Confession of His Faith, Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Additions to the former Confession, on occasion of the sight of Mr. Caryls Epistle to Mr. Crandons Book; tendred to Mr. Caryl for his satisfaction, in the points wherein he declares himself offended.
WHen I had written this far, I received Mr. Crandons whole book (having before seen the Monster, sine Capite & Caudâ) when I opened it, I found such a name written in its fore-head, as I had thought that dunghill deserved not to be blest with, viz▪ Mr. Joseph Caryl, with his Epistle perfixt. His name in whom I trust, and whose Truth is dearer to me, then the esteem of man, even Jesus Christ, is above all names: and none have names so honorable, as to disgrace his Truth and Wisdom, with the children of Wisdom, by setting those names in the ballance against that Truth. As Gods Truth and Grace is it that makes mens names to be honourable and pretious with his people, so that if they do but stumble and fall upon that Truth, it will break their names in pleces; but if it fall upon them (while they strive against it) it will grind those names to powder. Which I speak not as censuring the name of this Reverend man▪ but as one reason of my security of the Cause of God, what names soever shall countenance its opposers. Yet I confess I more envy Mr. Crandons Errors the honour of this prefixed name, then of all his Arguguments; or then I envy this Reverend name, the honour of being prefixed to such a volume. I have received a Description from pious fame, of the soul of Mr. Caryl, so unlike to the soul of this Ranting Disputation, that I hereby do crave of our Christian posterity, that when we are all in our graves, and another world, they would not so wrong this excellent Man, as to conclude them to be of kin, because of this connexion. If you say, He hath given us just occasion so to think; I desire you both to look upon his disowning the personal reflexions, which are the beginning, middle, end, if not all; and also to consider, that the most peaceable dispositions are usually most tractable; and you know not what importunity might have done with your selves: I mean not of such a Comet as Mr. Crandon, but of the higher and more illustrious Planets of our Orbe. Learned and pious men, must love and honour the pious and Learned: and therefore their Temptations have the greater advantage. Nor do I in the …east suspect that this godly man hath done any thing against his Conscience, to please others; though perhaps he might be the more neglective of his own name, and might do that which of himself …he would have Judged inconvenient; as the sad Resentment of Theological wars, mentioned in the beginning, and the little check to his thoughts, in giving an explicite Testimony to the work, mentioned in the middle, may perswade us to conceive. Yet because his approbation of the doctrinall part of Mr. Crandons discourse, and that in the particulars mentioned, do signifie that he is of his Judgement in these Doctrinals, and that he is offended at my doctrine in those points, I do unfeignedly profess to bear so much Reverence to the name of Mr. Caryl, that I take it for my duty to tender him satisfaction in the points wherein▪ I have given him offence. For though I have no expectation that he and I should ever be of one Judgement in this world, if he approve the Doctrinall points mainta… in Mr. …randons book, as knowing the strong conviction and perswasion of my own mind, concerning the unsoundness of some of them, and knowing that Mr. Caryl is confident on the contrary, before …e would commend their vindication as worthy of publick view; yet lest I be misunderstood, and our differences may seem to be wi…er then they are, and especially because I do easily confess that some indigested, unexplained, and incautelous words of mine in that offensive Book, might give him and others cause of offence, and so the fault is partly mine, I am obliged to do my part, for the Removall of the offence. His words which call me to it, are these, It is a duty to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and yet the Doctrinall points therein maintained and vindicated, The present freedom of Believers from the curse of the Law, and their free Justification by faith without works, yea without faith as it is a work, through the alone satisfaction of Jesus Christ, are of such moment, and so fundamental in Religion, for the comfort of poor souls, that I cannot but Judge any Essay tending to the clearing of them, much more this large and elaborate discourse, profitable for the Church of God, and worthy of the publick view.
