having cited Acts 18. 26. Ephes 3. 17. Gal. 3. 14. he saith These Scriptures speak of Faith as the Souls Instrument to receive Christ Jesus c. See there much more to this purpose I will add to these one more viz. J. Goodwin who though in divers things he be cross and contrary to our Divines yet in this at least in words he doth comply with them professing to hold That Faith doth justifie instrumentally If the propriety of Words must always be strictly examined we shall scarce know how to speak It is well if we can find words whereby to express our selves so as that others may understand if they please what we mean All that our Divines mean when they speak of Faith justifying Instrumentally or as an Instrument I suppose is this and so much also they usually express That Faith doth not justifie absolutely or in respect of it self but Relatively in respect of its Object Christ and his Righteousness laid hold on and received by Faith Neither should you me-thinks strive about the word Receiving how it should be the Act of Faith It sufficeth That the Scripture makes Believing in Christ and Receiving of Christ one and the same John 1. 12. That which you say of our most famous Writers ordinarily laying the main stress of the Reformed Cause and Doctrine on a plain Error did deserve to have been either further manifested or quite concealed to me it seems very injurious both to our most famous Writers and also to the Reformed Cause and Doctrine My meaning is That Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ whom the Gospel doth give for Righteousness to such as receive him i. e. believe in him And thus our Divines frequently express themselves Luther Fides justificat quia apprehendit possidet illum thesaurum scil Christum presentem Loc. Com. Class 2. loc 19. ex tom 4. And again Fides non tanquam opus justificat sed ideò justificat quia apprehendit misericordiam in Christo exhibitam Ibid. ex tom 1. in Gen. So Calvin Quod objicit nempe Osiander vim justificandi non inesse fidei ex seipsâ sed quatenus Christum recipit libenter admitto Fides instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae Thus also Hemingius Justificamur autem fide non quod fides ea res sit quâ justi sumus sed quia est Instrumentum quo Christum apprehendimus complectimur Davenant Hoc necessariò intelligendum est quatenus suum objectum apprehendit credenti applicat nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ And again Quî igitur Fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur Ames Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans quia non habet N. B. vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi And again Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam non est simpliciter per modum objecti sed per modum objecti N. B. nobis donati Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum omnia cum eo Scriptura disertis verbis testatur Rom. 8. 32. Hic tamen observandum est accuratè loquendo apprehensionem Christi justitiae ejus esse fidem justificantem quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi apprehensio justificationis ut possessionis nostrae praesentis fructus est effectum apprehensionis prioris Pemble We deny that Faith justifies us as it is a Work c. It justifies us only as the Condition required of us and an Instrument of embracing Christ's Righteousness nor can the contrary be proved Mr. Ball When 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 Mr. Blake Faith as an Instrument receives Righteousness unto Justification Of the Coven chap. 12. pag. 82. If you agree with me as you say in this particular you will agree also with these whom I have cited for I agree with them their meaning and mine so far as I can discern is the same See also Mr. Ball of Faith Part 1. chap. 10. pag. 135. For the Twofold Righteousness which you make necessary unto Justification I think also I have said enough before But seeing that in the place on which I made the Animadversion you mention it as a Reason why Faith must justifie in a proper sense and not Christ's Righteousness only I cannot but observe how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contrary way viz. That Faith doth not justifie as taken properly because then we should be justified by a Two-fold Righteousness We are not justified saith he by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects But if we be justified by the Work of Faith we shall be justified partly by that Righteousness which is in us viz. of Faith and partly by the Righteousness of Christ without us And again We cannot be properly justified by both for our own Faith and Christ's obedience too For if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith what needs the imputation of Christ's Obedience to make us just If for Christ's Righteousness we be perfectly justified How can God account us perfectly just for our Faith 1. If you do not oppose the Literal sense of Scripture to Figurative I do not oppose you but grant that Faith doth justifie figuratively viz. as apprehending Christ by whom we are justified In these places saith Pemble where it is said Faith is imputed for Righteousness the Phrase is to be expounded Metonymice i. e. Christ's Righteousness believed on by Faith is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness A figurative sense may be a plain sense yet it is not a proper sense for surely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other Distinguendum est inquit Rivetus inter has phrases quae etsi in unum sensum conveniunt differunt nihilominùs in eo quòduna est figurata altera propâ—ia Figurata est Fides imputatur ad justitiam Propria est Justitia imputatur credenti Tum enim justitiae nomen ponitur directè pro eâ— justitia cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus est pro justis habet In primo autem Fidei tribuitur quod ejus non est proprè sumptae Nec enim est justitia nec justitiae loco habetur sed objectum ejus est justitia vera quae per fidem nobis imputatur ut pro nostra habeatur quam credendo amplexi sumus Haec si capere nolint aut veteratores Romani aut Novatores Sociniani sufficiat nobis Apostolos autores habere qui operibus nostris ergò fidei quâ opus omnem justitiae laudem detrahunt eamque in justitiâ quae sine operibus nobis imputatur constituunt That the sense by me and others put on Scripture is forced you affirm but
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
maketh it appear that there is such a Right which Faith hath procured 5. I do indeed believe That a Man may have and hath Jus ad Gloriam without Obedience even as he is justified without Obedience For certainly as soon as a Man is justified he hath Jus ad Gloriam For what doth hinder but sin the guilt of which by Justification is done away Yet still I say Faith which doth justifie and so gives right to Glory will shew it self by Obedience Those words If he live to Age are needless for we speak continually of the Justification of such as are of Age. But how can you seriously ask me this Question when your self put it out of all question holding that a Man that is of Age I presume is at first justified and consequently as I think you will not deny hath Jus ad Gloriam by Faith without Obedience 6. It is no debasing of Faith to say That after it as a Fruit of it Obedience is required to give Jus in re i.e. to bring into the actual possession of Glory How can you pretend this to be a debasing of Faith who debase it much more in making it unsufficient to give Jus ad rem except there be Obedience concurrent with it Though yet herein you do not keep fair correspondence with your self without a distinction of Jus Inchoatum and Jus Continuatum which distinction how it will hold good I do not see If any shall think that you have said enough to prove That we are justified by a Personal Righteousness I shall think that such are soon satisfied 1. When we speak of Justification we speak of it as taking off all Accusation and as opposed to all Condemnation And what Righteousness is sufficient for this but that which is perfect 2. That Lud. de Dieu hath not the same Doctrine on Rom. 8. 4. as you deliver I have sufficiently shewed before And if he had I take the Authority of Calvin and Davenant whom I cited and to whom many others might be added to be of more force against it than de Dieu's could be for it That Holiness and Obedience is necessary unto Salvation so that no Salvation is to be expected without it it were pitty as I said in the Animadversions any should deny but to argue from Salvation to Justification Dr. Fulk told the Rhemists is Pelting Sophistry Yet you seem to wonder that I make a great difference between the Condition of Justification and the Condition of Salvation As for Right to Salvation that 's another thing as Faith alone doth justifie so it alone gives Right to Salvation Yet because this Faith is of a working Nature therefore before the actual Enjoyment of Salvation Faith as occasion doth require will shew it self by Obedience and that is all which the Apostle teacheth Rom. 8. 