appellantur saith Hierom speaking of Zachary Elizabeth Job c. non quod omni vitio careant sed quòd major◠parte virtutum commendentur You grant that Holiness may be denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept Now this you must grant may recipere magis minus for so you grant that Holiness may And if Congruency why not Conformity For Congruency and Conformity though divers words yet import for any thing I see one and the same thing I take Faith to be in part our Inherent Righteousness as it is Officium not as it is Conditio praecisè considerata 3. Whether Habitual Faith or Actual be properly the Condition of the Covenant is little to our purpose And for the thing it self as I shall grant that we must not content our selves with a habit of Faith but must also act Faith So I think you will not deny that we are Fideles and so justified even when we sleep though no act of Faith be performed by us You say nothing to that which I answered concerning our Divines of whom you spake viz. That they hold That the Righteousness whereby we are justified is not our Personal Righteousness and therefore though they say as you alledge That our Justification is perfect and therefore as you infer our Righteousness viz. whereby we are justified must be perfect also yet all this is little to your purpose 2. To what you say I have said enough before viz. That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant as to Justification is not our Righteousness whereby we are justified but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction the only Righteousness by which we are justified And for being rei poenae Novae Legis for non-performance of its Condition I say still I know no punishment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition but only a leaving to the punishment of the Old Law which punishment yet I grant will be so much the more grievous as the sin which an Unbeliever both as an Unbeliever and otherwise is guilty of by Gospel-Aggravations is the more hainous 1. I as little doubt but that sincerity of Righteousness doth consist with imperfection of Righteousness viz. Inherent Righteousness which is really the same with Holiness how-ever in this or that respect we may distinguish the one from the other 2. How Hypocrisie can be taken for a seeming or appearing better than we are yet without affectation or dissimulation I do not understand If without any affectation or dissimulation of ours we seem better than we are it is another's errour not our fault neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites Your manifold distinctions of Sincerity do serve rather to confound the Reader than to unfold the matter I take sincerity to be no distinct Grace but the Modus of other Graces but why that Modus may not admit of degrees I confess I do not see I conceive Zeal to be of like nature yet one may be more or less zealous and so also more or less sincere You say here There is no Medium inter Ens non Ens of which I make no doubt but pag. 2. you think Relations to be inter Ens Nihil and what difference between Nihil non Ens You say That you have over and over shewed That Conformity to the Rule of the Condition doth consist in indivisibili Indeed you have divers times affirmed That all Conformity is of that nature but I could never yet see it proved But why do you now speak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Personal Righteousness and the Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteousness And this Righteousness though it be sincere I hold to be imperfect because the Conformity to the Rule is imperfect Sincerity saith Master Blake is said to be the New Rule or the Rule of the New Covenant But this is no Rule but our Duty taking the Abstract for the Concrete Sincerity for sincere walking and this according to the Rule of the Law not to reach it but in all parts to aim at it and have respect unto it Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Psal 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Righteousness which in reference to its Rule N. B. labours under many imperfections And a little before he saith thus I know no other Rule but the Old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule the only Rule 3. It seems very incongruous to grant that Apoc. 22. 11. Be holy still doth import an encrease of Holiness and yet to deny that Be righteous still doth import an increase of Righteousness For any thing I know some on the contrary may as well say That the latter words import an increase of Righteousness and yet the other no increase of Holiness Whereas you speak of varying the sense according to the variety of Subjects you take it for granted That here the Subjects are various whereas both by this and divers other places before cited it seems clear to me that the Subjects viz. Righteousness and Holiness are really the same one with the other For the Formale of Righteousness what is it but Conformity to the Law the only Rule of Righteousness And why such Conformity may not be more or less I am yet to learn That place indeed as many other speaks of a true Personal Righteousness in the Saints but yet not of a Perfect Righteousness in them and consequently not of such a Righteousness as whereby they are justified except it be only in some sort and in some measure which is not the Justification about which we contend This Imperfect Righteousness is measured by the Law of Works as a Rule though it be accepted only by the gracious condescension of the Gospel To Ephes 4. 24. you give many Answers but they seem but so many Evasions 1. I think there is no Question but the Apostle speaks by way of Precept and Exhortation q. d. If you have indeed learned Christ and have been taught by him you have learned to do so and so therefore have a care to do so Surely the Apostles words import a duty required and so implicity contain a Precept or Exhortation 2. That he speaks as well to Believers True Believers as mere Professors is as little to be doubted For he speaks unto them upon a supposition that they had learned Christ and had been taught by him which though it may belong to mere Professors yet to true Believers much rather 3. If the New Man which is created in Righteousness and Holiness may encrease as you grant then surely Righteousness and Holiness in which the New Man is created and without which the New Man is nothing must increase also To say That the New Man may increase in Holiness but not in
Divines I think is against him Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day Sentential Justification I should rather call it Publick Sentential Justification or a publick manifestation of the Sentence of Justification For surely our Justification here is Sentential God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgment Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word Justification for Justification as you say by Sentence do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justifie those that believe Perhaps you will say Where is that Sentence Answ It is in the Scripture But you may say The Scripture speaks only in general Well but if God in the Scripture say That all that believe are justified as Acts 13. 39. then consequently he saith That you and I believing are justified And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular though it is true they have not that clear evidence and full assurance as they shall have hereafter So for Condemnation at the last day I think it to be but a more solemn and publick pronouncing of the Sentence together with the immediate and full execution of it For otherwise the Sentence is past already He that believeth not is condemned already John 3. 18. I do not deny that Declarative Justification at the last Judgment is properly Justification only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before only shews that it is more full Extensivè as freeing from the guilt of more sins but that is only per accidens Justification in it self considered was as perfect before for it freed from all sin and from all Condemnation and the other doth no more What the meaning of your Question was If we be not one real Person with Christ then one what I could not tell but the words did seem to imply That we must either be one real Person with Christ or else we could not any way be one with him whereas the Scripture is clear that Believers are one with Christ though that they are one real Person with him is not to be admitted Therefore I thought meet to answer as I did viz. That we are one Spirit as the Apostle expresseth it 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is spiritually one with Christ as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him No doubt but further Queries may still be made and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature Yet I see not why we should not content our selves with those Similitudes and Resemblances which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery as of the Vine and Branches Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members Ephes 5. To your next Section I need say no more than this Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re constet I have shewed my meaning all along viz. That Christ's Satisfaction and not Faith is properly that by which we are justified Whereas you say We are justified by Faith it self as the Condition and not so by Christ I can admit it only thus That Faith is the Condition required of us that so we may be justified by Christ Otherwise I cannot yeeld that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification is properly that by which we are justified but of that enough before For the Habit and Act of Faith I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature For Habits may be in us when we sleep or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits I think also that though acquired Habits follow Acts yet infused Habits such as Faith is go before 2. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ I see not how any can make the Act of Faith but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ And if any of our Divines say That it is not the Habit of Faith but the Act that doth justifie I think they mean that Faith doth justifie as acting i. e. receiving Christ So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justifie yea they make it the instrumental cause of Justification only they make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose though they differ as you say No Similitude is to be set on the Rack if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used it is sufficient But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul I see not how Faith is the perfection of it For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument I think you trouble your self to no purpose though I know you have some end in it But what if it be not an Instrument properly if yet it may not unfitly be so termed And for any thing I see it may even as generally Divines do so term it Fides saith Revet est velut organum manus animae quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur And again Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum c. So Trelcatius Jun. Ex parte hominis Justificationis passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductivè tota est Instrumentalis Fides est c. Thus also Calvin Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae Inst lib. 3. cap. 11. § 7. And Wotton Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus And again Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scripturis Fides insigniatur Nam nec Causa esse dicitur cujus tamen rationem obtinere Theologi omnes confitentur And Bellarmine saying that Luther makes Faith Formalem causam Justificationis Davenant answers Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem c. Pemble saith Faith doth justifie Relatively and Instrumentally Of Justif § 2 chap. 1. p. 27. So Mr. Ball of Faith chap. 10. pag. 135. It is a cause only Instrumental c. And of the Covenant chap. 3. p. 19. Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification c. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is It is the Instrument of the Soul c. Mr. Blake's words I think do more nearly concern you And these things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification nay scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us c. And