That which I shall do for the satisfaction of this Pious Man, is, 1. To Declare whether I do indeed deny free Justification by faith without works, yea without faith as it is a work, through the alone satisfaction of Jesus Christ. 2. To Declare how far I deny or maintain the present freedom of Believers, from the curse of the Law. And consequently, whether I deny the faith once given to the Saints, or any thing Fundamentall in Religion, for a Christians comfort: and whether Mr. Crandon may be said to have vindicated these Fundamentals from my opposition. 3. I shall presume to give a few Reasons (though contrary to my former intention) which perswade me to think that Mr. Crandon hath not vindicated these Fundamentals, and that his discourse is not profitable to the Church of God, nor worthy the publick view, either because it is large and elaborate, or because it tendeth to the clearing of the truth.
1. For the first of these, I have spoke my thoughts already, as my mind did then dictate to my Pen: and because I am so far from dissembling my Religion, as Mr. Cr. most confidently affirmeth me to do, that it very much grieveth me, (next the obscurity of my own understanding, and my defectiveness in embracing and improving those truths which I know) that I cannot tell how to make men fully understand my mind, and see the best and worst of my thoughts, in matters of Religion; I shall add a few more words, though no more in sence, as being for matter a Repetition of what is said.
Conclus. 1. I have ever held, and do hold, that at our first believing, we are Actually and Absolutely justified from all our sins, without exceptions, by faith in Christ, without the works of the Law, or without works in Pauls sence.
Conclus. 2. I have ever held that faith it self, as a work, in Pauls sence, hath no hand in our Justification, nor salvation; much less is it the cause thereof, quâ opus, as such a work.
Conclus. 3. I have ever held to this moment, that even those positive works of external obedience to Christ, which all that live after their first believing must perform, or perish, are not so much as conditions of our first Actuall Justification, no nor existent till after it.
Conclus. 4. I have ever understood most of our Divines, when they speak of Justification by faith alone, to mean by Justification, Gods first putting us into a justified and pardoned estate, upon our first believing. And if so, either I give no more to works to our Justification then they, or else I know not my own thoughts. I say therefore as they use to do, Bona opera sequuntur Justificatum non precedunt Justificandum, and therefore they cannot Justifie. Which Reason can hold of Iustification in no other sence then this.
Conclus. 5. I ever thought that it is no Merit or Dignity, or value of mans works, or his faith either, which is the least Cause of his Justification in the last Judgement, or the continuance of his Justification here; much less of his first being justified.
Conclus. 6. I do not believe that man is any way, by any act of faith or obedience, any true cause of Gods pardoning or justifying him: principal or instrumentall.
Conclus. 7. I never went about to give works or duty, any part of that interest in our Iustification, which our Divines do frequently give to faith; viz. to be the instrument of our Iustification. For indeed I deny so high an honor to both.
Conclus. 8. Much less dare I admit the least thought into my soul, of giving the least part of Christs honour or office, either to faith or works, so far as I am able to discern it; nor did I ever feel a desire in my soul so to do: for though I know I have in me the seed of all sin; yet it is no wonder if this sin be so far suppressed, as not to act sensibly, when both Christs interest and mine own do lye so full against it. And if any Brother will manifest that I have given the least of Christs honour or office to mans works or faith, in word or writing, I protest my self unfeignedly willing to receive his information, and that upon such receipt, I will publickly recant such words, and desire such writings may be committed to the flames.
Conclus. 9. Nay, one main reason which constraineth me to differ from my Brethren, and to deny that faith is an instrument of Justification, is, because I dare not give so much of Christs honor to man, or any act of mans, as to be an efficient cause of pardoning himself.
Conclus. 10. I conceive therefore that the difference between me and them, is not that I give any more indeed to works then they, but that they give more to faith then I, and consequently to man: and that if I be guilty of levelling or equalling faith, and obedience too much, as some think; it is not by bringing up works too high (to be instruments of Justification as they make faith) but in taking down faith too much, by denying it to be the justifying instrument; and consequently in too much abasing all acts of man, which yet I do not see that I am guilty of.