13. Verum est quidem saith Calvin nos solâ Dei misericordiâ justificari in Christo sed aequè istud verum ac certum omnes qui justificantur vocari à Domino ut dignè suâ vocatione vivant It is true He that proved a Man lived not after the flesh but mortified it doth justifie him from that Accusation That he is worthy of Death but that is only because a Man 's not living after the flesh but mortifying it proves the truth of his Faith whereby he hath interest in Christ and so is freed from all Condemnation as the Apostle clearly sheweth Rom. 8. 1. If that be a Reatus to make Faith only the Condition of Justification yet Obedience also a Condition of Glorification I say with the Oratour Quod maximè accusatori optandum est habes confitentem reum But what Reatus there is in this I do not see nor could our choicest Divines it seems see any in it Rivet saith that Opera sequuntur Justificationem sed praecedunt Glorificationem the words were cited more at large before So Amesius Nos non negamus bona opera ullam relationem ad salutem habere habent enim relationem adjuncti consequentis effecti ad salutem ut loquuntur adeptam adjuncti antecedentis ac disponentis ad salutem adipiscendam Thus also Davenant De Justit Actual cap. 32. sub initio Verum est nos negare bona opera requiri 〈◊〉 Conditiones Salutis nostrae â—si per bona opera intelligamus exactè bona quae Legis rigori respondeant si etiam per Conditiones salutis intelligamus Conditiones foederis quibus recipimur in favorem Dei ad jus N. B. aeternae vitae Haec enim pendent ex solâ conditione fidei Christum Mediatorem apprehendentis At falsum est nos negare bona opera requiri ut Conditiones salutis si per bona opera intelligamus illos fructus inchoatae justitiae quae sequuntur justificationem N. B. praecedunt glorificationem ut via ordinata ad eandem What some Divines in their private Contests with you may do I know not I shew what eminent Divines in their publick Writings do deliver even the same that I maintain viz. That Faith alone is the Condition of Justification and of right to Salvation and Glory and yet that Works are also requisite as the Fruits of that Faith and as making way for the actual enjoyment of Glory For the term Instrument I was not willing to wrangle about it neither am I willing to strive about words Yet I told you I thought it might well enough be used as our Divines do use it And I always let you know That thô perhaps Faith may more fitly be called a Condition yet not so as to make it to be merely Causa sine quâ non but so as to ascribe some Causality and Efficiency unto it in respect of Justification viz. in that it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's Righteousness by which through Faith imputed unto us we are justified Faith saith Mr. Ball is not a bare Condition without which the thing cannot be for that is no cause at all but an Instrumental Cause c. This as you might see by many Passages is the very reason why I think the Scripture doth attribute Justification to Faith alone and not to Works nor any other Grace besides Faith because only Faith doth embrace Christ and his Righteousness Though therefore I neither was nor am willing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet I neither did nor do disclaim the word Instrument as unmeet to be used And indeed seeing Faith hath some Causality in Justifying what Cause it should be rather than Instrumental I do not know Hear Mr. Ball again if you please If when we speak of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace by Condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant and subsequent to Justification Repentance Faith and Obedience are all Conditions but if by Condition we understand what is on our part required as the Cause of the good promised though only Instrumental Faith
so If that were all that you bade see Calvin for truly you might soon cite Authors good store but as Martial speaks Dic aliquid de tribus capellis Shew that either Calvin of any Judicious Orthodox Divine doth hold such a Personal Righteousness as whereby we are justified both Calvin and all our eminent and approved VVriters that I know deny this Personal Righteousness to be available unto Justification Yea and so do some of chief account in the Church of Rome Contarenus a Cardinal to this purpose you may find cited by Amesius contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. Thes 1. Pighius also a great Romish Champion is as clear and full for this as may be In illo inquit sc Christo justificamur non in nobis non nostrâ sed illius justitiâ quae nobis cum illo communicantibus imputatur Propriae justitiae inopes extranos in illo docemur justitiam quaerere Much more he hath to the same purpose and herein doth so fully agree with Protestants though about Faith as being that alone whereby the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us he dissents from them that Bellarmine having recited the Opinion of Protestants saith De Justif lib. 2. cap. 1. In eandem sententiam sive potius errorem incidit Albertus Pighius he adds also Et Authores Antididagmatis Coloniensis And for Pighius he saith further Bucerus in libro Concordiae in articulo de Justificatione fatetur Pighii sententiam non dissentire à Lutheranorum sententiâ quod attinet ad causam formalem Justificationes sed solùm quantum ad causam apprehensivum quam Lutherani solam fidem Pighius dilectionem potius quam fidem esse definit Here by the way observe That Bucer if Bellarmine did truly relate his Opinion though not his only made Christ's Righteousness imputed to us the formal Cause of Justification and Faith the only apprehensive Cause and that therefore he was far from making us to be justified by our Personal Righteousness from making Works concurrent with Faith unto Justification but that otherwise is evident enough by what hath been cited before out of him The truth of my Conclusion I think I may well conclude is firm and clear viz. That according to Calvin and so Bucer and all our famous Writers Personal Righteousness is not that whereby we are justified What colour you can have to except against this Conclusion to say it is merely my own is to me a wonder Ibid. Repentance and Love to Christ are not excluded from our first Justification yet have they no co-interest with Faith in Justifying Faith not Repentance or Love being Causa apprehensiva as Bucer and other Protestants do speak that which doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness by which so apprehended we are justified Neither is it denied that outward Works are requisite that we may continue justified here and be sententially solemnly and openly justified at the last Judgment yet it follows not that Justification as continued and consummated at Judgment is by Works as concurring with Faith unto Justification It is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith by which we are justified from first to last only this Faith being of a working Nature we cannot continue justified nor shall be i. e. declared to be justified at the last Judgment except we have Works to testifie and give proof that our Faith is lively as Mr. Ball before cited doth express it but thus also it will follow that Works being wholly wanting we never had a Justifying Faith nor were at all justified 86. 1. That the Qualification of Faith is part of the Condition of Justification so that Faith alone as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness is not the Condition or Instrumental Cause for I do not take Condition for Causa sine quâ non but for that which hath some causality in it you have not proved The Condition of our Justification is that we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ this presupposeth a desire of him and inferreth a delight in him and submission to him yet it is only believing in him by which we are justified 2. Though the taking of Christ for King be as Essential to that Faith which justifieth as the taking of him for Priest yet not to Faith as it justifieth Of Fides quae and Fides quâ justificat as also of taking Christ for King and taking him for Priest I have said enough before 3. I mean that Faith only justifieth as it receives Christ as Priest thô that Faith which justifieth doth receive Christ as King also 4. If it be as you grant Christ's Satisfaction and not his Kingship or Sovereignty which justifieth meritoriously then as far as I am able to judg it is our apprehending of Christ's Satisfaction and not our submitting to his Sovereignty by which we are justified The Act of Justifying Faith as Justifying me-thinks can extend no further than to that Office of Christ in respect of which he justifieth or than as Christ is our Righteousness by which we are justified Christ as Advocate doth only justifie by pleading his Satisfaction for us and our interest in it and as Judg by declaring us to be justified by it and all this secundum foedus novum which is the ground of our Justification 5. I so confess Faith to be the Condition of Justification that nevertheless I hold it to justifie as apprehending Christ's Righteousness God having in that respect required Faith of us that we may be justified And herein as I have shewed before I have Mr. Ball and other Judicious Divines agreeing with me who call Faith a Condition of Justification and yet make it to justifie as it apprehendeth Christ and his Righteousness Ibid. My words clearly shew my meaning viz. That Justification as it is begun by Faith alone so it is continued so that Obedience hath no more influence into our Justification afterward than at first Justifying Faith at first is Obediential i. e. ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience and afterward as there is opportunity it doth actually bring forth the same yet both at first and afterward it is Faith and not Obedience by which we are justified Ibid. 1. I have also oft enough told you that you bring nothing of any force to prove Sentential Justification at Judgment a distinct kind of Justification or any more than a declaration and manifestation of our present Justification 2. For the Texts which you alledged you do not answer what I objected You alledged them to prove That we are justified compleatly and finally at the Last Judgment by perseverance in faithful Obedience I objected That they speak of Justification as it is here obtained and so make not for your purpose to this you say just nothing only you seem to say something to those words in the end of the Animadâ—â—rsion They shew who are justified not by what they are justified but that which you say is of small force For none can truly say as
much of the Texts alledged for Faith's Justifying seeing that those Texts expresly say That we are justified by Faith and that Faith is imputed unto us for Righteousness which the other Texts do not say of Obedience Ibid. 1. Did you never understand my meaning about Faith's justifying until now Nay you seem not yet to understand it Doth not Faith justifie at all if it only justifies Instrumentally and Relatively Is this so strange unto you that when we are said to be justified by Faith it is meant in respect of the Object viz. Christ and his Righteousness which is indeed that by which we are justified though it must be apprehended by Faith that we may be justified by it Where is now the totus mundâ—s Theologorum Reformatorum which sometime you spake of My acquaintance in this kind is not so great I think as yours yet I have before alledged many to this purpose I will here add one more a Man of note Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Justif § 11 14 16. Justificamur inquit per justitiam Christi c. Atqui Fides ex parte nostrâ hanc justitiam sic a Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodo applicat quia neque Charitati vel spei vel alteri habitui hoc munus competat And again Justificat primò Deus Pater admittendo imputando 2. Deus Filius Satisfaciendo advocatum agendo 3. Spiritus Sanctus revelando obsignando 4. Fides apprehendendo applicando 5. Opera manifestando declarando And again Animadvertere potuit Bertius nos non proprtè justificationem fidei attribuere sed metalepticè quà tenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illum habitum usitatâ Scripturae phrasi in habitum transfertur 2. For Christ's Righteousness justifying formally or being the formal cause of Justification I have shewed in what sense some of our Divines do hold it and some reject it and that the difference is rather in words than in the thing it self 3. To me it seems no obscurity to say Faith or Believing doth justifie because Christ's Righteousness except it be apprehended by Faith is not available to Justification Is not this as much as Faith doth justifie Instrumentally or as apprehending Christs Righteousness by which we are justified The reason why Christ's Righteousness cannot justifie except it be apprehended by Faith is this That God doth require Faith of us Faith I say apprehending Christ and his Righteousness Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that so we may be justified God's Will is properly the Cause yet there is a congruity in the thing it self an aptitude you grant in the nature of Faith it is of an apprehensive Nature and its apprehending of Christ's Righteousness the Will of God still presupposed doth make this Righteousness ours even as a Gift becomes ours by our receiving of it If Davenant's words which I cited be not against you then nothing that I can say is against you For I cannot express my own mind as to that point more clearly and fully than he doth I will repeat his words again De Justit Habit. cap. 28. Nihil usitatius quà m causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis justitiam Christi id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur Is not this against you who say Append. p. 120. Faith is a Work and Act of ours and if Faith justifie as an apprehension of Christ it justifieth as a Work Do not these words of Devenant tell you that it is not Causa applicans but res applicata not Fides but Christus fide apprehensus that doth justifie Faith then is said to justifie yet not in respect of it self but in respect of its Object it is not properly Faith apprehending or the apprehension of Faith but Christ and his Righteousness apprehended by which we are justified Much hath been said before to this purpose If this be nothing against you I know not how in this particular to say any thing against you if it be against you surely it is nothing but what that Reverend Author saith in the words cited And mark I pray upon what occasion he brings in those words Bellarmine De Justif lib. 2. cap. 9. saith that Calvin from Rom. 4. Vbi dicitur fidem Abrahae imputatam esse id justitiam gathers nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam nempe quâ justificamur quà m fidem in Christum id est N. B. Christi justitiam Christi fide apprehensam Against this he objects Apostolus dicit ipsam fidem imputari ad justitiam fides autem non est justitia Christi c. To this Davenant answers Sed frivota est haec objectio Nam nihil usitatius quà m causae applicanti c. Your Objection is the very same in effect with Bellarmine's so that if Davenants words be any thing against Bellarmine they are as much against you And truly as you put off the words of Davenant so you might with the same ease have answered all my Animadversions and so you may all these Exceptions by saying That they are not against you It is a strange faculty that you seem to have of making any thing for you as when you bid see Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. and nothing against you as here in this place Ibid. When Mr. Manton speaketh of Faith Justifying as a Relative Act his words immediately before which I also cited shew his meaning viz. That Faith justifieth in its relation to Christ as it receiveth Christ so that not every Act relating unto Christ but that which doth so relate unto him as to receive him is that which justifieth but what I say of the Act justifying must always be understood in the sense before explained That Faith in respect of its apprehensive nature is more than Causa sine quâ non to me is clear it is Causa applicans as Davenant in the words even now cited doth call it 2. To contend much about Faith's Instrumentality I do not like I mean in respect of the word Instrumentality so that we agree in the matter yet as our best Divines have used the word I see not but it is convenient to be used 3. I grant that it is a material question Whether it be the receiving of Christ only as Priest that doth justifie for the confounding of Christ's Offices and of the Acts of Faith as Mr. Blake before cited saith well is not to be endured But I see no necessary dependance of this question upon the other viz. Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument a sole-working Instrument or as an Ordinance or Relative Action required on our parts which Mr. Manton said is all to the same issue and purpose and so I think it is 87. For the distinction of God's Will you might at first apprehend what I meant though perhaps my Expressions were not altogether so clear as afterward neither indeed do
