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
by Faith they mean That Faith is not the Righteousness by which we are justified and that we are therefore only said to be justified by Faith because by Faith we receive the Righteousness of Christ by which Righteousness properly we are justified That this is the meaning of our Divines appears by that which I have before alledged 2. Therefore who those be of whom you speak I do not know However I do not see that your Objections are of force For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text though it be so interpreted as that by Faith imputed is meant Christ and his Righteousness viz. as apprehended by Faith and I presume that they whom you tax did so understand it And this doth not exclude Faith but include it Your Question therefore seems captious If by Faith be meant Christ's Righteousness then what word doth signifie Faith For by Faith is not simply meant Christ's Righteousness but as it is apprehended by Faith 3. Davenant's words which I cited are clearly to the purpose to which I cited them neither do I see any thing in them which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of Whereas you add It seems he discerned the mistake of them that affirm Christ's Active Righteousness as such to be our Righteousness I think your Scribe did mistake and it should be he discerned not For therein indeed in that Chapter but not in the words which I cited he differs both from you and me But I was willing to let that pass both because it is nothing to our present purpose and also I like not to shew my dissent from any eminent Writer except I be forced to it 4. What you say you will alledge out of Davenant against me is to be considered when it is alledged But here you profess your self far from approving what he saith viz. That Christ's Righteousness est formalis causa justificationis ex communi nostrorum sententiâ You should say Christ's Righteousness imputed to us for so Davenant hath it in the words which I cited And you should also consider how immediately before those words he explained himself about the formalis causa justificationis For Bellarmine objecting That though Christi obedientia sit meritoria causa justificationis nostrae propter quam Deus nos justificat yet Justitia inherens potest esse formalis per quam justificati constituimur and taxing Chemnitius for stating the question thus Quid sit id propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat c. He answers Sed immemorem se hîc praebet Jesuita qui eodem modo ipse loquitur de Just. lib. 2. cap. 1. De Causâ formali propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo disserendum est Atque reverà in Justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit Nisi enim illam contineat dignitatem in se propter quam homo ritè justificatus reputetur nunquam erit formalis causa per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei And again Vt itaque seponamus Philosophicas Speculationes de naturâ causae formalis quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostrae quaerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur per quod immediatè Deo gratus ad vitam aeternam acceptus stat cujus beneficio damnatoriam Legis sententiam evadere denique quo inti possit debeat ad coelestis Judicis favorem approbationem consequendam And again Quod igitur dicit Bellarminus impossibile esse ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter nugas agit c. Si autem per formalem causam intelligat illud ipsum quod Deus intuetur quando quemvis peccatorem justificat c. dico hoc non esse inhaerentem ullam qualitatem sed Christi obedientiam justitiam credentibus gratuitâ Dei misericordiâ donatam atque imputatam Impossibile quidem est ut haec justitia quae in Christo inhaeret sit etiam nostra per modum inhaesionis sed quando tanquam membra unimar Christo capiti non est impossibile ut nostra fiat per modum donationis salutiferae participationis atque hic modus sufficit ut in Justificatione formalis causae rationem efficaciam similitudinem obtineat Me-thinks all this should suffice to satisfie any ingenuous Man and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling about the term when there is so full and frequent explication of the meaning of it So also Amesius having out of Contarenus distinguished of Righteousness and stated the Question about the formal cause of Justification he saith Hoc sensu nos negamus formalem causam absolutae N. B. nostrae justificationis esse justitiam in nobis inhaerentem And again Non aliâ ratione formaliter nos justos nominari esse dicimus imputata Christi justitià quam quâ is cujus debitum ab altero solvitur nominatur est ab illo debito liber immunis quâ is cui procuratus est alterius favor aut gratia nominatur est alteri gratus For that which you cite out of his Med. l. 1. c. 27. § 12. I find there only these words Christi igitur justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur Phil. 3. 