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
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
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
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
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
He only answereth an Argument of Hemingius denying that which he saith Hemingius supposeth viz. Eandem justitiam esse viam ad vitam aternam cum in Lege tum in Evangelio But of a Two-fold Righteousness he there makes no mention not I say of a Two-fold Righteousness required of us at all much less required of us that thereby we may be justified He saith indeed Quid enim si Lex Dei in decalogo sit norma illius justitia quae eâ—t via Vitae Eternae Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta quid impediet quo minùs justificetur quispiam sine Legis impletione He doth not mean That the Righteousness prescribed in the Law is one Righteousness and the Righteousness constituted in the Gospel another Righteousness whereby we are justified but that we are justified only by this latter and not at all by the other He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteousness as being both necessary unto Justification he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect which Righteousness he makes to consist meerly in remission of sins See part 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 12. cap. 3. per totum To the very same purpose i. e. nothing at all to yours is that Ibid. cap. 6. p. 138. n. 2. where he taxeth Hemingius for taking it as granted Nullam esse justitiam vel injustitiam nisi in Lege praestitâ vel non praestitâ And then he saith Nam si alia sit justitia quae Lege non contineatur fieri potest ut alia etiam sit via Aeternae Vitae consequendae He doth not grant as you seem to understand him that Justitia quae in Lege continetur est una justitia quae ad Justificationem à nobis requiritur for that indeed he denies and saith That there is another Righteousness now in the Gospel ordained for that end and remission of sins as I said he makes to be that Righteousness even the only Righteousness by which we are formally justified Immediately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow Verum nec peccatum quidem Legis in Decalogo cancellis circumscribitur This is not directly to the Point now in hand yet because it may reflect upon it and somewhat we have about it afterward I therefore think meet to note it by the way and say That if it be as he saith then it seemeth St. John did not give us a full definition of sin when he said Sin is a transgression of the Law but of that more hereafter Wotton's Argument is of small force Fides inquit in Christum crucifixum non praecipitur in Lege but I have before him shewed that it is otherwise He himself presently after cites that 1 John 3. 23. This is his Commandment That we believe c. Now the Law contained in the Decalogue requires us to do whatsoever God commandeth for if we do not so we do not make him our only Lord God as the Law requireth That the Apostle doth oppose as he saith Faith to the Law Gal. 3. 12. makes nothing for him For Faith as a Duty is required in the Law though as a Condition it be required only in the Gospel Neither doth that advantage him which he also objecteth That the Law hath nothing to do with Christ as Mediator Gal. 5. 4. For though the Gospel only hold out Christ as Mediator to be believed in yet Christ being so held out the Law doth require us to believe in him For the Law doth require a belief of every Truth that God doth reveal and a performance of every thing that God doth enjoyn Now for Lud. de Dieu If the Justification which he speaks of Quâ ut sanctificati ac regeniti absolvimur à falsis Diaboli improborum criminationibus be meant of some particular Acts of which we are accused it is but such a Justification as the Reprobates themselves may partake of who may be accused of some things whereof they are not guilty See Bradshaw de Justif cap. 25. If it be meant of our estate in general as I suppose it is then this is indeed no distinct Justification but only a confirming of the other For in vain do we pretend to be justified by Faith by which alone de Dieu grants we are justified so as through Christ to be freely acquitted from the guilt of our sins if yet we remain unregenerate and unsanctified By the way I observe That de Dieu's words are against you Jacobus non agit de Justificatione quae partim fide partim operibus peragatur Thus much I had said in reference to this Author before I had him upon the Epistles but now that I have him I shall speak more fully to him or to you of him from that other place to which you remit me viz. his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he speaks likewise of a Two-fold Righteousness and of a Two-fold Justification yet so as but little to patronize your Cause Besides Imputed Righteousness which we have in Christ there is also he saith and who doth not an Inherent Righteousness which we have in our selves The former Righteousness he saith is that Quâ nos Deus etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes plenè tamen ipsius etiam Legis Testimonio justificat eique pro omninò conformibus habet in capite Christo de quâ justificatione Apostolus supra cap. 3. 4. 5. multis disputavit Altera est de quâ Rom. 6. 13. Ephes 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. Quâ nos Deus per regenerationem in nobis etiam ipsis Lege ex parte conformatos ex parte nunc justificat indies justificat magis ac magis prout incrementum capit regeneratio ac justificabit plenè ubi perfectio advenerit de quâ Justificatione agitur Jac. 2. 21 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justificationem Opera Legis ingrediuntur ut primam constituit sola Fides i. e. justitia Christi fide imputata non opera sic alteram censtituunt opera non fides Here 1. he makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect and so also the Justification which doth arise from it By this Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conformati ex parte nunc justificati But Imputed Righteousness and Justification by it he acknowledgeth to be perfect hereby we are plenè justificati tanquam Legi plenè conformes in capite Christo 2. He makes Faith only i. e. as he explains it the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith that whereby we are fully and perfectly justified Now you make all Righteousness as such perfect for otherwise you make it to be no Righteousness if it be imperfect And you make Faith and Works to concur unto the same Justification though you distinguish of the Inchoation Continuation and Consummation of it You also make Faith properly taken to be the Righteousness though not the only