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To conclude It is not Faith as working that doth justifie but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness and so doth justifie is a Working Faith Your self grant that VVorks are not necessary quoad praesentiam in respect of Justification as begun and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis in respect of Justification as continued is more I presume than ever will be proved 1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin because I see nothing but bare words As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius Justin Martyr and the rest who for 1000 years after Paul you say give as much to Works as you ever did or more and make Faith to justifie as a Condition and not as an Instrument what-ever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against the full scope of the whole Page or Book I wish you had cited some Books or Pages or but Scraps as you call them whereby to make good what you say I am not of such Reading much less of such Memory as to give an account of so many Authors Some of them either wholly or in part I have read but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it But for the Opinion of the Ancient VVriters in this Point I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in â—â—em than I am viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmines Allegations and cap. 29. where he produceth his own And Eckhard Compend Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who alledgeth Chrysostome Ambrose Basil Cyril Austine and Bernard as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed into us for our Justification And he alledgeth Ambrose Hierome Athanasius Clemens Alex Origen Nazianzen Chrysostome Basil Theodoret Hesychius Primasius Epiphanius Philastrius Austin Sedulius Mâ—xentius Theodulus Fortunatus Victor Mar. and Bernard as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without VVorks and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetusta antiâ—â—â— ate tesiamonia quod ad hanc rem spectat delibare Beda omitted by Eckhard is cited by B. Vsher as writing on Psal 77. thus Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabetur sed per solam justitiam fides To your other Query concerning Calvin P. Martyr c. I answer in the words of Amesius Fides specialis misericordia duplici ratione sic vocatur 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam 2. Qua misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit priore sensu justifiâ—ationem antecedit posteriore sensu sequitur justificatioâ—em Sed quia una eadem est fides quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprehendendo applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit perfectio vel consolatio ejus in hâ—c certitudine apparet quam etiam hostes gratis precipuè impugnant idcircò per istam certitudinem quae tamen quoad sensum à fide potest ad tempus separari fides justificanâ— solet à multis describâ— And again Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit atque adeò conjunctam secum habet specîalâ—m ac certam persuasionem de gratiâ ac misericordiâ Dei iâ— Christo Vnde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non malè soepè describitur ab Orthodoxis prefertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest 2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis c. 2. By Apprehending I do not mean bare Assent but Embracing or Receiving or Applying Amesius cites and approves these words of Contarenus Accipimus justificationem per fidem Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellat applicationem inquienâ— passionem Christi esse veluti Medicinam communem quam quisque sibi applicat per fidem Sacramenta Protestantes appellant apprebensionem non eâ significatione qua pertinet aâ— cognitionem intellectus sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ intirely yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction which is the Righteousness by which we are justified There is no danger in this Doctrine so long as People are taught withal that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them except they also have him as a King reigning over them Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction or of Christ as satisfying for us is that act of Faith whereby we are justified Your Similitude doth not suit because a Husband cannot be offered to a VVoman in several respects as Christ may be unto a Sinner I do not conceive Faith to justifie modo Physico or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel this Act of Faith would not avail As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ yet should they not be justified because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical Act of Faith and withal made the Condition of Justification in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness I see not but I may well say That Faith doth justifie us apprehending Christ and his Righteousness this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification it is all one to say Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and Faith doth justifie as the Condition required unto Justification Whereas therefore you prove That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in it self doth not justifie it is nothing to me who do not ascribe any thing to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in it self but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us to that end that we may be justified And thus I think do others mean when they say That Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness they do not I suppose exclude but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Justification Pemble having said We are justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ the benefit whereof unto our justification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise and gives us assurance of the Performance He adds a little after He that looked on Christ believing in him may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith not for the worth and by the
confute this Assertion As our Justification is begun so it is continued viz. by Faith only and not by Works as concurrent with Faith unto Justification afterward though not at first seem to be of no force I answer therefore Ad 1. How do I contradict it by saying As it is begun so it is continued by Faith What though there be divers Acts of Faith yet still it is Faith and Faith without the concurrence of Works by which we are justified as well afterward as at first which is all that I assert Because a continued Act of Faith is requisite to the Continuation of Justification doth it therefore follow that Works have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of Justifying Ad 2. Do you think Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification and not also to the Inchoation of it Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons than is requisite unto Justification Your Similitudes are no Proofs and you still suppose that there is one Condition of Justification at first and another Condition thereof afterwards that though at first we are justified only by Faith yet afterward by Faith and Works But though Works are required of Justified Persons as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are justified yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Justification which as it is begun by Faith only so is it also continued Your self observe That Abraham's Believing mentioned Gen. 15. was not his first Act of Faith So then he was justified before by Faith and so was be also afterward even by Faith only as the Apostle from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works viz. as having a co-partnership with Faith in Justifying Abraham was justified both at first and afterward 1. Do you think that Abraham was justified from the guilt of those many sins which he committed after his first Justification by his Works Credat Judâ—â—â— for my part I cannot but detest such Doctrine I know no way whereby he could be justified from those sins but by Faith in Christ even as he was at first justified Besides as I noted before and that as acknowledged by your self Abraham was justified before he produced that Act of Faith spoken of Gen. 15. and in the interim no doubt he committed some sins yet still by Faith and not by Works as Paul sheweth he was justified 2. You do but still affirm without any proof at all That Abraham's Justification could not be continued by the same means viz. by Faith alone works not concurring with it unto Justification as it was begun 3. For Sentential Justification at the Last Judgment I have said enough before Bucan having said that Abraham was Justified operibus tanquam testimontis Justificatienis Adds Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus And again Fides principium existentiae facit ut simus justi Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt ut cognoscamur justi Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fides quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum 4. I think the Argument is good and sound Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified is an everlasting Righteousness therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification This alwayes presupposed That this Righteousness of Christ be apprehended by Faith for otherwise there is no being justified at all by it 1. To be just quoad praestationem Conditionis is but to be just in some respect and in some respect just even the most unjust may be Yet it is true This praestatio Conditionis will be of force to procure Universal Justification not that it is it self the Righteousness by which we are justified but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ and so by his Righteousness are universally justified And though this performing of the Condition be required unto Justification yet nevertheless that remains good which I said in the Animadversions If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law we are fully justified For can we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law except we perform the Condition required in the Gospel And if we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law will the Gospel accuse us It is the Law that worketh Wrath Rom. 4. 15. The Gospel doth free from Wrath though not without performing the Condition for then it suffereth the Law to have its force and to inflict Wrath and that so much the more in that so great a benefit was neglected 2. The performing of a Condition as the Condition is a Duty is a Righteousness but such as cannot justifie as we now speak of Justification But as the Condition is meerly a Condition the performing of it is not properly Righteousness though by it we partake of Righteousness viz. the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 3. Therefore this is no contradiction to grant Faith to be the Condition of Justification and yet to deny it to be the Righteousness by which we are justified That which you think to be most clear Vignerius before cited thought most absurd An possibile est inquit ut sit Fides Instrumentum accipiendae justitia seu Conditio ad obtinendam justitiam requisita si ita loqui libeat simul sit ipsa quam quaerimus justitia Indeed you seem but to strive about words for here immediately you confess That it is but a Subordinate Righteousness meaning I think that which all acknowledg that it is but a means whereby to partake of Christ's Righteousness And you that charge others with Self-Contradiction seem not to agree with your self For here presently after you say This Personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis N. T. must be had before we can have that which freeth us from the Law yet elsewhere your Expressions are such as if being first justified from the Accusation of the Law by the Righteousness of Christ we should after be justified from the Accusation of the Gospel by Personal Righteousness However as I have said before this latter Accusation is but a further prosecution and confirmation of the former by taking away the Plea that some might make why the Accusation of the Law should not stand good and be of force to condemn them 4. Of what force is Satans Accusation against any if be cannot make good his Accusation so as to procure his Condemnation And are not Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ condemned by the Law Is it not for sin that they are condemned And is there any sin which is not against the Law The Gospel indeed may aggravate Sin and increase Condemnation and so those words which you cite The words which I speak shall judg you
