Admonition to William Eyre, Section 5
§. 5.
THe next assault I meet with, is pag. 50, 51. §. 5. Some of our late Divines (who seem to disclaim the doctrine of the Papists and Arminians) say the very same; who explain themselves to this effect. That faith doth Justifie as a Condition, or Antecedent qualification, by which we are made capable of being Justified, according to the order and Constitution of God: The sulfilling of which Condition say they is our Evangelical Righteousness, whereby we are Justified in the sight of God. Mr. Baxter is so fond of this notion, that although in one place he finds fault with the length of our Creeds and Confessions, yet he would have this made an Article of the Creed, a part of our Childrens Catechisms, and to be believed by every man that is a Christian, so apt are we to smile upon our own babes.
Rep. More of the old language still: 1. Is this the very same as the Papists and Arminians hold, which you say it is the very same with, viz. That God for Christs sake accounts our imperfect saith, to be perfect Righteousness? You know they take not perfect Righteousness for Righteousness only that hath a formal Metaphysical perfection of Entity as I do. You say Their opinion is, that God in the Covenant of Grace requires saith, which in his gracious Acceptation stands in stead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to perform. But I say that Christs satisfaction is instead of that obedience, in that it is instead of our suffering for disobedience. You credit the Papists and Arminians still, if you can prove that their opinion is the very same with this. Do they renounce Merit? and do not our Divines generally make that the point of our difference about Justification by Works? viz. Whether the merit of Good Works Justifie? which I heartily and constantly deny.
2. I have told you before, that I say, that we are no otherwise Justified by the Evangelical Righteousness in question, then in necessary subordination to Christs own Righteousness, as the Condition of our Legal title to it, of his own appointing. This you conceal.
3. It is another fiction, that it is this Notion that I would have an Article of the Creed (if you mean the Notiones secundae, yea or the primae directly.) For I told you that I spoke of the Matter and not the phrase: It is the substance of the doctrine, viz. That we must believe our selves, and not think we may be excused, as having a Saviour that hath believed in himself for us.
4. For my part as I am confident it is implied in the Creed, so it shall be my Creed while I breath, by the grace of God. And I think Christ put it into the Creed if ever he made a Creed: sure it is the summ or principal heads of the Gospel which he sent his Disciples to preach to the world, and I think that is part of the Creed: and what that was is evident, Mar. 16.16. He that Believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. And it was the Creed that was taught them before baptism: and that was, Repent and believe for remission of sins.
You add, Though I honor Mr. Baxter for his excellent parts, yet I must suspend my Assent to his new Creed.
Rep. 1. No newer then the Scripture, nay elder then Scripture, for it is as old as the Covenant of Grace. 2. I had rather be without your Honor, then you should be without the Truth: not that I much care whether you be of my opinion, as such; but that I care for your salvation. But my hope is, that though you take not faith to be a Condition of Salvation, yet you do Believe on other Grounds; and if you have that which is the condition, I doubt not but you may be saved, though you know it not to be the condition: And if you think you may not Endeavor for salvation, yet if you do endeavor it, and act for it while you say the contrary that it may not be done, I doubt not of your safety, because you hold that Practically which you deny speculatively. But I must tell you, that he that thinks, though but speculatively, that he ought not to do it, is in great danger of being drawn to omit it.
You proceed, I shall prove anon that faith is not said to Justifie as an Antecedent Condition, which qualifies us for Justification: but at present I shall only render him the reasons of my disbelief, why I cannot look upon faith as that Evangelical Righteousness, by which we are Justified. I shall not insist upon it, though it be not altogether unconsiderable, that this notion is Guilty of too much confederacy with the forenamed enemies of the Christian faith: For though it is no good argument to say, that Papists, Socinians, &c. do hold this or that, therefore it is not true; yet it will follow that such and such Tenets have been held by Papists, &c. and unanimously opposed by our Protestant writers; therefore they ought to be the more suspected, and especially such tenets of theirs, as have been the chief points in difference between us and them, as this is.
Rep. 1. I shall as readily suspect such points as bear your description, as you. 2. It is untrue that this is such, quoad terminos, much more quoad sensum. All our Divines maintain an Inherent Righteousness, and in the same sense as they (so far as I understand them of chief note) do deny them to justifie us, I deny it too.