though their Condemnation by reason of the Gospel as of every Mercy neglected or abused will be the greater The Father as I have said before doth judg though by Christ see Acts 17. 31. And however I see not how you can conclude any thing to the purpose by this Argument If for every several Accusation there must be a several Righteousness then there will be need of infinite Righteousnesses seeing there may be infinite accusations But one Righteousness viz. that of Christ's Satisfaction for us will take off all Accusations brought against us else how doth the Apostle say Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. Rom. â— 33 34. Indeed the Promise is made upon condition of believing and therefore the not performing of the Condition debars from benefit of the Promise But this I conceive is not properly a new Accusation but only a making good of the former accusation we having nothing to shew why it should not stand in force against us Your self did well distinguish p. 22. betwixt a Condition as a Condition and a Condition as a Duty Now Faith as a Condition is required in the Gospel but as a Duty in the Law For the Law requires us in all things to obey God that is comprehended in the first Precept therefore it requires us to believe in Christ God commanding it Else not to believe were no sin for sin is a transgressiin of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. Now as Believing is a Duty so notbelieving doth afford matter of Accusation and cause of Condemnation But as Believing is a Condition so Not-believing doth only leave the Accusation otherwise made in force against us and for sin whereof we are accused and found guilty leaves us to condemnation Thus I think are those Texts to be understood John 3. 18. and ult Whereas you say That the Accusation may be three-fold truly in that manner it may be manifold But indeed the Accusation is but one and the same viz. that we are Non-credentes For Pagans do not so much as appear and Hypocrites Solifidians do but appear to be Believers For the several Sentences from whence you argue 1. You urged Joh. 5. 22. to prove that God Creator judgeth none 2. How are any freed from the Sentence of the first Law but by the benefit of the New Law therefore I see no ground for that which you seem to insinuate viz. That we must first be freed from the Sentence of one Law and then of another Indeed I do not see That the Gospel hath any Sentence of Condemnation distinct from the Law only it doth condemn Unbelievers in that it doth not free them from that condemnation which by the Law is due unto them That there is a sorer punishment as of a distinct kind than that Death threatned Gen. 3. you do not prove neither I presume can it be proved There are I grant several degrees of that Death yet all of the same kind viz. The loss of Heavenly Happiness and the enduring of Hell-Torment And if there must be a several Righteousness for every several degree of Punishment there must be more Righteousnesses than you either do or can assign I say as before I do not think this Thou art an Vnbeliever I speak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the Gospel-Condition to be a new Accusation but only a Plea why the former should stand good viz. that we are sinners and so to be condemned by the Law because the benefit of the Gospel which we lay claim to doth not belong unto us we not performing the condition to that end required of us Whereas you say We are devolved to the New Law before our Justification is compleat Are we not devolved to it for the very beginning of our Justification So again Christ's Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righteousness c. But the New Covenant gives the personal Interest Doth not the New Covenant give Christ also in whom we have interest I note these Passages because your meaning in them perhaps is such as I do not sufficiently understand I say still Here is no occasion properly of a new Accusation but only of a removens prohibens a taking away of that which would hinder the force of the former Accusation And so there is no new Righteousness of ours required unto Justification but only a Condition without which we cannot have interest in Christ's Righteousness that thereby we may be justified In your Aphorisms you speak only of a Two-fold Righteousness requisite unto Justification now you speak of a Two-fold Justification necessary to be attained But the Scripture speaks of Justification by Christ and Justification by Faith as of one and the same Justification Acts 13. 39. Rom. 5. 1. The Second Cause as you call it viz. Whether the Defendant have performed the condition of the New Covenant is indeed this Whether he have any thing truly to alledge why upon the former Accusation he should not be condemned And so he must be justified indeed by producing his Faith and so his sincere Obedience to testifie his Faith yet not as a new Righteousness of his own but only as intitling him to Christ's Righteousness as that whereby he must be justified Whereas you speak of a Three-fold Guilt viz. Reatus culpae 2. Reatus non-praestitae Conditionis 3. Reatus poena propter non praestitam conditionem 1. As Omne malum est vel Culpae vel Poena so omnis reatus seems to be so too 2. The not-performing of a Condition as a Condition brings no new guilt of Punishment if it did surely it were Culpa and so the second Member falls in with the first but only the loss of the Remedy or Reward promised upon the performing of that Condition though the not performing of the Condition as a Duty will bring a new guilt of Punishment 3. Therefore the Reatus peenae is not properly ob non praestitam Conditionem but ob culpam admissam which Reatus doth remain in force because the Condition required for the removing of it is not performed We must take heed of straining Law-terms too far in Matters of Devinity I see not how the firmness of my title to Christ's Righteous ness for Justification may properly be called my Righteousness whereby I am justified though the firmness of that title may be questioned and must be proved yet if it prove false it is not that properly which doth condemn I speak of the Meritorious Cause of Condemnation but sin committed against the Law is that which doth put into a state of Condemnation and for want of that Title there is nothing to free from Condemnation The Obligation unto Punishment is not dissolved by Satisfaction made by Christ as to Unbelievers because for want of Faith the Satisfaction of Christ is not imputed unto them 1. For that far greater Punishment which you speak of I have said enough
be for it must be present by way of Enjoyment but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for so that the thing though it be offered yet until it be accepted it is absent because it is not enjoyed The thing offered must be desirously and in that respect lovingly accepted but it must first be accepted and then loved so as to joy and delight in it 3. We look at Christ as enjoyed when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight of which Love I speak Gaudium oritur ex hoc saith Raimundus de Sebundae quòd aliqua res scit se habere id quod habet non ex hoc duntaxat quod habet There must both be the Having of a thing and also the Knowing that we have it that we may rejoyce in it 4. As Assent must go before Acceptance so must Acceptance go before that Love of which I speak 1. I did not say or think that you thought so of all Love viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed for there is no distinguishing here of these as I have shewed before the Object is not present except it be enjoyed You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object and I thought you had meant that kind of Love because you did distinguish Love from Desire Therefore I said Love as you take it considereth its Object as present and enjoyed viz. Love as distinguished from Desire I know not I confess what to make of Love but either a Desire if the Object be absent or a Delight if the Object be present 2. That which you say concerning Acceptance Election and Consent is nothing to me who do not enquire whether they be divers acts or no but only shew that they go before Enjoyment and so differ from Love as I take it viz. Love of Complacency which doth follow Enjoyment I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance and the Love of Complacency to follow after it Although Amare velle bonum be one and the same yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio si objectum absit vel cum Complacentiâ si adsit Aquinas doth not satisfie me when he saith Nullus desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato if he mean that a thing is amatum prius quà m desideratum The very Desiderare I think is Amare and so is Gaudere also but the one is Amare quod abest the other Amare quod adest So you in the next Section say Desire is Love and Complacency is Love 1. I did not doubt much less deny that there is Amor Desiderii as well as Amor Complacentiae only I shewed that your words there must be meant of the former in which sense I did not oppose you but as it is taken in the other sense and so you seemed to take it before because you did expresly distinguish it from Desire Neither is your second any thing against me 3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense as according to the most proper sense viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was 1. The places which you alledg John 16. 27. and 14. 