as that no Accusation can be prejudicial to him though he may be accused yet it matters not seeing he cannot be condemned Else the Apostle had triumphed before the Victory saying Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. Who is he that condemneth Rom. 8. 33 34. 3. The Apostle doth not only say There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 1. but also Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect v. 33. viz. when they are in Christ and so justified Which in effect is as much as if it were said There shall be no condemnation to such But you grant That other Texts speak as much and that such neither now are nor ever shall be under condemnation Yet you say That they would be to morrow condemned if no more were done than is done You mean I suppose if they did not renew the Act of Faith but I say and you grant it they who are once justified though they sin daily yea and may lie long in sin as David did yet they shall renew the Act of Faith and have the joy of God's Salvation restored unto them as he prayed Psal 51. 12. Neither is there any intercision of Justification though there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it To your Objections I answer Ad 1. He that is once justified can contract no guilt so as to fall from his Justification Besides when I spake of Justification being perfect I only mean That a Justified Person is justified not in part only but fully i. e. from all sins which at present he is guilty of not but that his Justification hath need to be renewed in respect of new sins and so his Justification may be said to increase extensivè as extending to more and more sins as they are increased more and more But that in this respect we shall be more fully justified at the last Judgment than we are now is but by accident and not from the Nature or Essence of Justification Ad 2. Justification per Sententiam Judicis Sententiam magis publicam makes as I said but for the more full and perfect manifestation of it In die judicis inquit Maccovius Christus non ram justificaturus N. B. est credentes quà m declaraturus est ex optribus eorum eos credidisse in hac vitâ justificatos fuisse Thus undoubtedly is that to be understood in Acts 3. 19. For without question no sins shall then at the last Judgment be blotted out which were not blotted out before but the blotting of them out shall then more fully appear than before In resurrectione à mortuis inquit Rainoldus noster Christus qui veniet judicatum vivos mortuos quemadmodum ipse pronunciat ea quae ligaverint ipsius ministri ligatum iri in coelis ita quae priùs in terrâ remissa fuerint confirmabit ipse suâ sententiâ ut remissa deleta in aeternum omnia nimirum fidelium sanctorum peccata Quare quaecunque quorumcunque peccata remissa fuerint in hoc seculo etiam in futuro seculo remittentur quoniam autem peccata non fuerint remissa in hoc seculo non remittentur in futuro nempe peccata hominum incredulorum impiorum Petrus Act. 3. hoc locupletissimè confirmavit Resipiscite inquit ut deleantur peccata vestra postquam venerint tempora refrigerationis c. Nostri cum affirmant peccata non remitti in futuro seculo sed in isto tantum negant id quod astruunt Pontificii peccata remissum iri in futuro seculo quae in praesents non remittebantur Nam Christus confirmabit sententiam suam quam priùs tulit cum feret sententiam illam novissimam in ultimo judicio Itaque peccata nulla tum remittentur nisi quae quisque testimonio conscientiae suae hîc percipit remissa esse in presenti seculo Certè ipse Bellarminus agnovit vel agnoscere potuit è verbis Calvini que citat nos hoc judicio esse praesertim in eo ipso loco Calvini quem citat ubi dit Calvinus Christum Mat. 12. 32. hâc partitione usum esse quâ judicium complexus est quod sentit in hac vitâ uniuscujusque conscientia postremum illud quod palam N. B. in resurrectione feretur For peccata futura which you also here speak of I have said enough in answer to the former Objection And you may see much more to this purpose in the Account given to the Parliament by the Ministers which they sent to Oxford p. 7 8 9. Ad 3. Castigatory Punishment is no part of that Condemnation from which we are freed by Justification but a means to preserve us from falling into Condemnation see 1 Cor. 11. 32. Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional viz. upon condition of the continuance of our Faith yet the continuance of the Condition being certain so also is the continuance of our Justification There is not the like reason of Predestination which is only a decreeing of what God will do for us but God justifieth as you say pro praesenti and whom he once justifieth he will always justifie else the Apostle would not say Whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. Though Means must be used and Conditions performed for the continuation and consummation of our Justification yet it being certain that the Means shall be used and the Conditions performed it is also certain that our Justification shall be continued and consummated Here perhaps you may take hold of what I say and object It shall be consummated therefore as yet it is not consummated Answ It is not I grant in respect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to Justified Persons but it is already consummated so that they have a full right to the enjoyment of those Benefits Therefore the Apostle speaks as of a thing already done Whom he justified them he also glorified see also Rom. 5. 1 2. Ad 5. If by this the solemnizing of all is wanting you mean That yet there wants the manifestation of our Justification it hinders not but that our Justification is already perfect though it be not so perfectly made manifest as hereafter it shall be So if by Marriage not solemnized you mean a Marriage not publickly celebrated I see not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in it self as perfect as the other But it seems strange that you should think that we should scarce be called Justified now but in reference to Justification at the last Judgment when-as both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as a thing that we are here actually partakers of What you say of Mr. Lawson as if he held That Justification here is but a right to Justification hereafter I much wonder at His Reasons I know not but if that be his Opinion the whole current of Scripture and the general consent of
are justified This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument though I left out the word only And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me as I think in every point wherein we differ if he have occasion to treat of it It is true saith he that Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour not as Lord that justifies Christ rules his People as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes atonement for them 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 of Christ the Doctrine of Christ but as it ties and 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 from all sin and not the Sovereignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work Sovereignty doth not cleanse nor Blood command us Faith in his Blood not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty doth justifie us There are several acts of justifying-Justifying-Faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abraham's Obedience Moses Self-denyal Gideon or Sampson's Valour that was their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these things by his Spirit Your Similitude is not suitable for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband may be enriched or dignified by him though she never look at him as rich or honourable but only as her Husband But we must look at Christ as a Priest and as making Satisfaction for us that so we may be justified by him For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult Rom. 8.34 where those words It is Christ that died shew how Christ doth justifie us and free us from condemnation viz. by dying and so satisfying for our sins That which follows of Christ's Resurrection c. seems as to our Justification but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction which he made for us by his Death that so we may be justified by him 6. You grant that Christ not as King but as Priest doth justifie us meritoriously and satisfactorily and that is it which I urge That Christ's Satisfaction which as Priest he made for us is that whereby or for which we are justified Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us and so receive him as to that purpose viz. our Justification though I grant whole Christ or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfie for us except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us and as a King to govern us So I usually Preach and Teach 1. When you say That I leave the Errour in his Language but not in his Sense your words are ambiguous For they may import That I leave i.e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way but not the other Or that I leave i.e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language but not in his Sense This I take to be your meaning for else you could not say except ironically which I do not suspect that it is a fair Exposition and that you like it I have no reason to strive about another's words especially not knowing how they are brought in but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them 2. Where Ames hath those words you do not shew But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth nor with himself in saying Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith though not of Faith as Justifying and so much is acknowledged by Amesius as appears by his words before cited Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration Besides I find Amesius to have such words as you mention but withall to add such as plainly to express what I say Christus inquit est adaequatum objectum Fidei quatenus N. B. Fides Justificat Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam N. B. propter quam justificamur 1. The Text 1 John 4. 19. cannot I think be rightly understood but as I interpreted it For v. 10 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us in giving his Son for us And v. 19. he shews whence it is that we love God viz. from hence that God loved us first i.e. we apprehending the Love of God to us answer his love with love again Amat non immerito qui amatus sine merito as Bernard speaketh Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us before we can love him for what he hath done for us 2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love of which I speak 3. Embracing which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the compleating Act of Justifying-Faith doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii we can never sincerely embrace Christ if we do not desire him but amor delectationis or complacentiae doth follow after embracing viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed All that you add holds only in respect of the former kind not in respect of the latter 1. There are divers kinds of Love but I speak of that Love which differs from Desire and so did you seem to understand it as I noted from your words Aphorism p. 267. 2. Whereas you say There is no need of Faith to make it present before it can be accepted and loved you cannot by Faith mean Assent for that you grant doth go before Love and Acceptance And if by Faith you mean Acceptance surely there must be Acceptance before a thing can be accepted though in time these go together But perhaps you only mean That though Faith as an Assent must go before in time and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature yet not so as to make a thing present For you add That God's Offer doth make it present But though the Offer be present yet the thing offered is not present so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must
