Admonition to William Eyre, Section 6 – Section 7
§ 6.
THe next assault that I meet with is pag. 90, 91. where you say, Mr. B. (Thes. 70.) includes all works of obedience to Evangelical Precepts in the definition of saith, in which sense I presume no Papist will deny that we are Justified by faith alone, taking it as he doth, for fides formata, or saith animated with charity and other good works.
Rep. Here is at least one untruth expressed, and another implied. 1. There is no mention in those words of mine of obedience to all Evangelical Precepts: but only of that sincere obedience which is made by God the condition of salvation. Now obedience may be sincere, and yet not be to all Precepts which are in the Gospel: Many a lesser particular duty may be unknown to one that obeys sincerely: Mr. Eyre is bound by the Gospel to believe that faith goes before Justification, and yet he knows not this; may he not for all that obey sincerely? The Gospel requireth Baptism, and I think of Infants; yet it will not follow that no man is sincerely obedient that is unbaptized, as mistaking it to be now no duty, or that is against Infant-Baptism, on the like mistake.
2. You intimate that it is our first justifying faith, or faith strictly taken that I here describe; and so add your parallel of the Papists. But honesty required you to have confessed on the contrary, that I had before spoke of faith in the proper strict sense, as it is the condition upon which every man receiveth the Remission of all the sins past of his whole life, and that Justification quoad statum, which some call Universal Justification, as distinct from particular Justification and Remission following upon every new sin: and that in the words which you cite I only described faith in a more large improper sense, and as it is the condition only of our glorification, and final Justification in the great Judgement. Why should you conceal this, and imply the contrary?
§. 7.
THe next touch that I find is pag. 94. where you tell Mr. W. 2. If saith were a condition morally disposing us for Justification, we should then be concurrent causes with the Merits of Christ in procuring our Justification: for the Merits of Christ are not a Physical but a Moral cause, which obtain their effect by vertue of that Covenant which was made between him and the Father: now by ascribing unto faith a Moral Causal influx in our Justification, we do clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ: which I hope Mr. W. will better consider of, before he engage too far in Mr. Baxters cause.
Rep. Because you are pleased to make it my cause, I will be bold to give my Reply. There are very palpable errors delivered with confidence in these words.
1. You confound moral Disposing, and moral Causing: All disposing is not causing.
2. You most falsly suppose that we ascribe to faith A moral causal in flux in Justification: and do nothing to prove it.
3. All is grounded on that gross Error, That all Civil or Legal conditions, are Moral Causes, which is so far from truth, that the clean contrary is true. No Civil or Legal condition, qua talis, is a Moral Cause. 1. A condition only while unperformed, suspendeth the act of the Law or Testament, that is, It was the Will of the Legislator or Testator, or Donor, that his Law, Testament, &c. should act, or effect when the condition is performed, and not before: but not that it should be any cause: no more then quando venit dies the time is a cause. 2. A condition is but causa sine qua non; therefore it is no moral cause. Yet its true that among men, most conditions in another respect are moral causes; but none of them, as conditions. Men use to make somewhat a condition (though not alway) which is of worth to themselves, and so hath somewhat in the nature of the thing which is meritorious (when the condition is not casual, but Potestative or mixt:) and this is a Moral cause, not as it is a condition, but as meritorious. Would you have the world believe, without better manifestation, that you are so excellent a Lawyer, that we must take your word against common sense, and the common judgement of men that should be wiser in their own profession? You know sure that its common in the Civil Law to have cases of such casual conditions, as cannot be causal? As if such a Ship come into such a Harbour, such a day, being nothing to the Donors advantage. If such a son live to such an age, he shall have such Lands. If the Arrow that is shot up, fall within such a space. And the like is true in Potestative conditions (as they call them) that is, voluntary: I give thee a pardon on condition thou wilt accept it: or not refuse it: or not ungratefully abuse me when I have given it thee: not spit in my face: not seek my life, ruine, dishonor, &c. None of these are Meritorious, and therefore none of them causal.
4. Have you never observed that your friend Dr. Twiss doth not once or twice, but ordinarily, affirm that faith is a condition and medium of our justification, and that good works are causa dispositiva, and praeparatoria salutis? I may tell you more of his mind hereafter.
One thing more in this Section I desire your resolution of. You here say, that the Merits of Christ are not a Physical but a Moral cause: upon which I would know; 1. Do not you take as much from it as I, and make the Merits of Christ as much a causa sine qua non in sensu physico, as I? For what can you do more then say it is no Physical cause at all? And with what justice or modesty then could you before pretend that I am worse in this very point then the Papists themselves, when I am no worse then you? A Moral causality I allow it, as well as you.
