mentions and not the sense 2. Saith he I knew I had much Scripture and reason against it but I find no reason from him but that which some know that I have urged Terminis Terminantibus before his Aphorismes ever came to light and had I not been able to have given my self satisfaction I had been in that opinion if not before him yet before I had any light from him to lead me to it That horned Argument of his that if faith justifie as instrument it is either as an instrument in the hand of God or in the hand of man with his reasons against both I have made use of argumentandi causâ before any work of his saw the light 3. The instrumentality of faith makes not man the efficient cause of his own Justification I thought it saith he of dangerous consequence to say that man is the efficient cause of justifying and pardoning himself and so doth forgive his own sins And I think every honest man should be of that mind and I shall wait the time when proof shall be made that Justification by faith in opposition to works makes man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The efficient and that Justification by works gives it to God onely If this be once made good I shall be more sorry than ever for holding such self-exalting and man-advancing doctrine as Justification by faith and that ever I opposed that self-denying man-depressing doctrine of Justification by works and shall hence forth conclude Where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law of faith Nay but by the Law of works There is added Yet all this had never caused me to open my mouth against it but for the next viz. I found that many learned Divines did not onely assert this instrumentality but laid so great a stresse upon it as if the main difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here For in the doctrine of Justification it is say they that they fundamentally erre and we principally differ and that in these four Points Four great errours laid to the charge of Reformers 1. About the formal cause of our righteousnesse which say these Divines is the formal righteousnesse of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us or as others adde in the habitual righteousnesse of his humane nature and others the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature 2. About the way and manner of our participation therein which as to Gods act they say is imputation which is true and that in this sense that legaliter we are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ 3. About the nature of that faith which justifies which most of our forreign Reformers say is an assurance or full perswasion of the pardon of my sin by Christs blood 4. About the formal reason of faiths interest in Justification which say they is as the instrument thereof Adding his own censure I doubt not but all these four are great errours Of how dangerous consequence soever it is that man should be made the efficient of justifying and pardoning himself yet it had pass'd without controll if worse than this had not been vented by the learned of the reformed Religion It is yet well that when the ignorance of all his professed Antagonists is of that eminence that yet so many learned are on their party Those learned errours should be taken into further consideration and some that are learned have entred the lists with Mr. Baxter in them The second of these great errours he tells us is true and how a great errour can be true I cannot tell unlesse his meaning be that it is truly an errour which is as high an equivocal speech as any that is fastened upon the Scriptures And when this second is true I cannot see and I think few of his Readers will see how the first to which it relates can be false If it be true that by Gods imputation of this righteousnesse of Christ we are legalitèr esteemed to have fulfilled the Law in Christ then that is true also that they say that Christ is our righteousnesse or that the righteousnesse of Christ of meer grace is made ours And how much good will is here shewen to the reforming part is too manifest in making one Party amongst them to hold The natural righteousnesse of Christs Divine nature is not our Justification that the natural righteousnesse of the Divine nature is our Justification as Bellarmine did before him and is answered by Davenant de just habit p. 313. That in this all the Churches of the Protestants have exploded Hosiander It being his singular opinion and another sayes This opinion was almost like Jonas his gourd that did presently wither As for the third the charge is upon our forreign Reformers onely and not upon all that have idly busied their learned heads in this bad cause They onely say that saith is a full perswasion of the pardon of my sins by Christs blood I shall request from him therefore a Latine Treatise for their better information in this thing and not to trouble Controversies in English with that in which his English Antagonists stand right himself being witnesse Neither is it all forreign Divine that go that way Gomarus putting it to the question saith That there be some of those that have opposed Papists on either part All forreign Reformers make no faith a full perswasion and himself determines with them that side in this with our English Reformers Tom. 2. pag. 371. So that in these three our English Reformers at least stand fully acquitted That which followes I doubt not will be the trouble of many of his Readers That which troubled me saith he was this to think how many thousand might be confirmed in Popery by this course and what a blow it gave to the reformed Religion For who can imagine but that young Popish students will be confirmed in the rest of their religion when they find that we erre in these and will judge by these of the rest of our doctrine especially when they find us making this the main part of the Protestant cause what wonder if they judg our cause naught It is a greater wonder that old Popish students have not discovered this to their novices but have left this work to Mr. Baxter to give them light in this in which Reformers so erre and unreformed Papists stand right so that it must be his work not Bellarmines Stapletons Suarez or any others to unreform But lest this should be a stumbling block to offence that so eminent a man that is like if himself may be heard to draw away so many speaks out such Language let us oppose against him on the other hand Albertus Pighius whom those of his party as Peter Martyr saies loc com pag. 541. made their Achilles and thought that he alone by his subtile wit had pierced into the inward Mysteries of truth So that I hope I am not too low in my comparison Pighius
many more Adversaries then you His work was published before yours and if you intended to publish no other doctrine How could you know that yours was like to blast your reputation with most Divines as in your Printed Letter you tell Mr. Tombs Pag. 409 When his work has mâ—ch advanc'd and not blasted his reputation at all In this Apology you tell me Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Protestant party in the doctrine of Jâ—stification aâ—quitting English Râ—form rs in one of them only And all except that one Davenant is as guilly as any The first is That the formall cause of our Righteousnesse is the formall Righteousnesss of Jesus Christ as suffering and perfectly obeying for us And if this be an error no man is more chargeable then he with it He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Justit habit (a) Imputatam Christi obedientiam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae probatur The imputed Righteousnesse of Christ is proved to be the formall cause of our Justification Making it good in that Chapter by 11. Arguments and answering contrary objections Having confirm'd it with Arguments he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities And quoting Justin Martyr in the first place he thus comments upon him (b) Hic aptrtè doc et Justinus Martyr non modo mortem satisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam sed ipsam conversationem ejus seu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum Here Justin Martyr doth evidently teach that noâ— only the death and satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us to take away