The Covenant Sealed, Section 1
SECT. I. Faith in Chriſt, quà Lord, is not the Juſtifying Act.
THe firſt of thoſe points which you have made choyce of, is, That the acceptation of Chriſt, as a Lord, and not onelyonly as a Prieſt, doth juſtifie, In oppoſition to ſome paſſages of mine Chap. 12. pag. 79. of my Treatiſe of the Covenant. In all of which, as I do not name you, ſo I think there is never a ſentence that is poſitively yours; ſo that, had not you thus owned it, few would have obſerv'd it. I there ſay what you repeat, [That, it is true, that faith accepts Chriſt as a Lord, as well as a Saviour; but it is the acceptation of him, as a Saviour, not as a Lord, that juſtifies: Chriſt rules his people as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes attonement for them onelyonly as a Prieſt, by giving himſelf in ſacrifice, his blood for remiſſion of ſins: Theſe muſt be diſtinguiſhed, but not divided: Faith hath an eye at all, The blood of Chriſt, The command, The doctrine of Chriſt; But as it faſtens on his blood, ſo it juſtifies. He is ſet out a propitiation through faith in his blood, Rom. 3.24. not through faith in his command. It is the blood of Chriſt that cleanſeth all ſin; and not the Soverainty of Chriſt. Theſe confuſions of the diſtinct parts of Chriſts Mediatorſhip, and the ſpeciall offices of faith, may not be ſuffered. Scripture aſſignes each it's particular place and work; Soveraignty doth not cleanſe us, nor doth blood command us: Faith in his blood, not faith yielding to his ſoveraignty, doth juſtifie us.Mr. Brs. reply analized.]
In your reply to this paſſage of mine, you
1. Acquit me of any further error, then what is found in my method, affirming, that I agree with you in ſubſtantiâ rei.
2. You lay down ſix ſeveral diſtinctions.
3. You lay down nine propoſitions. All of which, both diſtinctions and propoſitions, I believe you intended for illuſtration of the point in debate, but your Readers (and thoſe neither of the younger nor duller ſort) complaine of your obſcuring of it.
4. You fall upon your charge of me, and here you charge, 1. My expreſſions, with confounding that, which was my buſineſs, as well as I could, to diſtinguiſh. 2. You charge my implications, or implyed ſenſe (which it ſeems you far better know then I) with triple injuſtice. 1. Againſt the truth and word of God. 2. Againſt the ſouls of men, 1. In ſuch nice mincing & cutting the conditions of their ſalvation, to their great perplexity, if they receive my doctrine. That which all complain of, in your expreſſions, you are pleaſed to blame me withall in my implications. Upon the comming out of your Apologie, I was wrote unto by an eminently-learned hand in theſe words. I wiſh that it may not divert you from better employment, and namely your Treatiſe about the Sacraments, to which if you adjoyn as an appendix, ſomething by way of reply to Mr. Br. not ſo as to trouble your ſelf and others, (as Mr. Br. doth too much) with Logicall niceties, but to clear and confirm the main matter, I think it will be moſt convenient. 2. I am charged, as not affording one word of Scripture or reaſon; when yet in thoſe few words recited, I think the reader may ſee as many as in all your diſtinctions and propoſitions. Laſtly and leaſtly (as you term it) my charge is of evident injuſtice to my friend, (For it is, as is ſaid, no hard matter to know who I mean) in charging him with confounding the diſtinct parts of Chriſts mediatorſhip. I am expreſly ſpoke to, and charged without injuſtice for confounding Chriſts actions, with mans faith; How truly let the Reader judge; And am yet guilty of injuſtice, in charging my implyed friend, in my implyed ſenſe, with ſuch a crime.
5. You excuſe your ſelf, for your not much troubling me with arguments; Giving your reaſon, that you have done it, over, and over, to others. Where I would have the Reader to obſerve, that you have other Adverſaries, beſides me, in this point, and thoſe of the moſt learned, who (as elſe where you ſay) have vouchſafed that condeſcenſion as to give in animadverſions. 2. That we hear none of theſe learned mens reaſons. A few words of mine let fall by the bie, are fallen upon, and elaborate learned Treatiſes of others lie dormant, induſtriouſly written on this ſubject.
6. You come in with your ten arguments; which it ſeemes you take to be a number below trouble. It would trouble you, If I ſhould ſay, your implyed ſenſe is, That they are ſuch, to which I may without trouble give in an anſwer.
7. You amplifie your tenth argument, with a large diſcourſe, and all of this before you can reach my words. I ſhould trouble the Reader in his purſe and patience, if I ſhould follow you in all theſe particulars, and indeed I was ſcarce ever brought ſo near to a non-plus. To ſpeak to all, Time will not ſuffer; and to take to ſome, and leave others, will expoſe me to cenſure. Your diſtinctions ſhould be look'd into, and if they had been either proved or explained, you had done your Reader a Favour. Your firſt diſtinction is between Conſtitutive Juſtification, His diſtinctions conſidered.or remiſſion by the Goſpel-grant or Covenant; and Juſtification by the ſentence of the Judge. I hope you do not make theſe two diſtinct Juſtifications, that ſo it ſhould be a diſtribution of a Genus into its ſpecies, So I think few Readers will own it. But if you mean by the former, a Juſtification wrought, and in it ſelf perfect and compleat, as your word conſtitutive would ſeem to imply; And by Juſtification by the ſentence of the Judge, Juſtification manifeſted and declared, then I freely yeeld. That is Juſtification in it ſelf, perfect and full, that renders a man bleſſed; And this your conſtitutive Juſtification, which you call remiſſion by the Goſpel-grant doth, Pſal. 32.1. Commented upon by the Apoſtle, Rom. 4.7, 8. Whether the Elect ſhall have any other juſtification, or this manifeſted, and more fully held out, let Chriſt himſelf determine. At the day when God by him ſhall judge the world, he will pronounce this ſentence, Come yee bleſſed of my Father, Matth. 25.34. This Juſtification then by the ſentence of the Judge is a manifeſtation of this bleſſedneſs, which is in remiſſion and non-imputation of ſin. Your next diſtinction is between, Conſtitutive Juſtification as begun, and as continued or conſummate. And here I doubt not but you may diſtinguiſh, provided that you donot divide and make one condition to be required for the firſt, (as you uſe to do) viz. Faith only, and another (which is works) the condition of the ſecond; When David through faith was put into a juſtified ſtate, and after fell into ſin, there was a neceſſity of his return in the order eſtabliſhed of God. You may ſay, if you pleaſe, that works muſt now acquit him from this ſecond guilt: but this I ſhall hardly imbrace. He ſought in his faln condition, to have ſin by free grace remitted, and to be purged with that, which Hyſopin Ceremoniall purifications did typifie, Pſal. 51.7. A juſtified ſtate is carried on in a way of obedientiall affiance; But faith in Chriſts blood, firſt and laſt doth only juſtifie. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of the falls of the Children of God, when he ſayes, If any man ſin, 1 John 2.1. and tels us the way to be acquited, not any new, but the old and firſt way: We have an Advocate with the Father, Jeſus Chriſt the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our ſin; And I know no other way of propitiation, then through faiths in his blood. I know what you ſay, Pref. to your Confeſ. pag. 8. if I number right, They are very different queſtions, How we are conſtituted juſt, or put into a juſtified ſtate at our converſion; & How we are ſentenced juſt, or juſtified at Gods Judgment ſeat. You may if you pleaſe make them two queſtions, but were I to be Catechized by you, I ſhould give you the ſame anſwer. And I believe Paul was of the ſame mind, when he deſired to be found, (as I think, in judgment) not having his own righteouſneſs, but that which is through the faith of Chriſt, the righteouſneſſe which is of God by faith. I think he could find no other, which would be as a Screen, or cover, to hide ſin, or keep off the wrath of God. He knew nothing by himſelf; He could not therefore be charged as unbelieving or impenitent; Yet he was not thereby juſtified, 1 Cor. 4.4. Be it faith as a work or other work of obedience, they are all within the command of the Law; and I dare not reſt there for Juſtification. And the Apoſtle acquaints us with no other way then faith for intereſt in this righteouſneſſe. You farther ſay in in the place quoted: They that will needs (to the great diſgrace of their underſtandings) deny that there is any ſuch thing as Juſtification at Judgment, mu…t either ſay that there is no Judgment, or that all are Condemned; or that judging doth not contain Juſtification and Condemnation, as its diſtinct ſpecies; but ſome men ſhall then be judged, who ſhall neither be Juſtified nor Condemned. All men have not their underſtandings elevated to one pitch, I know no Juſtification to be expected then, ſpecifically diſtinct from that which did precede. I would for the bettering of my underſtanding learn, whether this Juſtification at the day of Judgment be not a Juſtification of men already juſtified, yea of men already in poſſeſſion of their Crown, (except of thoſe who then are found alive) though not compleat, in regard of the abſence of the body; I have fought a good fight, (ſays the Apoſtle) I have finiſhed my courſe, henceforth there is laid up for me a Crown of Righteouſnes, 2 Tim. 4.7, 8. At the end of his combat he receives his Crown. This muſt needs be, unleſſe we will be of the Mortaliſts Judgment, to deny any ſeparate exiſtence of the Soul; Or of theirs that aſſert the Souls-ſleeping: both of them againſt the Apoſtle, who ſaith, To be abſent from the body, is to be preſent with the Lord, 2 Cor. 5.8. And upon that account, had a deſire to depart, & be with Chriſt, Phil. 1.23. which preſent advantage ſeem'd to him to over-weigh, or at leaſt to ballance all the good that the Church migh reap by his labour ſurviving. Your third diſtinction is between the Phyſicall operation of Chriſt and his benefits, on the intellect of the Believer, per modum objecti apprehenſi, as an intelligible ſpecies; and the morall conveiance of right to Chriſt, and his benefit, which is by an act of law, or Covenant-donation. If you call the firſt a Juſtification, then very bad men, in the Church on earth, and the worſt of Devils in hell, may be juſtified: They may have ſuch operations upon their underſtanding. You ſeem elſe where to diſtinguiſh between the acceptance of him by faith, and this morall conveyance of right. Your fourth diſtinction is between thoſe two queſtion, What juſtifieth ex parte Chriſti, and what juſtifieth or is required to our Juſtification ex parte peccatoris. Which as it is laid, is without exception. Your fifth is, between the true efficient cauſes of our Juſtification, and the meer condition, ſine qua non, et cum qua: Which I can ſcarſe tell whether to approve or diſapprove; with your comment upon it, I have ſpoken to it. Your laſt diſtinction is between Chriſts meriting mans Juſtification, and this actuall juſtifying him by conſtitution or ſentence, which, as the fourth, is above exception.