You add, Our Brethren that have started this Notion, do take faith as the others do, in a proper sense, they attribute as much to the foreign credere, as Bellarmine, Arminius, or any other. Faith it self (saith Mr. B.) is our Righteousness: There was never any Papist so absurd as to say, that our Faith, Love, &c. are perfect legal Righteousness; but that God judicio misericordiae, non justitiae, doth account and accept of it instead of perfect righteousness. For my part I must confess that I can see no difference between them but in expressions. The Papists do acknowledge the satisfaction of Christ, and that he is the meritorious Cause of our Justification. They say indeed that we are not Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Imputed, but by a Righteousness inherent in us, or righteous actions performed by us. And what do our Brethren say less then this? But I shall follow this parallel no further.
Rep. 1. What do they say less then this, who maintain Imputed Righteousness, viz. less then those that deny it? I'le put another question upon this of yours: Whether a Question can be false? A Logician will say, It cannot be false; and yet a Divine will say, It may be mendacium; and yet both say true: Is not that strange! 2. I desire the Reader to excuse me from the trouble of enumerating all the untruths in these lines (for I am aweary of that work, and its to little profit,) and to expect my full satisfaction to this Parallel, in my Reply to Mr. Crandon (if God will,) where I shall shew him whether I be a Papist or an Arminian; and whether his tongue and his brothers be any slander.
You proceed §. 6. The Reasons which turn the scales of my judgement against this Notion, that our faith or faithful actions, are that Evangelicall Righteousness, by which we are justified, Are.
Rep. Before I weigh your Reasons, I will do the Reader that favour which you deny him, viz. To let him know a little better the state of the Question, and what it is that I maintain.
Understand therefore Reader, that I hold these conclusions (which I shall fullier open, God willing, in Reply to Mr. Crandon.) 1. That Gods universal Law of Nature requireth of us perfect Obedience, on Pain of eternall death if we perform it not. 2. We all sinned, and so were liable to that Death. 3. Christ became the Mediator, and stept between us and the ful execution, and took the penalty upon himself, and be came a sacrifice to offended Justice, and a Ransom for the sinners. 4. Upon this he acquired Novum Jus Dominii & Novum Jus Imperii over all men; being now the Soveraign of the world as Redeemer, as superadded to the former Dominion and Soveraignty which the Father, Son and holy Ghost had as Creator. 5. As Christ the Anointed and Soveraign Redeemer, he made Legom Remediantem, An Act of Oblivion, A new Law, viz. A Law of Grace; thereby granting free pardon, Justification, Adoption, and right to Glory to all that will sincerely Repent and Believe in him; and Peremptorily Concluding those to everlasting death that will not. 6. This Repenting and Believing is nothing but Assenting so heartily to the Truth of the Gospel, as thereupon to accept the Lord Jesus Christ and life in him, as he is offered, viz. As a pardoner by Grateful Consent and Confidence, as Good to us, by Love; as Soveraign, by giving up our selves to him for guidance, and to take him for the Physitian of our souls, to rest on him, and apply his sharpest plaisters, and take his bitterest medicines, and which are most ungrateful to flesh and blood (and not to be lieve that the cure is done already:) and, as a free gift we must accept this Grace, with confession of our own utter undeserving, and our desert of eternal wrath, and therefore with Repentance to the glory of him that freely saveth us: and lastly, as he is the Purchaser, Giver, and Conductor to the unseen everlasting glory, which is the great End for which we do receive him; without respect to which End, saith were no saving faith. 6. Remission and Justification by Christs Satisfaction and Merit, being given us by a New Law, which hath its Precepts and Penalty, we are obliged by this Law to perform these Conditions, and shall be judged by this Law, whether we have performed them or no. In which judgment, he that is accused not to have performed them, i.e. to be an unbeliever and rebel against the Lord Redeemer, must plead his own actual performance, and deny the accusation. And therefore that performance is the Justitia Causae, the righteousness of that his cause, and of his person so far. 7. In respect to this personal New Covenant righteousness, the Scripture doth twenty times, if not twenty more, call men righteous: yea even in the description of the Iudgement, Mat. 25. last. 8. As this new Law is but Lex particularis Remedians, properly subordinate to the Law of Nature, so this personal righteousness, is not our Justitia universalis, but a particular righteousness, subordinate to the righteousness of the Lord Iesus. 