autorem agnoscit ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes qui Hebraea Biblia Grace reddiderunt à quibus Apostoli Evangelista multa in Scriptis suis quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet crebrò mutuentur Quamobrem plus quà m verisimile videtur Spiritum Sanctum quum novo loquendi more utaâ—ur quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Pharase Hunc sinquit Deum quis colet quis credet in eum Where Credet in eum is as much as fiduciam in eo collocaâ—it And so the Phrase of Believing in used in the New Testament seems to import as much as the Phrases of Trusting in and staying on used in the Old Testament as namely Isa 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of Faith part 1. chap. 3. p. 24 c. So far as I can judg your success is not answerable to your desire But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on your Knees I know not to what purpose you did speak of it For if it were only to shew the sincerity of your desire What is your Cause advantaged though that be granted as I know not why any should question it What is that which you say is yeelded That Faith doth not justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant Yet you make Justifying-Faith as such to be the Condition of the whole Covenant For you make it to include Obedience and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience 2. Of Justification begun and Justification continued and consummated by sentence at Judgment I have spoken before not is there need here to say any more of it 1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks But what of that Doth he speak so as you interpret him 2. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James express themselves diversly yet they agree in the Matter viz. That Works do not concur with Faith unto Justification Mr. Ball speaking of those words Faith is imputed unto Righteousness saith This Passage is diversly interpreted by Orthodox Divines all aiming at the same Truth and meeting in the Main being rather several Expressions of the same Truth than different Interpretations Then he shews three several ways where by those words are interpreted which differ as much as these Interpretations which you mention They that say That the Apostle speaketh of Justification coram Deo by Works understand a Working-Faith They that expound it of Justification coram Hominibus take the meaning to be That by Works a Man doth appear to be justified They that understand it of the Justification of the Person make the sense the same with those first mentioned and they that say it is meant of the Justification of a Man's Faith agree with those in the second place making Works to prove the sincerity of Faith and so to manifest a Man's Justification 3. Are not those words Hoc est Corpus meum as express words of Scripture as those which you alledg Though words be never so express yet not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be considered 4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done many years after that the Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified was a Working-Faith of a Working Nature a Faith fruitful in good Works his Faith bringing forth such fruit in due season and so shewing it self by Works when occasion did require Abraham no doubt had many other Works whereby his Faith did appear yet the Apostle thought meet to instance in that Work which was most remarkable and by which his Faith did manifest it self in a more especial manner Hoc facinus saith Chrysostome tanto praestantius erat cateris omnibus ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esseviderentur What your Parenthesis doth mean Legal Justificatiion I mean I do not well understand But how doth James speak of Justification as Continued and not as Begun Is his meaning this That a Man is indeed at first justified by Faith only but both Faith and Works together do continue his Justification So you understand it but surely James doth neither speak nor mean so For by Faith alone without Works in his sense a Man never was never can be justified This is clear by his whole Discourse for he calls him a vain Man that relies on such a Faith and calls it a dead Faith c. So that when a Man is first justified it is by a Working Faith not that Faith must necessarily produce Works at the first but it is as I said of a Working Nature of such a Nature as to produce Works when they are required which is the same with what you say out of Grotius and this doth answer all that you object against the Interpretation which I stand for Who can doubt but Abraham was justified long before he offered up Isaac the Scripture being express for it But how then Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was past Answ No indeed that Work was not nor could be but Faith apt to shew it self by that Work or any other when required and consequently a Working Faith might be and was the Condition of that Justification Grotius whom you cite giving you such a hint of it I wonder that you could not observe this James and Paul may well enough be reconciled though both of them speak of Justification as Begun For James doth not require Works otherwise than as Fruits of Faith to be brought forth in time convenient and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense Every observant Reader saith Dr. Jackson may furnish himself with plenty of Arguments all demonstrative that Works taken as St. James meant not for the Act or Operation only but either for the Act or promptitude to it are necessary to Justification c. And again Faith virtually includes the same mind in us that was in Christ a readiness to do Works of every kind which notwithstanding are not Associates of Faith in the business of Justification And thus he reconcileth the two Apostles who in this Point seem to differ St. James affirming we are justified by Works and not by Faith only speaks of the Passive Qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified or made capable of absolute Approbation or final Absolation This qualification supposed St. Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence or of the ground of the Plea for Absolution the one by his Doctrine must be conceived and the other sought for only by Faith The immediate and only cause of both he still contends not to be in us but without us and for this reason when he affirms that we are justified by Faith alone he considers not Faith as it is a part of
Christ apprehended and received by Faith justifieth not Faith whereby it is apprehended and received unless it be by an improper speech whereby the Act of the Object by reason of the near and strict connexion betwixt them is given to the Instrument 3. What you have said before about Works perfecting Faith hath been considered Though Faith may save without manifestation yet not except it be of that nature as to manifest it self by Works when God doth call for them You say Works do perfect Faith ut Medium Conditio you mean of Justification but that Works are Medium Conditio Justificationis you do not prove The Tree and its Fruit are considered as distinct ut Causa Effectum non ut Totum Pars and so the perfection of the Tree is only manifested by its Fruit. It is not therefore a good Tree because it beareth good Fruit but it therefore beareth good Fruit because it is a good Tree For the Third If Procreation as you grant do not perfect Marriage in its Essence then it adds only an accidental perfection unto it 4. Your Explication is indeed now more full so that I can better see your meaning yet still I am unsatisfied For I do not conceive that Faith properly is our Covenant but that whereby we embrace God's Covenant Though a Covenant differ from a Promise yet it doth include a Promise Now a Promise is de futuro so that our reciprocal Promise both of Faith and Obedience I take to be our Covenant Faith is in part the matter of the Covenant but not properly the Covenant it self and perhaps when you call it our Covenant you only mean that it is the matter of our Covenant I being there the Respondent it was sufficient for me to deny the proof did lie upon you Yet nevertheless the Assertion viz. Faith alone is the Condition of the Covenant for so much as concerns Justification is sufficiently proved by those places where we are said to be justified by Faith and that without Works viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification And for the reason of the Assertion viz. because Faith alone doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness much hath been said of it before What do our Divines more inculcate than this Wotton saith that only Faith doth justifie Quia solâ— fide rectà in Christum tendimâ— promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur De Reconcil Part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. Amesius saith Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest â—sse causa justificans quia non habet vim a plicandi nobis justitiam Christi Contra Bellar. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. Sect. 5. So Bucanus Fides inquit sola justificat quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum unica facultas in nobis quâ recipimus justitiam Christi Loc. 31. ad Qâ—â—st 37. Thus also Mr. Ball By Repentance we know our selves we feel our selves we hunger and thirst after Grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is Faith alone c. And a little after When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified That Faith receiving the Promise doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised You your self do sometimes say That Faith hath in it an aptitude to justifie in this respect only you deny that this aptitude of Faith is sufficient and say that therefore it doth justifie because God in his Covenant hath made it the Condition of Justification Now I also grant That if Faith were not ordained to that end of God its bare aptitude or its being that whereby we apprehend Christ would not justifie Yet I say it appear by Scripture That because Faith alone hath this aptitude to justifie viz. by apprehending Christ therefore God hath made it alone the Condition of Justification This appears in that we are said to be justified by Believing in or on Christ which imports an apprehending and receiving of him Joh. 1. 12. 2. Repentance doth avail with Faith yet are we justified only by Faith and not by Repentance and that for the reason even now alledged viz. because not Repentance but Faith is the Hand by which Christ is received 3. Though Remission of Sins be ordinarily ascribed to Repentance yet it is no where said That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness as it is said of Faith Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance yet Faith and not Repentance iâ— made the Condition and Instrument of Justification as being that which doth apprehend the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 4. That though Faith only be the Condition of Justification at first yet Obedience also is a Condition afterward is often said but never proved I take Justification both at first and afterward to be by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us therefore not by Obedience but by Faith by which alone we apprehend the Righteousness of Christ that so it may be ours unto Justification Certainly that was not the beginning of Abraham's Justification which is mentioned Gen. 15. 6. Yet by that doth the Apostle prove that Abraham was and all must be justified not by Obedience but by Faith only 1. Faith apt to produce good Works is necessary to procure that first change which makes us in God's account Justos ex Injustis For if it be not such a Faith it is dead and of no force 2. I hope you will not deny but that being justified by Believing every after Act of Faith doth find us justified for you are against the Amission and Intercision of Justification Yet I confess That the continuance of Faith is necessary to the continuance of Justification So it must needs be seeing we are justified by Faith therefore every Act of Faith may be said to justifie as well as the first Act because by after-Acts of Faith we continue justified Nihil erit absurdi inquit Rivetus si dicamus in quâ—libet verae fidei actu imputari justitiam credenti Etsi enim justificatio sit actus momentaneus cujus nunquam planè amittitur effectus in piis qui semel justificatâ— sunt indigent nihilominùs renovatione sensus justificationis suae qui sensus fit per fidem tunc dicitur etiam fides imputarâ— ad justitiam Nam apprehensio illâ— fides habet fluxum suum continuum secundùm plus minus praesertim cum fidelis si justificatus subinde in peccata incidat propter quae opus etiam habet remissione peccatorum Quod continuum beneficirum fide apprehensum si secundam justificationem appellare velâ—â—t adversarii imò tertiam quaâ—tam quintam millesimam non repugnabimus dummodo constet nullâ— alià ratione nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus quà m 〈◊〉 quâ— semel justificati futmus à praecedentibus Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Justification no more afterward than at first 3. Your reasons whereby you endeavour to