9. Those which you add are not in my Edition viz. Quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur However they are not repugnant to what I have cited both from him and Davenant because as Davenant expresly notes Causa formalis hîc etiam est meritoria Alsted's words as you cite them Christus est justitia mostra in sensu causal◠non in sensu formali carry no good sense at least are not so accurate For surely if Formalis Causa then Sensus Formalis is also Sensus Causalis You add So Rivet Disp de Fide but you should also have noted the Section Indeed § 13. he saith That Bellarmine doth affingere nobis sententiam de justitia Christi tanquam causâ formali And elsewhere he saith Forma justificationis consistit in justitiae Christi imputatione propter quam nobis remittuntur peccata So Treloatius Forma justificationis Activè sumptae est Actualis Justitiae Christi gratuita imputatio quâ meritum obedientia Christi nobis applicantur vi communionis arctissimae qua ille in nobis nos in illo Dr. Jackson saith That to demand what is the formal cause of Justification is as if one should ask what is the Latin for Manus and that it is the folly or knavery of our Adversaries to demand a formal Cause of the◠Justification who deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God He alone saith he is formally just who hath that form inherent in himself by which he is denominated just and so
accepted of God as Philosophers deny the Sun to be formally hot because it hath no form of heat inherent in it but only produceth heat in other Bodies Thus there is difference among our Divines about the term but they agree in the thing Some would have no formal Cause of Justification at all some would have such a Cause but would not have Christ's Righteousness imputed but the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to be it yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Cause of Justification in that sense as Davenant and Ames do explain it 1. As Faith alone is the Condition of our Justification so also Faith alone as continued though it is not continued alone is the Condition of our Continued Justification Neque etiam saith Calvin sic putemus commendari post gratuitam justificationem opera ut ipsa in locum justificandi hominis posteà succedant aut ejusmods officium cum Fide N. B. partiantur Nisi enim perpetuò maneat solida Fidei justificatio illorum immundities detegetur Nihil autem absonum est sic Fide hominem justificari ut non ipse modo justus sit sed opera quoque ejus supra dignitatem justa censeantur So Mr. Ball Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life and then leave it to works that we might attain the accomplishment by them but it doth ever rest upon the Promise until we come to enjoy it 2. I know no accusation but of the Law of Works though in case of unbelief and impenitency that Accusation be aggravated by the Law of Grace Though Calvîn thinks not that Joh. 5. 45. Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father there is one that accuseth you even Moses c. to be to this purpose as some do yet he grants That it is Legis proprièreos peragere infideles To question whether he spake of the Law of Works were to question whether the Sun shineth at noon-day When any is accused to be an Infidel or finally impenitent or a sinner against the Holy Ghost as it is a sin that he is accused of so the Accusation is from the Law but as Unbelief or Impenitency for why you bring in the sin against the Holy Ghost I do not know doth import a want of the Condition required in the Gospel so as I have said before it is no new accusation but only a re-inforcing of a former accusation and so the refelling of this Accusation by shewing the fruits of Faith and Repentance is not properly a justifying of our selves by any thing in our selves but only a proving and manifesting that we are indeed justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us 3. The imperfection of our Faith and Obedience doth prove that it is no Righteousness by which we can be justified consider always that I speak of absolute and universal Justification Si per se saith Calvin vel intrinsecâ ut loquuntur virtute justificaret fides ut est semper debilis imperfecta non efficeret hoe nisiex parte sic manca esset justitia quae frustulum salutis nobis conferret So Davenant Ad justificationem efficiendam non sufficit justitia suo quodam modo perfectae aliqu◠modo imperfecta sed necesse est eam esse legali modo perfectam omnibus suis numeris absolutam And again Nulla justitia coram Deo justificat sed quae ad amussin Legis perfecta est Sed nostra inhaerens non est talis c. Thus also Maccovius Quod nobis imputatur ad justitiam nempe propriè per se seu respectu sui i◠debet esse perfectissimum ut consistere possit cum judicio Dei Rom. 2. 