Of Justification, Title page 5
THE FOURTH DISPVTATION.
Qu. Whether the Faith which Paul oppoſeth to Works in the Point of Juſtification, be one only Phyſical Act of the ſoul? Neg.
OR, Whether all Humane Acts, except one Phyſical Act of Faith, be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Juſtification? Neg.
By Richard Baxter.
LONDON, Printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, Book-ſeller in Kederminſter, and are to be ſold by him there, and by Nathaniel Ekins at the Gun in Pauls Church-yard. 1658.
Queſtion. Whether the Faith which Paul oppoſeth to Works in the Point of Juſtification, be one only Phyſical Act of the Soul? Neg. OR, Whether all Humane Acts, except one Phyſical Act of faith, be the Works which are excluded by Paul in the Point of Juſtification? Neg.
I PUT theſe two Queſtions together for brevity and Elucidation of the Matter in doubt; for ſo in effect they are but One▪ avoiding all unneceſſary Explication of terms concerning which we are agreed; it is but little that I have need to ſay for your underſtanding of the ſenſe of the Queſtion.
1. It is here ſuppoſed that Paul doth maintain Juſtification by Faith, and oppoſeth it to Juſtification by the works of the Law: and ſo oppoſeth Salvation by Grace and by works. 2. It is ſuppoſed that non datur tertium, there is no middle way of Juſtification beſides theſe two, by faith, or by Works: and therefore whatſoever Acts we are here juſtified by, it muſt needs follow, that thoſe Acts are none of the [Works] that Paul here ſpeaketh of as excluded: and whatſoever Acts are excluded are none of the Faith, by which Paul telleth us here that we are juſtified. This we are agreed on, and ſo it is often preſſed by my Opponents that there is no third way; which I grant them. But note that I do not therefore grant them that there is no tertium, or other act either implyed in Faith, or ſubſervient to it in that way of Juſtification that is by Faith: It was never Pauls meaning to exclude all other Gracious Acts relating to Chriſt, no not from this buſineſs of Juſtification, as attendants on Faith, or modifications of it, implyed in it, or ſubſervient to it, And therefore it will not follow that any third thing by which we are thus juſtified, is either Faith or Works; but only that is not Works, becauſe they are excluded.
3. I put the Phyſical Act whoſe Unity we ſpeak of, in contradiſtinction to one moral Fact, which may contain many Phyſical Acts: ſuch as Marriage, which is one in a civil or moral ſenſe, but many Phyſical Acts: and ſuch as almoſt all Contracts be; as taking a man to be my Prince, my Commander, my Tutor, my Phyſician, my Councellor, &c. which every one of them contain many Phyſical acts.
4. There is a fourfold Unity here to be diſcerned, that the term [One] may be underſtood. 1. A general Unity, and this is not it in queſtion. We are agreed that in genere actus, and in genere actus ſecundi, and in genere actus immanentis, Faith is but One. 2. A Unity of the loweſt Genus, and the ſuperi or ſpecies. 3. A Unity of the ſpecies ſpecialiſſima. 4. A Numerical Ʋnity. Our Queſtion is of the third: but yet becauſe the ſecond and fourth are alſo controverted, I ſhall ſpeak of them before I come to the Queſtion. And concerning the fourth I Aſſert, that [The Faith which Paul oppoſeth to Works in the Point of Juſtification, is not only one numerical Act of the Soul.
My Opponents in this (though they are unwilling to appear in the oppoſition) muſt needs be all thoſe that ſay, Juſtification is ſimul & ſemel, at once and but once, and that it is a good Argument againſt any acts or works after Faith that [They exiſt not till we are juſtified, therefore they are no conditions of our Juſtification:] and all thoſe that deny and ſcorn the diſtinction between 1. Our Juſtification at the firſt (or putting us into a juſtified ſtate) 2. And our daily Juſtification by the continuation of that ſtate. 3. And our frequently reiterated particular Juſtification from the Guilt of particular ſins. 4. And our final Juſtification by the ſentence of the Judge. Eſpecially by denying the ſecond, they muſt needs deny my Aſſertion, as ſhall be ſhewed anon.
Argum. 1. If Paul ſpeak not only of Juſtification as begun, but as continued, then the Faith which he oppoſeth to works is not only one numerical Act. (For there muſt needs go ſome other Numerical Act before it, or elſe the perſon could not be juſtified by faith before) But the Antecedent is true, as I prove from Rom. 4.18, 19. and Gal. 3. If Paul prove Juſtification by faith, from the inſtance of Abrahams believing after that he was juſtified, then he ſpeaketh not only of Juſtification as begun (or of our firſt Being juſtified) But the Antecedent is plain in the Text compared with Gen. 12. and 13 and 14. and 15. Abraham was a juſtified man before he believed the Promiſe of Sara's having a Son.
