with God in Chriſt, is the very juſtifying faith, taking him for ours, and giving up our ſelves to him as his: and the external Covenanting is the profeſſion of Faith: and that Baptiſm is the marriage-ſolemnization, and engaging ſign and means.

6. That Act which cannot be diſcerned in a Saint (in it ſelf) from what may be in the wicked, is not the receiving of Chriſt (fully or properly) which juſtifies: But the Act of Aſſent to the Truth of the Goſpel, as it is in a Saint, cannot in it ſelf be diſcerned from what may be in the wicked. Therefore the Act of Aſſent is not the Receiving of Chriſt which juſtifies.

The Major is hence evident: In that juſtifying faith being the condition of our Juſtification, muſt needs be the great Mark to know by, whether we are juſtified or no: But if it could not be known to be ſincere it ſelf, in vain is it made a Mark to know our ſtate by: yea or a Condition, almoſt, when a man can never tell when he performeth it. The Minor I have endeavoured to prove in an Additional Chap. to the third part of my Book of Reſt, to which for brevity, I refer you. Dr. Stoughton, I have there ſhewed you, ſaith as I: A…eſius ſaith, Medul. l. 1. c. …. §. 4. quāvis fides praeſuppmat ſemper notitiā Evangelii, nulla tamen datur in quoquā cognitio ſalutifera, & ab illa quo in quibuſdam non ſalvandis reperitur, diverſa, nif… conſequenter ad actum iſtū voluntatis, & ab ipſo dependens. Job. 7.17. and 8.31.32. 1 John. 2.3. I doubt not but (in the Intenſneſs of Degree) there is a difference between the Intellectual acts (as Knowledge and Aſſent) in a Saint and a wicked man: but if any think that they are in themſelves diſcernable, I would he would tell me one Mark of the difference. In their different Effects on the Will, I know they are diſcernable.

7. If you acknowledge that other Graces receive Chriſt as well as Faith, and receiving of Chriſt doth make him ours, and ſo juſtifie; then you muſt acknowledge that other Graces juſtifie as well as faith; (yea not ſecondarily only, but as Principally as Faith:) But that you will be loth to do. The conſequence will not be avoided, but by ſhewing that there is a twofold receiving of Chriſt, and that one juſtifieth, and the other not: which when you have proved from Scripture, I will yield: but then at leaſt I ſhall gain this, that receiving Chriſt juſtifies not properly ex natura actus, ſed ex voluntate Ordinantis: and if I get that, I get the main part of the cauſe in controverſie.

8. Affiance is judged by Divines to be an Act of the Will: But Affiance is judged by the ſame Divines to be the juſtifying Act: Therefore they judge that the juſtifying Act (and conſequently the Reception of Chriſt) belongs to the Will.

9. The Velle or Elicite act of the Will which I inſiſt on, is the very firſt Act, and goes before Affiance (as it denotes any other Act of the Will:) Therefore either this Velle muſt be the juſtifying Faith and Reception of Chriſt, or elſe they muſt ſay that there is a ſaving reception of Chriſt that goes before the juſtifying or Reception: which ſure they will not grant, that make that Faith the actus primas vitae ſpiritualis.

10. Laſtly, The opinion ſeems to me ſo Improbable, without and againſt reaſon, and ſo dangerous [that God doth aſſign one only Act of the ſoul to the Office of juſtifying, eſpecially the act of aſſent] that I dare not entertain it without proof It is improbable that in a Moral, Political, Theological Matter, the Holy Ghoſt ſhould ſpeak, as if it were in the ſtricteſt diſcourſe of Phyſicks. It is improbable that God ſhould ſpeak to man in ſuch a Moral diſcourſe, ſo as no men uſe to ſpeak, and therefore ſo as men could not, without a further explication underſtand. Doth he that ſpeaks of receiving a man to be our Husband, King, Maſter, &c. mean it of one only Act? (though I know Conſent is the chief.) Or he that gives any great matter on Condition of ſuch Receiving, Doth he mean that any one ſingle Act is that Condition? Much leſs Aſſent.