Nay secondly give me leave to enquire whether in deed and truth you do allow it a Moral causality of our justification at all: In your page 66. you answer a shrewd Objection, which would prove you near to infidelity, viz. That you make void the Death of Christ: for if Justification be an immanent act in God, it is antecedent not only to faith, but to the Merits of Christ, which is contrary to many Scriptures, that do ascribe our Justification to his blood, as to a Meritorious cause. To which you Answer, That although Gods Will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ; yet for all we may be said to be Justified in him, because the whole effect of that Will is by and for the sake of Christ. As though Electing love precede the consideration of Christ, Ioh. 3.16. yet are we said to be chosen in him, Eph. 2.4. because all the Effects of that Love, are given by, and through, and for him. Gods not punishing us, is the fruits of his death: yet his Will not to punish, is antecedent thereunto.
Rep. This distinction of Actus volentis, and res volita, we have oft here on such occasions. But 1. Do not you here make our active justification to be no fruit of Christs Merits at all, but only our passive? Now if you would publish this doctrine nakedly, That Justificatio Justificans, or Gods active Iustification, is not at all procured by Christ, it would be more candid and open dealing, then you use while you pretend so much to exalt Christs Merit, in your denying the parts or interest of faith and obedience.
2. Surely then we must find out another Active Iustification, whereof Christs Merits are the cause, as well as of the passive, if we will be ruled by Scripture; and this your Brethren have done, for which you oppose them.
3. I would commend it to your consideration, Whether it be not a work worth your labour, the next time you set upon these imployments, to open to us like a Philosopher and Divine, how and in what sense and respect it is, that the Merits of Christ can cause the effect and not the act? the rem Volitam, and not the actum Volendi? And how Christs Merits can be a moral cause, or a meriting cause, and yet not cause the act of God? Merit you know is reckoned among the remote efficients of our pardon, and sanctification, and salvation. Now if God be the nearer efficient, how can Merit which is the remote, cause these effects, and not cause Gods act? I would intreat you to answer it, as to all these effects, even Sanctification, and Glorification, as well as pardon. You know also, I suppose, that Merit is accounted one of the Procatarctical less-principal efficients; Now the nature of this cause is to incite the principal cause ad agendum extrinsically. And Merit is said to be that which moveth the agent ad talionem reddendam. Now if Christs Merits move not God as a Procatarctical cause, then how are they truly meritorious causes? You know also, I doubt not, that a moral causing in such cases as ours about voluntarily Agents, doth consist in an argumentative, objective, or the like moral moving of the Agent. Now how can Christs Merits be moral causes here, and work nothing upon God the principal Cause? when this moral cause is a remote cause, and a remote cause produceth the effect mediâ causa propinquiore? I do not hereby conclude my self that Gods Will was moved by Christs Merits; but there is another wedge then yours by which we must cleave this knotty block; which if I tell you of, its like you will be prejudiced against it, because it is from me; but if you will study to expedite the business your self a little better then here you have done, it may reduce you to a better mind in the main. But if it should prove upon these considerations, that you do contradict your self, and do indeed deny Christ to be any cause, so much as Moral and Meritorious of justification active or passive, of the Actus volentis or Res volita, then I think you have been an unhappy exalter of Christ, while your zeal carried you against the Interest of faith.
And methinks it should be scarce savoury to a friend of Christ and an exalter of his Merits, to have them made no more a cause of our justification, then of our Election; that is, of the effects of both which are in time, but of neither of themselves which are from eternity.
And I take it but for private Theology, that all the effects of electing love are given by, through and for Christ. Whereby you plainly intimate him to be the meritorious cause of the effects, which you deny of the Act. But 1. the giving of Christ himself is no small effect of electing love, and yet not given for and through himself. Christ was not given to Merit, for the sake of his Merit, as any efficient cause. 2. Adam and the Creation I think were not made upon the procurement of Christs Merits. 3. Nor was man endowed then with the Image of God. 4. Nor made Lord of the inferiour Creatures. 5 Nor placed in a Paradise. 6. Nor had the promise of immortality and felicity, if he sinned not; upon the procurement of the Merits of Christ. Yet all these were effects of electing love, being all means for the attainment of the ends of election. But many such things as these your Reader must bear with you in, unless he be a less scrupulous man, that can swallow all.