Argum. 2 If a true Believer have a juſtifying Faith after his firſt Juſtification, even as long as he liveth, then the Faith which Paul oppoſeth to works is not only one numerical Act (becauſe that firſt Numerical Act doth not continue with us.) But the Antecedent is true, as appeareth 1. from the forementioned Inſtance of Abraham. 2, From the neceſſity of a continued Active Juſtification: For the Paſſive elſe would ceaſe, and we ſhould be unjuſtified. If God did not continue to forgive us, and ſtill actively repute us juſt, and accept us as juſt and impute Righteouſneſs to us, and his Goſpel-Grant did not continually juſtifie us, (as every Fundamentum continually cauſeth the Relation,) we ſhould ceaſe to be juſtified: And Gods active Juſtification continueth not without the continuance of mans Actual or Habitual Faith: Otherwiſe he ſhould juſtifie an Infidel, and he ſhould juſtifie afterwards in another way, and on other terms then he did at firſt. 3. From the continued Efficacy of Chriſts Merits, Interceſſion and Covenant, which daily juſtifie us. So that he that ſaith, that he was never juſtified but once at one moment, and by one numemerical Act of Faith, muſt ſay that Chriſt was his Juſtifier actually but for a moment, and that he will not be beholden to him to juſtifie him any more.
And yet that no man may have a pretence of quarrelling about meer words, that hath a mind to it, let it ſtill be remembred, that as the word [Juſtification] is uſed to ſignifie the firſt making a man juſt that was unjuſt (relatively or qualitatively,) So I confeſs that God, that Chriſt, that the Covenant do juſtifie us Univerſally but once (though particularly from particular ſins often) And thus it is but one Act of Faith by which we are juſtified Relatively, and not the Habit at all. But as Juſtification is taken for the ſame Act continued (though the mutation on us be not ab eodem termino) ſo we are juſtified every moment, and have a juſtifying faith continually, and are juſtified by the Habit, at leaſt as much as by the Act; and in ſome reſpect more. The Sun doth as truly Illuminate our part of the world all day after, as at Sun riſing, and by the ſame Action or Emanation in kind: But as Illuminating is taken for turning night into day, or illuminating the dark world from its darkneſs, ſo it doth only illuminate it from break of day to Sun riſing. Your Leaſe of your houſe or Land doth firſt make you a Tenant of no▪ Tenant at the firſt ſealing and delivering: but it may by the ſame ſort of action continue your Right till it expire, and ſo continue you a Tenant; And thus we are continually juſtified by God, by Chriſt, by the Covenant and by Faith.
Now as to the ſecond kind or matter of Unity (of an Inferior Genus and Superior ſpecies;) this is two-fold. 1. As the Acts of mans ſoul are ſpecified and denominated from the Faculties or Powers: or (if any deny that real diſtinction of faculties) from the Objects of Intellection, Volition, &c. generally conſidered. 2. As the acts of the ſoul are ſpecified by their ſpecial Objects (though not ſpeciei ſpecialiſſimae.) As to the former, the queſtion is one of theſe two (which you will in terms, for they are one in ſenſe) Whether the act of Faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſtification, be only an act of the Intellect, or only an act of the Will? Or, Whether it have only Entity and Verity, or only Goodneſs for its Object? And in the ſecond caſe the Queſtion is this, Whether God alone, or Chriſt alone, or the Promiſe alone, or Pardon or Righteouſneſs alone, or Heaven alone &c. be the Object of that Faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſtification.
But the thing intended in our Queſtion is de ſpecie ſpecialiſſima, Whether it be but one ſpecial act which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſtification. Here are three more Propoſitions that I ſhall handle in order, though the laſt only be neceſſary to me.
Propoſition 2. The Faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſtification, is not only an Act of the Intellect, nor only of the Will.
I ſhall ſay but little of this, becauſe I have among Proteſtants but few Adverſaries. The Papiſts indeed ſeat it in the Intellect only: and ſo doth Camero (calling it a Perſwaſion) and ſome few Proteſtants: ſome few others (as Ameſius ſometimes) place it only in the Will, and take Aſſent to be but a preſuppoſed Act: and they call it Affiance▪ or (as Ameſius) alſo Election, Acceptance, or Conſent, or embracing, or Recumbency, or ſuch like. Pemble taking Truth and Goodneſs to be all one, and the Underſtanding and Will for all one, takes alſo Aſſent and Affiance for all one; but I ſhall go on the ſuppoſition that his ſingular opinion is commonly diſallowed; however the Scotiſts, and many others deny the real Diſtinction of Faculties. The common Vote of Proteſtant Divines is, that Faith is in both Faculties, the Intellect and Will, and hath for its object the Entity of Chriſts perſon, and the Verity of the Goſpel, and the goodneſs of Chriſt and his benefits offered, which Faith accepteth. Davenants Words are plain and true, Determ. Qu. 38. pag. 174. In actu fidei juſtificantis tota anima ſe convertit ad cauſam juſtificantem: And qu. 37. pag. 166. Fides illa quam Scriptura agnoſcit habet in ſe complicatum actum Voluntatis & Intellectus — 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.
Argument 1. The Object of this Faith is both Truth and Goodneſs: Therefore it is the act both of the Intellect and the Will. That Truth is the Object of it is evident, 1. In that the Metaphyſical Verity of Chriſts perſon is the Object of it, or elſe Chriſt were not the Object of it. 2. In that the moral Verity of the Goſpel, 1. as revealing Chriſt, 2. as promiſing pardon, is the object of it, as is confeſt, and the Scripture doth ſo plentifully declare, that it were ſuperfluous to cite the words.