9. There being therefore a twofold Iustification or righteousness, principal and subordinate, one which answers the Law of nature, the other which answers the false charge of not performing the condition of the Law of Grace; one in Christs Satisfaction and Merit, the other in our faith and repentance; one consisting in the Pardon of all our sin and the right to Impunity and the Kingdom, the other in our having the true condition of pardon and right; It follows, that when the question is of Justification in the first sense, and of the matter (as we call it) of that Iustification, i. e. the thing for which we are justified meritoriously, that we must then conclude that it is onelyonly Christs righteousness that is our Iustification or our righteousness; and that faith or repentance is not the least part of it: But if the Question be only of the meer subordinate righteousness and Iustification, then we must say that our own faith and repentance, & not Christs satisfaction is that righteousness: For it is a debasing of Christs righteousness, to bring it so low; and it is no other exalting of faith then God hath in his Covenant exalted it, to raise it so high, as to be thus subordinate to Christs righteousness, that it may become ours. 10. In regard of the first great Iustification of a sinner, consisting in remission of sin (constitutive) and sentential absolving him from guilt, Faith or any work of mans is but the condition sine qua non, and not the least part of that righteousness (as is said.) But in regard of that subordinate Iustification which is but a means to the former, faith and repentance are our righteousness it self, so that faith is first in order of nature but a condition; but secondarily, when the case at Iudgements, Whether we have performed that condition or not, then consequentially it is our subordinate particular Righteousness. 11. No man can perform this condition without Gods special grace. 12. It was the intent and absolute Will, yea and undertaking of Christ dying, to cause all the Elect of God infallibly to perform this condition. Thus Reader I have anticipated some part of what I intended to say in my Answer to Mr. Crandon, as being unwilling to delay thy information, or be guilty of the continuance of thy prejudice against the truth. I confess I have lately received Animadversions from Learned men, against the thing here laid down, viz a personal Righteousness; but Gods Word is so plain, and mens reasons against it in my eyes so weak, that I am more then ever confirmed in it. I equally hate vain distinction and confusion: But to distinguish between the Law of nature & the Law of grace, between Christs Righteousness imputed, and the condition of Imputation, and so between our primary Righteousness & our subordinate Righteousness, I think are no vain distinctions. Let's make it plain by a similitude. In a time of Rebellion, upon the Princes intercession and satisfaction, An Act of grace is granted, that whoever will acknowledge the Princes favour and the Kings, and Accept a pardon, shall be forgiven, and shall not die. Is it not one thing here to accuse a man as a Traytor, and another thing to accuse him of not accepting the pardon? and are not these two causes referring to two Laws? yet one subordinate to the other, and not coordinate. When he is accused of Treason, he is justified by the Act of Grace: and this is his Titulus ad Liberationem. But when it is but one Traytor of many that accepteth the Act of Grace, and he is accused of non-acceptance, and the case to be decided falls to be this. Whether the Act of Grace give that man any Right to impunity? then because it was a conditional Act, he must be here justified by pleading that he did perform the condition. And so that justification which is but subordinate, and in order of dignity but secondary, as a means to the former, is yet in order of Plea at Judgement to go before it, as the means must be before the end.
If thou be unprejudiced, Reader, and lovest the truth, I should think that I need not say much to Mr. Eyres Arguments, having given thee in these Conclusions, so clear a ground of answering them all; But I shall briefly take an account of them, and so return to Mr. Eyre: Who thus begins.
1. If we are not justified by our own works, then our believing, &c. is not that Evangelical righteousness by which we are justified: But we are not Justified by our own works: Therefore.