Or is there any likelyhood, that when other Acts do receive the ſame Object, Chriſt, in a way of as high honouring him, that yet God ſhould confine Juſtification to one Act, ſetting by all the reſt? Yea when the reſt are acknowledged to be part of the Condition? (and Receiving as Lord, to be the fides quae?) I know God is not bound to give man a Reaſon of his Laws: but yet he uſually doth it: and we muſt take heed of aſſerting that to be Gods Law, which appears unreaſonable, till we can prove what we ſay. Yea what a dangerous loſs will Chriſtians then be at, who will hardly ever be able to find out this ſingle Act, what it is and when they have it? And he that knows how quick Spirits are in their actings, and withall how little able we are to obſerve and diſcern them, perhaps many doubt, whether you can find a name for any ſingle act of a ſoul, or know when it is one Act, and when many. In the forementioned Inſtance, A woman is condemned for Treaſon; the Prince writeth to her, that he hath dearly paid her Ranſom & will not only deliver her, but alſo make her his Queen, if ſhe will Believe this, and Receive him accordingly; If now the Lawyers ſhould diſpute the caſe, what ſingle act it was that ſhe was Delivered and Dignified by, whether an act of the Intellect only, or of the Will only? whether Aſſent only, or Affiance? Yea whether agendo vel patiendo (as many here do.) would not men think that learning made them dote? And I would entreat you to conſider, whether it were Gods Deſign in the Goſpel, to advance any one Act of mans ſoul above the reſt, and ſo to honour it? or rather to advance the Lord Jeſus whom faith Receiveth? as Mr. Gataker tels Sal… marſh, Many ſpeak dangerouſly in over-magnifying their own faith, when they ſhould magnifie Chriſt whom it relates to. I know the great thing that ſticks with ſome, is that the Scripture oft ſeems to deſcribe faith by the Act of Aſſenting. But conſider, ſo it doth in other places by Truſting, Reſting, Taking, Receiving, Coming, Eating and Drinking, (which Metaphors muſt needs ſignifie acts of the Will,) &c. which ſhew that it is not any ſingle Act. Again, as I ſaid, the whole is denominated from the firſt leading and moſt difficult Act: the Language of Scripture is much fitted to the times and temper of the perſons to whom it was ſpoken. Now the Jews did generally and gladly acknowledge that the Meſſias or Mediator muſt be Received, Welcomed, Honoured, Loved, ſubmitted to: but they could not Believe that Chriſt was he; And this was fooliſhneſs to the Gentiles alſo, as well as a ſtumbling-block to the Jews; that one that lived and walked among them, and ſeemed a poor contemptible man, and at laſt was crucified, ſhould be God and the great Redeemer and Lord of the world. I tremble ſometimes to think, if we had lived our ſelves in thoſe times, how hard it would have been even to us to believe; ſo that when the great Difficult act is named, the other (Conſent and Affiance) are ſtill implyed, and included. I will end with Ameſius true obſervation to this purpoſe, Medul. l. 1. c. 3. Quamvis in ſcripturis aliquando Aſcenſus veritati quae eſt de Deo & Chriſto, Joh. 1.50. habetur pro vera fide; includitur tamen ſemper ſpecialis fiducia: at que adeo omnibus in locis ubi ſermo eſt de ſalutari fide, vel praeſupponitur fiducia in Meſſiam, & indicatur tantum determinatio, vel applicatio ejus ad perſonam Chriſti; vel per Aſſenſum illum deſignatur, tanquam effectum per ſuam cauſam, Joh. 11.25, 26, 27. (§ 20.)

The ſecond Argument which you anſwer, lyeth thus. If Faith be the work of the Heart and the whole Heart, then it is not only in the Underſtanding, but in the Will alſo. But the former is the words of Scripture, Act. 8.37. Rom. 10.10. Ergo, &c.

Here you anſwer that [the whole heart notes not every inward faculty, but (as often) ſincerity.] To which I Reply, 1. The word [whole] I yield to Illyricus ſignifies the ſincerity, which is uſually expreſſed by Integrity, but the word [Heart] ſignifies the ſubject; and is commonly taken for the Will, and oft for the whole ſoul, Ʋnderſtanding and Will, (as moſt Fathers, Schoolmen and Divines judge in the Point, though the two former placed too much of it in the Aſſent:) but where and how oft do you find the word [Heart] uſed for the ſole Intellect? I pray ſhew the place. 2. The proverbial ſpeech [with all the Heart] is not uſed in Rom. 10.10. but only ſubject barely expreſſed: with the Heart man believeth to Righteouſneſs.

My third Argument (as you place it) was to another uſe, which is of leſs moment. As I judge Faith to be taken, 1. ſometimes more ſtrictly for meer Aſſent to a Teſtimony: (ſo James takes it when he ſaith, the Devils believe.) 2. And ſometimes more fully for Aſſent and Acceptance, or Conſent: (ſo Paul takes it; and ſo it Juſtifieth.) So 3. I ſuppoſe it is ſometime taken moſt largely and improperly, for the full performance of the conditions of the New Covenant. If any deny this, I have no mind to contend for it, becauſe it is but about a word, and not the thing. Your anſwer is twofold: 1. that Heb. 5.9. ſpeaks of obeying Chriſt, but doth not call faith obeying Chriſt. I Reply. That Obedience which containeth the Condition of ſalvation by Chriſt (whereof Juſtification is a part) muſt needs include Faith: But the word Obedience Heb. 5 9 containeth the condition of ſalvation by Chriſt; therefore it includes faith. He is become the Author of Eternal ſalvation to all them that obey him.

Your ſecond anſwer is, [It may be obedience by Aſſent, that Chriſt is the Meſſiah, died, roſe, &c.] Repl. 1. If Obedience of meer Aſſent be not made the condition of Eternal ſalvation in Scripture, then it is not that obedience which is here mentioned: But the former is true: therefore the latter. 2. The firſt Aſſent to theſe Goſpel Truths is not in a full proper ſence called Obedience to Chriſt at all: therefore not here to be ſo underſtood. As ſubjection, ſo obedience is a term of Relation on ſuppoſing the Authority of a Superior, the acknowledgement of that Authority, A command from that Superior, and that the action be therefore done becauſe ſo commanded. Now the firſt Aſſent to, or acknowledgement of the Redeemers Office and Soveraignty, muſt needs in order of Nature precede all obedience to him as a Soveraign. I confeſs improperly a man may be ſaid to obey, when he yields to the Reaſon and perſwaſion of another; but this wants the very form of obedience properly ſo called. If it be true that the firſt Acceptance of Chriſt for our Soveraign as Redeemer, by the Wills conſent, may be both the Reception of him for King, and Obedience to him: Yet in order of Nature it is reſpectively a Reception firſt; though in time it is both at once. But the firſt Aſſent to Chriſts Soveraignty cannot be an obeying him as Soveraign. And for the underſtanding the Text, when I find Chriſt give the world, a ſyſteme of Precepts, and tell them that he is become the Author of Eternal Salvation to all them that obey him, I dare not without Reaſon reſtrain that obedience (in the ſence of it) to ſome one or two acts: Eſpecially when I find that he hath made the like promiſe on condition of other acts of ours beſides Believing: as in many Text I have ſhewed in thoſe Aphor. Take my yoke and burden, &c. Learn of me to be meek and lowly, &c. and I will eaſe you, and ye ſhall find reſt: Forgive and ye ſhall be forgiven. He that confeſſeth and forſaketh his ſin ſhall have mercy, with multitudes of the like. And Rom. 10. that is called Faith, ver. 14, 17. which is called obeying the Gospel, ver. 16. And if the Goſpel do as directly and urgently command Conſent as Aſſent; yea if it command love to Chriſt as of equal neceſſity with both, I have reaſon to think that in this large ſence, Faith includes it. Why ſhould obeying the Gospel, and obeying the Truth, be made Synonima's with Believing as it is one ſingle Act, when the Goſpel commands many other Acts as of aequal neceſſity and excellency? Let me argue thus ex conceſſis, from your ſelf and others. Moſt Divines affirm that the proper Reaſon why Faith juſtifieth, is its Relation to Chriſt; becauſe it is a Receiving of him (it juſtifies Relative i.e. A Chriſt received Juſtifies:) but Mr. Tomb…s confeſſeth that other Graces receive Chriſt as well as Faith: therefore other Graces juſtifie as well as Faith. The Conſequence is a Quatenus ad Omne.