That goodneſs is the object of it, appeareth, 1. In that Chriſt as Redeemer, Mediator, Saviour, is the object of it, and that is, Chriſt as neceſſary and good to us. It is Chriſt for our forgiveneſs, Juſtification and Salvation: and ſo under the formal notion of good. 2. In that it is a Promiſe as a Promiſe (Teſtament, Grant, or Deed of Gift) that is the Object by it. And it is Eſſential to theſe to be good to us as well as True: and the Truth is but for the good. 3. In that it is Pardon, Juſtification and Life eternal finally, that are the object of it; which as ſuch, and as offered to us, are good. If I thought theſe things needed proof, I would give you more.
Argument 2. The Scripture revealeth to us that this Faith is the Act both of the Intellect and the Will, therefore it is ſo. That it is the act of the Intellect, is ſo plain in Scripture, that I ſhould accuſe my ſelf of wearying you with needleſs work, if I ſhould go about to prove it. The Papiſts are right enough in thus much: and Dr. Downame de Juſtific. and againſt Pemble in Append. to Covenant of Grace, hath proved it at large. That it is an act of the Will, our Divines have fully proved againſt the Papiſts in many a full Diſcourſe; 1. From the ſenſe of foreign, & foreign, which ſignifie Affiance, and ſuch an Affiance as is the act of the Will as well as of the Intellect. 2. Becauſe the Scripture often putteth [Willing] as equipollent to Believing; in Revel. 22.17. Whoſoever Will, let him take the water of Life freely] where Willing and Taking are both acts of the Will, and the faith in queſtion; ſo in other places. 3. The Scripture calleth it by the name of Receiving Chriſt, Joh. 1.12. Col. 2.6. which is the Acceptance or conſent of the Will. 4. The Scripture often makes Faith to be the Internal covenanting and cloſure of the heart with Chriſt, which is the act of the Will; and therefore it perſwadeth with the Will to this end; and accuſeth men as unwilling, and calleth them Refuſers, Neglecters, Slighters, Rejecters, Deſpiſers of Chriſt, that are Unbelievers (privatively.) I trouble you not to cite the Texts as being needleſs, and done by many. Beſides that (as in the former Argument) the Promiſe, Chriſt, Pardon, Life, and other good things, as good, are frequently made the Object of Faith.
Argument 3. The Veracity of God is the formal Object of Faith. But the Veracity of God is his Goodneſs (or participateth at leaſt as much of his Goodneſs as of his Wiſdom and his Power:) therefore the Goodneſs of Good is the formal Object of Faith: and conſequently it is an act of the Will. God cannot lye, becauſe he is perfectly good, wiſe and Powerfull.
Object. But (ſay ſome Papiſts) All theſe acts that you mention here, are Love and not Faith: Faith doth but aſſent, and Love conſenteth or accepteth.
Anſw. 1. Do you not your ſelves call it fides formata charitate? And why then may not we call it faith? 2. The Scripture calleth it Faith in the phraſes formentioned, foreign, &c. and therefore it is Faith. 3. Though ſometimes in other caſes the Apoſtle diſtinguiſh Faith, Hope and Love; yet when he ſpeaketh of Faith as juſtifying, and as the form of a Chriſtian, he comprehendeth Love to Chriſt as Saviour in it, and a confidence in him, ſuch as in common Language we call Hope. As Love ſignifieth the Paſſion of the ſoul, it may be a conſequent; but as it is but the velle Chriſtum, & beneficia oblata, ſo it is faith it ſelf, as Maccovius and Chamier have truly told the Papiſts. It was a faith in Chriſt (though beginning to ſink) thats expreſſed Luk. 24.21. [foreign.] [But we truſted that it had been he that ſhould have redeemed Iſrael.] Our Tranſlators have put we Truſted for we Hoped, becauſe they thought the ſignification the ſame, or elſe they would not ſure have done it. And when the Apoſtle ſaith, that foreign, Heb. 11.1. If we may denominate the act from the Object, we may ſee that he there makes Faith and Hope to be co-eſſential. And when Chriſt is called foreign, Chriſt our Hope, it ſeems hope there is but an act of Faith. And ſo 2 Cor. 1.10. 1 Tim. 4.10. To Hope in God or Chriſt, or put our Hope in him, ſeemeth to me all one as to put our Truſt in him for future Mercy, which is Faith. To which is oppoſed 1 Tim. 6.17. putting our Hope in riches, ſo 1 Cor. 15.19. to have Hope in Chriſt, ſo the Septuagint, Pſal. 42.26. foreign: [Hope in God,] is a Complication of Faith and Hope in one word, and tranſlated by us, Truſt in God.
4. Though the Willing, Conſent or Acceptance of an offered Benefit, have truly ſomewhat of Love in it, yet Love is not the proper name of that Act. Every Volition is not uſually called Love.
Prop. 3. It is not not only God the Father, nor only Chriſt the Redeemer, nor only the Promiſe, nor only pardon, or Righteouſneſs, or Heaven, that is the object of that faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſification.