our punishment but also his conversation and active obedience is imputed to us to take away sin Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occasion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus The next error charged upon Protestants by you is about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteousnesse which the Divines say is by imputation And so Davenant says as we have already heard asserting against Bellarmine the greatest necessity as he speaks of it Pag. 32. Quoting against him Scriptures for it explaining Protestants meaning in it (c) Nos vero hâc imputatione justificationem sitam putamus non eo nomine solum quod Christus nos regit justitiâ suâ sed multò magìs quia donat nos justitiâ suà Neque dicimus Deum nos pro justis habere solummodo quia tectos conspicit justitia Redemptoris nostri sed quia ex sua ordinatione omnes credentes atque in unam personam cum Christo coalescentes justitiae ejus obedidientiae veré participes factos We think saith he that Justification is placed in this imputation not only because Christs covers us with his Righteousnesse but much rather because he freely conferrs his righteousnesse upon us Neither do we say that God accounts us as just only because he sees us Cloathed with the Righteousnesse of our Redeemer but because he sees by his own ordination all believers united into Christ as one person made truly partakers of his obedience But perhaps you are most offended with that which you put in the close of your Charge of this error upon Reformers That we are hereby namely by imputation of this Righteousnesse esteemed legaliter to have fulfilled the Law in Christ Which in your account is so high an error that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianisme And qâ—oting these words from a Reverend Brother whom sometimes at least you have had in high esteem That as in Christs suffering we were lookt upon by God as suffering in him So by Christs obeying of the Law we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him You appeaâ—e to youâ— Reader whether it be true or tolerable Yoâ— seem to think that the naming it is enough to work a deep dislike if not detestation of it And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he I am much mistaken See his third Argument for confirmation of his Thesis before mentioned Pag. 364. (d) Deus ex intuitu obedien 〈◊〉 per Christum praestitae usque ad mortem crucis nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis transgressoribus imputando nobis hanc alterius satisfactionem perinde ac si nostra fuisset Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Christum praestitae usque ad impletionem legis nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis observatoribus imputando nimirum nobis hanc alterius justitiam quasi etiam nostra esset God in beholding the obedience performed by Christ even to the death of the Crosse delivers us from the punishment due to the transgressors of the Law imputing this satisfaction of another to us even as though it had been ours Therefore in beholding the obedience of Christ yeelded even to the fulfilling of the Law he confers these benefits upon us which are promised to the observers of the Law that is by imputing to us this righteousnesse of another as though it were ours And much more to this purpose And afterwards further explaining himself he sayth (e) Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae satisfactionis Deus nos liberat ab ira poena quasi nos illam satisfactionem in propriis personis exhibuissemus Sic intuitu legis à Christo pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam proemium gloriae quasi nos nostrâ personali justitiâ legem implevissemus As upon sight of this imputed satisfaction God doth deliver us from wrath and punishment as though we had made satisfaction in our own persons So upon sight of the Law fulfilled by Christ for us he accepts us unto life and glory as though with our own personall Righteousnesse we had fulfilled the Law The third error which is charged upon Protestants is that from which English Reformers are acquitted The fourth is About the formall reason of faiths interest in Justification Which Protestant Reformers say as you observe from them is as the instrument This indeed Davenant doth not put to the question and purposely handle that I know as he does the former Yet we find him fully asserting it Answering Bellarmines objection that (f) Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum Quasi diceret Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae Luther made faith the formall cause of Justification he saith that Luther alwaies acknowledged it the instrumentall but not the formall unlesse under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith as though he should say that the obedience of Christ apprehended by faith is the formall cause of our Justification Where we plainly see Davenants mind 1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ for justification is the instrumentall cause in it 2. That faith apprehends and applies this righteousness of Christ for
how great things they ascribe to the body of Christ received if no barre be put which they understand of the Sacramental bread is very well known But as some have observed where poyson growes providence takes care that there be antidotes found so none of these ever appeared in the Church but some by the good hand of God have stood up in opposition How mightily did the Prophet Jeremy oppose himself against that over-high opinion that the Jewes in his time had of Circumcision Jer. 9.25 26. As also Paul making use of his authority against the Jewes in his time and disputing at large against it Rom. 2. And the Apostle Peter foreseeing it seems that Baptisme would be set up as high among Christians as ever Circumcision was among the Jewes makes it his businesse to prevent it Having affirmed that Baptisme saves he is careful to let us know that it is not by its own power but by the resurrection of Christ that is Faith in the Resurrection and further explains himself that it is not the outward act alone but as answered with an inward work that hath that power as you have heard And Popish Schoolmen making it their work as we have heard to advance Sacraments to that height Protestant Writers in a sull stream have appeared to set them on their right bottome and to make it appear what it is that Scripture attributes to them and what in their right use may be expected from them Calvin's words lib. 4. instit cap. 14. Sect. 14. are high and notable having opposed the doctrine of nuda signa which makes Sacraments to be bare and naked signs On the other hand saith he b Rursum admonendi sumus ut isti vim Sacramentorum enervant usumq prorsus evertunt ita ab adversâ parte stare alios qui arcanas nescio quas virtures Sacramentis affingunt quae nusquam illis à Deo insitae leguntur Quo errore periculosè falluntur simpliciores et imperiti dum et Dei dona quaerere docentur ubi reperiri minime possunt et à Deo sensim abstrahuntur ut pro ejus veritate meram amplexentur vanitatem Magno enim consensu Sophisticae Scholae tradiderunt Sacramenta novae legis hoc est quae in usu nunc sunt Ecclesiae justificare et conferre gratiam modo non ponamus obicem peccati mortalâ—s Quae sententia dici non potest quà m sit exitialis et pestilens eoque magis quod multis ante saeculis magna Ecclesiae jactura in bonâ orbis parte obtinuit Planè certe diabolica est nam dum justitiam cirra fidem pollicetur animas in exitium praecipites agit deinde quia justitiae causam à Sacramentis ducit miseras hominum mentés in terram sâ— apte sponte plus satis inclinatas hâc superstitione illigat ut in spectaculo rei corpore ae potius quam in Deo ipso acquiescant we are to be advertis'd that as those weaken the efficacy of Sacraments and utterly overthrow their use so there are others on the other hand that assign I know not what vertue to them such that we never read that God ever put into them which errour saith he dangerously deceives the simple and unlearned Whilest they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot be found they are by degrees drawn from God to imbrace meer vanity instead of truth For the Schooles of Sophisters with great consent have taught that the Sacraments of the new