What foreign and foreign import in their firſt ſignification, is not to our buſineſs ſo much as in what ſenſe they are commonly uſed: No doubt they may ſignifie properly our yielding to perſwaſion, improperly called Obeying: but that they are put for proper Obeying uſually in Scripture, moſt Interpreters affirm. You may therefore as well draw to your purpoſe the Latin Obedire, becauſe it is but quaſi ob-audire. Indeed the Obedience to a Teacher (as to Chriſt and his Miniſters, and of Scholars to their Maſter) who uſeth both Argument and Authority, is fully and fitly expreſſed in thoſe words. The word [Goſpel] is principally ſpoken of the Doctrine of Good tidings or Mercy by Chriſt (but ſure not only of the Hiſtorical or Declaratory part, but alſo, yea principally of the Promiſe or Offer:) but the whole New Covenant or Law of Chriſt (for ſo it is, and ſo the Ancients unaminouſly call it) containing Precepts and Threatnings alſo, is called his Teſtament, Covenant, Goſpel, being ſo denominated from the more excellent part. Heb. 7.18.19, 22. The Teſtament of Jeſus is oppoſed to the Commandments of the Law, and called Better: therefore it comprizeth Chriſts Commands, proper to him. And is it not Chriſts whole Law which is of force when he is dead, and called his Teſtament? Heb. 9.17. And when the Apoſtle ſaith, They were made able Miniſters of the New Teſtament, doth he mean only of the Hiſtory, or the Precept of faith, and not of Love, Hope, Repentance, &c. Let his preaching witneſs, as the Expoſitors, (2 Cor. 3.6.) Or let Chriſt in giving them their Commiſſion tell you what that New Teſtament is, Mat. 28. Go Diſciple all Nations, &c. teaching them to obſerve all things what ever I command. And not to ſtrive about words, you know that New Law of Chriſt, which is called his Teſtament, Covenant, Goſpels, &c. hath all the Precepts in it which you mention. Is it not Precepts as well as Narrations which Mark calls the Goſpel, Mar. 1.1.? Was it not the Goſpel which Chriſt and the Apoſtles preached? And they preached Repentance and Faith▪ and ſo commanded Duty: If a man looſe his Life for publiſhing or obeying Chriſts Precepts, doth not the Promiſe belong to him, Mar. 8.35. and 10 29? Or is that Promiſe to them only that ſuffer for the Declarative part only? Is the Goſpel that muſt be publiſhed among all Nations, the Hiſtory only? Mar. 13.10 Was the Precept of Accepting Chriſt, loving him in ſincerity and obeying him &c. no part of that Goſpel▪ to which Paul was ſeparated? Rom. 1.1. in which he ſerved in Spirit, ver. 9. of which he was not aſhamed, ver. 16. and which he was put in truſt With, 1 Theſſ 2.2, 4. Was it only the Declaration of Chriſts Death, Reſurrection, &c. which is the Goſpel according to which mens ſecrets muſt be judged? Rom. 2.16. or according to which the Jews are enemies, Rom. 11.28. compared with Luk. 19.27. Is not it larglyer taken, 2 Cor. 8.18? And ſubjection to the Goſpel implies it preceptive, 2 Cor. 9.13. Peters withdrawing and ſeparating from the uncircumciſion, and fearing the Jews, and diſſembling, and Barnabas with him, was A not walking according to the Truth of the Goſpel, Gal. 2.14. The falſe Apoſtles preached another Goſpel, and the Galathians turned to another Goſpel, when the former preached, and the later received the Doctrine of the Neceſſity of being circumciſed, and keeping Moſes Law, Gal. 1.6, 7. ſo that the word [Teſtament] and [Goſpel] includes Laws or Precepts of Duty.