Argument 1. If many or all theſe art ſo linked together, that to believe one of them as revealed in Scripture, is to believe more or all, then it is not any one of them alone that is the object of that Faith which Paul oppoſeth to works. But the Antecedent is true, as is evident, e. g. To believe in Chriſt, is to believe the promiſe of the Goſpel concerning Chriſt. For there is no Belief without a word of revelation to believe. So that here Chriſt and the Promiſe are neceſſarily conjunct, and Chriſt and the Goſpel Hiſtory. And to believe the Gospel with a Divine Faith, is to Believe Gods veracity, and to believe the Goſpel becauſe of Gods Veracity: For this is the Objectum formale without which there is no faith. So that Believing in God is eſſential to all Divine faith. Alſo materially; to Believe in Chriſt, is to Believe in him as our Saviour, to ſave us from the Guilt of ſin, even as to believe in a Phyſitian is to Truſt on him to cure us of our Diſeaſes. So forgiveneſs of ſin, being an end eſſential to Chriſts Office, it is eſſential to our Faith in Chriſt. So alſo to believe in Chriſt as a Saviour, is to believe in him as one that is able and willing to reconcile us, and bring us to the favour of God: And ſo God and his favour and Reconciliation with him are ends eſſential to the office of a Saviour (as health is to the Phyſitians) and therefore they are eſſential to our Belief in a Saviour. The ſame may be ſaid of eternal Life: ſo that you may ſee that theſe have eſſential reſpects to one another, and Chriſt cannot be believed in alone without the reſt as co-eſſentials reſpectively in the object of our faith. Nor can the Promiſe be believed without believing in the Promiſer and Promiſed.
Argument 2. The Scripture moſt expreſly maketh many ſuch Objects of that faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in Juſtification; therefore ſo muſt we.
Rom. 3.22, 24, 25, 26. There are expreſly mentioned all theſe Objects of juſtifying faith. 1. The Righteouſneſs of God. 2, The Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, 3. Redemption by Chriſt, and his propitiatory blood. 4. Remiſſion of ſins paſt. 5. God as a Juſtifier of Believers; ſee the Text.
Rom. 4 3, 5.6, 7, 8, 17 20, 21, 24, 25 There are all theſe objects of Juſtifying faith expreſſed, even when the work of Juſtification is deſcribed, 1. God as Revealer and true: 2. God as Juſtifier. 3. Righteouſneſs; imputation of it; forgiveneſs of ſin, not imputing it. 4. God as Omniſcent. 5. God as Omnipotent. 6. Jeſus our Lord. 7. The death of Chriſt for our offences. 8. The Reſurrection of Chriſt for our Juſtification. 9. God as the raiſer of Chriſt from the Dead. Read the words, and you ſhall find them all expreſly mentioned. I think it ſuperfluous to cite more Texts.
Prop. 4. The faith which Paul oppoſeth to works in the buſineſs of Juſtification, is not any one ſingle Phyſical act in Specie ſpecialiſſima: Nor was it ever the meaning of Paul to exclude all acts except ſome ſuch one, from Juſtification, under the name of works.
For the proof of this, it is done already, if any one of the three former Propoſitions be proved. To which I add Argument 1. from an inſtance of ſome other particulars. If any or all the following particular Acts be ſuch as are not to be reckoned with works, then it is no one act alone that Paul oppoſeth to works. But all or ſome of the following acts are ſuch as are not to be reckoned with works excluded. Ergo, &c.
E. g. 1. An Aſſent to the truth of the Goſpel in general as the Word of God. 2. A belief on Gods Veracity in this expreſt. 3. An Aſſent to the Truth of the Word that telleth us that Chriſt is God. 4. An Aſſent to the truth of the Article of Chriſts Manhood. 5. An Aſſent to the Truth of the Article of his conception by the Holy Ghoſt, and being born of a Virgin, 6. And to the Article of his being born without original ſin in himſelf. 7. And to the Article of his ſinleſs holy life. 8. And to the Article of his actual death. 9. And that this death was for our ſins. 10. And that God hath accepted it as a ſufficient Ranſom, ſacrifice or Attonement. 11. And that he actually roſe again from the dead, and overcame death. 12. And that he is the Lord and King of the Church. 13. And that he is the Prophet and Teacher of the Church. 14. And that he is aſcended into Heaven and Glorified, God and man. 15. And that he is now our Interceſſor & Mediator with the Father. 16. And that he hath purchaſed by his Ranſom and given or offered in the Goſpel, the free pardon of ſin. 17. And that he hath alſo purchaſed & offered us eternal life in Glory with God. 18. And that its the members of Chriſt, and of the Holy Catholick Church, that ſhall partake of pardon and life by Chriſt. 19. And that he will give us the Reſurrection of life at laſt. 20. And that he will judge the world. I have omitted our ſpecial Belief in God the Father as Creator, and in the Holy Ghoſt, and have given you in theſe twenty Acts, no more then what is contained in this one word, [I believe in Chriſt as Chriſt] I think there is if any, but few that are not eſſential to Faith in Jeſus Chriſt as the Saviour. And all theſe acts of aſſent are parts of the faith that is the means of our Juſtification; and none of them part of the excluded works. And beſides all theſe there are as many acts of the Will as of the Intellect concurring in or to this very aſſent, ſo that there's twenty more. For its plain, that ſeeing the objects of all theſe are Good as well as True, they being all Truths concerning our benefit and Salvation, the Will it ſelf in the Intellects aſſenting, doth command it to aſſent, and alſo doth place a certain Affiance in the Revealer, which we call in Engliſh crediting or Giving credit to one, we reſt our ſelves upon his Truth. As I ſaid before, Veracity is Gods Goodneſs, and Veracity is the formal Object in every one of the other Acts about the material Object; and therefore the Will muſt act upon Veracity, and ſo have a part in aſſent it ſelf: not as aſſent, but as a Voluntary aſſent, and as an aſſent to Promiſes or Revelations of good to us. There is goodneſs in the word of Revelation ſubordinate, or in order to the good Revealed. And ſo there is an act of the Will upon the good in the Word, complicated with the Intellects Aſſent, beſides the following fuller act of the Will, upon Chriſt and the benefits themſelves. And therefore there is a twofold Affiance. 