Rep. Distinguish of works, and distinguish of justifying. 1. That Iustification which consisteth in Remission of sin, is not in our own faith; but that which consisteth in performing the condition of Remission is. 2. Works are taken either as Paul doth (which he describeth Rom. 4.4. Which make the Reward to be not of grace but of debt: Or as James doth, in necessary subordination to Christ. In the former sense I deny your consequence; In the later sense I deny your minor or Antecedent. And if you say that Paul supposeth that all works do make the reward to be of debt; I answer, 1. Then James saith we are justified by impossibility, or by unlawfull ways. The works that James mentions are possible and lawfull: works that make the reward to be of debt are impossible, and the attempt of such unlawfull: Therefore there are some works which do not make the reward to be of debt. 2. The same Paul that saith we are justified by Christ, saith oft enough that we are justified by faith, and that faith is and shall be imputed to us for Righteousness.
2. Paul takes works for Meritorious actions deserving wages. Faith is no such work; therefore on that ground still I deny your consequence.
3. You must distinguish of the word [by] when you say, We are, or are not justified by faith. Its one thing to be justified by faith, as the matter of our Righteousness. So we deny it, as to our great principal Iustification. And its another thing to be justified by faith as a meerly subordinate condition sine qua non: and so Paul still includeth it as plain as a man can speak. Still saying, We are justified by faith. This answers fully the Texts cited by you: and is another answer then that of the Papists to which you here Reply. Yet to your answers to the last, (that Others say, It is not works of the Law, but Gospel.) I must give you these brief Notes (supposing that the words you answer are none of mine till better explained, limited and reformed.)
To your first, I say, distinguit Lex. Paul and James else will hardly be reconciled. Yea Paul himself distinguisheth, by punctual expressing the works of the Law, or telling you he means only works that make the reward to be not of grace but of debt; and taking in faith as that by which we are justified.
To your second, you speak very darkly and dangerously: and against you I return. If Paul exclude all Debt which follows upon promise, then he excludes all that follows upon an absolute promise, as well as upon a conditional: But the Consequent is false, therefore so is the Antecedent. The reason of the Consequence is clear. Either you mean that this is from the promise, as a promise, or else from the promise as conditional. If the former, then it follows an absolute promise as much as a conditional; and then you must deny all Gods promises, and then you will be against the Gospel indeed. If the later, then I say, That the promise qua conditional, gives no right; distinguish of conditions: Some are of such value as to be Meritorious: these cause the debt by Merit: Others have no meriting value (as the acceptance of a free gift:) these are no causes so much as Moral, but meer conditions. And whoever knows what a condition in Law-sense is, knows that as such, it only suspends the act of a Testament or other gift, till it be performed, but doth not cause it, when it is performed.
To your third, it is answered already.
To your fourth, see my answer to Mr Blake. Also, The Gospel is a subordinate Law, and the matter of its precept is taken out of the general Law of nature: but informed with a new promise. Adams body was earth; but yet to be distinguished from common earth, and worthy of another name, when it was informed with a new from, even his soul. I doubt you will not apprehend well what these short expressions contain, unless you will please to consider and digest them.
To your fifth Paulus Burgensis, a Christian Iew, on Jam. add. ad Lyrani Annot. tels us that his Countreymens opinion was, that God denominated a man righteous or wicked according to the greater part of his works. If he had more good works then bad, he was righteous: else not. The Iews did not think to be justified by perfect unsinning obedience: for they were to confess sin, and sacrifice for it. But they thought that their sacrifices themselves and their good works might so procure the pardon of their sins, or prevail against their evil works, that they looked not for Righteousness to Christ the end of the Law. This is the justification by works which Paul argues against directly; and only consequentially à fortiore we may gather it, as of perfect obedience, which is to us impossible, as it may be supposed to justifie us from the charge of being sinners. Yet because their obedience was not perfect, Paul might well convince them that it could not justifie when they erred in thinking, that imperfect obedience, by the help of sacrifices, might justifie.
2. Your second Argument is this, 2. If the righteousness whereby we are Justified be a perfect Righteousness, then we are not Justified by our obedience to Gospel-precepts: But, &c. Therefore.
This is answered in the former, by the same distinctions. The righteousness whereby we are justified as by the Matter, or Meritorious cause, is perfect: and therefore faith or obedience is not such. But the righteousness whereby we are justified as a meer condition, and consequentially a righteousness subordinate to the former, is not perfect; and therefore of this your consequence fails. All your following words therefore to this, are meerly beside the Point, and vain. I never doubted of that, Whether any imperfect thing can be our universal grand righteousness? no doubt it cannot: But you should prove that it cannot be a subordinate conditional particular Righteousness.