this follow upon the other Taking Christ for Lord is virtually included in taking him for Priest see Rom. 14. 9. and 2 Cor. 5. 15. They cannot be divided though they be distinguished That Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest doth also receive him as Lord either expresly if Christ be propounded as Lord or at least implicitly yet Faith only as receiving Christ as Priest doth justifie for the reason alledged before to which I see nothing that you have said of force to refel it Wicked Men cannot unfeignedly receive Christ as Priest whiles they retain a Heart standing out in rebellion against Christ as Lord. Can they indeed embrace Christ as satisfying for them and yet not yeeld up themselves in obedience unto him The Apostle it seems was of another mind The love of Christ saith he constraineth us For we thus judg That if one died for all then were all dead And that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. And again I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life which I now live I live by Faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2. 20. This is the nature of that Faith which doth receive Christ as a Reconciler to work through Love Gal. 5. 6. May I not retort upon you and say When you have taught wicked Men that Faith alone doth justifie at first and they are willing to believe will you perswade them that they are unjustified again because Works do not follow after For my part I know no unjustifying of those who are once justified You speak sometimes of being justified to day by Faith without Works and of being unjustified to morrow or the day after except Works come in and help to justifie But I say Faith without a promptitude to Works doth not justifie at first such as do not receive Christ as Lord and do good Works when there is opportunity were never justified at all they never had a true Justifying-Faith which is never without Works as the seasonable Fruits and Effects of it Yet Faith both at first and last doth justifie without Works as concurrent with it unto Justification What you say of a willingness to receive Christ is nothing For I speak of a true actual receiving which I say cannot be of Christ as Priest except it be either expresly or implicitly of Christ as Lord also and yet we are justified by receiving him in the one respect and not in the other None can have that Faith which justifieth but they shall have also other Graces and VVorks of Obedience in their season Yet do not other Graces therefore or VVorks justifie as well as Faith Bellarmine obâ—ecting Fides vera potest 〈…〉 separarâ— Amesius answers Aliqua fides potest talis est Pontificia sed illa fides cui nos tribuimus justificandi virtutem cum unionem faciat nostri cum Christo à Christi Spiritu vivificante Sanctificante non potest separari Yet he saith Fides non justificat ut respicit praecepta operum faciendorum sed solummodò ut respicit promissionem gratiae So Dr. Prideaux Fides sola justificat non rationâ— existentia absque spe charitâte sed muneris Lect. 5. de Justif § 7. And Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 6. p. 73. Abraham was justified by Faith alone but this Faith though alone in the Act of Justification no other Grace co-working with it was not alone in existence did not lie dead in him as a dormant and idle quality Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that Faith which justifieth or as they testifie or give proof that Faith is lively but Faith alone justifieth as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ Here by the way observe how Amesius and Mr. Ball speak of Faith apprehending and embracing the Promise which manner of speech may also be observed in other eminent Divines yet you somewhere censure Mr. Cotton somewhat sharply for speaking in that manner 1. If it be as difficult for the Understanding to believe i. e. assent unto Christ's Priestly Office as is his Kingly then it seems also as hard for the VVill to consent to or accept of the one as the other If the VVill be inclined to a thing it will move the Understanding to assent unto it Quod valde volumus fac lè credimus That the Jews believed neither Christ's Kingly nor his Priestly Office was the perversness of their Will as well as the error of their Understanding What the Papists with whom you have met do say matters little we see what their great Rabbies say and maintain in their Disputations Yet it is no strange thing if even they also now and then let fall something wherein they give restimony to the Truth though in the whole current of their Discourses they oppose it Amesius sheweth That Bellarmine in that very place which you cite doth contradict himself whiles he is over-earnest to contradict Protestants Bellarminus hîc implicat seipsum contradictione ut nobis possit contradicere Whereas you cite Rivet disclaiming that which Bellarmine maketh to be the Opinion of Protestants viz. That Christ's Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification I have said enough about it before viz. That some understanding the Term one way some another our Divines express themselves variously yet all agree in the thing it self viz. That Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us is that by which we are justified See Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. where he answers this very Argument of Bellarmine though he contract his words and leave out those which you cite but however both there and in other places which I cited before he hath enough to this purpose concerning the formal Cause of Justification and how the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us may be so termed Dr. Prideaux also I see is offended at Bellarmine for saying Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur simus id nos cum rectâ ratione pugnare contendimus as if this were the Opinion of Protestants At quis unquam è nostris saith the Doctor noâ— per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion Annon formam quam libet inhaerentem quâ— formaliter justi denominemur semper explosimus In this sense also Davenant doth reject it Quod dicit Bellarminus impossibile esse ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter nugas agit atque tribuit illam ipsam sententiam Protestantibus quam
He only answereth an Argument of Hemingius denying that which he saith Hemingius supposeth viz. Eandem justitiam esse viam ad vitam aternam cum in Lege tum in Evangelio But of a Two-fold Righteousness he there makes no mention not I say of a Two-fold Righteousness required of us at all much less required of us that thereby we may be justified He saith indeed Quid enim si Lex Dei in decalogo sit norma illius justitia quae eâ—t via Vitae Eternae Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta quid impediet quo minùs justificetur quispiam sine Legis impletione He doth not mean That the Righteousness prescribed in the Law is one Righteousness and the Righteousness constituted in the Gospel another Righteousness whereby we are justified but that we are justified only by this latter and not at all by the other He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteousness as being both necessary unto Justification he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect which Righteousness he makes to consist meerly in remission of sins See part 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 12. cap. 3. per totum To the very same purpose i. e. nothing at all to yours is that Ibid. cap. 6. p. 138. n. 2. where he taxeth Hemingius for taking it as granted Nullam esse justitiam vel injustitiam nisi in Lege praestitâ vel non praestitâ And then he saith Nam si alia sit justitia quae Lege non contineatur fieri potest ut alia etiam sit via Aeternae Vitae consequendae He doth not grant as you seem to understand him that Justitia quae in Lege continetur est una justitia quae ad Justificationem à nobis requiritur for that indeed he denies and saith That there is another Righteousness now in the Gospel ordained for that end and remission of sins as I said he makes to be that Righteousness even the only Righteousness by which we are formally justified Immediately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow Verum nec peccatum quidem Legis in Decalogo cancellis circumscribitur This is not directly to the Point now in hand yet because it may reflect upon it and somewhat we have about it afterward I therefore think meet to note it by the way and say That if it be as he saith then it seemeth St. John did not give us a full definition of sin when he said Sin is a transgression of the Law but of that more hereafter Wotton's Argument is of small force Fides inquit in Christum crucifixum non praecipitur in Lege but I have before him shewed that it is otherwise He himself presently after cites that 1 John 3. 23. This is his Commandment That we believe c. Now the Law contained in the Decalogue requires us to do whatsoever God commandeth for if we do not so we do not make him our only Lord God as the Law requireth That the Apostle doth oppose as he saith Faith to the Law Gal. 3. 12. makes nothing for him For Faith as a Duty is required in the Law though as a Condition it be required only in the Gospel Neither doth that advantage him which he also objecteth That the Law hath nothing to do with Christ as Mediator Gal. 5. 4. For though the Gospel only hold out Christ as Mediator to be believed in yet Christ being so held out the Law doth require us to believe in him For the Law doth require a belief of every Truth that God doth reveal and a performance of every thing that God doth enjoyn Now for Lud. de Dieu If the Justification which he speaks of Quâ ut sanctificati ac regeniti absolvimur à falsis Diaboli improborum criminationibus be meant of some particular Acts of which we are accused it is but such a Justification as the Reprobates themselves may partake of who may be accused of some things whereof they are not guilty See Bradshaw de Justif cap. 25. If it be meant of our estate in general as I suppose it is then this is indeed no distinct Justification but only a confirming of the other For in vain do we pretend to be justified by Faith by which alone de Dieu grants we are justified so as through Christ to be freely acquitted from the guilt of our sins if yet we remain unregenerate and unsanctified By the way I observe That de Dieu's words are against you Jacobus non agit de Justificatione quae partim fide partim operibus peragatur Thus much I had said in reference to this Author before I had him upon the Epistles but now that I have him I shall speak more fully to him or to you of him from that other place to which you remit me viz. his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he speaks likewise of a Two-fold Righteousness and of a Two-fold Justification yet so as but little to patronize your Cause Besides Imputed Righteousness which we have in Christ there is also he saith and who doth not an Inherent Righteousness which we have in our selves The former Righteousness he saith is that Quâ nos Deus etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes plenè tamen ipsius etiam Legis Testimonio justificat eique pro omninò conformibus habet in capite Christo de quâ justificatione Apostolus supra cap. 3. 4. 5. multis disputavit Altera est de quâ Rom. 6. 13. Ephes 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. Quâ nos Deus per regenerationem in nobis etiam ipsis Lege ex parte conformatos ex parte nunc justificat indies justificat magis ac magis prout incrementum capit regeneratio ac justificabit plenè ubi perfectio advenerit de quâ Justificatione agitur Jac. 2. 21 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justificationem Opera Legis ingrediuntur ut primam constituit sola Fides i. e. justitia Christi fide imputata non opera sic alteram censtituunt opera non fides Here 1. he makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect and so also the Justification which doth arise from it By this Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conformati ex parte nunc justificati But Imputed Righteousness and Justification by it he acknowledgeth to be perfect hereby we are plenè justificati tanquam Legi plenè conformes in capite Christo 2. He makes Faith only i. e. as he explains it the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith that whereby we are fully and perfectly justified Now you make all Righteousness as such perfect for otherwise you make it to be no Righteousness if it be imperfect And you make Faith and Works to concur unto the same Justification though you distinguish of the Inchoation Continuation and Consummation of it You also make Faith properly taken to be the Righteousness though not the only