4. To that of the ſenſe of Gal. 3.12.23. about the largeſt extent of the word Faith, it being as I ſaid, of ſo ſmall moment, I intend not to inſiſt on it. My meaning is but this; that ſome other Graces are intended reductively, and the chief named for all. But by your anſwer I underſtand, 1. That you take not faith to be the whole fulfilling of the condition of the New Covenant: which conceſſion ſhall ſatisfie me, what ever you think of the ſenſe of the Word, of theſe Texts. 2. but the reſt of your Anſ. I am unſatisfied in. You ſay [by Faith only the condition of the Covenant concerning Juſtificaiion in this Life is fulfilled: not concerning every benefit of the New Covenant: Repentance is the condition of Remiſſion of ſins: forgiveing others, doing good to the Saints, of entering into Life.] Repl. 1. You know that not Wotton and many great Divines of England only, but of the moſt famous Tranſmarine, do take Juſtification and Remiſſion to be one and the ſame thing. I have received Animadverſions from divers learned Divines lately on theſe Aphoriſms, and three or four of them blame me for making any difference between Juſtification and Remiſſion; though I make as little as may be. And can you think then that Remiſſion and Juſtification have ſeveral conditions? If they are not wholly the ſame, yet doubtleſs the difference is exceeding ſmall, and rather notional then real. The ſame Commination of the Law doth both condemn and oblige to puniſhment. Remiſſion is a diſcharge from the Obligation to Puniſhment; and Juſtification is a diſcharge from the condemnation. So much then as that Obligation to Puniſhment, differs from the Laws condemnation, (which is nothing, or ſo little as it is not obvious to be diſcerned,) ſo much doth Remiſſion differ from Juſtification. Yea even thoſe Divines that in pleading for the intereſt of the active Righteouſneſs to Juſtification, do to that end make Juſtification to have two parts; yet one of them, they ſay, is Remiſsion of ſin; as the other is the Imputation of Righteouſneſs. And I pray how then can theſe two parts of the ſame Juſtification have two divers conditions, ſo as one is appropriated to one, and excluded from the other? I remember no reformed Divines, but they either make Juſtification and Remiſsion to be all one; or Remiſsion to be part of Juſtification, or elſe to be two Relations (or other effects) immediately and at once (in order of time, if not of nature) reſulting or proceeding from the ſame foundation (materially) or other cauſe. Though Gataker and Bradſhaw make them to differ, it is but in this narrow (and almoſt unconceivable way) but in time to concur. I muſt therfore differ from you in this, that they have divers conditions: and wait for your proof of it. But it ſeems you will give us leave to ſay, A man is not pardoned by faith only; And yet he is juſtified by faith only! and that as a condition! Faith then it ſeems can do the whole, but not one half (as ſome judge) or can do, and not do the ſame thing (as others.)

2. But do you think that Repentance is not neceſſarily Antecedent to Juſtification, as well as to Remiſſion? If you ſay No; the current of the Goſpel Doctrine will confute you: which uſually putteth Repentance before Faith: and thoſe Divines that ſay it followeth after it, do yet make them concur in order of time. But if Repentance do neceſſarily precede Juſtification, (as I doubt not but you will yield) then let me know to what purpoſe, or under what notion or reſpect, if not as a Condition? Can you find any lower place to give it? 3. But if you ſhould mean that Faith and Repentance are the condition of our firſt Juſtification and Remiſsion, but afterwards only of our Remiſsion. I Anſwer, 1. According to your Judgement (who take Juſtification to be one act tranſient, once only performed, and neither a continued Act, nor renewed, or repeated,) neither Faith nor Repentance afterwards performed, are any conditions of our Juſtification in this Life. This may ſeem a heavy charge, but it is a plain Truth. For that Juſtification which we receive upon our firſt believing hath only that firſt Act of faith for its condition (or as others ſpeak, its Inſtrumental cauſe) We are not juſtified to day by that act of Faith, which we ſhall perform to Morrow, or a Twelvemonth hence; ſo that according to your opinion, and all that go that way, it is only one (the firſt) Act of Faith which juſtifies; and all the following Acts through our whole life, do no more to our Juſtification, then the works of the Law do. I would many other Divines that go your way (for it is common as to the diſpatching of Juſtification by one Act) would think of this foul abſurdity. (You may add this alſo to what is ſaid before, againſt your opinion herein,) Where then is the Old Doctrine of the juſt living by faith, as to Juſtification? I may bear with theſe men (or at leaſt, need not wonder,) for not admitting Obedience or other Graces to be conditions of Juſtification as continued, when they will not admit faith it ſelf. Who ſpeaks more againſt faith, they or I? When I admit as neceſſary that firſt act, and maintain the neceſsity of repeated acts, to our continued Juſtification; and they exclude all ſave one Inſtantaneous act? 2. And what reaſon can any man give, why Repentance ſhould be admitted as a condition of our firſt Juſtification, and yet be no condition of the continuance of it? or what proof is there from Scripture for this? I ſhall prove that the continuance of our Juſtification hath more to its condition then the beginning; (though learned men, I know gain-ſay it:) but ſurely leſs it cannot have.