Your propoſitions offer themſelves in the next place to conſideration.
1. You ſay, Chriſt did merit our Juſtification, or a power to Juſtifie, not as a King, but by ſatisfying the juſtice of God in the form of a ſervant. This I imbrace with thanks, and do believe that it will draw more with it.
2. You ſay, Chriſt doth juſtifie conſtiſtutivè, as King and Lord, viz. ut Dominus Redemptor, i. e Quoad valorem rei, he conferreth it, Ut dominus gratis benefaciens; But Quoad modum conditionalem conferendi, Ut Rector et Benefactor. For it is Chriſts enacting the New Law, or Covenant, by which he doth legally pardon, or confer remiſſion, and conſtitute us righteous, ſuppoſing the condition performed on our part. And this is not an act of Chriſt as a Prieſt or Sacrificer, but joyntly, Ut Benefactor et Rector. Hereto me are termini novi, and Theologia nova. But let the terms alone of Dominus, Redemptor, Rector, Benefactor, That which you aſcribe to Chriſt in this place, (ſo far as I underſtand) Scripture ſtill gives to the Father. Chriſt gave himſelf for us, indeed, according to his Fathers command; but the Father gives him to us, and he that gave his Son, appoints the terms on which Juſtification and Salvation is to be obtained by him, God ſo loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoſoever believeth on him ſhould not periſh, John 3.16.
So that this New Law (if you will call it ſo) is of the Fathers appointment, John 6.40. This is the will of him that ſent me, that every one who ſeeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlaſting life. And in this ſenſe, if we will follow Scripture, The Father juſtifies, Rom. 8.33, 34. It is God that Juſtifies, whche is that condemneth? Chriſts work, is to work us into a poſture, to obtain it. The Father judicially acts in it.
3. You ſay, Chriſt doth juſtifie by ſentence as he is Judge, and King; and not as Prieſt. Anſw. If he juſtifie by ſentence, Then he condemnes by ſentence, when yet he ſays, J 1.47. He judges, (that is) condemnes none. The truth is, as the Pſalmiſt ſpeaks, God is Judge himſelf, Pſal. 50.6. and the Apoſtle tells us, he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteouſneſſe, by the man whom he hath ordained, Act. 17.31. This unqueſtionably Chriſt doth as King; but in this Kingly power, he is no other then the Fathers Agent, who hath ſet him on his holy Hill of Zion, Pſal. 2.6. He is therefore at the Fathers right hand, as prime in power for that work. Thoſe that are next to him, that is chief, are ſo ſeated, and Zebedees Children look'd for it, in Chriſts temporall Kingdome. When this is done, Chriſts mediatory power will be finiſhed, and he ſhall give up his Kingdome to the Father.
4. You ſay, Sententiall Juſtification, is the moſt full, compleat and eminent Juſtification, That in Law being, quoad ſententiam, but vertuall Juſtification. Anſw. To this I have ſpoken upon the firſt diſtinction.
5. You ſay, Faith juſtifies not, by receiving Chriſt as an object; which is to make a reall impreſſion and mutation on the intellect; according to the nature of the ſpecies, I ſay to juſtifie is not to make ſuch a reall change, &c. Anſw. To this I have ſpoke under that head of the inſtrumentality of faith. The works ancedent to this of Juſtification, as Humiliation, Regeneration, faith, imply a reall change. Such a change is wrought in the Juſtified Soul, though the act of Juſtification do not work it.
6. You ſay, Faith can have no phyſicall cauſation or efficiency in Juſtification, ſeeing that the work to be done by us, is not, noſmetipſos Juſtificare either in whole or in part, &c.
7. You ſay, The legall formall intereſt, or conducibility of faith towards Juſtification, cannot therefore be any other then that of a condition in the proper Law ſenſe, &c.
I have ſpoken to both of theſe in the place laſt mentioned.
8. You ſay, Scripture doth not ſay (that you can find) that faith juſtifies, but that we are juſtified by faith, and therefore (you ſay) you uſe the latter phraſe, rather then the former. Anſ. This ſure comes to fill up, or make a number, To ſay that we are juſtified by faith, and not that faith juſtifies, is a diſtinction without a difference: We have warmth by Clothes, but Clothes do not warm u…. Faith hath no leſſe efficiency in Juſtification, then in miraculous cures, and yet in them faith made whole.
9. You ſay, Though ex parte Chriſti, our ſeverall changes proceed from his ſeverall benefits, and parts of his office exerciſed for us; Yet ex parte noſtri, i.e. fidei, it is one intire apprehenſion or receiving of Chriſt, as he is offered in the Goſpel, which is the condition of our intereſt in Chriſt, and his ſeverall ben fits; and the effect is not parcelled, or diverſified, or diſtinguiſhed from the ſeverall diſtinct reſpects that faith hath to its object, &c. Anſw. It is well that this is confeſſed, on the part of Chriſt. And I think you cannot ſhew, why Chriſt ſhould undergo this variety of functions in his Mediatorſhip, and make them known to us likewiſe; That we ſhould be taught in our Catechiſm (which is ſo honoured with your approbation) That Chriſt executeth the office of a Prophet, in revealing to us by his word and Spirit, the will of God for our Salvation; That he executeth the office of a Prieſt, in his once offering up of himſelf a Sacrifice to ſatisfie divine Juſtice, and reconcile us to God, and in making continuall interceſſion for us; That he executeth the office of a King in ſubduing us to himſelf, in ruling and defending us, if our faith is not to obſerve, which way theſe various priviledges accrue unto us; Why does the Scripture ſo diſtinctly ſpeak of them, if we may not diſtinctly conſider them? Muſt our intellect go without our faith in this thing? I think it may be proved, that the Saints faith, hath thus diſtinctly acted. In danger of enemies they go to God in Chriſt, in conſideration of his ſoveraignty, As Jehoſhaphat, 2 Chron. 20.6. O Lord God of our Fathers, art not thou God in heaven, and ruleſt not thou over all the Kingdomes of the heathen, and in thy hands is there not power and might, So that none is able to withſtand thee? &c. Under a cloud of ignorance to go to him as a teacher, We ſee the cenſure that the Pſalmiſt paſſes upon himſelf, So fooliſh was I and ignorant, I was as a beaſt before thee, and preſently addreſſes himſelf to God, Thou ſhalt Guide me with thy counſell, and bring me unto glory, Pſal. 73.22, 24. Under the burthen of ſin, to look to be clenſed and purged; To what elſe did the ſacrifices tend? and why elſe did David make his addreſſe? Waſh me thoroughly from my ſin; Deliver me from blood-guiltineſſe. Here I muſt lay down certain propoſitions, in a more full way to explicate my ſelf.
Propoſitions tending to explain the Authors meaning1. That theſe ſeverall functions of Chriſt muſt be diſtinguiſhed, but may not be divided; He that is one is all, Chriſt a Prieſt doth rule, Chriſt a King doth merit and teach, Chriſt a Prophet doth both merit and rule: But as a Prieſt he doth not rule, as a King he doth not merit; he is ſtill one, in all of theſe functions, but acts under a diſtinct notion.
2. There is a neceſſity of the actuall improvement of his Kingly and Prophetick office, to bring men into a Juſtified ſtate; and to bring Juſtified ones to the end of their Juſtification. There muſt be light to lead men to Chriſt, power to ſubdue men unto him, as well as a price paid to reconcile them. When the price of our redemtion is paid by Chriſt, and not publiſhed, it is like the hid treaſure, by which no man hath advantage: Yea, were it made known, and by faith applied and brought home, our enemies yet are ſo potent and numerous that they would ſtill prevaile againſt us. Being redeemed by a price out of the hands of the Fathers Juſtice, we muſt be reſcued by a power out of the hands of Sathan; When his right determines, (as it is with many unjuſt poſſeſſors) he will yet keep his hold.