Conclus. 11. I ever held that it is onelyonly faith, and not works, that is the receiving of Christ, and that faith being the onelyonly receiving Grace, (wherein no meer moral duty or Grace doth participate of its honor or nature) it was therefore by God p…culiarly destinated, or appointed to the office of justifying, as fittest to the glorifying of Free-Grace, and of God-Redeemer therein.
Conclus. 12. This faith I difference from Evangelical obedience, as I difference the consent to a mans Soveraignty, from my obeying him as my Soveraign; or the consent to Marriage Relation, from the conjugal fidelity and obedience of a wife to her husband: or the taking a man to be my Captain, from obeying him, or fighting under him: or the taking a man to be my Physitian, from obeying his counsel, and taking his Medicines: and Repentance I take to be to our faith in Christ, as the breaking off from other Suitors and Lovers, and turning the mind to this one, is to Marriage: (though some other differences may be imagined, the word being taken variously.) So that I do no more (as I am accused) comprize all obedience in faith, because I Comprize a Love to the Redeemer, and a Consent to be governed by him, then I comprize all Conjugal Obedience and fidelity of a woman to her husband in the Marriage-Covenant or Consent, because I comprize in it Love to the man, and a Covenant of fidelity and obedience for the future. As I have said, Faith with me, is the Taking of whole Christ, (that is in all those Respects which are Essential to him as he is Redeemer and Saviour) by all those acts of the soul, which are of absolute necessity to the true Reception of such an object: that is, by Assent, Consent, Love to him, Affiance, which also have such further respective diversifications, as I fullyer before expressed.
Con. 13. I am very Confident that when Paul includes faith, and excludes works, he never meant by Faith any one single individual act, or any one onelyonly sort of act in the strictest Physical sense, calling all the rest Works. And if any man will but tell me what one physical act he will tye Justification to, I will prove to him that he excludeth that faith which God includeth. Our own Divines ordinarily say, that Justifying faith hath three acts, Notitia, Assensus & Fiducia, And Velle, Eligere, Consentire, Acceptare, is the principal of all, which is not the same with any one of these. And fiducia is more then one it self And that Assent which is but one in Genere, is many in particulars, according to the many truths to be believed to the very essence of Justifying Faith. The Scripture expresly describeth it, as consisting in Assent, Receiving, Affiance, &c.
Con. 14. I am of opinion, that those that take Justifying faith only for one Act in sensu Physico, do utterly lose and confound themselves in the doctrine of Justification, making it impossible for any man on earth to know which is the justifying faith: Not only because they have no word of God to direct them, by confining it to any one act, (without which they can donothing), but also because the soul is so curious a piece in its essence & operations, & so much unacquainted with it self, and so defective in reflex Knowledge, that no man can so discern its acts, as perfectly to distinguish them and to say when it is but one act, and when it grows to be two or three in meer physical sense. If you diversifie them by the Objects (which is the known way) yet are there in every object, at least, in the object of Justifying faith, such diversity of parts essential, integral, and of Accidents, and respects, and necessary modifications, that no man on earth can determine just how these do individuate or physically specifie our acts? As if apprehension of Christ be Justifying faith, as they use to say, passing by the Ambiguity and Comprehensiveness of the term Apprehension, no man can tell us, whether to apprehend Christ, as God and as man, and as God and man in one person, and as the second person in Trinity, and as one that hath dyed, and by death satisfyed, and as one that is Risen, ascended, intercedeth, hath power to forgive sins, and as one that by pardoning must save us from Hell, and give us Heaven, &c. I say no man can tell just how many physical acts go to this: much less can any prove that all this may be done by one physical act: or can any cull out any one, and say, that is the Justifying object and act, and reject all the rest, as not essentially requisite as well as that.
Con. 15. I think they that should attempt such a business, would horribly abuse the Holy Ghost, and would themselves forget what element they are in, speaking as meri Physici, when they are treating of moral subjects, both Ethical and Political: and they would be guilty of a base reduction of Gods holy notions and Law-terms, to the most vain Philosophy (which Mr. Crandon seems to be so zealous against), as well as of confounding Physicks with Ethicks and Politicks.