4. But why do you ſay only of Repentance that [it is the condition of Remiſion] and of forgiving others, that [it is the condition of entring into life?] Have you not Chriſts expreſs words, that forgiving others is a condition of our Remiſſion? if ye forgive men their treſpaſſes, your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you forgive not men, &c. Nay, is not Reformation and Obedience ordinarily made a condition of forgiveneſs? I refer you to the Texts cited in my Aphoriſms: Waſh you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings, &c. then if your ſins be as crimſon, &c. He that confeſſeth and forſaketh his ſin, ſhall have mercy. And I would have it conſidered, if Remiſſion and Juſtification be either the ſame, or ſo neer as all Divines make them, whether it be poſſible, that forgiving others, and Reformat on or new Obedience ſhould be a condition of the continuance or renewal of a pardoning Act, and not of Juſtification? Doubtleſs, the general Juſtification muſt be continued, as well as the general pardon: and a particular Juſtification I think after particular ſins, is needfull as well as particular pardon: or if the name ſhould be thought improper, the thing cannot be denyed. Judicious Ball ſaith as much as I (yet men were not ſo angry with him,) Treat. of Covenant. pag. 20.21. [A diſpoſition to good works is neceſſary to Juſtification, being the qualification of an active lively faith. Good works of all ſorts are neceſſary to our continuance in the ſtate of Juſtification, and ſo to our final Abſolution, if God give opportunity: but they are not the cauſe of, but only a precedent qualification or condition to final forgiveneſs and Eternal bliſs.] And pag. 21. [This walking in the light as he is in the light, is that qualification whereby we become immediatly capable of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, or actual participants of his propitiation, which is the ſole immediate cauſe of our Juſtification, taken for Remiſſion of ſins or actual approbation with God.] And pag. 73. [Works then, or a purpoſe to walk with God, juſtifie as the paſſive qualification of the ſubject capable of Juſtification, or as the qualification of that faith which juſtifieth.] So he.

5. How will you ever prove, that our Entering into Life, and our continued remiſſion or Juſtification have not the ſame conditions? that thoſe Graces are excluded from one which belong to the other. Indeed the men that are for Faiths▪ Inſtrumentality, ſay ſomewhat to it; but what you can ſay, I know not. And for them, if they could prove Faith Inſtrumental in juſtifying co nomine, becauſe it receives Chriſt by whom we are juſtified; they would alſo prove it the Inſtrument of Glorifying, becauſe it Receives Chriſt by and for whom we are ſaved and Glorified. And ſo if the Inſtrumentality of Faith muſt exclude obedience from juſtifying us, it muſt alſo exclude it from Glorifying us. And I marvel that they are ſo looſe and eaſie in admitting obedience into the work of ſaving, and yet not of continuing or conſummating Juſtification, when the Apoſtle ſaith, By Grace ye are ſaved, by Faith, and ſo excludes obedience from Salvation in the general as much as he any where doth from Juſtification in particular.

6. But laſtly, I take what you grant me in this Section, and profeſs that I think in effect you grant me the main of the cauſe that I ſtand upon. For, as you grant, 1. That faith is not the whole condition of the Covenant. 2. That Repentance alſo is the condition of Remiſſion (which is near the ſame with Juſtification.) 3. That obedience is the condition of Glorification (which hath the ſame conditions with final and continued Juſtification.) 4. So you ſeem to yield all this, as to our full juſtification at Judgement. For you purpoſely limit the conditionality of meer faith to our Juſtification in this Life. But if you yield all that I deſire (as you do, if I underſtand you) as to the laſt juſtification at Judgement, then we are not much differing in this buſineſs. For I take (as Mr. Burges doth, Lect. of Juſtification 29▪) our compleateſt and moſt perfect Juſtification to be that at Judgement. Yea, and that it is ſo eminent and conſiderable here, that I think all other Juſtification is ſo called chiefly as referring to that. And me thinks above all men, you ſhould ſay ſo too, who make Juſtification to lie only in ſententi… judicis, and not in ſententia Legis: And ſo all that go your way (as many that I meet with do.) If then we are juſtified at Gods great Tribunal at Judgement, by obedience as the ſecondary part of the condition of the Covenant (which you ſeem to yield.) 1. We are agreed in the main. 2. I cannot yet believe that our Juſtification at that Bar hath one condition, and our Juſtification in Law (or in this Life, as continued) another. He that dyeth juſtified, was ſo juſtified in the hour of dying, on the ſame conditions as he muſt be at Judgement. For 1. There are no conditions to be performed after death. 2. Sententia Legis & ſententia judicis do juſtifie on the ſame terms. Add to all this what I grant to you, [that our Juſtification when firſt begun here, is by faith (ſuppoſing Repentance) before and without the practice of obedience,] and then ſee how near we are.

The fifth Argument which you mention is grounded on the common Maxim, Non eſt diſtinguendum ubi Lex non diſtinguit, and runs thus: If the Scripture in propounding to man the adaequate Object of juſtifying Faith, (Chriſt) do not divide Chriſt, and ſay, [In believing him to be a Prieſt, your faith is juſtifying, but not in believing him to be King, or Prophet, or Head,] but propoundeth Chriſt undivided as this Object; then muſt not we diſtinguiſh or divide, but take Chriſt entirely for the object of juſtifying Faith. But the Scripture doth not divide or diſtinguiſh in this caſe; therefore we muſt not. It is Chriſt that muſt be Received, and believed in: but a Saviour and not a King, is not Chriſt. It is Chriſt as Chriſt. His very Name ſignifieth as directly his Kingly office at leaſt, as his Prieſtly. And if you confeſs that the ſame act of Faith at the ſame inſtant Receives Chriſt both as Prieſt and King, then I ſhall ſtay my aſſent to your opinion till you bring me the Scripture that ſaith, it is faith in this notion; and not in that which juſtifies. God ſpeaks plainly that whoſoever believeth ſhall be juſtified from all things, &c. And you confeſs this Believing is the Receiving Chriſt for King and Prieſt; and that it juſtifies as a condition; and doth not your (unproved) diſtinction overthrow this again?

The ſixth Argument which you mention, runs thus: If Scripture particularly propound Chriſt as King, as the Object of juſtifying Faith, then Chriſt as King is the object of it: But Scripture doth ſo: Ergo, &c. I have named you ſome places where it ſo doth, a little before.