2. At Fides non est perfectissima 1 Cor. 13. 9. To me it seems not hard to be certain of the meaning of that place Luke 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven her for she loved much It appears as I noted plainly enough by the Context what the meaning is viz. not that her love was the cause of the forgiveness of her sins but the forgiveness of her sins the cause of her love And you see how sharply Calvin whose words I cited censures those that interpret it otherwise The Parable going before those words are so clear That Maldonate is forced to say Videtur ex hac parabolâ non fuisse colligendum quod Christus colligit multa peccata illi mulieri remitti quia multum dilexisset sed contrà proptereà eam multum dilexisse quòd multa illi peccata remissa essent Quae res speciosam Calvino caeteris haereticis errandi occasionem praebuit negantibus huic mulieri propter praecedentia charitatis opera remissa peccata illa verò verba quoniam dilexit multum sic interpretantibus ut dictio illa quoniam non causam sed effectum consequentiam significet quod utinam nemo Catholicorum secutus esset And see how poorly and pittifully he comes off viz. either thus Vt Christum in versà parabolâ usum fuisse deceremus q. d. Sicut ille dilexit multum quia multum illi remissum fuerat ita huic mulieri è contrario quia dilexit multum remissa sunt peccata multa Or which he rather inclines unto thus Quod Christus hoc loco rogat Quis ergo eum plus diliget etsi futurum tempus est tamen ex consuetudine loquendi vim praeteriti habere puto q. d. Quem tu judicas ex effectu conjecturam faciens plus antè Dominum suum delexisse Vtrùm illi magis amicum fuisse cum amicitiae causâ faenerator debitum utrique remiserit What straits was this acute Man driven to because he was resolved to hold the Conclusion and yet saw how ill it did suit with the Premises 1. What others of whom you speak do I know not they may answer for themselves 2. I take affiance which is a Believing in or Relying on to be an Act of Faith it self the Act of Faith being as well Credere in as simpliciter Credere But internal Obedience or Love for these you make both one though indeed Believing it self is inward Obedience as well as Love the one being commanded as well as the other is not the Act of Faith though caused by Faith not actus elicitus though actus imperatus therefore this is not so immediate a product of Faith as the other 3. I conceive Affiance to be a part of Justifying-Faith and not only a Fruit of it To believe in Christ which is as much as to rely on him and to have affiance in him is requisite unto Justification He that believeth on him is not condemned John 3. 18. 1. As Justification is begun upon sole Believing so is it also continued and consummated The Scripture so far as I see makes Justification simply and absolutely to depend
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
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
oppugnant De Justit Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. Yet in another sense he holds that Christ's Righteousness imputed to us is the formal Cause of our Justification the words were before cited And as others so Dr. Prideaux speaks the very same thing saying Justificamur per justitiam Christi non personae quâ ipse est vestitus sed meriti quâ suos vestit nobis imputatam But for the principal thing intended in this Section of yours Though wicked Men may be more ready to receive Christ as their Justifier than as their Ruler so you express it yet it follows not that the receiving of Christ as a Ruler is that Act of Faith which doth justifie For the difficulty of a thing is no good Argument to prove the necessity of it either at all or to such a purpose 2. My second Note was to this purpose quite to take away the force of your Argument and so I think it doth notwithstanding your Reply For have we not God's means to overcome that aversness of nature if the receiving of Christ as Lord do necessarily follow Pardon as well as if it be a Condition of Pardon When I make it a Fruit of Justifying-Faith to take Christ for Lord I do not say but that Christ may at once be received both as Priest and as Lord and so must if he be so propounded I speak of express propounding and receiving But my meaning is That though we be justified by receiving Christ as Priest perhaps not yet hearing of him expresly as Lord yet that Justifying-Faith will also put forth it self to take Christ for Lord when he is so set forth unto us To be justified before we take Christ as Lord is not to be justified before we take Christ as Christ For Christ is Christ as Priest though not only as Priest Indeed to receive Christ in respect of one Office so as to refuse him in respect of another were not to receive Christ as Christ but that is not the Case as I do put it And for the moral necessity of taking Christ as Lord which you ask what it is if it be not a Condition I suppose it may be morally necessary as a thing commanded and yet be no Condition of Justification For can nothing be commanded and so be morally necessary but it must be commanded and be necessary to that end that thereby we may be justified Works are commanded and so necessary yet you hold them to be no Condition of our Justification at first neither indeed are they afterward as that of Gen. 15. 