Con. 16. Themselves use to confess, that the Promise, and Christ himself, and the Righteousness of Christ, (if not also Justification thereby) are the objects of Justifying faith: To which I may truly add, the Veracity of God Revealing, the formal object of Assent, and the Bounty or Good will of God in Giving, as the object (as it were formal) of Acceptance, beside the several parts of the material objects, and invisible Glory the End, expressed fully in Heb. 11. to be as essential as any of the rest. And sure our old Physicks must be renounced before we can assert that but the two or three first objects alone (the Promise, Christ, and his Righteousness) can all be apprehended with any one single physical act, there being divers formal objective reasons. Con. 17. I am bold upon the confidence of the premises to conclude, that in my Judgement, those Divines that will single out any one Physical act of the soul, and call that alone by the name of faith, and teach the People that by this only they are Justified, and that whoever looks for Justification by any other Act, but that one, is a Papist, a Jew, an enemy to Christs Righteousness, destroyeth the Gospel and the Foundation of Christian Comfort, I say, such men, in my opinion, do utterly ruine the Comforts, and torture and wrack the souls of poor Christians, whom they pretend to support, yea they drive them to unavoidable desperation, if their doctrine be practised: For it is not possible for any one of these poor Christians to find out which is the single Physical act of faith; and then not finding which is it, they must either look for Justification by other acts with it, and so (say their Teachers) forsake Christ and the Gospel, or else venture upon some one act, which yet they are not sure to be but one. Here's comfortable Gospel doctrine indeed! or if it were granted that philosophical brains can so punctually individuate or specifie their acts, yet all the unlearned that cannot, must be damned, as being cast upon an unavoidable necessity of being Jews, Legalists, Papists, &c. For my part, as subtile and profound a Philosopher as Mr. Crandons uncharitableness hath feigned me to be (that he might rob me of the name of a Christian, by giving me in exchange the name of a subtile Philosopher) I profess, that neither my naturals or spirituals will serve me to cleave all these hairs, and if this were Christs Law, which they feign, actum esset de me, I must needs perish: But I again profess, and that with seriousness, that before I will believe such doctrine which gives up souls to desperation, under pretence of their highest consolations, and which casteth scorn upon Christ and the Gospel under pretence of a zealous vindication of them, I will be yet more prodigal of my Reputation with such men▪ of what name and note soever; and I will sooner take them for such scholars as Festus took Paul for, then I will believe their doctrine, without better evidence then yet I can see.
Con. 18. I am as confident, that by confining Justifying faith to any one single Physical act, men will intolerably abase the nature of faith, making it either no humane, i. e. moral act, or so imperfect a one, as God in Scripture doth abhor. If it be only an act of the Intellect, it will not be strictly moral or humane: the Intellect is but the entrance into the soul, and its acts, the beginnings of humane acts: If it be only in the will, it will be blind: If both, without affection, it is lifeless, and contrary to that which Scripture describeth, which is Affiance in God, &c. Nor will it be the entire acting of the soul, if it be not the act (as I may call it) of the whole soul, that is, of both faculties and the affection suited to that object. Besides, that the soul acteth so harmoniously, that all the faculties will certainly concur.
Yet let none mis-undestand me, as if I charged our Orthodox Divines with this opinion, which I am now speaking against; but I am confessing mine own Judgement, against some particular disputers that have passionately insisted on this point. Sure I am, our late Reverend Assembly are far from it, in their Definitions of Faith.
Con. 19. I do firmly believe that he that Receives not Jesus Christ as Jesus Christ, that is, as God and man, as one that hath perfectly Obeyed, Dyed for us, Ransomed us, Rose again, is now in Glory, Lord of all, as our Saviour from Guilt and power of sin, and so as Priest, Prophet and King, as one that will bring us to Glory if we believe; and so as a Benefactour, and as Good, (and therefore to be Received with Gratitude and Love) I say, he that doth not thus Receive Christ, is not a true Christian, nor hath any true Justifying faith, but shall be damned: and that Justifying faith containeth all this in it. And therefore I believe that they who teach men, that some one onelyonly of these acts is Justifying faith, and all the rest are works, which if we look for salvation or Justification by, we fall from Christ, do lead men the direct way to desperation and Damnation.