The ſeventh is to the ſame purpoſe with the fifth. You name two Texts as proving that Scripture tyeth Juſtification to the Receipt of Chriſt as Prieſt only: But there is not a word in the Texts to that end. Rom 3.25. ſpeaks of Faith in Chriſts blood, but not a word for excluding Faith in his Obedience, Reſurrection, Interceſſion, or Power, much leſs excluding our conſent to his full Authority or Office. The word [Only] is not in the Text. You may as well ſay, that it is [only] by faith in his Name, and ſo not in his blood, becauſe other Texts ſay, it is by faith in his Name. See Acts 13.16. The other Text, Rom. 5.9. ſpeaks neither a word of Faith, nor excludes Chriſts obedience (by which many are made Righteous) nor Reſurrection (for he Roſe again for our Juſtification.) nor his Interceſſion, (for who ſhall condemn us? it is Chriſt that died, yea rather that Roſe again, and is even at the right hand of God, who alſo maketh Interceſſion for us, Rom. 8.34.) And all theſe parts of Chriſts Prieſtly Office muſt be excluded, if you will affix the word [Only] to the Text, which ſaith, we are juſtified by his blood. Indeed you make ſo a quick diſpatch in the Controverſie about the active and paſſive Righteouſneſs.

The ſame anſwer ſerves to what you ſay in the eighth, and ninth, and tenth, being the ſame with that you ſay here. I marvail how you would form an Argument from 2 Cor. 5 21. Gal. 2.21 I Where you ſay, Obedience is not an eſſential part of Faith, I yield it willingly, taking Faith properly and ſtrictly, and not in the largeſt improper ſenſe. But that it juſtifies as immediatly as it Receiveth him as King, as it doth in Receiving him as Prieſt, I ſhall take for proved, till you prove the lawfulneſs here of dividing Chriſt, and Faith, or diſtinguiſhing, and appropriating juſtifying to one reſpect, and excluding another in the ſame act of Believing, and the ſame Object Chriſt. And to what is ſaid before, let me yet add this, 1. If Chriſt be not received as a true compleat Saviour, except he be Received as King, then Faith juſtifies not as it Receiveth him for Prieſt only: (for you here confeſs that he juſtifies as he is Received as a Saviour.) But the Antecedent is evident: for as King he ſaveth his people from ſin and Satan, and all their enemies, Ergo, &c.

2. If Chriſt as King do juſtifie us, then he muſt be Received as King to Juſtification. But the former is undenyable, Mat. 25. &c. Ergo. &c. The Conſequence is raiſed on your own Grounds.

The eleventh Argument (as you number) doth ſuppoſe ſeveral points (very weighty with me, which I undertake to make good) which do overthrow the unſound grounds which the contrary minded go upon. 1. I ſuppoſe that Faith juſtifieth principally ex Voluntate ordinantis, and not ex natura actus; though it have Aptioudinem ad officium in ipſa rei natura. 2. I ſuppoſe Chriſt is firſt received by Faith, and his Benefits come with him, and in order of nature are after the Receiving of him. Theſe things being ſuppoſed, it ſtrongly perſwades me, that the entertainment of Chriſt as King, was never intended by God to be excluded from the conditional Intereſt in Juſtification, when I find in Scripture that his own Dominion was an end of his Death, Reſurrection and Reviving, and that God doth ſo inſiſt on this point, to bring the world to ſubjection to Chriſt, Pſalm 2. &c. And that the honouring and advancing of God the Father, and the Mediator God-man, is the moſt Noble excellent uſe of our faith. Is it then any whit probable that it is Gods meaning to exclude this reſpect of the act from any conditionality herein? Shall I again tell you the true ground of mens miſtake (as I think) in this Point? They look on Faith as if it were a natural Reception, and did make the thing received theirs immediatly and formally, as it is ſuch a Receiving ex natura rei, and not as it is Receptio moralis whoſe effect depends wholly on, and its efficacy or Intereſt is derived directly from the Will, Conſtitution or Ordination of the Legiſlator and Donor, and ſo doth what it doth as a condition in Law-ſence. And I pray ſearch, whether in this Queſtion, you do not confound your Notions ex parte objecti, and ex parte Actus? Let me conclude all by the Illuſtration of my former ſimilitude. A woman condemned for Treaſon, is Ranſomed by the Prince, who Decreeth, that if ſhe will Believe that he is her Redeemer, and will take him as her Maſter, Redeemer and Husband, ſhe ſhall be Delivered and made his Princeſs; elſe not. Now the queſtion is, what is the condition of this womans deliverance and Dignity? Is the condition of her Deliverance and Pardon, the taking him only under the Notion of a Pardoner or Deliverer? And is the condition of her Dignity, only the Taking him as a Prince who is Rich and Honourable? No. The condition on her part, is the Taking him entirely to all theſe uſes, or in all theſe Reſpects, and more: even the marrying him, and covenanting to be his, as a faithfull ſpouſe and Subject; and firſt acknowledging what he hath done for her freedom and advancement, then to take him for her Husband and Lord, that hath done this to advance and free her. And while ſhe is faithfull to this marriage covenant, in the performance, ſhe ſhall enjoy theſe Benefits: but if ſhe forſake him and chooſe another, as with him ſhe received her Dignity, ſo with him ſhe ſhall loſe them all. So that ex parte actus here is no room for your quatenus and diſtinguiſhing. But now if the Queſtion be intended not ex parte Actus, or, what is the condition on her part, but only what is it in him that ſhe receives for her Husband, which doth deliver her? Why then we ſay, it is his Ranſom, his love and free mercy, &c. And if the Queſtion be, what is it in him that dignifieth her? Why I ſay, it is his Dignity and Riches of which ſhe participateth; together with the ſame his free mercy as the Impulſive cauſe. And ſo ſhe is Dignified by Receiving or marrying him quatenus a Prince, rich and Honourable, and not quatenus a Redeemer only: and ſhe is delivered by taking him as a Deliverer or Redeemer, and not as an honourable Prince. The meaning of all this is no more, but that he doth not redeem her as a Prince, nor dignifie her under the notion of a Redeemer: and ſo on his part you may diſtinguiſh. But yet as to the conditionality on her part, there is no room for diſtinguiſhing at all. For is not this all that Paul ayms at in ſpeaking ſo oft of Faith in Relation to Chriſts death and Righteouſneſs, rather then to his Government? to note [what in Chriſt received doth juſtifie] rather then [what reſpect of our act of faith is the condition?] And may not this tend to an accommodation between us in this Point? eſpecially with thoſe Divines that ſay, Faith is taken Relatively, when we are ſaid to be Juſtified by it; and it is ſaid, to be Imputed to us for Righteouſneſs? The Lord enlighten our dark underſtandings, and give us love to the Truth and one another.