3. Our faith hath reſpect to whole Chriſt, to every part and piece of his Mediatorſhip. It yeelds to his ſoveraignty, is guided by his counſell, and reſts in his attonement. So that the faith which Juſtifies looks at his Kingly office, at his Prophetick office, as well as at his Prieſtly office, but not as it juſtifies. Quà teaching, it looks upon him as a Prophet, and learns; Quà ruling, it looks upon him as a King, and ſubmits to him; Quà ſacrificing, and making atonement, it looks upon him as a Prieſt, and reſts there for acquitall and diſcharge. Where the Goſpel diſtinguiſhes, our faith is diſtinctly to act and look.
As to the charge laid againſt me, I ſhall ſay little. I had rather ſpeak for truth then for my ſelf. You tell me, that my expreſſions confound Chriſt and his actions, with mans faith in our Juſtification, or theſe two queſtions [by what we are Juſtified ex parte Chriſti] and [by what we are Juſtified ex parte noſtri.] For anſwer, I only leave it to the Readers eyes, whether I do not mention, [our faith] as diſtinct from [the blood of Chriſt] in the words by you recited; And it is faith by which we are Juſtified ex parte noſtri. The implyed ſenſe which you accuſe, I ſhall further conſider in ſome expreſſe reaſons.
Now for your arguments, we have ten in number, and not above two of them conclude the propoſition in queſtion.
Your firſt concludes, That Chriſt is not received as Chriſt, Mr. Brs. Arguments examined.if not as Lord-Redeemer, which is a new phraſe, which I remember not, that I have read before I read this Apology. For Anſwer, I ſay Chriſt is to be received as the Lord our Redeemer, and as our Maſter or Teacher, but faith in Juſtification, eys Redemption, not Dominion.
Your ſecond concludes from the authority of the Aſſembly, That Juſtifying faith is the receiving of Chriſt, as he is offered in the Gopel; But he is offered in the Goſpel as Saviour and Lord. All which is that which never was denyed.
Your third concludes, That to ſave from the power of ſin, is as true a part of a Saviours office, as to ſave from the guilt, which is not at all to the queſtion. Saving from the power of Sin, Sanctifies, and not Juſtifies.
Your fourth, Of faiths receiving Chriſt, as he Juſtifies us, affirming, that he Juſtifies us, as King, & Judge, and Benefactor, is the ſame, for ought I can diſcern, with your tenth, and there is to be conſidered.
Your fifth is, If receiving Chriſt as Satisfier and Meritor, be the only faith that gives right to Juſtification; then on the ſame grounds we muſt ſay, It is the only faith that gives right to further Sanctification and to Glorification. If you put this argument into form, the word [meritor] will be found aequivocall, and the Syllogiſm to conſiſt of four termes. We look at Chriſt for Juſtification, as ſatisfying Juſtice, and meriting pardon and remiſſion, not as meriting Sanctification.
Sixthly you ſay, Rejecting Chriſt as a King, is the condemning ſin, therefore receiving him as King, is the Juſtifying faith. This is like the old argument, Evill works merit condemnation, Ergo good works merit ſalvation. An ill meaning damnes, Prov. 21.27. Our good meaning therefore ſaves. I further anſwer, Rejecting Chriſt as a King, is a ſin againſt the Morall Law, which damnes: Yet ſomewhat more then ſubjection to the Morall Law is required, that a ſinner may be ſaved. You give in your reaſon of your conſequent, Becauſe unbelief, ſay you, condemneth, (at leaſt partly) as it is the privation of the Juſtifying Faith; explaining your ſelf, that you ſpeak of that condemnation, or peremptory ſentence, which is proper to the New Law. To this I anſwer, Unbelief, if we ſpeak properly, doth not at all condemne, further then as it is a breach of a Morall Commandment. The privation, of which you ſpeak, only holds the ſentence of the Law in force and power againſt us: which me thinks ſhould be your judgment as well as mine, ſeeing you are wont to compare the New Law (as you call it) to an Act of Oblivion, And an Act of Oblivion ſaves many, but condemnes none: If a Traytor, or Murtherer be exempted in any ſuch Act of Oblivion, it is their crime that condemnes them, only the Act provides no remedy for them. It harmes them not, only it does not help them. If one of thoſe which were ſtung by the fiery ſerpent, Numb. 21. had refuſed to have look'd on the braz…n ſerpent, The ſting had been his death, and ſuch obſtinate refuſall had kept him from the meanes of cure.
Your ſeventh is, Kiſſing the Son, and ſubmitting to him, as King, is made the condition of eſcaping his wrath. Anſw. If you had ſaid A condition, you had ſpoken fairlier [The condition] implies the ſole condition. The yeelding up of our ſelves to him in all his functions, as the Lords Chriſt, verſ. 2. is there underſtood, which is of neceſſity in all that will eſcape his wrath.
Eighthly, you ſay, Matth. 11.28, 29, 30. The condition of caſe and of reſt (from guilt as well as power of ſin) is our comming to Chriſt as a teacher and example of meekneſſe and lowlineſſe, and our learning of him, a taking on us his yoke and burthen. Anſw. This text ſhewes the duty of men to be, not alone to ſeek reſt and eaſe from Chriſt, but to learn of Chriſt, and follow him: But neither their learning nor their imitation, but faith in his blood, is their freedome, or Juſtification.
Ninthly, you ſay, That faith which is the condition of ſalvation, is the condition of Juſtification or remiſſion: But it is the receiving of Chriſt as King, as well as a ſatisfier, that is the condition of our ſalvation; Therfore, &c. Anſw. Here the Concluſion is ſafely granted. You know that we yeeld, that the faith that accepts Chriſt as a King, Juſtifies: But that is not the Juſtifying act. The hand hath more officers then one; It works as well as receives; and ſo hath faith. And that there is more req…ired as a condition to Salvation then to Juſtification, (ſpeaking of it in Scripture phraſe) you yeeld ſufficiently, where you diſtinguiſh of Juſtification begun, the condition whereof is faith only, and Juſtification conſummate, there you bring in Repentance and Obedience; That which you call Juſtification begun, is Juſtification properly ſo called. Faith only is ſerviceable to reconcile us unto God; but there is more required for reparation of our qualifications, to hold us up in communion with God. Of this I have ſpoke, Chap. 1.2, 13, 14. of my treatiſe of the Covenant.
Your tenth and laſt reaſon is, If accepting Chriſt a Lord Redeemer be the fides quae Juſtificat, i. e. quae eſt conditio Juſtificationis, then it is meerly, ſtrictly, and properly the Juſtifying act of faith, as the accepting of Chriſts righteouſneſſe is: But the Antecedent (you ſay) is granted by all Divines that you have to do with: Therefore, &c. Anſw. If they grant your Antecedent ſimply, as in this phraſe you deliver it, I much marvell. This ſeemes to imply that Chriſt acted quà Lord, in paying the price of our Redemption: and that this work of his, is to be referred to his exaltation, and not to his ſtate of humiliation: And I am ſure the Scripture ſpeaks otherwiſe. That which I yeeld is, That the faith which accepts Chriſt who is our Lord and Redeemer, is the faith which Juſtifies, and the condition of our Juſtification; But as it lookes upon Redemption a ſacrificing act of Prieſt-hood,The diſtinctias fides quae and fides quà, aſſerted. done by him who is indeed a Lord and King, ſit only Juſtifies. But this diſtinction of Fides quae Juſtificat, and Fides quà Juſtificat, is (as you are pleas'd to ſay) the generall cheat, ſo that your Antecedent it ſeemes is granted you, by all thoſe Divines with whom you deal, under this limit; And as it ſeems, you have met with a pack of impoſtors, & that of the moſt learned in the Land, that out of their great condeſcenſion, have written for your ſatisfaction. This word, you think, ſounds harſhly from Mr. Crandon, as indeed it doth, and is no ſmall blemiſh to his great paines, you may then judge how it will take from your ſelf, in the ears of others: And I much marvell that this diſtinction, that every where elſe would paſſe, and be confeſſed to be of neceſſity, to avoid confuſion in thoſe diſtinct capacities, in which men uſually act, ſhould here not alone be queſtioned, but thus branded. Does not every man that undergoes various relatitions variouſly act according to them? And do not men that make addreſſe, addreſſe themſelves in like variety? He that is at once, a Husband, a Parent, a Maſter, a School-maſter, a Phyſician, acts variouſly according to all of theſe capacities. Some come to him as a father, ſome as a Maſter, ſome as a Teacher, all of them come unto him, as a Phyſician; But only they that come to him, as a Phyſician, are cur'd by him. Believers through faith go to Chriſt, that bears all the relations mentioned; But as they ſeek ſatisfaction in his blood-ſhedding, which is an act of his Prieſt-hood, they are juſtified. Learned Ameſius may worthily be rank'd in the firſt place amongſt thoſe that you thus honour. As ſoon as he enters upon the diſpute of juſtifying faith, in anſwer to Bellarmines firſt queſtion, What that faith is that is required to juſtification? he ſayes in the name of Proteſtants,(a)Hoc ipſum vel imperitè, vel ſophiſtice, in quaeſtionem vocatur. Nam, 1. Multa ad juſtificationem requiruntur quae non juſtificant. 2. Non tam quaeritur quae, aut quid fides quae juſtificat, quam quae ſit ratio quâ propriè dicitur juſtificare. This is either unskilfully or ſophiſtically put to the queſtion, giving in his reaſons. 1. Saith he, There are many things required to juſtification, which do not juſtifie. 2. It is not ſo much enquir'd into, what that faith is, which do's juſtifie; as in what notion it is that it is ſaid to juſtifie? And giving anſwer to farther words of Bellarmine, he ſaith in the ſame page, that(b)Obſervandum eſt, nos non reſtringere fidem illam quae juſtificat, ſed tantum quà juſtificat, ad promiſſionem miſericordiae. Arguments evincing that faith in the blood of Chriſt only juſtifies. Proteſtants do not reſtrain the faith [which] juſtifies, but faith [as] it juſtifies, to the promiſe of mercy. Much more may be ſeen in this Author in his next Chapter, Sect. 1. Sect. 8. which I leave to the Reader to conſult at pleaſure. And together with it, that which may be ſeen largely in Chemnitius, enquiring into the proper object of juſtifying faith, in his Examen Concil: Trident: mihi pag. 159. under this head, Quid verè & propriè ſit fides juſtificans, & quo ſenſu ſcriptura velit intelligi, quando pronunciat impium fide juſtificari.