You do here confess that our Protestant Divines do call inherent Holiness, Evangelical righteousness: Very good: I desire no more then those words contain: Yet I pray you confess that the Scripture commonly cals it so before them. 1 Certainly justum fieri & justificari, as to constitutive justification is all one. He therefore that is righteous is doubtless justified constitutivè. And doubtless to be sentenced just, and to be justified by sentence, is all one. And he that is first just by constitution, must needs be justified by sentence. But then all this is but in tantum: so far as he is just, so far he is undoubtedly justificatus constitutivè, & justificandus per sententiam; and (as I said before) is it not as strange a righteousness which makes not a man righteous in tantum, (I speak of a formal Making) as a Whiteness that makes not white, or a Paternitas that makes not Patrem? 2. Do not all men know that (as Mr. Bradshaw saith) a very Reprobate may have some particular righteousness? If you accuse Judas of killing the man that was slain yesterday, he is righteous as to this cause. Why then should you think the name of Righteousness so intollerable, when applied to faith and obedience.
O but (saith a Learned man to me) then you ascribe but such a kind of righteousness to faith and obedience, as a Reprobate may have? that's a fair advancement to faith. Ans. 1. Methinks then you should not say I am a Papist, and give too much to faith? 2. But consider, though both may have a justitiam particularem, yet to one it is in a case of no advantage to him: but in the other it is a condition of his eternal felicity, and so made by the Law of God. When salvation lies on one as a condition, and not on the other, I think there is much difference.
Now to your third Argument, where you say, If the righteousness whereby we are justified, be the righteousness of God, then we are not justified by our obedience to Gospel-precepts: But, &c. Therefore.
Rep. All is of Gods gift. But in your sense I say, Our subordinate particular conditional Righteousness, is not the Righteousness performed by God without us: The word [by] therefore, and [Justified] and [Righteousness] must be distinguished as before. All the rest of your words on this need no other answer, and I desire not to tire the Reader. The righteousness mentioned Mat. 25. was personal: so was that which James speaks of when he saith, We are Justified by works: and that which John mentions, when he saith, He that doth Righteousness is Righteous, and fourty more.
Your fourth Argument is this, If we are not Justified by two righteousnesses, existing in two distinct subjects, then our obedience to Gospel-precepts is not that righteousness whereby we are Justified: But, &c. Therefore.
Rep. 1. To the Antecedent I say, of two coordinate righteousnesses it is true; but of two, whereof one is coordinate and the other subordinate, it is false, that there is not two. 2. But formally they are both in one subject: for it is We that are Righteous by Christs Righteousness: that is, by that which is Christs materially, and in another numerical form; for surely one accident is not in two subjects. But I say, materially one is in Christ, and the other in us.
And here I remember an odd passage that you have, pag. 7. which I shall recite. It doth not follow that Christs Righteousness cannot be imputed to us, before we have an actual created being, because Accidents cannot subsist without their subjects: for as much as imputed righteousness is not an accident inherent in us, and consequently doth not necessarily require our existence. Christ is the subject of this Righteousness, and the imputation of it as an act of God.
Rep. Hear all you that have been seduced by Mr. Eyre to believe that man was justified before he was born: Here he explaineth his mind to you. He said [man] but he meant [Christ.] If it be not we but Christ that is the subject, then doubtless it is not we but Christ that hath the accident, and that is to be denominated by it: And then it is Christ that was righteous before we were born, and not we. Or else Christ makes us righteous, and yet we are not righteous, or we are righteous and not righteous at once (even when we are not men) and that in respect of the same righteousness. When I read such passages as these, I understand the meaning of your Patrons, that wonder men should seek to bring Gods Truths down to the reason of man: i.e. we must become bruits that we may become Christians (a horrid thing to speak;) and we must put out the eye of reason, that we may see with faith, which is the only supernatural elevation of reason.