notwithstanding any thing you have said or I suppose can say against it Quamvis hanc controversiam elevent saith Rivet speaking of the Remonstrants nec ciccum ut loquuntur interdiunt an Fides quae est viva an Fides quà est viva ad justificationem requiratur Logicam tantùm pugnam esse velint Logica tamen haec pugnarealem continet magni momenti Siquis enim dicat Christus qui homo est infinitus Christus quà homo est infinitus nemo samis existimabit nihil differre has enuntiationes I grant you more than you require That not only Christ as Lord but even the whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying Faith but not therefore of Faith as Justifying The Hand may receive both Meat and Mony yet it doth not enrich as it receiveth Meat nor feed as it receiveth Mony 2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness which I think you have ever affirmed though you would also have another Righteousness of our own and that unto Justification then I see not but that I may speak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending Christ's Satisfaction For though the Satisfaction was made unto God yet it was made for us and in that respect we are to lay hold on it and receive it and not only to assent to the truth of it You somewhere cite Bellarmine yeelding unto us thus much Imputari nobis Christi merita quia nobis donata sunt possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi Which words also Amosius doth cite and interpret to be as much as if he did say Christi merita sunt nobis à Deo donata ut possimus ea pro nobis Deo offerre tanquam Satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris It is Satisfactio Christi though by Faith it becomes Nostra which we must offerre Deo but first we must by Faith receive it before we can have any interest in it to make such use of it Faith justifieth I grant as a Condition because it is required of us that we may be partakers of Christ's Righteousness but it is not Faith properly but the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified Recte Contarenus saith Ames in Tract de Justif Fide justificamur non formaliter sicut Albedo efficit parietem album aut Sanitas hominem sanum sed efficienter sicut Linitio efficit parientem album Medicatio efficit sanum sic vel non dissimili ratione Fides efficit hominem justum justificat I like your Explication which you now make and I think my labour well bestowed as being the occasion of it I perceive all that you mean is this That the Covenant wherein God doth give Christ is not of force to make Christ ours until we believe This who can question Christ being given to be ours only upon condition of believing Yet Christ being so conditionally given in the Covenant upon our believing he is made ours by vertue of the Covenant so that still I see not but that our believing doth immediately make Christ ours there being nothing more to that end required of us but to believe But how will it follow that God doth justifie Men before they believe when by his Covenant he doth not justifie but upon condition of Believing The Grant of a thing being Conditional it cannot be actually obtained until the Condition be performed though upon the performance of the Condition by vertue of the Grant there be actual enjoyment Whether the receiving of Christ as Priest and the receiving of him as King be two distinct acts doth little concern our purpose yet I think the Acts may be distinct though I deny not but Christ may be received at once in both respects yet if he be it is the receiving of him as Priest not as King that doth justifie I grant that the receiving of Christ in respect of any one Offiâ—â— doth virtually include the receiving of him in respect of all his Offices and he that doth not so receive Christ in respect of his Priestly Office as to be ready to receive him also in respect of his Kingly Office when Christ shall so be set forth unto him doth not at all receive him such a Faith is a false Faith and cannot justifie Yet may there be a receiving of Christ as Priest without an express and direct receiving of him as King though implicitly and by consequence he be received as such Neither is it a false Knowledg though it be an imperfect Knowledg to know Christ as a Priest and not to know him as a King And that Christ is sometimes propounded only as a Priest i.e. with express mention only of his Priestly Office seems clear and undeniable by divers places of Scripture see John 1. 29 36. and 3. 14 15. and so other places which speak of Christ as suffering for us not mentioning his Sovereignty over us though that is there implied and expressed in other places And though he be as sometimes he is expresly set forth at once both as Priest and King and so must expresly be received at once in both respects yet it hinders not but that the receiving of Christ as Priest and not the receiving of him as King is that which justifieth One may at once receive divers things and yet those things not all serve for one and the same use but one thing may serve for one use and another thing for another use all being though in several respects useful and necessary to be received You say that you are of my mind in all this yet you seem to differ from me in that you make Affiance a Fruit of Acceptance which you make the very Act of Faith by which we are justified whereas I taking Affiance for Recumbency and for that which is meant by Believing in Christ and Embracing him make it to be the very Justifying Act of Faith That Believing in Christ doth principally import Assent I cannot see to Believe indeed doth seem principally to import Assent but to Believe in seems principally to import Affiance Credere in Christum as Ferus saith well est certâ firmâ stabili fiduciâ Christum omniaque ejus bona complecti eisque toto corde totâ animâ totisque viribus inhaerere So Wotton Quid est in Christum credere An id solummodo credere vera esse quae Christus loquitur At quid opus erat Spiritus Sancto tam novum insolens verbum usurpare presertim obscurum etiam à vulgi intelligentiâ remotum Quod rectè clarè dici potuit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id Spiritus Sanctus novo more dicendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 voluit obscurare Nam hic certè loquendi modus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 totus est à Spiritu Sancto illi proprius nec ullumè Gracis
as Faith is neither doth the Scripture make them Conditions of Justification as it doth Faith For the Third 1. Neither doth James speak of any other Justification 2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are justified by it as a Work or Duty but only as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness See Calv. Instit lib. 3. cap. 11. § 7. And Pemble of Justif Sect. 2. chap. 2. pag. 38. 3. No more do the greatest Transgressors need pardon for that wherein they do not transgress 4. Works as Works either justifie by way of merit or not at all But Faith doth not justifie as a Work or Duty required of us but as an Instrument receiving Christ or if you will a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified See Pemble of Justif § 2. chap. 1. pag. 24. The Exclusion viz. of VVorks from being concurrent with Faith unto Justification is not only Mr. Pemble's but generally all Protestants and indeed Paul's and the Scriptures and to take in VVorks in that sense is as Mr. Blake before cited truly saith against the whole current of the Gospel 1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it is not to deny it to mean as it speaketh Whether the Reasons which I alledged against your interpretation of St. James be forced let others judg 2. It avails your cause nothing to prove That James by working doth mean VVorks indeed I presume Mr. Pemble would not deny that but his meaning I conceive was That VVorks are only spoken of as Fruits of Justifying Faith and are only said to justifie because they are as Dr. Jackson speaketh a passive qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified Hence saith he also is the seeming inconvenience of St. James his Causal form of Speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easily answered For the immediate and principal cause proposed it is usual to attribute a kind of causality to the qualification of the Subject though only requisite as a mere passive disposition without which the principal or sole Agent shall want his efficacy All that St. James intended is this That Justifying Faith is of a VVorking-Nature and not such a Faith as some rely on viz. barren and without VVorks Now for your Reasons I answer Ad 1. You speak of the unprofitableness of bare Faith i. e. say you Assent But quorsum hoc You know that Protestants make Faith to justifie not as it is a bare Assent but as it is a Receiving of Christ and a Recumbency on him Fides haec justificans saith Ames non est illa generalis quâ in intellectu assensum praebemus veritati in Sacris literis revelatae c. Fides igitur illa propriè dicitur justificans quâ incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem peccatorum salutem And this Faith they hold not barren but fruitful in good VVorks though not VVorks but Faith it self apprehending and applying Christ be it whereby we are justified Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum ex eo constat quod sola est fides quae Dco promittenti credit quae sola acquiescit in gratuitâ promissione Dei in Christo remissionem peccatorum apprehendit c. Vnde etiam sequitur Fidem non justificare quatenus est opus justitiae sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi c. Nec Jacobus dissentit à Paulo quamvis alio modo loquendi utatur ut redarguat eos qui seipsos fallebant inani fidei justificationem tribuentes quam probat non esse veram 〈◊〉 exemplo Charitatis quae nullam vim habet si tota sit in verbis c. 2. 16. Operibus autem justificari apud Jacobum idem est quod apud Paulum 1 Tim. 3. 16. justificari spiritu i. e. Vi spiritus dare sui experimentum quomodo experimentum dedit Abraham fidei suae offerendo filium suum homo probatus fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tentatione Jac. 1. 12. quae probatio non facit ut res sit sed per experientiam docet rem esse Vnde etiam fides dicitur perfici per opera quia per ea se prodit Ergo cum Paulo vult Jacobus hominem justificari fide sed uterque eâ quae sui experimentum dat per opera etsi neuter vult opera esse justificationis causas aut ad justitiam coram Deo acceptaâ—i quorum primum volunt Pontificii alterum Sociniani Remonstrantes Concludimus cum Apostolo colligimus fide justificari hominem absque operibus Legis Rom. 3. 28. sub quibus comprehendimus quaelibet opera quae secundum Legem fiunt etiam à sanctis fideâ—ibus Cum enim inter Legem factorum sive operum Legem fidei distinguat Apostolus ibid. v. 27. si ex operibus justificemur Legis operum fidei distinctio 〈◊〉 vana Argumentum ex eâ deductum pro fidei justificatione nut abit quod absurdum ut vitemus scientes non justificari hominem ex operibus Legis sed tantum per fidem Jesu Christi etiam nos in Jesum Christians credimus ut justificemur ex fide Jesu Christi non ex operâ—â—s Legis Gal. 2. 22. Sed cum eodem Apostolo fidum esse hunc sermonem affirmamus studendum esse â—is qui credideruat Deo ut bona opera tueantur Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omni inquinamento c. 2. Cor. 7. 1. quod cum fiat de die in diem 2 Cor. 4. 16. quamdiù caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum c. Gal. 5. 17 in eo non possumus coram Deo justificari Nam in justificando partialem justitiam Deus non respicit sed perfectâm plenam quia Lex maledicit omnibus qui non permanebunt in omnibus quae praecipit Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. I have been the larger in citing this Author both because he is eminent and also doth speak so fully to the Point and doth meet with many of your Opinions But to proceed It is Faith and Faith i. e. several kinds of Faith which St. James opposeth one to the other viz. Faith which is a bare Assent and without Works such a Faith as the Devils have and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Christ and the mercy of God in Christ and is attended with VVorks as the Fruits and Effects of it as the Faith of Abraham and Rahab was Though therefore he concludes That Faith cannot save him that hath not VVorks yet iâ— follows not that VVorks concur with Faith unto Justification but only that a Justifying Faith will shew it self by VVorks Ad 2. It is granted That Faith which is no more than a bare Assent is neither Justifying nor Saving But what of this Is there no other Faith than Assent Do not you your self make Acceptance which is more than Assent the compleating Act of Justifying Faith And how can you say That there is the same force ascribed to VVorks as to