I ſhall here take the boldneſs to give in my arguments to make good, that faith in Chriſt, quà Lord, doth not juſtifie.
1. That which the types under the Law, appointed for attonement and expiation, lead us unto in Chriſt, our faith muſt eye for attonement, expiation, and reconciliation; This cannot be denied; Theſe Levitical types lead us doubtleſs to a right object, being School-maſters to lead us unto Chriſt, and ſhaddows whereof he is the ſubſtance; As alſo to that office in him (who is the object of faith) that ſerves for this work: But theſe types lead us unto Chriſt in his Prieſtly office, for the moſt part as Sacrificing, ſometimes as interceding, John 1.29. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Pet. 1.18. A great part of the Epiſtle to the Hebrews is a proof of it.
2. That which the Sacraments under the Goſpel, ſetting forth Chriſt for pardon of ſin, lead us unto, That our faith muſt eye, for Reconciliation, Pardon, and Juſtification; This is clear, Chriſt in his own inſtituted ordinances, will not miſguide us: But theſe lead us to Chriſt ſuffering, dying for the pardon of ſin, Mat. 26.28. This is my blood in the new Teſtament ſhed for you, and for many for the remiſſion of ſins. Here is a confirmation of both theſe arguments in one; The types of the Law, and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, lead both of them to his blood, for this reaſon of attonement and forgiveneſs. There was an old Teſtament enjoyn'd of God, in which the people in convenant were ſprinkled with blood, Exod. 24.1, &c. commented upon by the Apoſtle, Heb. 9.20, &c. That blood, and this cup, lead to Chriſts blood for forgiveneſs, and in them the death of Chriſt is remembred. A broken, bleeding, dying Chriſt, in the Lords Supper is received.
3. As the Spirit of God guides faith, ſo it muſt go to Chriſt for propitiation and attonement; This needs no proof; The Holy Ghoſt is the beſt leader: But the Holy Ghoſt guides our faith to go to the blood of Chriſt for attonement, whom God hath ſet forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, Ro. 3.25. It is blood is our propitiatory or mercy ſeat: We are juſtified by his blood, Rom. 5.9. And faith is our way of intereſt, and thither the Spirit of God, by the Apoſtle, leads our faith, as we ſee in the words mentioned. I am checkt indeed by you, becauſe I ſay, through faith in his blood, not faith in his command: quo jure neſcio, ſay you. My reaſon, or warranty is; becauſe I durſt not adde to the Apoſtles directory; when he leads us one way, I dare look no other. If he had intended to have led us to Chriſt as a propitiation, without further direction, under what notion our faith ſhould have look'd upon him; It had been enough to have ſaid, that he is our propitiation: but diſtinctly pointing out [his blood] and [faith in his blood] I think I have warrant ſufficient to lead ſouls hither, and only hither: eſpecially ſeeing I find him ſtill in the ſame language, Rom. 5.8, 9. God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet ſinners, Chriſt dyed for us, much more then, being now juſtified by his blood, we ſhall be ſaved from wrath, through him. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveneſs of our ſins, Epheſ. 1.7. The blood of Jeſus Chriſt his Son cleanſeth us from all ſin, 1 John 1.7. For as much as ye know that we were redeemed —with the precious blood of Chriſt, as a Lamb without blemiſh. You demand, Will you exclude his obedience, reſurrection, interceſſion? To which I only ſay, I marvail at the queſtion; If I exclude theſe, I ſhall exclude his blood; His ſhedding of blood was in obedience, John 10.18. Phil. 2.8. His reſurrection was his freedom from the bonds of death, and an evidence of our diſcharge by blood: His interceſſion is founded on his blood; He intercedes, not as we, by bare petition, but merit: He preſents his blood as our high Prieſt in the holy of holies. You tell me further, that the thing I had to prove, was not the excluſion of [faith in his commands] but of [faith in Chriſt as Lord and teacher.] I can no more diſtinguiſh [Lord] and [command] then I can [blood] and [ſacrifice] it being the office of a Lord to rule, as of blood to make attonement. You yet tell me, It was fitteſt for Paul to ſay [by faith in his blood] becauſe he intends to connote both what we are juſtified by, ex parte Chriſti, and what we are juſtified by, ex parte noſtri, but the former principally. To this I ſay, If this were fitteſt for Paul, then it is unfit for any to come in with animadverſions, and tell us of any other thing, either ex parte Chriſti, or ex parte noſtri, for juſtification. I pray you reſt here, and we are well agreed. Here is Chriſts Prieſtly office on his part alone, and I am reſolved to look no further.
4. Our faith muſt look upon Chriſt ſo as to obtain righteouſneſs by him, by vertue of which we may appear before God as righteous: But it is by his obedience as a Servant, that we obtain righteouſneſs, and ſtand before the Lord as righteous, Rom. 15.19. By the obedience of one, many are made righteous.
5. That way that Chriſt took to bring us to God, our faith muſt eye and follow: But Chriſt by death, the ſacrifice of himſelf, brings us to God, 1 Pet. 3.18. Chriſt alſo hath once ſuffered for ſins, the juſt for the unjuſt, that he might bring us to God.
6. As Chriſt frees us from the curſe, ſo he juſtifies us, and in that notion our faith muſt look unto him for juſtification. This is plain; Juſtification being no other but our acquittall from the curſe, which is the ſentence of the Law of Moſes, Acts 13.38. But Chriſt frees us from the curſe, in ſuffering as a ſacrifice, not ruling as a Lord, Gal. 3.13. Chriſt hath redeemed us from the curſe of the Law, being made a curſe for us: for it is written, Curſed is every one that hangeth on a tree.