HAving done with this, I proceed to your Additional Paper, which I lately received, and for which I am alſo really thankfull to you. But the Anſwer needs not be long. 1. You think the 66. Theſ. hardly reconcilable with the words cited out of pag, 191 of that of Baptiſm, Rom. 3.25 & 5.9. But I ſee not the leaſt appearance of a contradiction Chriſt whom juſtifying Faith receives, doth Redeem us by his blood, and not chiefly by his Principality; and he ſaves us as a Saviour, and ruleth us as a Ruler, &c. But that faith which on our part is the condition of our intereſt in him & his Benefits, is the Believing in, or receiving Chriſt as Chriſt, or as he is offered to us in the Goſpel (as the Aſſembly in their Catechiſm well expreſs it. Davenant, Culverwell, Throgmorton, Mr. Norton of New England (Catech▪ pag. 29.) and many more ſay as I in this: but I will not weary you with citations having been ſo tedious already. But I am glad to feel you yielding to the Truth, (for it is a weighty Point) as you ſeem in the next words, where you ſay that Chriſts Death is the ſole or chief object of Faith as Juſtifying. If you yield once that it and his Prieſtly Office is not the ſole Object, I will never contend with you about their Precedency, which is chief. I have confeſſed to you, that it is a fuller (and ordinarily fitter) phraſe, to ſay, we are juſtified by faith in his blood, then to ſay, we are juſtified by faith in his Government, becauſe it pointeth out Relatively the cauſality in the Object, and not only the conditionality in the Act. But I think when you reſpect the ſaid condition eſpecially, that then it is the fitteſt ſpeech to ſay, we are juſtified by faith in Chriſt.

2. YOur next are all of other Subjects. The ſecond is, whether Luke 12.24 import not a denial of Title in Chriſt to Judge. The anſwer is obvious, 1. He had not that derived Title from men, which was neceſſary to him that ſhould exerciſe the place of a Magiſtrate. 2. Chriſt ſpeaks not of Soveraignty (that he had:) but Magiſtracy (which is diſtinct from Soveraignty, as being the Executioner of Lawes, which Soveraignty makes, and being under the Law, when the Soveraign qua talis is above them.) 3. His Interrogation may perhaps be no Negation. 4. But the plain anſwer which I ſtick to is this. Chriſt had not then a Title or Right to the actual exerciſe of his power, as to divide Inheritances. The General of an Army to ranſom a Souldier that ſhould dye for Treaſon, doth agree with the King, that he will put himſelf in the place of that common ſouldier for a months time, and will do all his duty, and will venture his life in ſome deſperate ſervice. Now during this time while he is in the ſouldiers place, the General hath not title to the Actual Rule, &c. as before he had: not becauſe he hath loſt it, but becauſe it will not ſtand with the ſtate and duty of a ſouldier which he hath voluntarily put himſelf in. Yet at the ſame time, his Lieutenant General and other Officers that have their Commiſſions all from him do Govern. So here: will it follow that becauſe Chriſt had not Title by himſelf to exerciſe the place of a Ruler and Judge being then in the ſtate of a ſervant, that therefore now he hath not the Soveraignty?

3. YOur third is from Col. 1.14. I ſuppoſe you mean the thirteenth. But little know I how you would thence argue with any ſeeming ſtrength. Chriſt hath a threefold Kingdom. The firſt (where he moſt fully Ruleth) is the ſouls of Believers. It follows not, that a man that is not of this Kingdom, is not of Chriſts Kingdom at all. The Kingdom of God is thus within us. The ſecond is, The Church Viſible. This the Apoſtle here ſpeaks of, and of this Heathens are no members. The third is, The whole world of mankind, whom he hath bought under his Dominion, and to be at his Diſpoſal (Rom. 14.9. &c.) who are delivered into his hands, and over-rued by him, and he is their Rightfull King, and will Judge them as their King▪ and give them the reward of Rebellious Subjects that would not conſent to his actual Rule, (Luke 19.27, &c.) and not only as Rebels againſt God as Creator. If he be not their King, they cannot be judged Rebels againſt him. Yea the Law of Nature is now his Law, by which he in part Ruleth them though they know him not, (many know not the true God, who yet are partly Ruled by that his Law:). The Jews crucified their King, though they were Infidels, and knew him not to be their King. To conclude this Subject, I deſire you but to conſider, whether there be any inconvenience appearing in the acknowledgement of Chriſts General Dominion? and whether it be not the plain and frequent ſpeech of Scripture? And on the other ſide, whether it may not be of dangerous conſequence, as injurious to Chriſt, to deny ſo great a part of his Dominion? and excuſe not Infidels from the guilt of Rebellion againſt the Redeemer? And whether it be not introduced by Pious Divines meerly in heat of Diſputation, which uſually carryeth men into extreams? eſpecially leaſt they ſhould yield to univerſal Redemption in any kind? and leaſt they ſhould yield to the Magiſtrates power in Religion.