6. with Rom. 4. 2 3. doth irrefragably prove Your Argument I thus retort He that is justified is in a State of Salvation and should be saved if he so died But he that hath Faith without VVorks is justified Ergo he is in a State of Salvation and if he so die shall be saved Answer for your self as you please for my part I say The same Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest and so justifieth is ready also to receive Christ as Lord when he is so propounded even as that Faith which justifieth is ready to produce Works when they are required 1. You should not only suppose but prove that the excluding of Obedience from Justification as co-partner with Faith in justifying is a Scandal given and an Error 2. If it were not Paul's design to advance Faith above Love c. in point of Justification what then means his so frequent asserting Faith to be that whereby we are justified and his never-mentioning Love c. to that purpose 3. Your self acknowledg an aptitude in Faith to justifie as apprehending Christ and I acknowledg that besides this God hath appointed Faith for that purpose in respect of its aptitude making choice of it rather than of any other Grace I have also oft enough considered what you have said Justificatio saith Davenant purgat abluit à reatu poenâ speccati idque uno momento perfectè De Justit Habit. cap. 23. ad Arg. 4. Though Justification be perfect as freeing from all Condemnation yet so long as there may be Accusation there is need of Justification Whereas you speak of the Law justifying c. It is God that justifieth Rom. 8. 33. though according to the Gospel or New-Covenant for that I presume you mean by the Law and by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness Christ as our Advocate doth plead our Cause and procure our Justification and at the Last Judgment as God's Vicegerent he will publickly pronounce Sentence I see nothing against me but that still you run upon this Supposition That there is the same Condition of Salvation and of Justification at Judgment whereas I suppose that VVorks are a Condition of Salvation as full and compleat but not so of Justification at Judgment that being but a manifestation of our present Justification and so VVorks looked at but as Fruits and Evidences of Faith whereby we are justified If Illyricus his Doctrine were the same with this his fellow-Protestants I dare say would not blame him for it Neither do I see how Illyricus could or any rational Man can grant VVorks to be necessary Fruits of Faith and yet deny them to be means or Conditions of Salvation in respect of the actual and full enjoyment of it For surely as Faith it self is required that we may be justified so the Fruits of Faith to be produced in due season are required that we may be glorified But why do you thus still jumble together Justification and Salvation saying Illyricus his Error was in denying Works to be necessary to Justification and Salvation Yet when you cite Bucer and Melancthon as asserting the necessity of good VVorks there is not a syllable in them about Justification as if VVorks were necessary in that respect Bucer in that Conference at Ratisbon which you cite though he maintain Inherent Righteousness as who doth not yet he saith Hâc justitiâ nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae as he is cited by Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. ubi plura vide So Melancthon is cited by Bellarmine as holding with other Protestants of prime note that Sola fides justificat tamen fides quae justificat non est sola And Wotton saith De Reconcil Part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. Num. 4. Lutherus Melancthon Calvinus Chemnitius ea potissimum causâ nos infusâ inhaerente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt quòd illa in nobis ita imperfectu sit ut in Dei conspectum quum ad judicandum candum accedat prodire non audeat But of Bucer and Melancthon more by and by For Illyricus what in other places he may hold I cannot tell but in the Centuries whereof he was the chief Author he seems to agree with other prime Protestants For he brings in 27 Arguments whereby the Apostles he saith prove Hominem solâ fide absque operibus Legis justificari Among which the
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