I ſaid in my Treatiſe of the Covenants, [there are ſeverall acts of juſtifying ſaith, Heb. 11. but thoſe are not acts of juſtification. It is not Abrahams obedience, Moſes ſelf-denyal, Gideons or Sampſons valour, that was their juſtification, but his blood that did enable them in thoſe duties by his Spirit; Paul went in theſe duties as high as they; and I doubt not, but he overtopt them; yet he was not thereby juſtified.] Here are many exceptions taken. 1. At the phraſe [an act of juſtification] with much ado made to know my meaning, when I had thought all had well enough underſtood it: You would fancy that I mean that juſtification it ſelf acts, ſpeaking of it, not as an object, but an efficient; but I muſt acquaint you, that it implies, that juſtification acts, when I ſpeak of the acts of juſtification, as it doth, that harveſt works, when I ſpeak of harveſt-work. I mean acts tending to juſtifie, or exercis'd in, or about juſtification. 2. It is demanded, Who knows whether you mean that none of thoſe acts, Heb. 11. are acts of juſtification? The proper importance of your words, ſay you, is for the former: but that, (ſay you) is a dangerous untruth, giving in v. 13. as an exception againſt it. Anſw. I intended the generality of thoſe acts there aſcribed to faith, in that indefinite ſpeech of mine, which you cannot make neceſſarily to be univerſall. You have juſtly made exception of one, verſ. 13. which in my miniſteriall way, preaching on thoſe words, I have interpreted, as you ſay, our Divines do. It ſee…s by you, that I have our Divines in the reſt ſiding with me. 3. You tell me, you ſhould not (in my judgement) have called [Abrahams obedience, Moſes ſelf-deniall, Gideons valour] acts of juſtifying faith. Are theſe acts of faith? If you mean, (ſay you) that theſe acts are fruits of faith, it is true, or if you mean that an act of faith did excite the ſoul, &c. Anſw. And ſhould the Apoſtle have then ſaid that they were done by faith? Is not this his error, as the former is mine? I pray you what was that [work of faith] that the Apoſtle mentions, 1 Theſ. 1.3? Faith wrought and acted ſomewhat. 4. You demand, what mean you to ſay, obedience and valour was not their juſtification? Anſw. If no act of faith, ſano ſenſu, by an ordinary Metonymy, may be ſaid to be juſtification, make then a comment upon the Apoſtles words, Rom. 4.3. where to overthrow juſtification by works, and to eſtabliſh juſtification by faith, he ſayes, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteouſneſs: which is as much as, it was his juſtification. That which is a prevalent plea in any Court to obtain juſtification, is not unfitly called juſtification. Faith in Chriſts blood is ſuch a plea, and therefore not unfitly called our juſtification. Your fifth and ſixth need not to have been put into two; Then how come you to ſay next, (ſay you) that it is Chriſt's blood? The blood of Chriſt is the meritorious cauſe of our juſtification, &c. But I thought the conteſt in your diſpute had been, which is the juſtifying act of faith, and which not? And therefore when you denyed thoſe in Heb. 11. to be acts of juſtification, (which I am forced to interpret [juſtifying acts] I expected to find the true act aſſerted; but in ſtead of that, I find the oppoſite number, is [The blood of Chriſt.] Is this indeed the controverſie? Whether it be [accepting Chriſt as Lord] or [the blood of Chriſt] that juſtifieth? Never was ſuch a queſtion debated by me, in the way here intimated. I am wholly for you, if this be the doubt. H…re you meet with the greateſt advantage, that I think in my Treatiſe you any where find; when I ſay, [theſe acts were not their juſtification] and put in oppoſition, [but his blood who did enable them to duties by his Spirit,] it ſhould have been faith in his blood who did enable them to theſe duties; but each one may ſee, and ſome have ſaid, (that before we read this objection of yours,) that it is plain that I meant it. S…venthly you tell me, It would prove an hard task to make good that there are ſeveral acts of juſtifying faith by which we are not juſtified, without flying to great impropriety of ſpeech. Anſw. I believe you think, that juſtifying faith includes in it, all thoſe kinds of faith that Scripture mentions, as Faith Dogmatical, or Hiſtorical, and (in all that had the gift of miracles,) Faith-miraculous. They had not one faith, whereby they had their intereſt in Chriſt, and another whereby they gave aſſent to Divine truths, and a third whereby they wrought miracles: And to ſay that we are juſtified by ſuch aſſent, or they, by ſuch miracles, I think were a ſpeech more then improper. You ſay further, That by juſtifying faith, I muſt mean the act, habit, or renewed faculty. And I wonder you could have it in your thoughts, that I ſhould mean the laſt. Then you would willingly engage me in a diſpute, whether that the acts and habits of mans ſoul, are of ſo diſtinct a nature, that where the acts are ſpecifically diſtinct by the great diſtance and variety of objects, yet the habit producing all theſe is one and the ſame. To which I ſay no more for anſwer, but that I ſhall take it for granted, till I ſee (as yet I do not) convincing reaſon againſt it. Eighthly you tell me, that 1 Cor. 4.4. is nothing to our buſineſs. Paul was not his own juſtifier. Though he knew not matter of condemnation (ſenſu Evangelio) for no doubt he knew himſelf to be a ſinner) yet that did not Juſtifie him; becauſe it is God only that is his Judge. Anſw. I believe that you give a right comment on the Apoſtles words, as to the firſt branch. He was one whoſe heart, as John ſpeaks, condemn'd him not; but your reaſon why he was not therby juſtified is very ſtrange: Becauſe, ſay you, that it is God onelyonly that is his Judge. And thus then the Apoſtle argues; God onelyonly is Judge to juſtifie: But my innocency, or integrity is not God: Therefore it doth not juſtifie. It ſeemes that Abrahams works with you are God, for you tell us preſently that he was juſtified by them. The Apoſtle indeed addes, in the following words, He that judgeth me is the Lord; But thoſe words have not reference to theſe now in hand, as is plain in the context, but to that which he had ſpoken to verſ. 3. With me it is a very ſmall thing that I ſhould be judged of you, or of mans Judgment, yea I judge not mine own ſelf, to which theſe words come in direct oppoſition, But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And thus then the Apoſtle here argues, He that muſt ſtand to the Judgment of the Lord, may account it a very ſmall thing to be judged of men: But I muſt ſtand to the Judgment of the Lord: Ergo. I think the Reader may find a better interpretation of this text from Mr. Ball, quoted by me in this treatiſe, which might be ſeconded by the authority of ſeverall others, and ſuch (as he ſayth) renders the text ſtrong againſt Juſtification by works. When you have expounded the words as you have done, they ſerve to ſhut out all works, in which Paul ever appear'd, from Juſtification. There followes ſuch an inference that you would hardly bear with from another. Can you hence prove (ſay you) that accepting Chriſt as a Lord is not the condition of Juſtification then you may prove the ſame of the accepting of him as a Saviour.
It ſeemes every word in a whole treatiſe muſt immediatly of it ſelf, formally prove the main thing that is in queſtion. It proves that works parallel to Abrahams offering Iſaack, or leaving of his Country, are none ſuch whereby men are juſtified. It fully proves that which the next words ſeems to diſprove.
I brought in by way of objection that text of [James, and endeavoured to give ſome anſwer to it:James 2 24. vindicated. James indeed ſaith, that Abraham was Juſtified by works, when he had offered Iſaack his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2.21. But either there we muſt underſtand a working faith, with Piſator, Paraeus, and Penible, and confeſs that Paul and James handle two diſtinct queſtions, The one, whether faith alone Juſtifies without works? which he concludes in the affirmative; The other, what faith Juſtifies? Whether a working faith only, and not a faith that is dead and idle? Or elſe I know not how to make ſenſe of the Apoſtle, who ſtreight infers from Abrahams Juſtification by the offer of his Son, And the Scripture was fulfilled which ſaith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousneſſe. How otherwiſe do theſe aceord? He was Juſtified by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which ſaith, he was Juſtified by faith?] Here are many exceptions taken, If James muſt uſe the term [works] twelve times in thirteen verſes, a thing not uſuall, as if he had fore-ſeen how men would queſtion his meaning, and yet for all that we muſt believe, that by [works] James doth not mean [works] it would prove as hard a thing to underſtand the Scripture, as the Papiſts would perſwade us that it is. Anſw. Firſt, it ſeemes the difficulty of interpretation is ſuppoſed, when the word is uſed 12 times ſo near together, otherwiſe I doubt not but your ſelf wil confeſſe a neceſſity of interpretation of this kind, which yet you would be loath to have branded with ſuch abſurdity. Secondly, If I durſt take the liberty that others aſſume, the doubt were eaſily ſolved, and ſay, that Paul ſpeakes of a reall Juſtification, James of an equivocall, which interpretation would far better ſuit here then elſe where. A dead faith is fit to work a dead Juſtification, and ſuch as carries as full reſemblance to Juſtification in truth, as a dead corps doth of a living man. Thirdly, were you to interpret that of David, Pſal. 22.6. I am a worm and no man, I think you would ſo interpret it, as to make him a man and no worm. But to leave Metaphors,Metonymies frequent in Scripture. and come to the Metonymies of this kind. How frequently are ſuch found in Scripture? which inforce us to ſay, that not to be in ſtrict Propriety of ſpeech, what Scrippture ſaies, is. He hath made him to be ſin for us, 2 Cor. 5.21. When yet we muſt ſay, he was not made ſin, an entity cannot be made a non ens, or meer privation; He was made then an atonement for ſin, a ſin-offering as we ſay, a Metonymy of the Adjunct. Theſe died in faith, having not received the promiſes, Heb. 11.13. They had received the promiſes, Rom. 9.4. It is a contradiction to ſay, They died in the faith, and had not received the promiſe. It is taken there for the land promiſed; a Metonymy of the Object. When Herod the King heard theſe things, he was troubled, and all Jeruſalem with him, Matth. 2.3. Jeruſalem was not troubled; It was alone the Inhabitants that were troubled, by a Metonymy of the Subj…ct. This is the Will of God, even your Sanctification, 1 Theſ. 4.4. and this was not, voluntas Dei, but res volita, not the Will of God, but the thing willed, by a Metonymy of the Cauſe. A Thouſand more of theſe might be named, which yet are as well underſtood, as we underſtand each others common Language.