Con 20. Yet I think that the whole of this Faith is usually denominated from some one act, (or more, which we commonly comprize in one name) as most frequently from Assent, and frequently from Affiance (which is more then one act it self, and comprehendeth both Assent, and Hope, or Expectation) sometime from Willing or Receiving. But when ever Faith is spoken of as justifying or saving, the other acts are included under the name of one. Yet at other times in Scripture the word faith is taken in a narrower sense; as it is by James, and by Paul, when he distinguisheth it from Hope and Love: For otherwise, we are saved by Hope, and Faith is the substance of things Hoped for, &c.
Con. 21. I think that the Jews Conceit was, that Gods Law delivered by Moses was so perfect and excellent, that the Doing of of the works therein prescribed, in a laborious task of Ceremonial observances, and in Costly sacrifices and offerings, did by the Dignity and value of the work, derived from the Dignity of the Law, procure of it self the pardon of all their sins, and their full Acceptance with God, without any sacrifice of a Mediator: and that this is it that Paul disputeth against. So that their principal intent was to extol and maintain the perfection and sufficiency of Moses Law, as wanting nothing necessary to Justification and felicity, not understanding how Christ was the end of it; and in Conjunction with this consequentially they trusted to the Merits of Legal works. Accordingly I think that Pauls scope is both to take down Moses Law (especially its necessity and conceited sufficiency), and the Dignity of Legal works (and consequently of any works.) I think therefore that by Works, Paul meaneth to exclude only Merits, or works which are conceited Meritorious, or which for the worth of the Deed done, should procure pardon and Acceptance with God, without a Mediators blood. And so Paul himself describes the works that he speaks against, Rom. 4. 4. That they are such as make the Reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt.
Con. 22. Our Divines against the Papists do commonly place the Controversie here, and say, that the Question is, whether we are Justified by Works, that is, by the Merit of Works? making them all one. So Dr. Fowns, Rivius, and it is the common voice. Vid. Melanct. Loc. Com. p. 427, 429. and Exam. p. 689. & 699 & Sotinium Thes. c. 14. §. 6. & 12 Joh. Crocius de Justific. Dis. 12. passim.
Con. 23. I do not think therefore, that under the name Works, Paul doth exclude the acts of faith before mentioned, the Love of Christ, or Thankfulness for Grace, or the Confession of our great unworthyness, and our extolling the Freeness of Grace, or our disclaiming Merits, or our owning the true God for our only God, &c. I say, these acts considered, not as falsly Conceited Meritorious, but as Means to Life, (and some of them to Justification at first) and Conditions without which God will not save us, were never excluded by Paul among works. Nay, though some of these do not exist till we are justified, yet did not Paul intend them as Works in his exclusion.
Con. 24. I presume to confess it my opinion, that those Reverend Brethren who say, Faith justifieth quà Instrumentum, as a true instrument, do most certainly make it to justifie as an Action of man: and that in saying, that It justifieth as an Instrument, and it justifieth not as an Act, or by Action, they do speak most gross contradiction: seeing that Instrumentum est Causa efficiens, & Actio est efficientis Causalitas. I do therefore say, as well as Mr. Caryl, that Faith it self justifieth not as a Work: And I say more then is commonly said (from whence is the indignation) that it justifieth not as an Action of man neither, and so not as a true proper instrument of Justification.
Con. 25. Nay, I will yet say more (and have still said it) that the formal or nearest Reason of faiths interest in Justification, commonly expressed by quatenus, is not any Ethical consideration or respect in Faith. This is in the midst between the two former. I before Concluded, that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken for Mercenary or Meritorious working, as a workman doth for his wages, as Paul means: 2. And that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken physically, for an act of man. And thirdly I now add, that it justifieth not qua opus, as a work is taken for a Moral Vertue, Pleasing to God, because a Vertue: 4. Nay, nor qua hoc opus, as it is a work of singular worth or Aptitude to this office. But it is meerly in its Civil or Law Relation (if I may so call it) that is, as it is freely and positively appointed by God to this Office; making it, as he is Donor, the Condition of his free gift; so that it is nothing in the nature of Faith, but the Will of the Donor as such, that in the tenor of his Gift hath given it this Office and Honor: which is meerly extrinsecall to the Nature, or Ethical worth of Faith.