21. do not prove that Love viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love and Christ's Love to us so that we must first love God and Christ before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ therefore we love God and Christ 1 John 4. 19. The meaning of those other places as Calvin notes is this That they that love God insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris restimonium To which may be added That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more 2. Not only Love but Obedience also must go before Glorification but it doth not therefore follow That they must go before Justification as your self hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first is more than I can find in Scripture 1. What some have answered and what you have read in others I know not you cite none whose Works are extant but only Mr. Ball and him at large On the Covenant but where in that Book you do not shew I find there that he doth use the words Instrument and Condition promiscuously The Covenant of Grace saith he exacteth no other thing inherent in us as a Cause viz. instrumental of Justification or a Condition N. B. in respect of which we are justified but Faith alone This is point-blank against that which you say of him And again It is saith he the sole Instrumental or Conditional N. B. Cause required on our part to Justification As I shewed before in the Animadversions ad pag. 243. our Divines say Fides sola justificat sed Fides quae justificat non est sola but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith Thus Stapleton somewhere I cannot now cite the place testifyeth of them saying Omnes adunum Protestantes docent Fidem justifcantem esse vivam operantem per charitatem atque alia bona opera 2. I grant That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite if you will call it so as I see not but you may though Amor Concupiscentiae is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae and so you speak of it p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae then neither do I speak against you For of that do I speak and had reason I think to understand you as speaking of it because you spake of Love as distinct from Desire Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency which are the Species of it but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love that Love which is not the one of these must needs be the other We accept or chuse a thing because we first Love i.e. desire it or as we use to say have a mind to it and having accepted and chosen it we further love it so as to delight in it except our Love turn into Hatred as Amnon's unchast Love did but the very Accepting or Chusing of a thing is not that I see properly a Loving of it 3. I grant that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance Consent c. the Love of Desire doth not but the Love of Complacency doth This is all that I have desired and so much you have yeelded 1. The distinction of Fides quae and Fides quà as it is frequently used by our Learned Writers so it doth hold good
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-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
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
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
or Belief in the Promise is the only Condition And again Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification which is among the number of true Causes not being a Cause without which the thing is not done but a Cause whereby it is done The Cause without which a thing is not done is only present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the Eye is an active Instrument for Seeing and the Ear for Hearing so is Faith also for Justifying If it be demanded whose Instrument it is It is the Instrument of the Soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free Gift of God So Amesius when Bellarmine objected Sacramenta promissiones applicant nostras faciunt non ergo per modum instruments applicantis fides sola justificat He answers Sola tamen ex its quae sunt in nobis vel à nobis erga Deum sola fides accipiendo quia Sacramenta sunt à Deo erga nos Promissionem applicant ut instrumenta dandi non accipiendi Thus then is Faith taken for an Instrument of Justification in that by Faith we receive the Promise or Christ promised by whom we are justified Bellarmine again objecting Hoc non multum refert nam utrumque est instrumentum Dei He answers Plurimum refert quia sicut Sacramenta quamvis aliquo sensu possint dici instrumenta nostra quatenus per illa tanquam per media assequimur finem nostrum propriè tamen sunt instrumenta Dei sic etiam Fides quamvis possit vocari instrumentum Dei quia Deus justificat nos ex fide per fidem Rom. 3. 20. propriè tamen est instrumentum nostrum Deus nos baptizat pascit non nosmetipsi nos credimus in Christum non Deus If you desire more to this purpose besides what hath been said before I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant chap. 12. and Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin chap. 4. 1. The non-fulfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant doth condemn yet it is by the Law and for the transgressing of it that any are condemned there being no freedom from Condemnation but by the New-Covenant nor any by it without fulfilling the Condition of it Such as do not embrace the New-Covenant and that on the terms upon which it is made are left to the Condemnation of the Old-Covenant which will be so much the sorer as the Sin in despising the Mercy offered is the greater So that still as I said in the Animadversions the fulfilling of the Law viz. Christ's fulfilling it for us is that by which we are justified though Faith be required of us that Christ's fulfilling of the Law may be imputed unto us and so we may be justified by it The Accusations which you speak of viz. 1. Of not fulfilling the Condition of the New-Covenant 2. Of having therefore no part in Christ 3. Of being guilty moreover of far sorer punishment All these Accusations as I have often said are but a re-inforcing of that Accusation That we are guilty of transgressing the Law and so to be condemned and therefore the more guilty and the more to be condemned because freedom from that Guilt and Condemnation might have been obtained and was neglected see Acts 13. 38 41. Heb. 2. 3. 2. The Gospel doth not joyn Obedience with Faith as the Condition of our right unto Salvation though it require Obedience as a Fruit of that Faith whereby we obtain that Right and so as the way or means whereby to enter into the actual enjoyment of Salvation 3. You might see that I do not yeeld the Thesis wherein you make Faith and Obedience so to be Conditions of the New-Covenant as withal to be Conditions of Justification This both now and every-where I deny 1. If it be not much as you say to your purpose Why do you alledg it That Christ did not receive either of the Sacraments for that end as we receive them who can question 2. If you judg it uncertain whether Luke or Matthew did relate those words I will not drink hence-forth c. out of due place why are you so peremptory in your Aphorisms as to say Luke doth clearly speak of two Cups and doth subjoin these words to the first which was before the Sacramental 3. Why do you call that Supposition If Luke had not written a merry one Is it ridiculous to suppose such a thing Let us suppose says Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer that Question had not been put to our Saviour and that the Apostle had not written his Epistle to the Ephesians c. May not one as well sport with this Supposition of theirs as you with that of mine Luke himself shews That he wrote his Gospel after others Luk. 1. 1. Probable it is that he wrote after Matthew and Mark And how should any reading only these imagine that those words I will not drink c. were meant of any other than the Sacramental Cup they not making mention no not in appearance of any other Apud Matthaeum inquit Ames 26. 29. pronomen istud demonstrativum ex hoc fructu vitis necessariò refertur ad illud quod precedentibus verbis fuit eodem pronomine demonstratum Hoc est sanguis meus Though Matthew and Mark had not written yet it had been no such boldness to suppose Luke to relate some words out of that order wherein they were spoken such Anticipations as I said and you do not gain-say it being usual in the Scripture Thus again Amesius Ex ipso Luca quamvis ibi transponantur verba contrà colligitur aperte illa verba pertinere ad Calicem Mysticum Sacramentalem Coenae Domini Nam cap. 22. 17. dicitur Dominus gratias egisse super illud poculum in quo dicit fructum vitis postea mansisse eodem modo quo v. 19. gratias egit super panem Hâc autem gratiarum actione intelligi benedictionem Consecrationem Sacramentalem concedit Bellarminus cap. 10. c. 1. It is such a Justification as the Apostle where he doth professedly treat of that Subject doth scarce ever mention nor yet do Divines use to speak of it Therefore your totus Mundus Theologorum Reformatorum is Vox praetereà nihil Why do you alledge none of them Juris consultos enim in hâc causà minùs moror But and if we maintain the word Justification is taken in sensu forensi What of that May it not yet nevertheless be as I suppose it is viz. That Justification at the Last Judgment is only a full manifestation of that Justification which we have here and not as you affirm our actual most proper and compleat Justification as if here our Justification were but potential less proper and incompleat Amesius handling this Point saith Justificatio est sententiae pronuntiatio non physicam aliquam aut realem commutationem denotat in S. literis sed forensem aut moralem