2. Do but read (ſay you) over all the ſeverſes, & put [working faith] inſtead of [works] & trie what ſenſe you will make? Anſw. Here is implyed, that, As [works] are taken in ſome of theſe verſes, So they muſt be taken in all, If there be no Metonymy in all, then there is no Metonymy in any. As one, ſo all are to be underſtood. But if you pleaſe to conſult Gomarus in his vindication of thoſe words of Chriſt, Matth. 23.27. Com. 1. Pag. 110.111.One and the ſame word is often repeated in the ſame verſe, or neer to it, in a different ſenſe. Infirma eſt haec conſequentia, nititur enim falſa hypotheſi, quaſi ejuſdem verbi repetitio ſemper eundem ſenſum poſtularet: cum contra pro circumſtantiarum ratione ſaepe diverſo ſenſu accipiatur, quem admodum illuſtria ex empla demonſtrant. You will find frequent inſtances where the ſame word, in the ſelf ſame place or verſe, muſt be taken in a different ſenſe; in one properly, and in the other figuratively. Interpreting thoſe words, O Jeruſalem, Jeruſalem, of the heads and leaders of the people of Jeruſalem; there lies an objection againſt him, that in Luk. 13.33. the words immediatly before are, It cannot be that a Prophet ſhould periſh out of Jeruſalem, where the word Jeruſalem is taken for the City it ſelf, and not for the heads and leaders of the people. He anſwers, This conſequence is weak: For it is built upon a falſe ground, as though the repetition of the ſame word ſhould alſo enforce the ſame ſenſe, when contrawiſe according to the circumſtance of the place, it may be taken in a different ſence, as many illuſtr ous examples make manifeſt; Inſtancing in Joh. 3.17. God ſent not his Son into the world to condemne the world, Where world in the firſt place ſignifies the earth, in the ſecond place men on the earth, 2 Cor. 5.21. Him that knew no ſin, he made ſin for us, Where in the firſt place ſin is taken properly, in the latter place by a Metonymy. 2 Chron. 35.24. And they brought him to Jeruſalem, and he died, and was buried in one of the ſepulchres of his Fathers, and all Judah and Jeruſalem mourned for Joſiah. In the firſt place, Jeruſalem is taken for the City, in the ſecond place, for the Inhabitants of it. And ſo alſo, Matth. 2.1, 3. There came wiſemen from the eaſt to Jeruſalem. When Herod the King heard theſe things, he was troubled, and all Jeruſalem with him; With further inſtances which there may be ſeen, concluding, that therefore the ſuppoſition of the adverſaries is falſe, that the repetition of the ſame word muſt be allwaies in the ſame ſenſe.
3. No doubt, ſay you, but Paul and James handle two diſtinct queſtions, but not the two, that you here expreſſe. Paul ſpeaks of meritorious works, which make the reward of debt and not of grace, if you will believe his own deſcription of them, Rom. 4.4. But James ſpeaks of no ſuch works, but of ſuch as have a conſiſtency with grace, and a neceſſary ſubordination to it. I prove it: The works that James ſpeaks of we muſt endeavour for and perform, or periſh, Paul excludes not only works of merit, but all works, from Juſtification.(ſuppoſing time) but the works that Paul ſpeaks of, no man muſt endeavour, or once imagine that he can perform, viz. ſuch as make the reward to be of debt, and not of grace. To this I anſwer, 1. That if Paul ſpeaks only of meritorious works, then according to you, he ſpeaks of no works at all, for there are none ſuch, no not in Angels, Confeſs. Chap. 3. §. 6: Paul ſpeaks in the place quoted of works where there is a reward of debt, and yet ſpeaks not as I conceive of works of merit, ſeeing, as he mentions none ſuch, ſo there are none ſuch. He exclude then works to which a reward is due, vi promiſſi, rather then meriti, As Eph. 2. he excludes boaſting of works done by the help of grace: for there is a matter of boaſting in theſe, as we ſee in the Phariſee, Luk. 18.11. 2. If Paul had here ſpoken of works of merit, and I muſt believe him, ſo elſewhere he ſpeaks of other works, and there both you and I are to believe him likewiſe. 1. He ſpeaks and excludes all the works that we have done, Tit. 3.5. Which he univerſally oppoſes to Juſtification by free grace, v. 7. and it is of faith, that it may be of grace, Rom. 4.16. 2. He ſpeaks of and excludes all thoſe works, or that righteouſneſſe, which is not the righteouſneſſe of God by faith, Phil. 8.8, 9. that is, all the righteouſneſs that is inherent in us, and not in Chriſt alone, and made ours by faith: therefore he is called the Lord our Righteouſneſſe, Jer. 23.6. and ſaid to be made of God unto us righteouſneſſe, 1 Cor. 1.30. 3. He ſpeaks of, and excludes, all thoſe works which the Law commands, Rom. 3.20. Now there is no work of grace but the Law gives it in charge, yea the Law commands to take in grace, whereſoever there is a tender of it, for our aſſiſtance, Requiring a duty, it requires all neceſſary helps to it. And therefore Chemnitius obſerves, that when the Apoſtle excludes the works of the Law from Juſtification, his intention is to exclude the higheſt and nobleſt, not only done by Phariſees or unregenerate perſons, but Abraham, David, or the moſt eminent convents. 4. He ſpeaks of and excludes all thoſe works, that any man in the higheſt pitch of grace can attain unto, in the place quoted, 1 Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by my ſelf, yet I am not thereby Juſtified. He knew no matter of condemnation ſay you, ſenſu Evangelico, he then kept up to that which God in the Goſpel-Covenant calls for: And yet he is not thereby juſtified. Though God will not condemne a man of that integrity, through grace, yet this doth not juſtifie. This place, (ſaith Cartwright on the words) is the death of your Juſtification by works. For if Paul knew nothing by himſelf (in that wherein the Corinthians might ſuppoſe him moſt guilty) and was not ſo much as in that point Juſtified before God, who is he that dares to Juſtifie himſelf before God in any work? And Fulk on the words. Paul doth acknowledge that he is not Juſtified by his faithfull ſervice, and labour in the Goſpel, therefore no man can be Juſtified by his works done of grace, in as great perfection as can be done of mortall man. If the whole diſcharge of Paules miniſteriall function, wherein he took heed to himſelf and to his doctrines, was not ſuch where by he could be Juſtified, How then could Abraham be juſtified in offering Iſaack, or Rahab in her hiding of the ſpies? If the Apoſtle therefore do exclude works of merit, we ſee what works he alſo excludes with it. You futher ſay, Paul ſpeaks indeed of faith collaterally, but of Chriſts merits and free grace, directly and purpoſely: So that the chief part of Pauls controverſie was, Whether we are juſtified freely through Chriſts merits, or through our own meritorious works. But James queſtion is, Whether we are Juſtified by faith alone, or by faith with obedience accompanying it, and both, as ſubordinate to Chriſts merits. Anſw. Some will think that you judge faith not worthy to be named but on the bie. Who can be of your mind that reads the Apoſtle ſpeaking ſo often,Paul treats diverſly and induſtriouſly of Juſtification by faith. and ſo fully to the office of faith in Juſtiſtification, but that his ſcope is no leſſe to ſhew what juſtifies ex parte noſtri, which it ſtill faith, then what that is that juſtifies ex parte Dei, which is grace, or ex parte Chriſti, which is his blood or merit? Pauls queſtion, you ſay is of the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, James his queſtion of the condition on our part. If you are in the right, Paul certainly was much defective in his Logick. We think the queſtion in debate is to be put into the Concluſion, & ſee how he concludes Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude that a man is juſtified by faith without the works of the Law. Inferences are made, and conſectaries drawn from that which is mainly in diſpute, and not from that which is collaterally mentioned, and upon the bie onelyonly touched upon: Now he concludes from the doctrine of Juſtification by faith, mentioning as we ſee Juſtification ex parte noſtri, peace with God through our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, Rom. 5.1. You further ſay, Paul ſpeaks of Juſtification in toto, both in the beginning and progreſſe, but eſpecially in the beginning, but James ſpeaks only of Juſtification as continued, and conſummate, and not as begun, For both Abrahams, and every mans was begun, before works of obedience. I Anſwer, Then works do not conſummate; for Paul caſts off all works from this office, and he ſpeaks, according to you, of Juſtification in toto, and if James ſpeaks of it only as conſummate, and finiſhed, why does he inſtance in Rahab, this being the firſt that was heard of her being in faith or grace? The Authors that you follow are wont to ſay, that Paul ſpeaks of the firſt, and James of the ſecond Juſtification, and it had been more for your advantage, fully to have followed them, then to have ſaid that Paul ſpeaks principally of the firſt, yet ſpeaks of the ſecond likewiſe. Yet you may ſee how hardly thoſe of that opinion have been put to it. Bellarmine, that knows as well how to ſtickle for an opinion as another, ſays, that Paul ſpeaking of the firſt Juſtication, fetches a proof from Abraham, which is underſtood of the ſecond Juſtification: and James ſpeaking of the ſecond Juſtification, fetches a proof from Rahab, which is the firſt Juſtification, which as long ſince I have obſerved, in the vindication of this text, agrees like harp and harrow. So that if the Authors that I follow have miſſed the meaning of theſe Apoſtles, thoſe that follow you, are much leſſe like to find it. Yet after all this labour, for a Reconciliation of this ſeeming difference between theſe great Apoſtles, the Reader ſtands much engaged for that which you have brought to light from Reverend Mr. Gatakers hand in his Letter written to you, where we ſee in what judgement he both liv'd and died, taking it up as (he ſaies) when he was a novice, and perſiſting in it to his laſt, wholly differing from you, and agreeing with me. In Paul the queſtion is (ſaith he,) of ſin in generall, concerning which, when any man ſhall be therewith charged, there is no means whereby he may be juſtified, that is, juſtly aſſoyled from the otherwiſe juſt charge of being a ſinner, but by his faith in Chriſts blood: Chriſts blood having made ſatisfaction to Gods Juſtice for ſin, and his faith in it, giving him a right to it, and intereſt in it. This he underſtands of all ſin, through the whole courſe of a believers life; firſt and laſt, faith is his way of Juſtification; Whereas in James ſaith he, the queſtion is concerning ſome ſpeciall ſin, and the queſtioned perſons guilt of it, or freedome from it. What ſpeciall ſin he means, he explaines himſelf, to wit, Whether a man be a true or counterfeit, believer, a ſound and ſincere, or a falſe and feigned profeſſor? In which caſe any perſon that is ſo wrongfully charged, may plead not guilty, and offer himſelf to be tryed by his works, as in ſome caſes Gods Saints have done, even with appeal to God himſelf. And what differs this from what I ſay? onelyonly the faith that is not counterfeit, but evidenced by works, juſtifies. The truth of his faith is queſtioned, whenſoever the ſincerity of his profeſſion is thus charged. This is no more then that which is ordinarily affirmed, that faith juſtifies the perſon, and works juſtifie faith.