Con. 26. I must therefore profess, that after long consideration, I know no one term that properly expresseth this nearest or formal interest of faith in Justification, but only the term Condition, as that word is usually taken for the Condition of a free gift. And when the Scripture telleth us, how faith justifieth, it is in such terms as these, If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe with thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, &c. and He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned: In all which, if the Conditional If, and the conditional form of the Promise express not a Condition, I despair of ever understanding it in this life, though it be the foundation and the summe of the Faith.
Conclus. 27. Yet though no Ethical worth or Aptitude in faith be the formal Reason of its interest in Justification, it is nevertheless its immediatly-prerequisite Aptitude for this office and honor: And so far as we may give a reason of Gods appointments and will, from any thing without him, in the object, we may say, that therefore God made it the Condition of the Covenant, or of his gift of Christ and Justification, because it was the fittest morall Grace for this work. So that it was some Ethical or Moral excellency or worth in that grace, that caused God (as we may speak) to make it the condition, and so which is its Aptitude to the office, and the remote reason of its interest in Justification; though not the formal and neerest reason.
Conclus. 28. Yet even here, it was not the meer Morall excellency of this Grace absolutely, or in it self considered, as a good act; or as better in it self then the Rest: but it was a respective excellency or worth, viz. because it is the fittest to this special use and end; as being in its own nature, the believing a word of promise of unseen felicity, and the accepting of a free Gift, &c. and so fittest for God to design to this office, seeing its his high design in Redemption, to extoll his love and Free-Grace; so that though in reference to meer sanctification, some other Grace might be as good as faith, yet none were so ad-Apt-ed for this design. And this I conceive is it which Divines call the instrumentality of faith.
Conclus. 29. If any say, that seeing faith hath a peculiar Aptitude to this office, therefore it must have a peculiar Interest; I answer, so it hath. For 1. It doth alone, without (Merits, or) any positive Gospel-works of obedience (as such at least) procure (as far as belongs to its office) our first full Justification. 2. The love of Christ received, Gratitude, &c. are but as modifications of faith, which is called the receiving it self. Though some of them be distinct Physicall acts, yet all the rest Morally considered, are but as it were the modification of faith, I mean of that act, which is the acceptance of Christ, and life freely Given. 3. And for Iustification at Judgement, and the non-amission of it here, faith hath still the principall interest. Repentance (as distinct from faith) and a return to holy obedience, is a Condition upon a remote reason, propter finem, but faith directly, propter medium Principale, which is Christ as our Ransom and Saviour: Repentance is presupposed as a Condition naturally necessary, even as Faith in God alone in opposition to Atheism, Polutheism, and Idolatry, is presupposed as naturally necessary, when we are called to Faith in Christ as the Redeemer: and as the moral Law remains naturally necessary, for all the command of special Faith in Christ by the Gospel: But Faith in Christ is an elected condition, elevated to this office above its own nature, by a special Positive Institution and Promise, fitted to its object the Lord Jesus, who is the supernatural and highest means (as Redeemer), and it is revealed also in the Gospel, which is a supernatural Revelation. Besides as the natural necessity of the moral Law, of loving God, and repenting, and returning to him, are supposed, but these could neither be of any sufficiency or efficacy without Christ the supernatural way to the Father; nor could the said Love and Repentance have been wrought without Christ, if they had been sufficient: So though they are necessary, yet are they insufficient without Faith in Christ, as well as impossible (or beyond our power) so that Faith in Christ is that part of the Condition, which standing next the head, gives life unto the rest; and though as sine qua non, they are of equal necessity with Faith, yet as cum qua, or as to the sufficiency of the condition sine qua non, so Faith hath not only a precedency, but is as the master-pipe, which being next the cistern, conveyeth all the water into the more remote. This I adde to what I said before against the charge of Levelling Faith and Repentance; Though the Charge of equalling Faith and Obedience, is easier avoided: For the Scripture doth expresly make Repentance some Condition, even of our first pardon and Justification: but so it doth not Actual Obedience to Christ.