illam quae in Sententiae pronuntiatione reputatione consistit Yet he hath nothing at all that I see of Justification at the Great Judgment much less that it is the actual most proper and compleat Justification He saith moreover Sententia haec fuit 1. in mente Dei quasi concepta per modum decreti justificandi 2. Fuit in Christo capite nostro à mortuis jam resurgente pronuntiata 3. Virtualiter pronuntiatur ex primâ illa relatione quae ex fide ingeneratâ exurgit 4. Expressè pronunciatur per Spiritum Dei testantem Spiritibus nostris reconciliationem nostram cum Deo In hoc testimonio Spiritâ—s non tam propriè ipsa justificatio consistit quà m actualis anteâ concessae perceptio per actum fidei quasi reflexum But as for the pronouncing of this Sentence at the Last Judgment he doth not so much as make any mention of it Neither doth Calvin that I find in his Institutions though he treat at large of Justification and that in sensu forensi speak any thing of Justification at the Last Judgment nor indeed any that I meet with except it be on the by as Bucanus and Maccovius who agree with me as I have shewed before 2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after That so Faith may appear true and genuine such as doth indeed receive Christ and so justifie Is not this a sufficient reason why they are inquired after But in that which follows about via ad Regnum c. you are quite extra viam You forget that we are now about Justification or at least that I do not make the Condition of Justification and of Salvation every way the same as you sometimes do This may suffice for your two first Objections To the Third and Fourth I answer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant Particula Enim non semper rei causam denotat sed illationis consequentiam sive ab effecto sive à causà sive à signo seu undecunque petitam Sic quando Christus dicit electis Venite benedicti c. Esurivienim c. particula illa non cum causa salutis sed cum signo causae connectitur Nam illa bona opera quae ibi recensentur sunt signa verae fidei adoptionis insitionis in Christum praedestinationis ac favoris divini quae sunt verae causae salutis You are therefore too free and forward in saying That the Uses pretended for this enquiring after mâ—re Signs are frivolous What though the business at Judgment be to enquire of the Cause and to sentence accordingly May not the Cause take it in the Law-sense be made to appear by Signs even as the Cause in the Logical-sense doth appear by the Effect and the Tree by the Fruit That Obedience is ipsa Causa de quâ quaeritur the terms Therefore and Because do not prove no more than the term For And here I may with better reason say than you did Appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum But here I must mind you of one thing which it seems you do not observe viz. That those terms which you build upon Because and Therefore are neither in the Original nor any Translation that I know except the Vulgar Latin which hath Quia Bellarmine urging these Particles Amesius answers Mat. 25. 21 23. Nulla particula reperitur nisi in Versione non probanda Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3. 1. You cite abundance of Texts but to what purpose You would have me try whether they speak only of Signs or or Conditions Conditions of what do you mean Of Justification That you are to prove but how it can be proved by any of those Texts I cannot see They speak of the necessity of Obedience unto Salvation of God's rendring unto Men according to their Deeds of the reward of good Works c. But doth it therefore follow that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Justification I am loth to be so plain with you as sometimes you are with me otherwise I could say I have seldom seen so many places of Scripture alledged to so little purpose Some of those places you seem to lay more weight upon as John 16. 27. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. and 1 John 3. 22 23. For here you do not only note the places but you also cite the words as if they were more especially to be observed Now for that Joh. 16. 27. The Father hath loved you because you have loved me What do you infer from thence That Works justifie as part of the Condition of Justification If this be a good Consequence I may say Reddat mihi minam qui me docuâ—t Dialecticam 1. Works and Love differ as well as Works though Works flow both from Love and Faith Calvin makes those words because you have loved me to denote an unfeigned Faith which proceedeth from a sincere Affection here called Love And I grant that such a Love viz. of Desire doth go before Justifying Faith 3. God doth love those that love him and that love Christ amore amicitiae yet amore benevolentiae he loves us before we love him 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Secundum hanc rationem inquit Calvinus hîcâ— dicimur amari à Deo dum Christum diligimus quia pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis c. That in 2 Cor. 5. 10. according to c. avails your Cause nothing For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgment so as that we shall receive according to them and yet be no part of the Condition of Justification but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified So for that in Joh. 3. 22. because we keep his Commandments c. I say with Calvin Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris or andi fiduciam sed in hoc tantùm insistit non posteà fide disiungi pietatem sincerum Dei cultum Nec absurdum videri debet quod particulam Causalem N. B. usurpet utcunque de causâ non disputetur Nam accidens inseparabile interdum Causae loco poni solet Quemadmodum siquis dicat Quia Sol Meridie supra nos lucet plus tunc esse caloris Neque enim sequitur ex luce oriri calorem 1. You shall confound Justification and Salvation betwixt which you know I make a great difference 2. I see not that any of the Texts alledged do prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Justification or to Right to Salvation Obedience is an Argument à posteriore of our Right unto Salvation and à priore a means of our enjoyment of it More than this by any Text of Scripture I presume will not be proved Your First and Second have nothing but mere Words Ad 3. I answer No more is the word Justification in any of the Texts which you cited Ad 4. What trick do you mean Or what prejudice Do you so wonder
at this That I cannot be perswaded by any of your Allegations that we are justified by our personal Righteousness Or that Works concur with Faith unto Justification as being part of the Condition that the Gospel doth require that thereby we may be justified Then all Protestant Divines are Men to be wondred at or at least never considered the Texts which you alledg and surely that were a great wonder Ad 5. For Justification at Judgment I will say no more until I see more proof of your Opinion about it Ad 6. The Qualifications spoken of tend to that end That we may enjoy Salvation but not that we may have right to Salvation They only manifest that Right which by Faith in Christ we do obtain Ad 7. Of James his words enough already Ad 8. I wish you were more Argumentative and less Censorious or at least more wary in expressing your censure To say It is next to non-sense is over-broad If you had said That you could see no good sense in it this had not been so much as truly I cannot in your words For may not a thing be spoken by way of Sentence and yet by way of Argumentation too I think Yes when a reason is given of the Sentence But what should that in Luke 19. 17. force me to confess That Works are more than Fruits of Faith by which we are justified Why do you stand so much upon the word Because when-as you acknowledg that Works are no proper cause May iâ— not be said This is a good Tree because it bringeth forth good Fruit and yet the goodness of the Tree is before the goodness of its Fruit and this is but only a manifestation of the other So what should I see in Luk. 19. 