4. You ſay,The ordinary expoſition of the word (faith) Jam. 2.24. vindicated. If with the named Expoſitors you underſtand by [works] a [working fâith] either you grant as much as I affirme in ſenſe, or elſe you muſt utterly nul all the Apoſtles arguing from v. 13. to the end. Anſw. It were too tedious to follow you through this large diſcourſe, and you very well ſave me the paines, when you adde, I ſuppoſe you will ſay, Faith which Juſtifies muſt be working, but it Juſtifies not, qu… operans; And ſo indeed I do ſay, and you anſwer, true, nor quà fides, i. e. q…à apprehendit objectum, if the [quà] ſpeaks the formall reaſon of its intereſt in Juſtification. To this I ſay, If it neither Juſtifies quà operans, nor quà apprehendens objectum, I would fain know how, or under what notion it juſtifies. Do's it juſtifie nihil agendo? I may well ſay, Cedo tertium? If you ſay, as I think you will, it juſtifies quà conditio: Is it conditio, nec operans, nec apprehendens? A faith neither working, nor receiving, is certainly as bad as the faith that James ſpeaks of, that profits nothing. You demand further, Why cannot faith Juſtifie except it be working? I anſwer, Becauſe if it be faith to apprehend or receive, then it is in life: for if not alive, it cannot receive: If it be alive, then it doth work. You ſay, The Apoſtle doth not plead for a meer neceſſity of ſignification or diſcovery, but for a neceſſity, ut medii ad Juſtificationem, Even, that Juſtification which he calls imputing of righteouſneſs, and that by God. I anſwer, He enquires what that faith is, that is medium ad Juſtificationem, and determines, that it is not a dead but a working faith, that is this Juſtifying medium, and this ſtrengthens and not nuls the Apoſtles argumentation.
When you have made it your buſineſs to overthrow my interpretation, you ſet upon my reaſon, and ſay, As for your ſingle argument, here I anſwer, And I may reply, 1. That one argument to the purpoſ…, is to be preferred before 31 which are all beſides the q…eſtion. 2. That you might have found a double argument, but that you induſtriouſly leave out one, to make it ſingle. You ſay, it is a weak ground to maintain that James twelve times in thirteen verſes, by [works] means not [works,] and by faith alone (which he ſtill oppoſeth) doth not mean faith alone, and all this becauſe you cannot ſee the connexion of one verſe to the former, or the force of one cited Scripture. And I hope I may without offence tell you, tht this kind of reaſoning, or anſwering, adds advantage, neither to your cauſe, nor reputation. You take it for granted, and would perſwade your Reader, that if I ſuppoſe the word is once figurative, (where the proper acceptation is both deſtructive to the ſenſe, and repugnant to the whole tenor of the Goſpel, which was my ſecond reaſon by you omitted) that I muſt therefore ſo interpret it all along. But you have had Scripture inſtances to the contrary, and are directed where you may be further furniſhed. I conclude, that when James affirms that faith without works is dead, and therefore cannot juſtifie, ad ſayes, Abraham was juſtified by works when he offered Iſaac, which Scripture ſays was a work of faith, of if that do not pleaſe, was done by faith, Heb. 11.17. and further ſayes, that in his juſtification by works the Scripture was fulfill'd, which ſayes, he was juſtified by faith; Is it not a fair interpretation to underſtand a working faith; wch is alone of poſſible power to juſtifie, when the Scripture alſo aſcribing this inſtanced juſtifying work of Abrham, to the faith of Abraham, as we ſee, Heb. 11.17.
In the cloſe of your ten arguments you ſpeak your ſenſe of the danger which is like to follow upon this tenent; which I have thought moſt meet to reſerve to this place. What ſad effects, ſay you, it may produce, to teach the world, that the onelyonly juſtifying act of faith, is, the accepting of juſtification as merited by Chriſts blood, or the accepting of Chriſts righteouſnes to juſtifie them, it is not hard for an unprejudic'd man to diſcern. For my part, in all my experience of the caſe of the ungodly that I have triall of, I can find no commoner cauſe of their generall deluſion and perdition, then this very doctrine. Anſw. To this I might have many things to ſay.
1. It is the hard fate,Deſperate Concluſions inferr'd from right principles. (if I may ſay ſo) of Chriſtian Religion to have inferences of this kind drawn from her principles. And yet the way of Chriſtians hath not been, either to deſert the principles from which they are drawn, nor yet to own or defend the inferences or concluſions that are drawn from them. The Apoſtle affirming that the exaltation of Gods glory, in not utterly caſting of the Nation of the Jewes, was eminently ſeen in their diſloyalty and covenant-breaking with him; Inference is preſently made, that covenant-breaking, and diſloyalty, cannot then be blamed. If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie to his glory: why yet am I alſo judged as a ſinner? That which advanceth Gods glory cannot be charged as a ſin, Bat covenant-breaking with God, (according to the Apoſtle) addes to his glory, and therefore it cannot be charged as a ſin: If anſwer be made, that this exaltation of God in his glory is by accident, and no thanks to him that breaks covenant, but to the goodneſs of God that brings good out of evill: From this, inference is made alſo, Let us then do evill that good may come, which Concluſion was ſlanderouſly charged upon the Apoſtle, Rom. 3. verſ. 8. The doctrine of Gods free election of ſome, and paſſing by of others, occaſioned two d…ſperate inferences; 1. That there is then unrighteouſneſs with God, as deſerting, yea hating his creature without cauſe, Rom. 9.14. 2. That God then without reaſon finds a fault with his creature, this being his will, who can reſiſt it? Ro. 9.19. The wits of ſome have been indeed buſied to put ſuch a comment upon the Apoſtles words, that no ſuch inference as theſe, with any colour, or ſhew of reaſon, can be drawn: and thereby make it appear that their comment is utterly diſſonant from the Text; for from the Apoſtles doctrine, theſe inferences, in the judgement of blinded reaſon, and rules held between creature and creature, ſeem directly to follow, as evidently appears in the Apoſtles anſwer. To come nearer to the buſineſs in hand, the Apoſtle making it his work to advance Gods free grace in mans juſtification, ſome feared leſt their ſin was above the grace of a pardon: To ſatisfie theſe, the Apoſtle tels them, that where ſin abounded, grace doth ſuper-abound, Rom. 5.20. So that the greatneſs of their ſin exalts the free grace and favour of God: an inference is preſently ready, Let us then continue in ſin, that grace may abound, Rom. 6.1. And here indeed was as fair and full encouragement to ſin, as any that you hold out, in your objection againſt this doctrine; this very uſe which you ſay is now made by wicked ones, of this Doctrine, generally taught by Proteſtants, was made (as is ſaid) in the Apoſtles times, by the Gnoſticks and others, who maintained, that it was enough to believe that Chriſt died for ſin, though a man liv'd in all wickedneſs and ungodlineſs. How could this ſo ſoon ſpring in the Church, but that carnal ones found ſome-what that would bear ſome colour on which they might bottom it? as, omne mendacium fundatur in aliquâ veritate, as may be ſeen verified in the inſtances mentioned. Let not Chriſtian doctrin then be blamed upon the account of ſuch deſperate deductions, and curſedly wreſted inferences. As ſoon as reformation began, and this doctrine among others appeared, it is well known what from the adverſaries it ſuffered. As it was laid to the Reformers charge, that they made God the author of ſin, ſo that Gibieuf with his black mouth, makes Calvin worſe then the Manichees: ſo alſo that they utterly laid aſide all care and regard of good works, or wayes of godlineſs, and that upon account of their doctrine, that faith alone juſtifies. It is well known with what a belly they uſe to picture Luther, as if his work had been alone to drink. And Bellarmine taking upon him in the preface to his fourth Tome, out of the Revelation, to ſet out what a creature a Lutheran is, ſaith, that thoſe that are addicted to their belly for the moſt part fall to them. And their orator, Turner, in his elogie of Drunkenneſs, applauds the Lutherans with a bene ſeciſtis, in that they have leſt the Catholique Church, to betake themſelves to that party. How full their invectives were againſt Calvin and Beza, and all of their opinion, as enemies of all godlineſs, and friends of prophaneſſe, almoſt all books of popiſh writers may witneſſe. Thoſe things are famous that Bellarmine out of Bolſecke and Colcheus quotes to this purpoſe. Granatenſis in his dedicatory Epiſtle before his Dux peccatorum, having laid this down as a maxime, that Holineſſe and purity of doctrine is a certain mark and note of true faith and Religion, and aſſerted, that there hath been no ſect from the beginning of the world, if we run through all ages, to be compared with Chriſtians, for doctrine of concernment to mans Moral converſation; he enters compariſon, firſt, with Heatheniſm, then with Turciſme, then with Judaiſme after Chriſts comming, and