law that is those that are now in use among Christians do Justifie and confer grace provided that we put no barre of mortal sin Which opinion saith he hath been of more deadly danger than can be spoken and so much the more because for many Ages to the great losse of the Church it hath prevailed It is certainly saith he devillish for whilest it promiseth Justification without Faith it casts soules headlong to destruction And upon that account because they derive the cause of righteousnesse or Justification from the Sacraments by this superstition they so ensnare the poor soules of men over-much of their own accord inclined to earth that they had rather rest in a corporeall element than in God himself This is his entrance upon the dispute That which he hath further upon it in four whole Sections is very well worth the reading The consent of other Writers of his time and that have followed after him as a cloud of witnesses might be produced but this as the Reader hath heard is already done to my hand And when some of reverend esteem and singularly deserving in the Church of God have gone overmuch on this hand as soon as it was carried abroad in Manuscripts a learned Manuscript of Mr. Gatakers met with it and afterwards appearing in print as a Posthumous work this as soon as it came to the Authors cognizance by his zeal to the truth followed it And let me here adde to that which hath been said that if nothing else yet experience might correct this over-high conceit of the work of Sacraments That which we evidently see is not wrought by Sacraments we cannot believe they are assign'd of God to work This Proposition hath certainly reason in it They certainly do that office which God hath assign'd and appointed them But we evidently see that they do not actually work all that they figure out even where according to these there is no bar put therefore there is no cause to believe that they are design'd of God for it Here I might instance in their failing in the work of remission of sin in Infants seeing when they come to growth we oft see them in that way of sin that stands not with actual forgivenesse But I know that many that here are adversaries confesse an intercision of Justification and therefore this is not against them and others that admit not that doctrine speak of a double Justification one for the state of Infancy another of those that are of growth upon their acceptation of Christ by faith and therefore though sins be remitted in Infancy and afterward upon their acting of sin charged here is no such intercision of justification which Arminians hold and their adversaries oppose I shall therefore wave this and instance in the failing of Baptisme in the work of regeneration which is as well figured out in Baptisme as that other of remission of sin Baptisme comes not alone to remove the guilt but also to correct the power of original corruption and so to work in us a freedome from the power of sin as well as the pardon of it And in case Baptisme effects this work how is it that sin in Infants is so apt to shew it self that as soon as they act they are so readily prone to act that which is evill When Saul said he had done the Commandment of the Lord Samuel had a confutation ready What means then sayes he this bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen in mine ears that
or proper passive reception that it is therefore called receiving it self and it is therefore as I think called so because it is so and that it hath its concurrence and way of efficacy for possession I think few except Mr. Baxter will deny It followes Yet still I say if any will please to call it an instrument in this sense I will not quarrel with him for the impropriety of a phrase especially if some men had the same ingenuity that others have that say it is but Instrumentum Metaphoricum There is not I hope so much ingenuity desired as to smother or blind their reason If it be a metaphorical instrument there must be some real analogy between it and an instrument properly so called in doing that which is done by an instrument and when an instrument is as is affirmed an efficient An instrument without any efficiency at all is a strange kind of Metaphor It had been better to have held to the old dialect of Equivocal There followes But to say saith he that the act of Faith is the instrument of Ethical active reception which is that which I argued against is to say receiving Christ is the instrument of it self It will sure rather follow that Faith is the instrument of the soul in receiving Christ We say faith receives as we say the hand takes Faith is the instrument of the soul and not of it self in receiving Christ That faith is the eye and hand of the soul are Scripture Metaphors or the sword kills but we mean the man receives by the hand and the hand kills by the sword and so we mean the soul receives Christ by faith I explained my self in giving instance in mens usual language concerning faith which is rejected with no little disdain affirming that these speeches Faith is the eye of the soul the hand of the soul are Metaphors of meere humane use forgetting it seems that ever the Scripture said that Moses by faith endured as seeing him that is invisible or that the promise of the Spirit is received by faith If I had added that faith is the foot of the soul they had all been Metaphors of Divine use I urge Scripture texts We receive remission of sins by faith and an inheritance amongst them that are sanctified is received by faith Act. 26.18 To which is replyed If by signifie an instrumental cause it is either alwayes or sometimes You would not sure have your Reader believe that it is alwayes if but sometimes why do you take it for granted that so it signifies here This I might well retort If it signifie and an instumental cause sometimes why is it not made appear that it does not so signifie here But I confesse that by hath not alwayes such signification Bartimeus sate by the high-way-side begging in which place by is no instrument but when the particle by hath reference to that which hath immediate reference to a principal cause and sometimes is put to the principal cause it self I suppose nothing else but an instrument can be intended when Christ is said to be set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood Rom. 3.25 and that we are justified by his blood Rom. 5.9 I know not how the blood of Christ can be a principal cause and faith not denote an instrument I said why else is this righteousnesse sometimes called the righteousnesse of faith sometimes the righteousnesse of God by faith but that it is a righteousnesse which faith receives To this is replyed It is properer to say Credens recipit credendo the believer by believing receives it then to say faith especially the act receives it Here is an egregious subtilety It is more proper to say I receieve a gift by my hand then to say my hand receives it of the same stamp with another where it is said that Scripture sayes That we are justified by faith yet denyed that Scripture sayes that faith justifies But be it so that is properer does not Scripture speak as improperly Eye hath not seen Eare hath not heard It had been as much properer to have said No man hath seen with his eye or heard with his ear I quote Ephes 3.17 Christ dwells in us by faith and Gal. 3.14 We receive the promise of the Spirit through faith There I say Scripture speaks of faith as the souls instrument to receive Christ Jesus and to receive the Spirit from Christ Jesus and I am answered You odly change the question we are speaking of faiths instrumentality in receiving a right to Christ or Christ in relation and you go about to prove the reception of his Spirit or graces really or himself objectively and so we have a large discourse of Christs dwelling in us But is it not to the purpose to shew that the phrase by faith notes instrumentality which these texts make good and does not Christ dwell in us to more purposes then one Is it not to all purposes that by faith we receive him And then our receiving right to him is not here excluded I said the instrumentality of it in the work of justification is denyed because the nature of an instrument as considered in Physical operations doth not exactly belong to it which if it must