But you have an Argument pag. 57. to prove the assumption of your last viz. If by Christs Righteousness alone we are made perfectly Just and Righteous in the sight of God, then there is no other Righteousness which concurrs with his to our Justification: For what needs an addition to that which is perfect? But, &c. Therefore. All is granted, if you speak of the matter or form of our principal Righteousness; The Addition of a Condition is through no defect or imperfection in it: but God hath made it necessary to our participation of that which was not done by our selves, but by another. It is not true that we are made righteous by Christs Righteousness, till the condition be performed: but when it is performed, we are justified perfectly by Christs Righteousness alone, as to the principal general Justification; the condition performed being but a subservient particular righteousness. I would you would well consider, that Christ died to pardon nothing but our sins, and that he that hath nothing but sin, is not pardoned.
You add, If we be Justified partly by Christs Righteousness, and partly by our own, then our saith for Justification must rely partly upon Christs Righteousness, and partly upon our selves: But, &c. Therefore.
Rep. I deny the Consequence. It is the relying on Christ that is our subordinate righteousness it self: and therefore is such, because it is made the condition of our part in Christ: They are not coordinate, nor is faith our principal Righteousness, but of a lower sort. God hath said, that if by faith we receive Christ, we shall be justified, and our faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness: but he hath never said, If we will rest on our own faith, we shall be righteous: For then resting on that faith would be a third sort of righteousness, subordinate to faith it self. These be but raw fancies.
Your fifth Argument is, That which over throws the main difference between the Law and the Gospel, ought not to be admitted: for the confounding them will open an inlet to innumerable errors; nay by this means the Gospel it self will become a meer Cypher, &c. But the making our obedience to Gospel-Precepts the Righteousness whereby we are Justified, overthrows the main difference between the Law and the Gospel: Therefore. For herein stands the chief agreement and difference between the Law and Gospel: They agree in this, That to Justification both do require the perfect fulfilling of the Law: But herein they differ, That the Law requireth to Justification, a Righteousness inherent in us, and perfect obedience to be performed in our own persons: The Gospel reveals for our Justification the perfect righteousness of another, even of Christ, which is accepted in their behalf that do believe in him, &c.
Rep. These words which you cite out of Bishop Downham, say as I say in full sense; and say nothing to confirm your minor, which I deny, if you speak but of a subordinate particular righteousness: else I grant all. Do I say that we are justified by perfect obedience, which Downham speaks of? yea or by any in coordination with Christ? If you understood the difference your self between the Law and Gospel, you would correct all these errors, and be a wiser man then I think either you or I are now. I pray you do me the favor as to consult but Mr. Pemble of justification, in the place cited even now (seeing you suppose him to be your own, but it seems disclaimed you a little before he went to heaven) and see how he differenceth the Law and the Gospel.
You say, A defect in degrees is a sin against the Gospel, &c.
Rep. It is not a non-performance of the Gospel condition, and then it is no hinderance to our Justification by it. Some Learned men have much boasted of that Argument [Obedience is it self imperfect, and therefore cannot be the condition of our Justification (as consummate at Judgement, or continued) for then what shall pardon the defects of it.] As if imperfect obedience might not be the condition of the pardon of its own imperfections (subordinate to faith, as is said:) May not an imperfect faith be the condition of the pardon of its own imperfections?
But to Mr. Eyre, who having done with me, adds. Now briefly my sense of this Proposition, [We are justified by faith] is no other then that which hath been given by all our Ancient Protestant Divines, who take saith herein objectively, not properly, &c.
Rep. Our Divines take faith objectively, when the matter of our righteousness is spoken of; but how? Only by connotation of the object; and not by exclusion of faith it self: as if the word [Faith] signified Christ. Else you would fasten a strange sense on Paul, when it is said [If we believe it shall be imputed to us also,] doth the word [Believe] stand for the word [Christ?] But this our Divines have so fully confuted, that I will say no more to it but this, That if by [Believing] be not meant [Believing] but [Christ] when it is so many and many times rehearsed, 1. Scripture is made the most useless unintelligible writing in the World, when no man can know the sense by the words a hundred times repeated. For your saying that Paul by Faith means not Faith, is no evidence to convince me. O how glad are the Papists of such expositions as yours, that may convince men that none can understand the Scripture without a Judge of its sense. 2. And then, why might it not as well be said that a man is justified by seeing Christ, or hearing him, or hearing of him, or any other act, as well as Believing, if it be not Believing that is meant, where it is spoken? But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridge in his work.