1. An Affiance in Gods Veracity as the Revealer. 2. An Affiance in Chriſt the Mediator, as the beſtower, accompliſher and actual Saviour or Deliverer according to his Office and Covenant. The firſt is an act of the Will concurring with Aſſent. And of this Pembles opinion is neer Truth, though not fully it. For here Affiance is as cloſely joyned with Aſſent as Heat in the Sun with Light, though they are not the ſame, But then the ſecond ſort of Affiance followeth Aſſent, and hath another act of the Will interceding, which is Conſent or acceptance of the Benefit offered; which alſo is cloſely conjunct with the firſt act of the Will. And then followeth laſt of all affiance in Chriſt for the performance of the undertaken acts. And theſe latter are alſo many particular Phyſical acts, as the objects in ſpecie ſpecialiſſima are many. And yet all theſe make but one object in a moral ſenſe, and ſo but one act, and are done in a few moments of time▪ of which after. Would it not be too tedious, I ſhould ſtay to cite ſeveral Texts, to prove that never a one of all theſe acts is excluded as works by Paul. But of divers of them its before proved from Rom. 3. and 4. and of more in Heb. 11. and in Gal. 3.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22. There are at leaſt theſe Objects of Juſtifying faith expreſſed. 1. Chriſts Perſon, 2. that he was ſeed promiſed. 3. That he was crucified. 4. That this was for our ſins. 5. That he was made a curſe for us in this his death. 6. That hereby he Redeemed us from the curſe. 7. That he is the Mediator. 8. God as the Party with whom he is Mediator. 9. God as Believed in his Promiſe. 10. God as Juſtifier. 11. The Goſpel preached, and he Promiſe made. 12. Bleſſedneſs by Chriſt. 13. The confirmed Covenant. 14. The Inheritance. 15. Righteouſneſs. 16. Adoption. 17. That Belief is the means, and believers the ſubjects of theſe benefits. All theſe objects of Faith you will find in the Text.
Argument 2. Ex natura rei. If other acts of faith in Chriſt are no more works then that one (whatſoever it be) which you will ſay Paul oppoſeth to works, then Paul doth not call them works▪ or number them with works. But the Antecedent is true, therefore ſo is the Conſequent. Doubtleſs the Scripture calls them as they are: and therefore if they are not works, it calls them not works. And for the Antecedent, 1. If by works you mean the Keeping of the firſt Covenant by ſinleſs obedience, ſo neither the one or the other are works. 2. If you mean the keeping of Moſes Law; ſo neither of them are works. 3. If you mean the performance of an act of obedience to any Precept of God, ſo the ſeveral acts are works, but juſtifie not as acts of obedience to the command (thats but their matter) but as the condition of the Promiſe. 4. If you mean that they are Acts of the ſoul of man, ſo every act of Faith is a work, though it juſtifie not as ſuch, ſo that here is no difference to be found. E. g. If you make the Believing in Chriſt as Dying, (though you take in both aſſent and affiance) to be the only Juſtifying act; what reaſon can you give why our Believing in Chriſt incarnate, in Chriſt obeying the Law, in Chriſt riſing again, and Glorified and Interceding, in Chriſt actually now giving out the pardon of ſin and Adoption, &c. ſhould be called works any more then our Believing in Chriſt as crucified? No reaſon at all, nor any Scripture can be brought for it. Yea what reaſon have you that our Believing in Chriſt as the Phyſitian of our ſouls, to cure us of our ſins, and cleanſe our hearts, and ſanctifie our Natures, and in Chriſt as the Teacher and Guide of our ſouls to life eternal, ſhould be called works any more then the other? Or that believing in Chriſts blood for everlaſting Life and happineſs, ſhould be any more called works then believing in his blood for Juſtification? Yea that Believing in him as the King, and Head, and Captain of his Church to ſubdue their enemies, and by his Government conduct them to perſeverance and to Glory, ſhould any more be called works then believing on him as crucified in order to forgiveneſs?
Argument 3. All acts Eſſential to faith in Chriſt as Chriſt, are oppoſed to works by Paul in the point of Juſtification, and are not the works oppoſed to Faith. But many acts are eſſential to faith in Chriſt as Chriſt; therefore they are many acts that are oppoſed to works; and no one of thoſe acts is the works excluded.
The Major is proved thus: If faith in Chriſt as ſuch, be it that Paul oppoſeth to works, then every eſſential part of it is by Paul oppoſed to works (for it is not faith in Chriſt if it want any eſſential part) But the Antecedent is true. Ergo. — The Minor I have proved in the firſt Diſputation: Though ſometime it is ſaid to be [by faith in his blood] that we have remiſſion of ſin; and ſometime that we are juſtified if we believe in him that raiſed Chriſt from the dead, &c. Yet moſt frequently it is ſaid to be by faith in Chriſt; by believing in the Lord Jeſus, receiving Chriſt Jeſus the Lord &c. Belive in the Lord Jeſus, and thou ſhalt be ſaved, was the Goſpel preached to the Jaylor, Acts 16. But this is ſufficiently proved already. That many acts are eſſential to faith in Chriſt as ſuch, is alſo proved: and particularly, that believing in him as our Teacher, Lord, and as Riſing, Interceding, and Juſtifying by ſentence and Gift, as well as believing in him as dying for our Juſtification. As Chriſt is not Chriſt (as to his Office and work) without theſe Eſſentials, ſo faith is not the Chriſtian faith without theſe acts.