be alwayes rigidly followed will often put us to a stand in the assignation of causes of any kind in moral actions To this is replyed I said 1. The action of the principal cause and of the instrument is but one action is not this true of moral operation as well as Physical To this I answer I think here some demurre might be put and scarce believe that it will be fully made good that the action of the principal agent and the instruments which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are alwayes exactly one though the act of the instrument may be in such cases Interpretatively called the act of the principal agent as David is said to have slain Vriah with the sword of the Ammonites Saul I am sure was of an other mind when intending the death of David he said Let not my hand be upon him but the hand of the Philistines 1 Sam. 18.17 But in case it be granted what hath he gained He adds 2. I say the instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the principal cause by a proper causality that is in suo geneâ—e Demanding Is not this true of moral operations as well as Physical Then yeelding that it is true Moral causes may be said to have a lesse proper causation then Physical c. And this lesse proper causation I doubt not but may be found in faith and as proper a causation as an instrument of this nature will bear I say The material and formal causes in justification are scarce agreed upon and no marvel then in case men mind to contend about it that some question is raised about the instrument c. To this there is much spoke telling me what he would have me to have concluded
justification and consequently with him Faith is the instrument So also Determinat 37. pag. 165. (g) Huic fiduciae in Christum mediatorem tribuimus instrumentalem vim justificandi potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris Quia constat eo modo justificari homines quo gloria divina maximè illustretur honor salutis nostrae ad solum Deum referatur Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus statuunt hominem justifioari in justificationis negotio gloriam salutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt sed merito suo aliquâ ex parte adscribunt We attribute saith he this instrumentall power of justification to this trust in Christ the Mediator rather then to any other act of sinning man because it is manifest that men are justified that way by which the glory of God may be most illustrated and the honour of our salvation given to God alone But they that affirm that man is justified by other vertues or works do not leave the whole glory of man's savation in justification alone to God but ascribe some part unto themselves You are highly displeased with all those that will have no other condition of our justification at the day of judgement then affiance in Christ's righteousness If you allow faith to begin it yet you will have works at any hand to perfect it Here he is as full as anywhere against you Quoting two passages out of Hilary Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make use anon he thus expresseth himself (h) Solent Jesuitae justificationem fidei ascribere sed non solo Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius quando dicit Sola fides justificat Initium etiam justificationis fidei tribuunt sed non consummationem Atille longè aliter justum fides consummat Jesuites are wont to ascribe justification to faith but not to faith alone Hilary taxes this error when he saith Faith alone justifies They attribute saith he the beginning of justification to faith but not the consummation But Hilary far otherwise Faith consummates the just We have heard your sense of the danger of that opinion That faith in Christ as giving himself in Satisfaction for us is alone the justifying act And we shall hear how confident you are that all antiquity is against it as against the instrumentality of faith in justification and the interest of works as consummate in judgement If you please to read Davenants 37. Determinat You shall see him as fully against you as Chemnitius Amesius Prideaux Bernard Anselmus or any other that you can look upon as your greatest adversaries My third argument to assert this position laid down Sect. 2. of this Postscript he there makes his first which I saw not till I was come hither else I might have made other use of it And see how he expresses himself pag. 164. (i) Jam quod spectat ad pro prium illud speciale objectum in quod fides respicit eo ipso articulo quo accipit justificationem à Deo certum est in historicâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non posse animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remissionem Vnde Aquinas In ipsâ justificatione peccatoris non est necesse ut cogitentur caeteri articuli sed solum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens Deinde in mandatis comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc speciale objectum Nam talis consideratio ex se nihil gignit quam terrores c. Restant igitur dulces promissiones Evangelicae de favore gratuitâ peccati remissione per propter Mediatorem in quas dum fides respicit peccator fiduciam concipit in hunc oblatum sibi Mediatorem recumbit divinae misericordiae se justificandum subjicit atque inde justificationis beneficium protinùs consequitur Now as to that speciall proper object at which faith looks in that very instant in which it receives justification from God it is certain that the guilty soul can not find remission of sins in the historicall narrative of creation or providence Whence Aquinas In the justification of a sinner it is not necessary that other articles be thought upon but that God be thought upon pardoning sin And in the commands and threats of the Law this speciall object is much less found For this consideration begets nothing else but terrors c. Therefore the sweet Evangelicall promises of the favour and free pardon of sin by and for the mediatour onely remain upon which whil'st faith looks the sinner conceives hope relies upon this mediator offered to him yields himself to divine mercy for justification and thereby attains the benefit of justification And this he backs with three Arguments You tell me Apol. p. 24. It must needs be known that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his Righteousness which he gives in remission Giving in your reasons To which in their due place I have spoke And you may see Davenant as full against you here as any where ca. 23. de Justit habit p. 317. (k) Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei quae applicat nobis Christi justitiam non ut nostra fiat per modum infusionis aut inhaesionis sed per modum imputationis Atque demiror Papist as non posse intelligere quomodo per fidem Christi justitia nobis applicetur qui putant se intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Christi sanctorum merita sive vivis sive mortuis assigentur We are said to receive this gift by the hand of faith which applies to us the righteousness of Christ not that it should be made ours way of infusion or inhesion but by way of imputation And I wonder saith he that Papists cannot understand how the righteousness of Christ is applied to us by faith who think that they understand how by the Popes indulgencies the merits of Christs and the Saints are applied to the quick and dead As also chap. 28. p. 371. (l) Nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reipsa Christo debetur There is nothing more usual then to ascribe that to the cause applying which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed Therefore because faith apprehends and applies the righteousness of Christ to us that is attributed to faith that indeed is due to Christ Where we plainly see that according to him Faith applies the righteousness of Christ and that it is an applying cause and what cause except instrumentall I cannot imagine Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpose But this is enough to let us see that there is not any so fair and full accord between you And if I should be put to name two