27 That none should be saved by Christ but such as are obedient unto him that I see but not that Obedience is that whereby we are at least in part justified Yea I think it worthy your consideration That the Texts which you alledg and build upon speaking only of Works and Obedience and not of Faith at all either must be interpreted That Obedience and Works are necessary Fruits of Justifying Faith or else they will reach further than you would have them even to make Obedience and Works the only Condition of Justification at Judgment Ad 9. Where you performed that I know not But however your Work was not to overthrow any Arguments for Merits for which I am far from urging but to answer my reason which I urged why those Scriptures which you alledged might rather seem to make Works meritorious of Salvation than to concur with Faith unto Justification viz. because they follow Justification but go before Salvation I know you will say That they go before Justification as Continued and Consummate at Judgment but for the overthrowing of that I need say no more till you say more in defence of it The Texts which you alledg speak only of Obedience and so if you will think to prove by them That Obedience is the Condition of our â—ustification you may as well say That it is the only Condition and so quite exclude Faith which is not mentioned in those Texts If you say It is in other Texts so say I do other Texts shew that Faith is the only Condition and that Obedience is not concurrent with Faith unto Justification though it necessarily flow from that Faith by which we are justified That may be alledged as the reason of the Justifying Sentence which yet is but the Fruit and Effect of Justifying Faith If Sententia be Praemii Adjudicatio then I think Causa Sententiae must be also Causae Praemii adjudicati The word For when we say Justified for Faith must note either the formal or the meritorious Cause the ratio Sententiae may be drawn from that which is neither the formal nor the meritorious Cause of Justification nor yet a Condition or Instrument of it but only a Fruit and Effect of that which is so 3. The Scripture doth not say That Works do justifie us in that sense as you take it viz. as joint Conditions with Faith of Justification 4. I think it not so proper to say We must be judged and receive our Reward by our Works as according to our Works And however to be judged by our Works is not as much as to be justified by them otherwise than as they are Fruits and Effects of Faith and so manifest our Interest in Christ by whom all that believe are justified Acts 13. 39. 5. Your For must needs be the same with Propter When you say We are justified for Faith surely in Latin it must be propter Fidem Here enim will not be suitable 1. That which I intimated is this That in respect of God such an outward judicial Proceeding needed not no more than God doth need a Sign Whether the Judicial Proceeding be all upon mere Signs and the Ipsa Causa Justitiae not meddled with is not to the purpose Though why may not that which is in some respect Justitia Causae and so Justitia Personae quoad istam Causam be Signum Fidei per consequens Justitiae Christi nobis per Fidem imputatae qua simpliciter absolutè justificamur 2. and 3. That which is the Condition of Glorification is not therefore the Condition of Justification or of right to Glorification which doth immediately flow from Justification or at least is inseparably joined with it No Man can be accused to be Reus Poenae and so to have no right to Glorification but he that is accused to be Reus Culpae and from that Accusation we are justified by Faith which is made manifest by our Works 1. I perceive I did mistake your meaning the contexture of your words being such that one might easily mistake the meaning of them 2. Your Affirmation is no Proof and as well may you say That because in other places of Scripture the Righteous are usually spoken of in respect of Personal Righteousness in opposition to the wicked and ungodly therefore all those places prove That Personal Righteousness is that whereby we are justified Because we must have a Righteousness inherent in us as well as a Righteousness imputed to us are we therefore justified as well by the one as the other Appello Evangelium pariter ac torum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum 1. Your Aphorisms tend to prove Justification by Works to which end you press the words of St. James and reject the Interpretation which our Divines give of them 2. Paul indeed and James did not consider Works in the same sense For Paul considered them as concurring with Faith unto Justification and so rejected them but James looked at them as Fruits of Justifying-Faith and so asserted the necessity of them You do not rightly understand Paul's words Rom. 4. 4. of which I have spoken before He doth not speak absolutely for so he should quite abolish Works which in other
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
Gal. 2. ult But how-ever such Obedience cannot be performed by any there being not a Just man upon Earth that doth good and sinneth not Eccles 7. 20. That Faith is as effectual or sufficient a Condition under the New Covenant as perfect personal Obedience if performed would have been under the Old Covenant if this were all that you meant though I like not your expression yet I allow the thing only this I think meet to observe That perfect personal Obedience was so the Condition of the Old Covenant that it was also the Righteousness required in it But Faith is so the Condition of the New Covenant as that it is not properly the Righteousness it self but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction which is the Righteousness that the New Covenant doth offer and afford to a Believer instead of Perfect Obedience personally to be performed by the Old Covenant For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn c. I do not think that we can be said truly and properly to pay any thing our selves as a price whereby to purchase the benefits of the New Covenant see Isa 55. 1. and Apoc. 22. 17. When we preach and press Holiness and Good Works we use to distinguish betwixt Via Regni Causa regnandi and we make them requisite unto Glorification but not unto Justification Dicimus inquit Rivetus bona opera necessaria esse tanquam adjunctum consequens justificationem tanquam effectum acquisitae satutis quatenus salus accipitur pro justificatione tanquam antecedens ad sà lutem quatenus accipitur pro glorificatione non dutem tanquam causam quae saliâ—tem efficiat 2. The acceptance of a Gift being a means to enjoy it is a means whereby the Gift doth inrich and so Faith is a means whereby Christ's Righteousness doth justifie us as being a means whereby it is imputed unto us and made ours But properly it is the Gift that doth inrich though not without the acceptance of it and so it is the Righteousness of Christ that doth justifie though not without Faith The Tryal of a Man's Title in Law to a Gift depends on the Tryal and Proof of his Acceptance of it because otherwise except he accept of the Gift it is none of his Yet for all this it is the Gift that doth inrich though it must be accepted that it may do it And so it is Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by though Faith be required of us that it may be made ours and so we may be justified by it That my words are contradictory one to another you say but the Reason which you add for proof of it is of little force I deny it to be as proper to say We are justified by Faith as a Condition as to say We are justified by Christ's Satisfaction as the Meritorious Cause yea and as the Righteousness by which we are justified What inconvenience doth arise from it if Paul and the Scriptures do oftner speak improperly than properly in this Point May not improper Speeches concerning some Point be more frequent in Scripture than proper Sacramental Speeches wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing signified are improper Yet are they more frequent in Scripture than those which in that kind are more proper 1. You not clearing the Question either there or any where else that I know in your Aphorisms seemed to leave it doubtful and so I thought meet to note it that you might prevent any ones stumbling at it 2. What you now add upon review doth less please For the Holiness that is in us is from God the imperfection of it is from our selves this therefore may be sinful though God's Work be good 1. Relation when it is founded in Quality may for any thing I see be intended and remitted as the Quality is wherein it is founded I like not Scheiblers joyning Similitude and Equality together as if there were the same reason of both One thing cannot be more or less equal though it may be nearer to or further from Equality than another but one thing may be more or less like when yet there is a true and proper likeness in both 2. That no Man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works is the same that I say But why do you put in these terms fully and