laſtly takes notice of the lives of Hereticks in the primitive times; of the Manichees out of Auſtin, Of the Gnoſticks out of Epiphanius, Of the Carpocratians out of Auſtin, then he fals upon his own times, and ſaies, The Heretiques of our own times are no more holy. They that have fetch'd back the errors of faith of former Heretiques from hell, are alſo diligent followers of their practices; what holineſs of life, ſaith he, is to be expected from the Lutherans, that with their ſpeciall faith have ſet open a door to all impiety? and the wicked practices of the Calviniſts are better known, ſaith he, then we deſire: and thereupon tels us two tales, firſt, that ſome that neighbour upon Geneva, being demanded, why they did not reject the Catholique, and receive Genevas Goſpel, anſwerd, That was not to be wondered at, for ſaid they, the words and books of Calviniſts, ſtuff'd with lies and fraud, are carried further then the narrative of their wickedneſs; But to us (ſay they) that go every week to their Market, it is well known to be a kingdome of helliſh confuſion, and therefore their Goſpell doth not take with us. His next is, of a certain Miniſter of theirs, who a few years before went into Hungary, & petitioned a Baſhaw of the Turks for liberty to preach their Goſpel to the Chriſtians that lived among the Turks under tribute; and to perſwade the ſaid Baſhaw to grant his Petition, he began with many reaſons to tell him, that the Religion of the Calviniſts was moſt near to that of Mahomet. And having ended his requeſt, the ſaid Baſhaw anſwered, I ſee that you Calviniſts and we are like to be ſhortly one, Save only that leaving the drinking of water to us, you willl keep your ſelves to wine, and be drunk with it. Charges of this nature, Lutherans and Calviniſts were wont ſtill to hear, but divine providence, through grace, hath ſo ordered, that theſe Calumnies, as with a beam of the Sun, have been diſpelled. The holy lives of thoſe that appeared for this doctrine hath been an abundant reall comfutation. Not to look beyond the ſeas where we might be furniſhed with ſeverall inſtances, let Jewel, Grindall, Pilkington, Raynolds, Fulk, Whitaker, Perkins, Fox, Greenewood, Dod, Hilderſon, Pemble, Ball, and many others, with their Followers, witneſſe. In ſo much, that by degrees, ſhame hath cauſed them to forbear this Language. And as for thoſe who of latter times have receded from this doctrine of this ſuppoſed danger (as Mountague and his followers, as may be ſeen in his Gagg, and Appeal) whether their lives and zeal for the Goſpel did at all outſtrip thoſe already mentioned, whoſe ſuppoſed errors in doctrine they went about to correct, I leave to all of impartiall judgement to witneſs. How great a trouble is it then to have this, by a man of your name and reputation, now revived? For that experience of yours, of which we have already heard, and you further enlarge,The aſſertion (that faith in Chriſt's blood is the only juſtifying act) acquit from danger. in your affirming that you never met with the moſt rebellious wretch (except now and then one under terrors) but when they have ſinn'd their worſt, they ſtill think to be ſaved, becauſe they believe; and what is their believing? why they believe that Chriſt died for them, and therefore God will forgive them, and they truſt for pardon and ſalvation from Chriſt's death and Gods mercy. To this I anſwer: Though I do not in any other thing appear in competition with you, yet here I may ſay, my experience hath been of a longer ſtanding then yours, yet I can ſay, it anſwers not that which you here mention. When I have to deal with ſuch that you name, if they look out of themſelves at all, it is uſually to Gods mercy. He is, ſay they, a mercifull God, and at what time ſoever a ſinner repenteth from the bottom of his heart, he is ready to receive, and ſo relying on Gods mercy, they will take their time for their return. Which is anſwered alſo, as is evident in the experience of others. Read Practical Treatiſes, and publiſh'd Sermons, and ſee whether this plea be not commonly ſpoken to: Ordinarily their anſwer is, that their good doings, their Prayers, and Repentance, muſt ſave them. Few comparatively will have Chriſt in their mouths, till he be put into their heads. And if they hit upon faith, as ſometimes they will, they yet know not how to terminate it on Chriſt's blood. It is only a good belief, that God will not deal ſo with them. Such a faith the Plain mans path-way to heaven, out of much experience of ſuch mens anſwers, doth notably decipher. It is a rare thing to meet with one that will argue as you would put it into their mouths, viz. He that hath the only juſtifying act of faith is juſtified: But that have I; For I accept of Chriſt to forgive and juſtifie me by his blood: Therefore I am juſtified. But in caſe any ſhall thus reaſon, you ſay you are not able to anſwer, and I ſhall not preſume to be your teacher. But me thinks you might deign to learn of Mr. Gataker, and tell ſuch a diſputant, that it is not every thing that bears the name of faith, that is an acceptation of Chriſt to juſtification. You may acquaint him, that there is a true and ſincere faith, and that there is a falſe and counterfeit faith; and that it is not enough for juſtification to ſay, that a man hath faith, but ſoundly and ſincerely to believe. If he ſay, that his faith is not diſſembled, but ſincere, put him upon that which Mr. Gataker ſayes, is Saint James his way of tryall, If he will have faith to juſtifie his perſon, let works then juſtifie his faith. There is life in that faith that takes Chriſt's blood for juſtification, and that faith that hath life to take, hath life alſo to work. Where a receiving or taking faith is, there Chriſt is, and where Chriſt is, the ſoul can do all things through Chriſt that ſtrengthens. So tha… if the man be ſuch as you ſpeak, his faith is caſt, at the firſt ſight, and evidenced to be no better then counterfeit, and is no medium to juſtification. He may talk that Chriſt is his, but it is clear that it is on a crackt title: and his faith being no better then you ſay, had he all the Logick in the world, here he muſt be non pluſs'd. And here I would willingly learn how you will convince ſuch a man of whom you here ſpeak, upon your own principles. If he ſhall argue, He that hath the onelyonly juſtifying act of faith is juſtified: but that have I; for I take Chriſt as my Saviour, and Soveraign Lord: Ergo. Seeing there are many that profeſs to take Chriſt for a Lord, as well as a Saviour, that muſt never enter into the kingdome of heaven, Mat. 7.21. If they do not ſpit at Chriſt and defie him, they perſwade themſelves that they ſerve him. A ſervice of Jeſus Chriſt, with their own moſt favourable and eaſie comment upon it, they doubt not will ſave them. And I know no viler perſons in the world, then thoſe that ſay, that they love and ſerve Chriſt with all their heart, and that their good works and ſerving of God muſt keep them from hell and damnation: As I once heard a man ſtark drunk on a Lords-day profeſs, that fall back, fall edge, he would never leave ſerving God whilſt he lived. Theſe, if they may be believed, have as good an heart to God, as he that is moſt preciſe in all the world. And if they be wanting in that acuteneſs of Logick that you before mention, they may be wel holpen, out of your principles, which they may find anon, thus to reaſon. He that fals ſhort of the precepts of the Law, and requiſites in the Goſpel, may yet be juſtified and ſaved, if he anſwers to the conditions of the Goſpel-covenant: But thus do I: although I come not is to the precepts of the Law, not to what is required in the Goſpel, yet I anſwer to the conditions of it, for according to you, theſe come ſhort both of the commands of the Law, and the precepts of the Goſpell. Though they do not all that is commanded them neither in Law nor Goſpell, yet they hope they do that which will ſave them. They have their faults, they confeſs, and who, ſay they, is free? Few dayes paſs over their heads, but they ſay, God forgive me. What you ſay is their wickedneſs, they will ſay is innocent and praiſe worthy; I never knew a more vile wretch then one that would ſay, that he thought in conſcience he ſerved God better on a Sunday, ſpending ſix pence in an Ale-houſe to help a poor woman with her children to live, then in going to Church, when his own wife and children ſtood in a much need, as any Ale-wive's whoſoever. Look among Papiſts, who look upon works, not only as ſuch that juſtifie, but alſo merit, and ſupererogate, and ſee how far they exceed thoſe that hold this, which you call ſo dangerous a principle. They are Saints here, they ſay, compar'd with thoſe in Italy and Spain; this being the place of their perſecution: Yet Doctor Hall obſerves in his ſerious diſſwaſive from Popery, that he never yet could know that Papiſt, which made conſcience of all Gods ten morall Lawes: ſo that in leaving our principles to chooſe theirs, upon a deſign to advance good works, you much miſtake your way, and go about to work with a wrong engine. And I can conclude no other, but that theſe inferences are without reaſon, and that there is no Goſpel-principle that can be laid down, but men may alike wreſt to their own perdition.