subordinate is more than I observe But though Faith be subordinate unto Christ's Satisfaction in the matter of Justification yet that we are justified by Faith as a distinct Righteousness I cannot yeeld no more than that the Application of a Medicine is a distinct Medicine by which one is healed I am glad that you plainly disclaim a Coordination of Christ's Righteousness and Faith in the Work of Justification But if they be but subordinate then me-thinks they should not be two distinct Righteousnesses by which we are justified I see not how we can be justified I speak of an Universal Justification opposite to all condemnation that which Bucer calls Justificationem Vitae both by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and also by our own personal Righteousness You say A Man having a Medicine and not applying it may properly be said to die for want of Application but to speak properly I think It is not the want of Application of the Medicine but the Disease that doth kill the Man So though a Man wanting Faith shall be condemned yet take Faith meerly as a Condition not as a Duty it is not properly the want of Faith but Sin that is the cause of his Condemnation though his want of Faith may as aggravate his Sin so increase his Condemnation That I speak your words is more than I do know How Christ's Righteousness may be called our Legal Righteousness I shewed by Rom. 10. 4. viz. as serving us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us and for want of which the Law otherwise would have condemned us Neither did I blame you meerly for calling Christ's Satisfaction our Legal Righteousness but for making another Righteousness of our own which you call our Evangelical Righteousness necessary unto Justification Now also you overlook that which I alledged about Christ's Satisfaction as being our Evangelical Righteousness 1. Doth the Old Covenant prescribe Christ's Satisfaction as our Righteousness You said a little before I do not think that Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction is that which the Law required as if I said That the Law did require it whereas I meant only this That the Law required Satisfaction and Christ made it for us so that Christ's Satisfaction serveth us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us and so may be called our Legal Righteousness But the New Covenant doth hold out Christ's Righteousness to be apprehended by us and made ours Faith that so thereby we may be justified Where the Scripture speaks of a Two-fold Righteousness so as you do or how this makes for the unfolding of the main Doctrine or tends to heal our Breaches I do not see You affirm these things but do not prove them 2. What plain ground you laid down in your Aphorisms for that Two-fold Righteousness I do not know What I could observe any way Argumentative I was willing to examine and so am still 1. If it imply Blasphemy to say That Christ repented and believed for us Doth it follow that Faith or Repentance is our Righteousness by which we are justified Can nothing be required of us and performed by us but it must therefore be our Righteousness and by it as our Righteousness we must be justified 2. The Scriptures which I alledged viz. Rom. 9. 29. 10. 6. Gal. 5. 5. and Rom. 3. 22. do sufficiently distinguish Faith from that Righteousness whereby we are justified and shew it to be only a means whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness and so by that Righteousness of Christ are justified The Argument I think is good notwithstanding any thing you say unto it Faith is only a means whereby Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto us unto Justification Therefore it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified Rivet speaking of the Remonstrants saith Volunt igitur Fidem cum operibus venâ—re in partem justitiae debitae Fidem justificare non Relativè ut organum apprehendens objectum sed Inherenter c. Hoc iniquitatis mysterium c. 1. You might easily know what I meant by Simply and Absolutely justified in the sight of God if you did well consider the other Members of the distinction viz. to be wholly freed from all Condemnation the same that Mr. Bradshaw meant by Universal Justification You know sufficiently the distinction betwixt Simpliciter or Absolutè secundum quid Bradshaw having said Hoc modo sc justificatione particulari non Electi soli sed Reprobi ipsi coram Deo Justificari possunt Adds immediately Neutri vero eorum absolute hoc modo justificari possunt Hoc modo justificari non est penitùs à peccati reatu sed ab hujus vel illius peccati imputatione injustâ liberari 2. Comparative Righteousness I shewed to be but a less degree of Unrighteousness but Ironical Righteousness is down-right Unrighteousness whereas a less Unrighteousness in comparison of a greater is a kind of Righteousness Minus malum respectu majoris habet rationem boni 3. I do not deny the Righteousness of Faith though I deny Faith to be that Righteousness by which we are justified Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith and sincere Obedience yet are we not therefore justified by Obedience but Declarativè as it is the fruit of Justifying Faith nor by Faith but Apprehensivè as by it we apprehend and receive Christ's Righteousness 1. I never doubted much less denied Faith to be a part of Inherent Righteousness 2. It is indeed a strange Righteousness that will not justifie so far forth as it will reach but it is not strange to Protestant-Divines that Inherent Righteousness cannot reach so far as to justifie in that sense as we speak of Justification Ilud concedimus inquit Daven esse in omnibus justificatis justitiam quandam inherentem quam si formalem causam statuant Justifactionis liceat enim vocabulum procudere non repugnabimus sed predictae Justificationis quae respondet stricto examini Coelestis Judicis nec formalis nec meritoria esse â—llo modo potest And he lays down these two Positions 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per Spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima Obedientia est formalis causa justificationis Nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Dei applicatione Fidei fit nostra 2. Justitia per Spiritum Christi nobis impressa inherens non est formalis causa per quam stamus justificati hoc est per quam liberati judicamur à damnatione acceptati ad vitam aternam tanquam eâdem digni per hanc qualitatem nobis inherentem That you may not catch at the word digni he afterward expresseth it thus Atque hie ne inanem de vocabulis velitationem instituamus illud praemittêdum nos per formalem causam Justificationis nihil aliud intelligere quam illud per quod stamus in conspectu Dei Ã
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
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
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
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