that good work are not necessary to Salvation but onely by a necessity of presence lib. 4. de justit cap. 7. That necessity by his confession Protestants then acknowledge and he intends justification as is plain by the Subject he hath in hand Here then is nothing peculiar to faith to be meerly conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non Nâ—ither can we ascribe any more noble causality as to be a formall or meritorious cause as needs not to be proved The asserting of justification by faith therefore denotes that which we make an instrument in justification Now that the Antients assert that we are justified alone by faith putting in that exclusive particle that Papists are wont to say is not in Scriptures nor Fathers may be made good 1. By manifold authorities asserting it 2. By multitude of quotations Our Book of Homilies having quoted severall Scripture-Texts for justification by faith alone addes And after this-wise to be justified onely by this true and lively faith in Christ speaketh all the old and Antient Authors both Greek and Latine Ser. of Salvation par 2. pag. 16. And the Rhemists charging Protestants to foist the word onely into the Text in Rom. 3.28 Fulk replies You were best to charge all the Antient Fathers which use this term of whom we have received it to be Foysters and excluders of the Sacraments and good works The particle alone by faith in the article of justification was not first devised by us saith Chemnitius but was alwayes used with great consent in all Antiquity as examples out of the writings of the Fathers do demonstrate which sentences of the Fathers saith he are gathered by Robert Barnes Aepinus Bullinger Otho Corberus c. Loc. de justif pag. 772. Octavo And Chamier Panstrat Cathol Tom. 3. lib. 22. c. 5. having quoted Scripture that faith alone justifieth concludes so the Scripture is cleer with us The Fathers in order are to be reckoned up by me before I examine the exceptions of adversaries The induction of quotations yet remaines and I had it in my thoughts to have set down the words themselves which for the most part are very express but I find that that would be tedious to my self and wearisome to the Reader and divers of the Authors quoted to my hands I have not I shall content my self therefore to poynt out the Authors quoting them and the places quoted Ambrose in Roman 1. Rom. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 20. 1 Cor. 1. Galat. 1. Galat. 3. and Sermon 45. if it be Ambroses is quoted by Chemnitius in the place mentioned who sayes that Ambrose repeats that exlusive particle onely fifteen times By Eckhardus Compend Theol. lib. 2. cap. 3. pag. 391. By Chamier loco citato Hilary lib 6. de Trinit Can. 8. in Matth. 21. is quoted by Chemnitius ibid. Fulk in Rom. 3.28 Chamier ibid. Davenant and Prideaux lect 5. Hieron in Rom. 4. Rom. 10. in Galat. 2. Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus ibid. Origen lib. 3. in Rom. cap. 3. and lib. 4. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus and Chamier ibid. Chrysostome in 1. Cor. 1 Rom. 3. Hom. 7. in Tit. 2. Hom. 3. Rom. 4. Hom. 8. Galat. 3. Serm. de side lege naturae is quoted by Chamier Eckhardus Fulk Davenant de Justit habit cap. 29. pag. 378. and Prideaux Lect. 5. pag. 164. Athanasius Orat. contra Arrianos is quoted by Eckhardus ibid. Basil Hom. de humil 51. is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier Davenant ibid. Nazianzen Orat. 22.26 is quoted by Fulk Eckhardus Chamier ibid. Theodoret in Rom. 3. Ephes 2. is quoted by Eckhardus as also Therapeuticon Sept. by Chamier Bernard Serm. 22. in Cant. Epist 27. is quoted by Chamier Eckhardut Isychius in Levit. 14. lib. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Theophilact in Galat. 3. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Sedulius in Rom. 3. Rom. 4. is quoted by Chamier and Chemnitius Primasius in Rom. 4. Rom. 8. is quoted by Chamier and Eckhardus Victor Mar. lib. 3. in Gens is quoted by Eckhard Fulk in Rom. 4. Petrus Chrysologus Ser. 34. Prosper Aquitan Epigram 9. are quoted by Chamier Ruffinus is quoted by Fulk Beda in Psal 77. pag. 71. by Davenant and Bp Vsher de statu success Eccles cap. 2. pag. 46. Gennadius in Rom. 3. Haymo in Rom. 1. Lyra in Galat. 3. Gloss Ordinaria in Epist Jac. is quoted by Chemnitius Theodolius in Rom. 3. Fortunatus in Expos Symboli Epiphanius in Ancor Phylast in Catal. Irenaeus adversus Haeres lib. 4. Haeres 5. Maxentius de fide are quoted by Eckhardus And because Papists say that Austin uses not this exclusive particle onely therefore Chemnitius tells us that it is used by him in Serm. Quadrages as also in his exposition of these words Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness which is in his 68. Serm. de tempore lin 1. also Tractat. 8. Tractat. 42. in Johan Contra duas Epistol Petil. lib. 3. Serm. 40. de verbis domini Chamier addes In octoginta tribus quaestionibus Quaest 76. Exposit in Galat. 3. Chemnitius having quoted these testimony that I have mentioned under his name addes we may then truly say with Erasmus that this word sole which is followed with so great clamours in this age in Luther is reverently read and heard in the Fathers So that we see a peculiar interest that faith hath in justification which belongs to no other grace And therefore it is no wonder that you who forsake all the reformed Churches that unanimously make it an instrument in justification are at such a stand as you are in Conclus 29. and 30. of your Confession what office in justification to assign to it you confess you cannot hit upon the true and full difference in the point of Conditionality in this work between saith and obedience which is no marvail seeing you oppose that which is indeed the difference and Faiths peculiar office which is the instrumentall interesting us in Christ by way of acceptation or apprehension as Isychius in the place quoted saith Sola fide apprehenditur non ex operibus The grace viz. of justification is apprehended by faith and not by works which is as plain a testimony as may be for the instrumentality of this grace Chemnitius yet further notes the way that Papists take to evade these testimonies Objecting that the Antients used that particle sole otherwise then we do and returns his answer 1. That they use the word sole or alone to exclude all other sects intending no more but that it is alone the Christian Faith and not the Jewish or Turkish that leads to Justification and Salvation And this rule Franc. à Sancta Clara produces from Vega Pag. 191. with no other approbation but that it is sometimes true and Chemnitius quite overthrowes it making it appear that when the Fathers speak of the application apprehension or acceptation of remission of sins by Faith they still
cause be prejudiced by my weaknesse He asigns me to the party of those that he calls Reformers pag. 16. on what party himself stands it is easie then to determine Having said that these things are to be more accurately considered he expresses himself without any one title of Scripture in eight particulars I shall as briefly as I can take notice of the sum of them Mr Faxters eight heads taken into consideration 1. It must be known that the righteousnesse given to us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous for accidents perish being removed from the subject but it is a righteousness merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience for us Here we have a negation with its reasons and an opposite affirmation without any reason at all The negation is That the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous The reason is Accidents perish being removed from the subject and therefore the righteousnesse given us is not the righteousnesse whereby Christs person was righteous impliying that the reformed party take righteousnesse for justification out of Christ and leave him belike without any righteousnesse and put it into themselves and so as Christ was before so now they are inherently righteous He well knowes that they hold that it is still in Christ and of grace reckoned to be ours and therefore that of accidents perishing needed not an opinion which he vehemently opposeth in his Preface to his Confession If Christ onely saith he were righteous Christ onely would be reputed and judged righteous and Christ onely would be happy The Judge of the world will not justifie the unrighteous meerly because another is righteous nor can the holy Ghost take complacency in an unholy sinner because