Conclu. 30. If after all this, I am not so happy as to hit the true or full reason of the difference between Faith, Repentance, and Obedience, in the point of Conditionality, I solemnly profess it is not out of any desire to equal them: Nay, that I have stretcht my brains to the utmost that I was able, to discover from Gods Word the widest difference that I could possibly finde, earnestly desiring (for to avoid offence, and to help me in expounding Pauls Exclusion of works) to have found the difference yet wider then I have done: And if I see not all, it is for want of Light, more then of Will or Diligence. And I shall heartily rejoyce to see the difference more clearly stated by my brethren *I might expect from sober men, that they do cleer up the difference better themselves, or tell us where we may find it done, when they shew themselves offended at the imperfection of my endeavours.; But I dare not in the mean time feign a difference in contradiction to Scripture, or addition to it; by saying that Repentance is no Condition, or that Faith is a proper Instrumental, efficient cause of Justifying or pardoning us: though I have professed not to contend with any that call it an Instrument of our Receiving Christ (if they will suffer me to use the phrases which I think more Scriptural and proper.)
Con. 31. I confess that there is such a thing as may be called Justification in foro Conscientiae: and that Faith may be called either an Instrument, or some efficient Cause of that Justification: (will not this satisfie Mr. Crandon?) But I think that this is none of that which Scripture calls Justification by Faith, nor that it is the same Faith by which we are Justified, which is the immediate observable Instrument or Cause of that Justification by conscience (though that also be a cause of it): but it is that discerning of our interest in Christ and Gods favour through him which is less properly called Faith, and more properly a discerning, and commonly Assurance or perswasion of Gods Love.
Con. 32. I gladly confess also, that Christ made full satisfaction to God for our sin, and therein intended only and infallibly the actual salvation and Justification of his Elect: And that we may be said to be reconciled to God, and our sins done away, in a diminutive sense as to actual pardon and Reconciliation, even presently upon Christs death and Resurrection, and so before we were born or believed. And if any will call this a Potential or Virtual Justification, though I will not imitate them, because I will keep close to Scripture-terms, yet if they explain their meanings, I will not contend for the word.
Con. 33. I confess also that God did eternally elect a certain number of determinate individual persons, to be infallibly justified and saved by Christ, in time: And that these were given to Christ that he should dye for them, and for them only with a specialintention of actually justifying and saving them: and that all that are so given him shall come to him, and none shall take them out of his hands.
Con. 34. I believe that none can come to Christ except the Father draw them, and that he converteth them by an infallibly effectual grace, such as is an act of Omnipotency, and is never resisted, so far as to be overcome.
Con. 35. I am certain that the new nature of every Christian containeth a sense of his own great unworthyness, yea his desert of death for the sin of his best duties and such a sense of the Riches of Gods Love and free Grace in Christ, and how much we are beholden to him; that every such soul must needs be prone to disclaim confidence in any thing of their own, and to give all the glory to Christ, and free Grace: self-denyal and ascribing to free Grace, being the most of our Christianity. So that if the zeal of this truth do make the inconsiderate to forget the nature and necessity of holyness, and its due place, and to forget how much the Righteous Lord loveth righteousness, and how Christ intended it in his death and Covenant, considering mans frailty, it is no wonder. And supposing that this is Mr. Crandons case, I heartily forgive him his volumn of calumnies, and railing Accusations: being parswaded he intended them much for Christ, though I think that there was too much of the interest of his private opinion, that made him, as it were, call for fire from heaven, and that he little knew what Spirit he was of. The Lord cause him to know it, and forgive him.