But here obſerve that though I ſay theſe acts of faith are not the works which Paul excludeth, I ſpeak of them as they are, and not as they are miſunderſtood: For if any man ſhould imagine that Believing in Chriſt is a Legal Meritorious work, and that can juſtifie him of or for it ſelf; I will not deny but he may ſo make another thing of faith, and ſo bring it among excluded works (if it be poſſible for him to believe contradictories:) But then, this is as true of one act of Faith as another: If a man imagine that its thus Meritorious to Believe in Chriſt as purchaſing him Juſtification, it is as much the excluded works, as to think it Meritorious to Believe in him as our Teacher, or King and Judge, that will lead us to final Abſolution, and actually juſtifie us by his Sentence at that Judgement.
Argument 4. Thoſe acts of Faith that are neceſſary to Juſtification, are none of the works that Paul excludeth from Juſtification (unleſs changed by miſunderſtanding▪ as aforeſaid.) But other acts of faith as well as one are neceſſary to Juſtification: Ergo.—
The Minor (which only is worthy the labour of a proof) 1. is proved before, and in the firſt Diſputation. 2. And it is confeſſed by my Opponents, that ſay [Faith in Chriſt as Teacher, King, &c. is the fides quae Juſtificat, and the condition of Juſtification, as Repentance alſo is, though it be not the Inſtrumental cauſe, as they think ſome other Act is. Paul doth not exclude that which he makes neceſſary.
Argument 5. That which makes not the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace, is none of the works that Paul ſets faith againſt. But other acts of faith in Chriſt do not make the reward to be of Debt and not of Grace any more then the one act which you will chooſe (E. g. Believing in Chriſt as King and Teacher, any more then believing in him as a Ranſom:) therefore they are not the works that Pauls ſets faith againſt. The Major is proved from the Deſcription of the excluded works, Rom. 4.4. The Minor is evident.
Argument 6. All acts of Faith in Chriſt as our Juſtifier, are ſuch as are oppoſed to works by Paul, and are none of the works which faith is oppoſed to. But they are more then one or two that are Acts of faith in Chriſt as Juſtifier: Ergo.—
The Major I think will be granted; the Minor is plain: For 1. Chriſt juſtifieth us meritoriouſly as a Sacrifice. 2. And as Obeying and fulfilling the Law. 3. As the complement of his ſatisfaction, and the entrance upon his following execution, his Reſurrection juſtifieth us. 4. As the Heavenly Prieſt at Gods right hand, he juſtifieth us by his Interceſſion. 5 As King and Head, he juſtifieth us by his Covenant or Law of Grace. 6. As King and Judge he juſtifieth us by ſentence▪ 7. As Prophet he teacheth us the Doctrine of Juſtification, and how to attain to Juſtification by ſentence. So that at leaſt▪ none of theſe are the excluded works.
Argum. 7. If the whole Eſſence of Chriſtian faith be oppoſed to works, and ſo be none of the oppoſed works in the matter of Salvation, then its ſo alſo in the matter of Juſtification. But the Antecedent is true; therefore ſo is the Conſequent.
The Minor is confeſſed by my Opponents. The conſequence of the Major I prove. 1. Becauſe Salvation is as free as Juſtification, and no more of works which Paul excludeth. 2. Salvation comprehendeth Juſtification: and Glorification hath the ſame conditions as final Juſtification at Judgement, it being part of Juſtification to adjudge that Glory. 3. The expreſs Scripture excludes works as much from Salvation as from Juſtification: Eph. 2.8, 9. For by Grace ye are ſaved through faith; and that not of your ſelves, it is the gift of God: not of works, leſt any man ſhould boaſt. Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. [Not by works of Righteouſneſs which we have done, but according to his Mercy he ſaved us, by the waſhing of, Regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghoſt, which he ſhed on us abundantly, through Jeſus Chriſt our Saviour, that being juſtified by his Grace, we ſhould be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal Life.] Many ſuch places are obvious to any diligent Reader. For the Minor alſo read 1 Cor. 15.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c.
Argum. 8. If no man can name any one Act of faith that is oppoſed to all the reſt as works, or oppoſed to works when the reſt are not, then no ſuch thing it to be aſſerted. But no man can name the Act that is thus oppoſed alone to works. 1. It is not yet done that I know of. We cannot get them to tell us what Act it is. 2. And if they do, others will make as good a claim to the Prerogative.