Faith when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without VVorks Indeed VVorks are requisite in their place but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification shew any Orthodox VVriter that doth hold so though as necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified Say not that you speak of Justification as continued for VVorks as St. James doth speak of them are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good VVorks if this be wanting it is no Justifying Faith but as St. James calls it a dead Faith altogether vain and unprofitable Ad 3. That Faith without VVorks is a hardening of Unbelievers I grant sed quid tum postea Do therefore VVorks justifie as well as Faith But I do not think that St. James brings in chap. 2. 18. an Unbeliever so speaking For how should an Unbeliever a professed Unbeliever we mean for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite speak of his Faith saying And I will shew thee my Faith Calvin doth far better interpret it saying Jacobus dicit promptum fore piis sanctè viventibus excutere hypocritis talem jactantiam quâ inflati sunt Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief i. e. a true Assent but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith even that Faith whereby we are justified at first as your self do hold And you confess also that Faith doth justifie at first without VVorks yet say I not except it be of a VVorking-Nature i.e. ready to VVork when VVorks are required and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith VVorks do not justifie neither at first nor afterward Ad 5. Faith without VVorks is dead as to the effect of Justification even altogether unprofitable i. e. Faith renuens operari or which is not parata operari as Cajet an doth well express it But this is nothing to prove a Co-interest of VVorks with Faith in point of Justification it only proves That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature VVhereas you add Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works and on the other side Faith without Works this doth nothing hinder but that the opposition is as I said betwixt Faith and Faith i. e. several kinds of Faith whereof the one is accompanied with VVorks and the other not the one is operative and fruitful the other idle barren That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work but also by VVorks is more than St. James doth say and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith Indeed it is more than you can say without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued which distinction St. James never thought of For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith as he affirms that to be which is without VVorks That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by VVorks is made perfect as accomplishing its ends but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect The end of Faith is to justifie and your self say That Faith at first doth justifie without Works so that in your Opinion Faith without VVorks is perfect accomplishing its end in justifying at first But in St. James his sense Faith doth not cannot at all justifie without VVorks i. e. if it be not ready to work and in that respect VVorks do perfect Faith i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear but of that enough before Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation Continuation and Consummation of Justification you often say but never prove Sure I am James doth exclude Faith which is without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them from the very Initiation of Justification For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils who surely are so far from Justification that they have not so much as the initiation of it Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a VVorking Faith or by a Faith which produceth VVorks and so by his VVorks appears to be justified The words if taken without any qualification are against your self who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without VVorks If you will distinguish of Justification as at first and as afterward to make the Apostle agree with your meaning though indeed it will not serve Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so as to make him agree not only with them but also with himself and the whole current of the Gospel The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports no more than if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by the whole series of the Discourse and more particularly by ◠17. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self i. e. alone without the concomitancy of VVorks as the Fruits of it Beza renders it per se Tremellius out of the Syriack Sola the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa which Cajetan corrects saying pro per se and that he expounds hoc est sola VVherein I suppose he followed Erasmus whose Annotation on the place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. per se hoc est sola Ad 8. Rahab was justified by VVorks so as Abraham was and all must be even when they are first justified viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require Ad 9. Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief i. e. Assent and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19. such a Faith may be without VVorks and so is dead i.e. unprofitable but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of as I have shewed before who hold that Faith alone doth justifie without VVorks though withal they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them and this is all that St. James urgeth Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification quite besides yea and against St. James his meaning as I think I have sufficiently demonstrated Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James and reconcile him with St. Paul after the same manner as I and others do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes he saith Faith is taken for a bare Assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Devils believe Sometimes it notes also a disposition joyned with assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. James he saith considereth Faith in the former sense St. Paul in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.
even at first when you say VVorks are not requisite in respect of their presence with Faith though that Faith say I is of a working Disposition differ much in their very Nature 2. If you will be true to your own Principles you cannot say That VVorks make Faith alive or that Faith is not alive without VVorks as actually present though you consider Faith meerly as a Condition of Justification seeing you hold Faith to be alive in that respect when we are first justified though there be no VVorks present with it And though as there must be a promptitude to VVorks at first so there must be VVorks themselves in due season yet that VVorks do afterward concur with Faith unto Justification is more than yet I see or I presume ever shall see proved 3. Therefore my Argument stands good against you until you can make it appear That Faith alone without the Coparâ—nership of VVorks is the Condition of Justification at first but Faith and VVorks together of Justification afterward I have shewed some Reasons against it but I can see none for it Your Similitude of a Fine c. is no proof Similitudes may illustrate something but they prove nothing 1. You said The Apostle saith That Faith did Work in and with his Works whereas the Apostle using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not speak of working in but only of working with 2. Of what validity that distinction is of Justification Inchoated and Justification Continued and Consummate you have not yet shewed 3. VVhat Calvin's Opinion otherwise was is not to the purpose I only alledged his Exposition of those words Fides cooperata est operibus suis and I think his Exposition is genuine So also Mr. Manton That sense which I prefer saith he is That his Faith rested not in a naked bart Profession but was operative it had its efficacy and influence upon his Works co-working with all other Graces it doth not only exert and put forth it self in acts of Believing but also in working Beza renders it Administra fuit operum ejus and expounds it Efficax foecunda bonorum operum 1. I shewed before how not only Piscator and Pemble but many others both before and after them interpret those words By Works his Faith was made perfect i. e. By VVorks his Faith did appear perfect i. e. sound and good This Exposition is such that as yet I see no reason to dislike it 2. I grant that Faith without VVorks viz. when God doth require them is dead as to the effect of Justifying Yea and it is also dead in it self being but a dead Assent having no life no operative vertue in it 3. Abraham's Faith was is and shall be manifested to be perfect i. e. sincere by his VVorks to all that were are and shall be able to discern the true nature of Justifying Faith Although there were none then that could discern this which yet is not to be supposed Isaac was then of age to discern it and so other of Abraham's Family to whom the thing was known yet to after-Ages the perfection of Abraham's Faith is made manifest by his VVorks especially his offering his Son upon the Altar And if God did say Now I know that thou fearest me c. why may it not be said speaking of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thereby Abraham's Faith and its Perfection appeared to God himself Certain it is that the VVork spoken of did proceed from Faith Heb. 11. 7. And therefore as the Effect doth shew the Cause to be perfect so did Abraham's VVorks especially that of offering up Isaac shew his Faith to be perfect To the Second 1. Though Justifying Faith include in it three Acts mentioned Heb. 11. 13. yet there are but two of them properly and peculiarly Acts of Faith For Seeing or Knowing the first there mentioned is but presupposed unto Faith Bellarmine in this saith truly though it was little to his purpose Cognit to apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem sed non est ipsa propriè fides The other two Acts viz. Perswasion and Embracing though distinct yet are both comprehended in Believing 2. I see no cloudiness in this Believing justifieth not as it is our Act but in respect of its Object neither is this to speak darkness except to a dark Understanding which I know yours is not But you know what is said of some Faciunt nimium intelligendo ut nihil intelligant VVhat is more vulgar with Divines and those no vulgar ones neither than to say That Faith doth not justifie as it is a VVork of ours but in respect of its Object Christ whom it apprehendeth and by whom so apprehended we are justified Hujus satisfactionis âpprehendendae medium saith one whom Râ—vet much commends fides est Deo sic â—â—dinante ut non alii illius participes sint quà m qui eam sincerâ fide amplectuntur non ita tamen ut ipsa fides ratione sui nos Deo gratos faciat acceptos sâ—d rvatione objecti quod apprehendit cujus meritum nobis applicat perfectam obedientiam So Rivet himself saith Fides non justificat quaetenus est opus justitia sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi Divers others to this purpose have been cited before Your Question Why doth not the Object justifie without the Act is soon answered Because the Act Believing is required on our part Deo sic â—â—dinante as the Author before-cited saith That so the Object Christ's Righteousness may become ours unto Justification yet still it is in respect of the Object Christ's Righteousness that the Act Believing doth justifie You darken my words when you transform them thus It justifieth in respect to its Object I say in respect of its Object and so you first cited it My meaning is this It is the Object of Faith viz. Christ's Righteousness though as apprehended by Faith whereby we are justified Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum saith Amâ—sius non absolute consideratum quo sensu Christus etiam est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide à pprehensum This is clear by that Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified I will add Mr. Ball 's words which in sense are the same with mine and there is little difference as to clearness or cloudiness in the Expression The Third Exposition is That when Faith is imputed for Righteousness it iâ— not understood materially as though the Dignity Worth and Perfection of Faith made us just but relatively and in respect of its Object that is to us believing Righteousness sc of Christ is freely imputed and by Faith we freely receive Righteousness and remission of sinâ— freely given of God And therefore to say Faith justifieth and Faith is imputed for Righteousness are phrases equivalent For Faith justifieth not by its merit or dignity but as an Instrument and correlatively that is the merit of