exactly if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exact 3. That our Inherent Righteousness for I must still mind you that we are speaking of it is Non-reatus poene I deny and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent as being nothing to Inherent Righteousness about which now is all the Dispute Pag. 37. You seem to come up to what I say when you grant that our Gospel-Righteousness considered in esse officii as related to or measured by the Precept so our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees Here by Faith and Holiness you mean the same with that which immediately before you called Gospel-Righteousness which must needs be meant of Inherent Righteousness As for those words which you insert and that only quoad materiam praeceptam I know not well what they mean For how can officium as related to and measured by the Precept be considered but quoad materiam praeceptam 1. If I take Holiness as you say as opposite to Sin How do I make all the Actions of the Heathens Holy Do I make them not sinful I have ever approved of those Saying of the Ancients Sine câ—ltu veri Dei etiam quod virtus videtur esse peccatum est And Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est nihil est bonum sine summo bono Vbi enim deest agnitio aeternae incommut abilis veritatis falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus And Quicquid boni fit ab homine non propter hoc fit propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit se officio videatur bonum ipso non recto fine peccatum est Scripture also doth carry me that way namely these place Rom. 8. 8 9. and Heb. 11. 6. I wave that place Rom. 14. ult because it seems to look another way though Prosper de Vitâ— Contempl. lib. 3. cap. 1. doth urge it to this purpose There is not then the same reason of the Actions of Heathens as of the Actions of Believers these are imperfectly holy the other are altogether unholy 2. You grant that Holiness is the same with Righteousness which is opposed to Reatus Culpae And truly I should think that Inherent Righteousness is rather Non-reatus Culpae than Non-reatus Poenae For your Parenthesis If any were found that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works it is ever granted That such a perfect Righteousness is not found in any upon Earth but still it is denyed that because it is not perfect therefore it is none at all Justi
all import such an acquitting of us from sin as I intended not as if God did account us to be without sin which were false but that God doth not charge sin upon us viz. so as to exact satisfaction for sin from us I mean the very same with Mr. Gataker in the words which you cited p. 39. Non hoc dicitur Deum apud se judicare illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christus satisfecit nihil mali unquam commisisse aut boni debiti omisisse sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum jus ad vitam aeternam ac si nihil vel mali admisissent vel boni debiti omisissent Thus Christ speaks to the Church Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair my Love and there is no spot in thee What may some say Is there no spot in the Church No none in her so as to be imputed to her Sine maculâ deputatur quia culpa non imputatur as one doth no less truly than elegantly express it You your self yeeld as much as I desire or as my words import viz. That God acquitteth us from all sin so as it induceth an obligation to punishment 2. When you say That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law is one Justification and to justifie us against the accusation of being so obliged is another Justification I confess Davus sum non Oedipus I do not well understand what you mean for to my apprehension these are one and the same Me-thinks it must needs be That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law doth also eo nomine justifie us against the Accusation of being so obliged For how are we acquitted from the Obligation if not justified against the Accusation of being obliged 3. I marvel why you should trouble your self with speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost and of final unbelief when as you could not but know that I spake of all sin from which we may be justified Why might not one as well quarrel with those words of the Apostle Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things c. 4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief yet as I expresly added in that very place which you take hold on so that this be rightly understood For the right understanding of it I said something before and for further explication I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant Chap. 33. 5. But in the next you do most strangely even without any cause that I can see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as they say fluctus in simpulo excitare That first our Persons and then our Duties and Actions may properly be said to be justified that is accepted as just and acquitted from all accusation brought against them though in themselves they be not such but that sin doth cleave unto them why should this seem such horrid Doctrine as that your Heart should detest it 1. I speak of good Actions for it is absurd to say That evil Actions are accepted as just though we may be so accepted notwithstanding our evil Actions 2. I plainly say That sin doth cleave to our good Actions yet I say God doth accept them as just notwithstanding the imperfection of them and the sin that doth cleave unto them If this be offensive to you as well I think may you be offended at that Nehem. 13. 21. Remember me O Lord concerning this and spare me according to the greatness of thy Mercy And so at that 1 Pet. 2. 5. You also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual House an Holy Priesthood to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ Neither is there any reason why those words acquitted from all accusation brought against them should distaste you For what though an Accusation be true if yet in some other respect it be of no force May not they be properly said to be acquitted from all Accusation who notwithstanding the Accusation are freed from condemnation What matter is it how we are accused so long as we are sure not to be condemned Therefore the Apostle useth these Expressions as equipollent Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect and Who is he that condemneth Rom. 8. 33 34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon those words of the Apostle Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. as you do upon mine Might you not say Why I will lay this and that and that and ten thousand things besides to their charge Yea but when you have done all you can to what purpose is it For who is he that condemneth them notwithstanding all the Accusations brought against them These very words of the Apostle doth Amesius alledg in the former of those Sections which you cite And if as you say all may be there fully seen in Amesius that you would say in this then I see not that you would say any thing against me as indeed you do say nothing But what do you mean by those words and that as to the Law of Works which by a Parenthesis you thrust in among mine As if I meant that as well our Actions as our Persons are accepted as just and acquitted from all condemnation by the Law of Works Truly I think tà m quà m as well the one as the other that is indeed neither the one nor the other The Law doth convince of sin and as much as in it lies condemn for sin both us and our Actions even the best of them But by the New Covenant Through Faith in Christ we are accepted as just though guilty of manifold sins and our Actions are accepted also though full of imperfection When you say That the Reatus Culpa cannot possibly be removed or remitted though I think it is but a striving about words which I do not love yet I cannot assent unto it For I think it is truly and properly said to be remitted or pardoned neither doth that seem proper or pertinent which you add by way of Explication that is The Man cannot be or justly esteemed to be a Man that hath not sinned Quid tum postea Cannot therefore the guilt of sin be remitted Yea how should sin be remitted if it were not committed I think it is as proper to say Remittere culpam as Remittere poenam Surely if I may argue from the frequent use of Phrases and hence infer the propriety of them as you did there is nothing more usual in Scripture and so in other Writings and in common Speech then to say that Sins Faults Offences are remitted Grotius faith That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in Latin is Remittere is as much as missum facere and that the Greek Scholiasts usually expound it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. to neglect not to regard to pass over as Prov. 19. 11. to pass over a transgression and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is