Argum. 9. They that oppoſe us, and affirm the Queſtion, do feign God to have a ſtrange partiality to one Act of faith above all the reſt, without any reaſon or aptitude in that act to be ſo exalted. But this is not to be feigned (and proved it cannot be,) that God ſhould annex our Juſtification to the Belief in Chriſt as a ſacrifice only; and to oppoſe this to belief in him as Riſing, Interceding, Teaching, Promiſing or Judging, is a fiction contrary to Scripture. Examine any Text you pleaſe, and ſee whether it will run well with ſuch an Expoſition, Rom. 4.4, 5. [Now to him that worketh, i. e. Believeth in Chriſt as Teacher, Judge, Interceſſor, & is the reward not reckoned of Grace but of Debt. But to him that worketh not, that is, believeth not on Chriſt as King and Teacher, &c. but Believeth on him that juſtifieth the ungodly (an act of his Kingly office) &c. —Doth this run well? I will not trouble you with ſo unſavoury a Paraphraſe upon the like Scriptures: you may try at pleaſure on Rom. 3. & 4. and Gal. 3. Eph. 2. Phil. 3. or any ſuch Text.
Argument 10. If the Doctrine of the Opponents (holding the Affirmative) were true, then no man can tell whether he be a condemned Legaliſt, or not: yea more, if it be not faith in Chriſt as ſuch (containing the whole Eſſence) by which we are juſtified, as oppoſed to works, or which is none of the excluded works; then no man can tell but he is a condemned Legaliſt. But the Conſequent is falſe; therefore ſo is the Antecedent.
The Reaſon of the Conſequence is, becauſe no man is able to tell you which is the ſole juſtifying Act, or which are the only acts, if it be not faith Eſſentially that is it; for among all the acts before mentioned, if a man miſtake and think one other (E. g. faith in Chriſts Reſurrection, in Chriſt as King, Judge, Teacher, &c.) is it by which he muſt be juſtified, then he falls upon Juſtification by Works, and ſo falls ſhort of Grace: for if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace: elſe Works were no Works. And ſo no man can tell but he deſtroyeth Grace, and expecteth Juſtification by works: much leſs can weak Chriſtians tell. I never yet ſaw or heard from any Divine a juſt Nomination (with proof) of the one Juſtifying act, or a juſt Enumeration of the many acts, if all muſt not be taken in that are Eſſential. Some ſay Affiance is the only act: but as thats confuted by the moſt that take in Aſſent alſo, ſo there are many and many acts of Affiance in Chriſt that are neceſſary: and they ſhould tell us which of theſe it is.
Object. And do you think that we can any better tell when we have all that are Eſſential? Or doth every weak Chriſtian believe all the twenty Articles that you mentioned at firſt?
Anſw. 1. We can better know what is Revealed then whats unrevealed. The Scripture tells us what faith in Chriſt is; but not what one or two acts do Juſtifie, excluding all other as Works. Divines have often defined Faith; but I know not that any hath defined any ſuch one act, as thus exalted above the reſt of the Eſſence of Faith. If we covld not tell what is eſſential to Faith, we could not tell what faith is. 2. The twenty Objects of Aſſent before mentioned are not all Articles or material Objects▪ the ſecond is the formal Object. And of the reſt, unleſs the Fifth [Believing that Chriſt was conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, and born of a Virgin] may be excepted (which I dare not affirm) I know not of one thats not eſſential to Chriſtianity. And I think if we had Hereticks among us that denyed Chriſt to be conceived by the Holy Ghoſt, we ſhould ſcarce take them for Chriſtians. But that man that ſhall deny or not believe that Chriſt is God, that he is Man▪ that he was no ſinner, that he dyed, and that for our ſins, and that he was a Sacrifice or Ranſom for us, and that he Roſe again, is Glorified, and will judge us: that he hath offered us a pardon of ſin; that there will be a Reſurrection of the body, and life Everlaſting by this our Redeemer, I cannot ſee how he can be a Chriſtian. And for the number of Articles, … left out much of the ancient Creed it ſelf, (the Belief in God the Father, Creator, &c. in the Holy Ghoſt: the Article of the Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints, of Chriſts burial, Deſcent into Hell, and more.) And yet do you think this too big to be eſſential to Chriſtian Faith? If ſo, tell not any Heretick that denyeth any one of theſe, that he denyeth an Eſſential Article of our faith.
But for the ignorant weak Chriſtian, I ſay, 1. He knoweth all theſe Articles that I have named; but 2. perhaps not with ſo ripe a manner of apprehenſion as is formed into mental words, or which he can expreſs in words to others: I find my ſelf in my ſtudies, that I have ſomtimes an apprehenſion of a Truth before I have ripened that conception for an expreſſion. 3. And perhaps they are not Methodical and Diſtinct in their conceptions, and cannot ſay that there are juſt ſo many Articles. Every ſick man can underſtand what it is to deſire and accept of ſuch a man to be his Phyſitian; and herein he firſt verily deſireth health, and ſecondly, deſireth Phyſick as a means to Health, and thirdly, deſireth the Phyſitian in order to the uſe of that means, and fourthly, therein doth take him to be a Phyſitian, and fifthly, to have competent skill, and ſixthly, to be in ſome meaſure faithful, to be truſted, and ſeventhly, doth place ſome confidence in him, &c. all this and more is truly in his mind; and yet perhaps they are not ripened and meaſured into ſuch diſtinct conceptions, as that he can diſtinctly tell you all this in tolerable Language, or doth obſerve then as diſtinct Conceptions in himſelf (and whether uno intuitu the eye and the Intellect may not ſee many Objects, though ab objectis, the acts muſt be called many and divers, is a Controverſie among Philoſophers; and as I remember Pet. Hurtad. de Mendoza affirmeth it.) But if you your ſelves will form all theſe into diſtinct conceptions, and ask your Catechiſt his judgement of them, its like he can mak you perceive at leaſt by a Yea or Nay, that he underſtands them all. The new formed body of the Infant in the Womb hath all the Integral parts of a man; and yet ſo ſmall that you cannot ſo eaſily diſcern them as you may do the ſame parts when he is grown up to manhood. So the knowledge of every particular Eſſential Article of faith is truly in the weakeſt Chriſtian in the very moment of his converſion; but perhaps it may be but by a more crude imperfect Conception, that obſerveth not every Article diſtinctly, nor any of them very clearly, but his knowledge is both too dim and too confuſed. And yet I muſt ſay that it is not only ſuch as ſome Papiſts call a Virtual or Implicite Faith or knowledge, As to believe only the General Revelation and the formal Object; as that the Scripture is Gods Word, and God is true: or that whatever the Church propounds as an Article of faith is true; while they know not what the Church or Scripture doth propound: for this is not actual Chriſtian faith, but ſuch a part as a man may have that is no Chriſtian. And yet ſome Papiſts would perſwade us that where this much is, there is ſaving faith, though the perſon believe not (yea, or deny by the probable Doctrine of ſeducing Doctors) ſome of the foreſaid Eſſential Articles.