Repentance must go before Justification and is required unto Justification but not so as Faith is required Repentance is required that we may be justified but not that we may be justified by it as we are by Faith though Instrumentally and Relatively as it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified For Prayer it is a Fruit of Faith and therefore called The Prayer of Faith Jam. 5. 15. Repentance saith Mr. Ball Of the Coven c. 3. p. 18. is the Condition of Faith and the Qualification of a Person capable of Salvation but Faith alone is the Cause of Justification and Salvation on our part required And immediately after he adds It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the promises of Mercy but we are not justified partly by Prayer partly by Repentance but by that Faith which stirreth up Godly sorrow for sin and inforceth us to pray for Pardon and Salvation And again Prayer is nothing else but the Stream or River of Faith and an issue of the desire of that which joyfully we believe Of Faith Part 1. Chap. 8. pag. 105. For that place Acts 22. 16. the Exposition which I gave of it in the Animadversions is confirmed by this That the nature of a Sacrament is to signifie and seal as the Apostle shews Rom. 4. 11. Quatenus ergò fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus inquit Calvinus ut remissionem peccatorum percipiat 〈◊〉 solo Christi sanguine Lavacrum animae vocatur Ita ablutio cujus meminit Lucas non causam designat sed ad sensum Pauli refertur qui symbolo accepto peccata suae esse expiata N. B. melius cognovit Cum testimonium haberet Paulus gratiae Dei jam illi remissa erant peccata Non igitur Baptismo demum ablutus est sed novam gratiae quam adeptus erat confirmationem accepit That Paul's sins were but incompleatly washed away by Faith until he was baptized your Similitudes which are too often your only proofs do not prove Yea a Kings Coronation of which you speak when the Kingdom is hereditary is I think but a confirmation of what was done before The purifying of the Heart spoken of 1 Pet. 1. 22. is I conceive to be understood as Jam. 4. 8. Jer. 4. 14. viz. of purifying from the filth of sin by Sanctification And for 1 Pet. 4. 18. who denies the diligence of the Righteous to be a means of their Salvation But what is that to prove Works to concur with Faith unto Justification 1. I take what you grant That at first believing a Man is justified so fully as that he is acquitted from the guilt of all Sin and from all Condemnation And surely at the last one can have no fuller Justification than this is That afterwards he is acquitted from the guilt of more sins is not to the purpose seeing he is acquitted from all at first and but from all at last though this all be more at last than at first Otherwise the Justification of one who hath fewer sins should not be so full as the Justification of him whose sins are more in number 2. That there is a further Condition of Justification afterward than at first hath been said often but was never yet proved 3. That which you call Sentential Justification viz. at the Last Judgment I hold to be only the manifestation of that Justification which was before That because Obedience is a Condition of Salvation heretofore it is also a Condition of Justification I deny as you see all along in the Animadversions and therefore I thought it enough here to touch that which you say of full Justification especially seeing your self hold Obedience to be no Condition of Justification at first You lay the weight of your 78th Thesis upon the word full which therefore was enough for me to take hold of For your Queries therefore about Sentential Justification at Judgment I have told you my mind before and you might sufficiently understand it by the Animadversions When you prove 1. that Justification at Judgment is a Justification distinct from Justification here and not only a manifestation of it 2. That Justification at Judgment hath the same Conditions with Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it viz. Glorification And 3. That consequently Obedience is a Condition of Justification at Judgment When you shall prove I say these things I shall see more than yet I do In the mean while besides what hath been said before hear what Bucan saith to this purpose An perficitur justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ In Justificatione quemadmodum judicamur reputamur à Deo justi ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae Ratione igitur decreti divini sententiae ipsius de vitâ aternâ prolatae à Deo judice item ratione justitiae quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis jam perfecta est justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ nisi quòd in alterâ magis patefacienda N. B. si◠ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda Ea tamen tota perficitur in hac vitâ in quâ potest homo dici plenè perfectéque justificatus Filii Dei sumus ergo justificati sed nondum patefactum est quid erimus 1 John 3. 2. At si executionem respicias rationem habeas vitae gloriae quae nobis adjudicatur quae nobis inhaesura est quia in nobis non perficitur in hâc vitâ imperfecta etiam Justificatio in hâc vitâ censeri potest 1. I think there is not the like right of Salvation and Justification but that although we must be saved by Works though not by the Merit of them yet we cannot be justified by Works except it be by the merit of them My reason is Because that whereby we are justified must fully satisfie the Law for it must fully acquit us from all Condemnation which otherwise by the Law will fall upon us This Works cannot do except they be fully conform to the Law and so be meritorious as far forth as the Creature can merit of the Creator But being justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed to us and so put into a state of Salvation we must yet shew our Faith by our Works which though they be imperfect and so not meritorious yet make way for the full enjoyment of Salvation And me-thinks the Scripture is so frequent and clear in distinguishing betwixt Justification and Salvation as to the full enjoyment of it that it may seem strange that you should so confound them as you do and argue as if there were the same reason of the one as of the other 2. You might easily see that by Via Regni as opposed to Causa Regnandi I meant only to exclude the Merit of Works not to deny Works to be a Means and a Condition required of us for the obtaining of compleat Salvation Salvation is a Chain
c. may be understood as those are more clearly to the purpose Joh. 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin viz. in so high degree as it follows but now they have no cloak for their sin But still it is by the Law that all sinners are convinced and condemned As for Righteousness whereby one is justified from a false Accusation it is but such as the Devil himself may have as hath been noted before though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accusations whatsoever And when Satan doth accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel he doth but only shew that such stand guilty by the Law and so are to be condemned as having no benefit of the Gospel because they have not performed the Condition of it So that still it is the Law by which Satan doth accuse and bring to condemnation But by the way I observe That in this place of your Aphor. p. 308. you say That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2 3 14 15 16. Paul concludeth that neither Faith nor Works is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law but the Righteousness which is by Faith i. e. Christ's Righteousness Yet before in this Writing you stand upon the very Letter of the Text and will have it to prove That Faith it self properly taken is our Righteousness If you say that you mean our Evangelical Righteousness yet so you agree not with your self in your Aphorisms where you make Paul in those Texts to speak of our Legal Righteousness 1. They against whom James disputed relied on Faith as the Condition of the New Covenant but it was not such a Faith as the New Covenant doth require it was a Faith renuens operari upon that account James confuted them not as if Faith alone without Works though yet a Faith ready to shew it self by Works were not the Condition of Justification 2. I am sorry that Beza's words which I cited and which to me seem very excellent should be so censured by you as if there were I know not how many mistakes in them but truly I think the mistakes will be found to be in your censure To your Exceptions I answer 1. Quis vel ex nostris vel ex Transmarinis Theologis Fidem pro Causa nempe Instrumentali Justificationis non habet 2. Beza ait tu negas Vtri potius assentiendum Quid dico Beza Quis enim istud non dicit Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere rationes antè allatae expendantur 3. Affirmes tanthùm non probas Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones Media Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur neque enim ad justificationem procurandam sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est 4. Nec Beza nec alius quisquam quòd sciam distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ Justificatione Continuatâ quasi sc alia hujus alia illius esset conditio perspectam habuit Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo 1. Certain it is All Works are not the fulfilling of the Old Law 's Condition but all Works whereby we are justified are the fulfilling of it and therefore as I said in the Animadversions to be justified by Works and to be justified by the Law are with Paul one and the same See Rivet Disp de Fide Justif § 21. the words are before cited 2. We are justified by the New Law against the Accusation of the Old Law Certainly if we be accused of Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ we are accused of being Sinners For are Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ no sins 3. Who doth not so distinguish of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere except some few whom I have no mind to follow But how will this Distinction inter quod opus quà opus serve to keep in Obedience as having a joint interest with Faith in Justification What dark Equivocal I pray is this That Faith doth justifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of Christ's Righteousness Your self acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to justifie in this respect and in this respect I say Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Justification I take what you grant viz. That Paul doth not imply Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Justification afterward you should prove and not content your self with the bare affirming of it Doth not Paul by that Gen. 15. Abraham believed God c. prove that Abraham was justified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience Yet that was not the first time that Abraham either believed or was justified The truth therefore is Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which justifieth both at first and last but not as concurring with Faith unto Justification either at first or last 1. There is a necessity of Faith shewing it self by Works that so it may appear to be such a Faith whereby Christ is truly apprehended and received But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in justifying because only such a Faith doth justifie as doth also produce Works You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Justification at first yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified 2. For the Texts alledged that Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified c. is as plain you say as We are justified by Faith But if it be so plain it may seem wonderful that Bellarmine should never make use of it when he labours to prove That Faith alone doth not justifie which so far as I observe he doth not Nor do the Rhemists on the place take any notice of those words who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but seem to make for them Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it Quod autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent puerile est Certainly all good that we do may justifie quadantemus so far as it is good But can we therefore be simply and absolutely or if you like those terms better fully and perfectly justified either by our Words or Works Those places that require forgiving of others that so God may forgive us shew indeed that it is no true Justifying Faith which doth not as occasion requires manifest it self in that kind but we are not therefore justified as well by forgiving others as by believing nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Justification That in 1 John 1. 9. and Acts 3. 19. shews that