4. Your laſt Queſtion is about Univerſal Redemption. [If it be affirmed that Chriſt dyed for every child of Adam conditionally, it would be well proved from Scripture that the procuring of ſuch a conditional Law or Covenant, was the end or effect of Chriſts death: and whether the ſo interpreting Texts that ſpeak of his dying for all, will not ſerve for evaſions to put by the Arguments drawn from them to prove Chriſts ſatisfaction and merit proper to the Elect? &c.] Anſwer. 1. Though I do not doubt much of the point, yet I have no mind to meddle with the queſtion, as it concerns thoſe Pagans that never heard of Chriſt. Not for fear of any diſadvantage thence to the cauſe, but 1. Becauſe I find God ſpeaks ſparingly of thoſe to whom he ſpeaks not: it concerns not us ſo much to know his Counſel concerning others. 2. Becauſe it is an ill way of arguing to lay the ſtreſs of all on the moſt obſcure point; (as men do, that ſtudy more how to ſilence an adverſary, then to ſee the Truth) and to prove obſcurum per obſcurius. 2. This is a point that I cannot give you my thoughts of in a few words; there needs ſo much for Explication: and therefore being but here touched, I ſhall forbear. 3. I doubt not but to prove abundantly from Scripture with much evidence, what I aſſert in this. 4. It was not the only, nor the firſt effect of his Death, that Chriſt was [Satisfaction to Gods Juſtice for the Violation of the Law.] 5. That ſuch a conditional Law or Covenant is granted, and exſtant in Scripture, is as plain as moſt points in the Goſpel: and ſure no ſuch thing can be but upon Chriſts death as the meritorious cauſe. 6. So interpreting theſe Texts which are ſo to be interpreted, is no evaſion: And no Text will prove Chriſts ſatisfaction and Merit wholly proper to the Elect. Much leſs thoſe which ſay, He died for all men, That God intendeth only the Elect to be certainly ſaved by Chriſts death, I can eaſily prove from many other Texts: But if I ſhould prove it by theſe, it were ſtrange. It is an ill conſequence [Chriſt died for all men; therefore his ſatisfaction is proper to the Elect.] 7. In point of Law the Elect have no more Title to Chriſt and his Benefits, then any others (as Elect before they believe.) But Gods Decree hath from Eternity appropriated Salvation by Chriſt only to the Elect in point of Event. He that determined de eventu, that only the Elect ſhould be ſaved by Chriſt, did yet …hink it the fitteſt way to his glorious ends to make Chriſts Death a ſufficient ſatisfaction for all, & to make in his new Law a free deed of Gift of Chriſt, and all his Benefits to all that will receive him as he is offered: yet not engaging himſelf to publiſh this Law to every particular man; though it be of univerſal extent in the Tenor. The Promiſe names none as included; nor excludeth any, but who do wilfully exclude themſelves. But theſe things require fuller opening.

8. Laſtly, [Chriſt dying loco noſtro] as you ſay, is a term that needs as great caution for the true underſtanding it, as moſt that we make uſe of. The right underſtanding of it, is the main Ground of our ſafety and comfort: The wrong underſtanding it, is the very turning point to Antinomi…niſm, and the very Primum vivens & ultimum moriens, the Heart of the whole Syſtem of their Doctrine. That Chriſt in the perſon of Mediator, did ſuffer upon his voluntary undertaking what we ſhould have elſe ſuffered, and thereby made ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice for the breach of his Law, both Father and Son (whoſe Will is one) agreeing or reſolving, that yet no man ſhould have actual Remiſſion or Salvation hereby, but on condition of receiving the Redeemer for their Lord and Saviour: and thus Chriſt died loco omnium: this is ſound Doctrine. That at the ſame time it was the ſecret Will or Eternal Decree of the Father; and the Will of the Mediator de eventu, to give effectually Grace to believe to his Choſen only; and conſequently that they only ſhould be actually ſaved, and thus he died only loco Electorum, is alſo ſound Doctrine. But that Chriſt in dying did ſtrictly repreſent the perſon of the ſinner, ſo as either naturally, or morally in Law-ſenſe we may be ſaid to have ſatisfied then, in or by him, as the Law calls that the action of the Principal, which is done per Delegatum, D…puta…um, Vicarium, &c. this is the ſoul of Antinomianiſm, and directly and unavoidably introduceth Juſtifican. before Faith, or before we are born; the non-neceſſity of any other Juſtification, but in foro conſcientiae, it certainly overthrowrth all pardon of ſin at all, and ſo all Petition for Pardon, and all thanksgiving for it, with the reſt of their errors: yea makes man his own Redeemer. But I have been too long already. I ſenſibly acknowledge the truth of what you ſay That this is a matter of great moment, and needs great conſideration. I have beſtowed more conſideration about it, then about any other point in Divinity.

YOUR unfeigned Friend and Brother (who doubts not ere long to meet you in our Center and Reſt, where all our Difference in Judgement and Affection will be healed.) RICHARD BAXTER. Kederminſter, June 9. 1651.

Of Justification, Letter 11