Argum. 11. If the terms [Faith in Chriſt, receiving Chriſt, Reſting on Chriſt, &c.] are to be underſtood as Civil, Political and Ethical terms in a moral ſenſe, then muſt we ſuppoſe that they ſignifie many Phyſical acts, and not any one only. But theſe terms are to be thus morally underſtood. Ergo.— The Antecedent is proved thus. Terms are to be underſtood according to the nature of the Subject and Doctrine: But the Subject and Doctrine of the Goſpel which uſeth theſe terms, is Moral Political: therefore the terms are agreeably to be interpreted. The ſame term in Phyſick, Law, Mathematicks, Soldiery, Navigation, Husbandry, &c. hath various ſignifications: but ſtill it muſt be interpreted according to the nature and uſe of the doctrine, Art or Science that maketh uſe of it. The conſequence of the Major is proved, becauſe it is the uſe of Ethicks and Politicks thus to interpret ſuch phraſes, as containing divers Phyſical Acts. Marriage is one Civil act; but it is many Phyſical Acts: it containeth divers acts of the underſtanding concerning the Eſſentials of the Relation: and divers acts of the Will in conſenting thereunto; and the outward words or ſigns of Conſent, for making the Contract. So taking a man to be my King my General, my Tutor, Teacher, Paſtor, Phyſician, Maſter, &c. all ſignifie the acts of the Underſtanding, Will and expreſſing Powers, which the ſeveral parts of the Objects do require.
Argument 12. If there be many Acts beſides Faith in Chriſt, attendant on it, and ſubſervient to it, which are none of the works which Paul excludeth, and oppoſeth faith to; then the Eſſential Acts of faith it ſelf are none of thoſe works. But the Antecedent is true, as I prove in ſome inſtances:
For a man to repent of ſin, to confeſs it, to believe and confeſs that we are unworthy of any Mercy, and unable to juſtifie our ſelves, or make ſatisfaction for our ſias, and that we are in abſolute neceſſity of Chriſt, having no Righteouſneſs, Sanctification or Sufficiency of our own, to take God for our Father reconciled in Chriſt, and to Love him accordingly: to forgive our Brethren from the ſenſe of Chriſts forgiving us: to ſhew our Faith by fruitfull works and words. When Paul ſaith, Rom. 4.4, 5. [To him that worketh the Reward is not of Grace] the meaning is not [To him that repenteth to him that denieth himſelf and his own Righteouſneſs to his Juſtification, to him that confeſſeth his ſin, that loveth God as a reconciled Father in Chriſt, &c,] and when he ſaith, [To him that worketh not, but believeth] the meaning is not [to him that loveth not God, to him that repenteth not, that forgiveth not others, &c. but believeth.
Object. But yet it may be [to him that thinketh not to be juſtified by or for theſe, but by Faith.] Anſwer 1. Concomitants and Subordinates may not be ſet in oppoſition; faith ſuppoſeth the Concomitancy and Subſerviency of theſe in and to Juſtification 2. Believing in Chriſts Ranſom, may as well be excluded too, if men think to be juſtified for ſo doing meritoriouſly. 3. He that thinketh to be Juſtified by any work in that way which is oppoſed to Juſtification by Grace and Faith, muſt think to be juſtified by the Merit of them, or without a Saviour, which all theſe Graces forementioned contradict. 4. God ſaith expreſly, that we muſt [Repent and be converted, that our ſins may be blotted out: and repent that we may be forgiven: and if we confeſs our ſins, he is faithfull and juſt to forgive us our ſins: and if we forgive, we ſhall be forgiven; and that by works we are juſtified and not by faith only: and that by our words we ſhall be juſtified: So that Pauls works which he oppoſeth faith to, are neither Jame's works, nor any of theſe particulars mentioned: for theſe are made neceſſary conditions or means of pardon, and of ſome ſort of Juſtification, ſuch as Pauls works could not contribute to, which were falſly imagined by the doers to make the Reward to be not of Grace but Debt.
Object. There is but one faith, Eph. 4.3. Anſwer. But that One faith hath many Phyſical Acts or Articles. There is but one true Religion, but it hath many parts. There is but one Goſpel, but that one contanieth many particular Truths.