another is holy And yet himself holds That the Judge of the world will not onely take an infant born under the defilement of sin into Covenant as holy but also justifie him though in his opinion uncapable of any real change by the Spirit barely upon the account of the parents state in grace through regeneration We cannot be righteous through Christs righteousnesse notwithstanding we know that in the Gospel of grace it is reckoned ours and by faith have our interest Yet an infant is righteous by the parents rigteousnesse Notwithstanding we read not of any such imputation or any such way of interest by faith or otherwise I must crave leave to hold to the former which he leaves though not with his but Scripture comment upon it God does not justifie us meerly because another is righteous but because Christ is made of God to us righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1.30 and is Jehovah our righteousnesse Jer. 23.6 And to leave the latter which he holds I believe neither regeneration nor justification to be from Parent to child ex Traduce In which sense that holds Nemo nascitur sed fit Christianus I choose rather with Walaeus to subscribe to the opinion of Calvin lib. 4. instit cap. 16. Sect. 20. That Infants are baptized into future Repentance and faith which he saies is the opinion of most other Authors I believe Mr. Baxter chiefly took up this opinion of justification of infants tanquam Apendices parentum for Amiraldus his sake who had it from Camero Amiraldus qui nihil Cameronis imitatur preter naevos idem dicit and was his follower as aged and reverend Molinaeus saith in nothing but his blemishes And I would not have so good a friend and eminent ornament to the Church to make either of them in these his precedents The affirmation is that it is a righteousnesse merited by Christs satisfaction and obedience Here is a Proposition delivered with very little accuratenesse 1. The righteousnesse given is here distinguished from his obedience when certainly this obedience is that which is given to us By the obedience of one many shall be made righteous Rom. 5.29 2. Christs satisfaction and obedience are here distinguished when his satisfaction was his obedience Joh. 10.18 Phil. 2. 3. His satisfaction is distinguished from this righteousnesse when I think it is plain that it self is righteousnesse Christs own as a Redeemer Ours as redeemed ones when Christ had taken upon him our sins he had not stood righteous in Gods sight without a discharge and this discharge is our acquittal and deliverance Queries put concerning this righteousnesse 4. We hear not whence this righteousnesse thus merited is where it resides and how made ours Is it a righteousnesse by a new Creation as the light was once made to shine out of darknesse was it put immediately into Christ or given immediately to us which seems to be Mr. Baxters thoughts to avoid perishing of accidents Is it one gift indefinitely at once for all or to all or is it given particularly numerically individually Is it made ours without us or by us If it be made ours whether is it by our acceptation through faith or ability merited for us to work it and so Christ merited that we might merit 2. It must needs be known saith he that the faith which is the justifying condition is terminated on Christ himself as the object and not on his righteousnesse which he gives us in remission remission or rigteousnesse may be the end of the sinner in receiving Christ but righteousnesse or remission is not the object received by that act which is made the condition of justification or at least but a secondary more remote object c. In this whole piece we have an affirmation a negation a concession and illustration Our Faith being terminated on Christ it is terminated on righteousnesse For the affirmation that faith is terminated on Christ we grant but that it is not therefore terminated on the righteousnesse which he gives in remission for remission I think was intended we are to learn And when it is granted that remission is the end which is ill confounded with righteousnesse one being the cause the other the effect it must be granted that a righteous Christ is the object and that Christ is received upon account of his righteousnesse were not this an accurate way of distinguishing to say that a man ready to perish with cold goes to the fire and not to heat for warmth The heart ready to perish with thirst goeth to the water and not to moisture If the soul ready to perish in unrighteousnesse goes to Christ for righteousnesse his faith cannot be terminated on Christ but it must be terminated on righteousnesse as the eye cannot be fixed on the sunne but it must be fixed on light We are holpen with a similitude As a woman doth not marry a mans riches but the man Though it may be her end in marrying the man to be enriched by him nor is her receiving his riches the condition of her first Legal right to them but her taking the man for her husband If Christ and righteousnesse were separable as a man and riches are this simile might be to
in the first gives interest in all All the promises of God in Christ being Yea and Amen 2 Cor. 1.19 6. It must be remembred saith he that the thing that faith receives naturally and properly is not Christ himself or his righteousnesse but the species of what is represented as its object And that faiths reception of Christ himself and his righteousnesse or of right to him is but receptio metaphorica vel actio ad receptionem propriam necessaria and that the true reception which is pati non agere doth follow faith And therefore Christ himself is received onely Receptione fide ethicâ activâ metaphoricâ species Christi praedicati recipitur receptione naturali intelligendo Jus ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passivâ propriâ Mr. Baxters friend let him know that he understood not his former I would I had acquaintance with him to help me in this for if he had not understood him here he would likely have said as much as before unlesse perhaps his modesty would not suffer him to be so much on the excepting hand That which I think I do understand I know not how to make to agree who would not here think but it were the natural property or act of faith to receive the species of Christ yet Sect. 10. pag. 2. he saith that every other grace that hath Christ for his object is thus far an instrument of receiving him that is the species of him as he expresses himselfe as well as faith but none so properly as knowledge which also he here as we see repeates species Christi praedicati recipitur receptione naturali intelligendo So that faith lesse properly and not so naturally receives him Knowledge in this hath the preeminence who would not think from these words that it were proper and peculiar to believers thus to receive Christ yet in the place quoted pag. 22. it is said that he thus dwells in every wicâ—ed man that thus thinketh of him It seemes then that Judas in his thoughts to betray Christ did as much to this receiving of him if not more then others in believing of him It is there said that doubtlesse he doth not dwell in that deep and special manner as in his chosen yet if it be most properly by knowledge that he thus dwells then they that know most have the most deep indwelling and that is more in devils then in some if not any chosen ones The reception of Christ himself his righteousnesse or of right to Christ is here confest to be an act of saith and who but Mr. Baxter would look for a more true reception yet the true reception which is pati non agere doth follow faith and though the believer receive the actual efficacious gift yet it is not his faith that receiveth it as we have in the close of the Paragraph In his English he sayes that faiths reception of Christ himself or of right to Christ is but receptio metaphorica and opposed to true reception which is pati non agere In his Latine he saith Jus ad Christum recipitur receptione naturali passiva propria faith with him is an acceptance of a freely given Christ and life in him yet a believer receives the efficacious giving but his faith doth not receive it I would mind Mr. Baxter of that rule of his own Vbi lex non distinguit c. and where he meets with these distinctions in the Word of God I know not and he goes not about to make known Scripture speaks of receiving Christ and not the species of Christ onely Scripture tells us of receiving Christ by faith and not of the species onely which an unsanctified knowledge without faith may reach The Species of Christ can neither justifie us nor purifie us nor yet give victory over the world nor make resistance against Satan yet all this through faith Christ doth and therefore faith doth not receive the bare species if we could be content with Gospel-simplicity truth might stand and these distinction be laid aside 7. The great thing therefore that I would desire to be observed is this that though faith were an instrument of the aforesaid objective or of the ethical metaphorical reception of Christ which yet is not properly being ipsa receptio yet it is not therefore the insturmental cause of the passive proper reception of right to Christ or righteousnesse Whether we have not that again here denyed which before was asserted let the Reader judge However Reasons are given of it Faith is an instrument of the proper reception of Christ 1. In the negative Of this saith he it is onely the condition and not the proper instrument with an objection prevented in a parenthesis I shall shew hereafter that it is impossible to be both I shall wait therefore till this be shewen for I despair I confesse ever to see such impossibility I know an instrument quâ instrument differs from a condition quâ a condition but that one and the same thing is in an utter incapacity to be both an instrument and an instrumental condition I do not believe I may give a man a piece of money with a proviso that he take it in a sawcer or a pair of tonges this now is the condition yet the tonges or sawcers are his instruments to receive it Faith doth more then morally qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified 2. We have a positive reason It doth morally qualifie the subject to be a fit patient to be justified as Mr. Benjamin Woodbridge saith truly in his excellent Sermon of Justification I have not this Sermon though I know that he hath often applauded it but how excellent soever I had rather have had a quotation out of John's Gospel or Paul's Peters or Johns Epistles And if he affirm that which is here quoted out of him as I do not question I hope to dye in a different opinion from him This subject that is onely morally qualified to be a fit patient to be justified is not yet in possession of Christ of life by Christ Mr. Baxter is morally qualified for the degree of Doctor and yet he is no Doctor was morally qualified to be called by the State for consultation about Religion when as yet he was not called and might have dyed and never have been called but faith puts into an actual possession of Christ and Justification by him By him all that believer are justified from all things I should rather take Humiliation Conviction Compunction soul-emptinesse to be such moral qualification as is here mentioned and this I have learnt from our Saviour Matth. 11.28 Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy-laden and I will give you rest Such are morally qualified for the justified mans rest â—nd peace And more fully in the Parable Luk. 18. the Publ cane that came not with a list of vertues as the Pharisee did but was so clogged with sin that he stood afar off from
I desire Mr. Baxter to take into consideration that Text of the Apostle Rom. 8.3 What the Law could not do in that it was weakned through the flesh c. And whether he understand it respective to sanctification which is not agreed upon among Interpreters to give his Reader satisfaction Quomodo patitur Lex in hac debilitatione Quid patitur ut fi at impotens et inefficax Quomodo haec impotentia inefficacia fuit in carne utrum eminenter an formaliter Quomodo agit Caro in hoc influxu debilitativo in legem And I doubt not but I may as easily answer his Queries in order to the vindication of my assertion as he may mine in vindication of that which the Apostle delivers Answering the last all is indeed answered Caro agit injiciendo obices remoras Quo minus Lex operatur in corde hominis Spiritus agit per fidem ut causa removens impedimentum E medio tollens obices remoras istas Incitando potenter inclinando animam in amplexum promissionis divinae I desire also his full Comment on the Apostles words 2 Cor. 3.6 Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament not of the Letter but of the Spirit for the Letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life with a satisfying answer to all like Quaeries that thence may be made I suppose he will grant that they are able Ministers of the New Testament no otherwise then in preaching the Gospel and when the bare Scripture as Tremelius reads it is of power onely to kill we may demand how the Gospel suffers in receiving any such quickening power from the Spirit And indeed the Gospel suffers not but the soul in receiving power to answer the Gospels call whether to Justification oâ— sanctification And that the Spirit makes use of faith in this quickening power I think will not be denyed seeing the Apostle tells us The life that I live in the flesh is by faith in the Son of God Faith therefore hath its hand in the Spirits quickening work and he addes Sure you do not take the foregoing words for proof adding What though onely believers are justified by the Covenant doth it follow that faith gives efficacy and power to the Covenant to justifie then either there are no conditions or causae sine quibus non or else they are all efficients and give efficacy and power to other efficients I confesse those words taken by themselves in that sense as he may fancy and the words in themselves may bear will not come up to a full proof Justification may be restrained onely to believers and yet faith have no hand in it but seeing other Scriptures give an efficiency to faith in this work some of them speaking of it as Gods instrument Rom. 3.30 most of them as mans we may well then know that Scripture holds it not out as any such naked condition To others the Gospel-grant lyes dead to these through faith it is effectuall There is added Your terms of faiths giving power through the Spirit tell me that sure you still look at the wrong act of the Gospel not at its moral act of conveyance or donation but at its reall operation on mans heart I do look at the act of the Gospel as its real operation on mans heart and yet I look at the right act of it The Gospel is an instrument to justifie by the intervening act of faith according to Protestants and by the intervening work of sanctification according to Papists and according to both there is a real work on the soul necessary to put into a posture for Justification All know that Divines distinguish between redemption wrought by Christ and the application of it Redemption is the proper work of the Son but Application they ascribe to the Spirit a Hinc Pater Filius mittere dicuntur Spiritum ad applicationem istam perficiendam The Father and the Son are said saith Amesius to send the Spirit to perfect this application Medull Theol. Cap. 24. Sect. 5. And whereas I am told that neither Scripture nor Divines use to say that the Gospel remitteth sin or justifieth by the Spirit nor doth the Spirit otherwise do it then by inditing the Gospel c. Though I own not this phrase that is here put upon me and I might expect so much priviledge as to be Master of my own words yet I would have it taken into further consideration whether Divines use his language or mine or whether they judge not that tâ—â—e the right act of the Gospel for pardon of sin which I mention The Leyden Divines having spoke of the application of the righteousnesse of Christ Disp 33. Sect. 21. have these words Sect 24. b Haec applicatio in nobis fit à Spiritu sancto 1 Cor. 6.11 dono scilicet fidei Ipse enim eam per Ministerium Evangelii Quod Ministerium Spiritûs dicitur 2 Cor. 3.8 ingenerat ac verbo suo ac Sacramentis confirmat auget Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5.5 Unde Spiritus fidei dicitur 2 Cor. 4.13 quâ Deum ut gratiosum Christum ut redemptorem ejusque justitiam ex eâ vitam aeternam apprehendimus Joan. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 This application in us is made by the holy Spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 viz. by the gift of faith For he works it by the Ministery of the Gospel which is called the Ministery of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3.8 and encreases it by his Word and Sacraments Phil. 1.29 Gal. 5 5. From whence it is called the Spirit of faith 2 Cor. 4.13 whereby we apprehend God as gracious Christ as Redeemer and his righteousnesse and from it everlasting life Joh. 1.12 Rom. 9.30 And Sect. 25. This application on our part is made by faith Rom. 5.1 Acts 26.18 A parte nostrâ fide Rom. 5.2 Actor 26.18 ex fide per fidem Ro. 3.30 Justistficamur justificat nos Deus By faith and through faith Rom. 3.30 We are justified and God justified us with much more to that purpose And Ravanellus in verbum justificatio speaking of the instrument of justification saith it is either outward or inward c Causa instrumentalis externa verbum Dei Sâ—cramenta ut patet ex Rom. 4.11 ubi circumcisio appellatur s gillum justitiae fidei nam verbum Dei Sacramenta sunt organa per quae Deus nos vocat per quae operatur conservat ac auget in nobis fidem obsignatque in cordibus nostris gratiam justificationis atque adeo Ministri Ecclesiae alii qui docent nos viam salutis Dan. 12.3 The outward instrumental cause he saith is the Word of God and the Sacraments as appears from Rom. 4.11 where circumcision is called the seal of the righteousnesse of faith for saith he the Word of God and Sacraments are instruments by which God doth call and by which he works preserves and encreases faith in us and seals in
of them I confess I have not seen as Polycarp Tatianus Macarius Athenagoras Vigilius as I have severall others that you mention not and I would fayne see what they have either for or against the Protestant belief Those that have not treated at all on this subject as in some of them that you name I am told by Dr. Prideaux that Christ is scarce mentioned or have spoken upon it only be the by are as much as nothing their names might as well have been spared as mentioned Mr. T. hath done as much for his Antipadobaptism in naming some of the Antients that never appeared for Infant-Baptism when they have not at all spoken to it and their contemporaries have asserted it 6. Whether the present Church of this age in which we live taking in our Fathers that lived within this happy 150. years since the Romish yoke hath been cast off be not as considerable and as much to be heeded in this controversie as all of those in your list mentioned if you should put in yet more to encrease so far as names could do it both weight and number They were subject to error and humane frailty as well as the Church that is and of late was They were not able to decide their own Controversies but laboured as well as we under contentions and divisions they were seldome unanimous but often at difference not only with others but themselves Nay have not our Writers the far greater advantage 1. Being far above yours in number go through Protestant Learned Writers within this Compasse of time and we shall find your List of names far exceeded 2. They have fully debated the cause and in publick Assemblies determined it in Confessions openly professed it Considered of and answered arguments against it turning over every stone to find out the truth in it so it cannot be said of the Fathers in your List mentioned and Nil tam certum quam quod ex dubio certum The Fathers that wrote before Pelagius have not been thought of that account nor so meet Judges in the point of Grace and Freewill having no adversary and therefore spake more loosly as Austin Prosper Fulgentius and those that followed who were by the adversary put upon the study of it Quid opus est ut eorum scrutemur opuscula qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur non haebuerunt necessitatem in hâc aifficili ad solvendum quaestione versari quod proculdubio facerent si respondere talibus cogerentur The greatest Doctors at some times saith Dr. Fr. White Treat of the Sabb. p. 89. before Errors and Heresies are openly defended are not neither can be so circumspect in their writing as to avoid all forms and expressions all sentences and propositions all and every tenet which in after times may yield advantage to the adversaries of truth Quoting Austin de Praed Sanct. cap. 14. To what purpose should we search into their works which before this heresie arose had not need to busie themselves in the answer of this difficult question which doubtless they had done if they had been put to deal with such adversaries This we may fitly apply to this point of justification we are beholding the opposites of it for a more industrious fifting of it and more cleer light in it Paul had never spoke so much to assert a resurrection had there been none in that age that had denyed it Hâ—d not Popish School-men perverted the doctrine of justification Protestant Divines had never appeared with that zeal and fervor of Spirit in it And the Fathers doubtless had been more exact in their Treatises of this point had they seen it as we have done perverted and abused 7. If Fathers and all Antiquity were so abhorrent from the instrumentality of faith in justification How is it probable that any singularly verst in Antiquity so as to have few parallels and no way affected to the Protestant doctrine in the point of justification but averse from it and siding with the adversary should own the instrumentality of faith and argue for it if Antiquity were so averse from it he that takes it up is sure either ignorant in Antiquity or much engaged in his affections to the Protestant party But such there have been that can neither be challenged as ignorant nor suspected for partiall engagement that yet assert the instrumentality of faith witness Bp. Montague In whatsoever he hath otherwise been thought defective and detected by Bp. Carleton Dr. Featley and others yet he hath ever been of eminent name for an Antiquary For his averseness to the Protestant Doctrine of justication let not onely his adversaries speak that have appeared against him but Sanct. Clara our adversary who Problem 26. quotes Montagues Appeal Chap. 6. to prove the justification of a sinner consists in the inward work of grace inherent agreeable as he sayes with the holy definition of the Councill of Trent Now that this great Antiquary and friend of our adversaries appears for the instrumentality of faith in the work of justification see his Appeal cap. 9. part 2. putting it into his title that God doth justifie originally and faith instrumentall and reasoneth for it in the Chapter it self These things being prâ—mised as to the first concerning the Instrumentality of Faith Proofs from antiquity for the instrumentality of faith I thus argue They that are for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all whatsoever else in man they are for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification But Antiquity is very large for justification alone by faith without limit or distinction as excluding all in man except faith in this work Therefore Antiquity is for that which we call the instrumentality of faith in justification Here the Proposition is first to be proved and then the Assumption The Proposition I â—hus prove To be justified by faith alone plainly holds forth somewhat peculiar to faith which is not found in any other grace this none can deny and you confess pag. 96. of your Confession Conclus 29. But nothing else can be faiths peculiar work distinct from other graces but to be an instrument in this work This is cleer This peculiar work or office of faith must be either to be an instrument in this work or else a Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non or else somewhat more noble then all of these as the formal meritorious cause c. But it s peculiar office cannot be meerly to be Conditio cum quâ or causa sine quâ non both these equally belong to the works of Sanctification Though they be all present together saith our Book of homilies yet they do not justifie together pag. 15. At the same instant that God justifies saith Davenant he infuses inhaerent grace which yet he denies to be any cause but an Appendix to our justification de Justit habit cap. 23. pag. 315. Bellarmine sayes That Protestants agree in this