it self Twisse is as clear I think as any Nec inquit minùs efficax esse dicimus decretum Dei de Permissione Mali quam de Effectione Boni 1. I make Voluntas Signi as put for Signum Voluntatis to be but metaphorically Voluntas yet I hold that there is Voluntas propriè dicta quae Signo indicatur 2. When I say so far forth as the Signum is praeceptum it is only as you might see to shew that Volunt as Signi not Signum Voluntatis but voluntas cujus signum est Praeceptum is the same with that which you call Will of Precept 3. If Dr. Twisse do not extend it to the whole Law but only to Precept it may be he had not occasion to extend it further Neither do you speak so fully in your Aphorisms as in this Writing You mention indeed Legislative Will but so as to call it also Praeceptive and to make the Object of it our Duty Aphor. pag. 4. 4. That he doth take notice of the Immanent Will de debito whereof Praeceptum is Signum is clear by the words which I cited viz. Precepta non indicant quid Deus velit esse Nostri Officii c. Yea your self here say p. 4. That he makes Praecipere Vetare to be the Objects of God's Will and that this clearly implies that he took in the Immanent Acts of which they were the Objects You add indeed That he so often contradicteth it by speaking otherwise that you doubt it fell from him ex improviso but I see no cause for any such surmise 1. Those words of yours to bestow good upon a Man I know not how I omitâ—ed perhaps because I thought there was no need of expressing them For however they must be understood because God's Word and Truth is else ingaged in a Threatning as well as in a Promise 2. You say Append. p. 48. That the absolute promise of a New Heart is made to wicked Men where you seem to speak of a Promise properly taken as distinct from Prophesie or Prediction Yet Aphor. p. 9. you say That Absolute Promises are but meer Predictions so that you seem not well reconciled to your self But you best know your own meaning only I think it meet that you express it so as that none may have occasion to stumble at it I see indeed that you call it Legislative Will But 1. you make Legislative and Preceptive both one and make the Object of it Man's Duty Aphor. p. 4. So that you rather seem to restrain the word Legislative by the word Preceptive than to enlarge the word Preceptive by the word Legislative 2. When you take the word Legislative largely you make Precept and Promise distinct parts of it So that still it is strange to me that you should say That Promises fall under the Will of Purpose not of Precept For if the Will of Precept be taken strictly and properly it is superfluous to say That Promises do not fall under the Will of Precept Neither on the other side is it true if the Will of Precept be taken largely and improperly viz. for the whole Legislative Will which doth contain both Precept and Promise These two Questions as you now make them you comprise in one Aphorism p. 15. and equally determine of both For you say That the Life promised in the First Covenant was in the judgment of most Divines to whom you incline only the continuance of that Estate that Adam was in in Paradise So that according to this Opinion Adam was both to have continued in the same place and also in the same Estate I think still he should have been changed in respect of both In Adamo inquit Barlous omnes in universum homines jus ad Coelum habebant si ipse stetissâ—â— ipsum Coelum unusquisque habuisset adeò ut jus ad Coelum in Adamo habuimus primaevum à Christo jus rest tutum Adam's continuance in the same Estate is most clearly expressed by those whom you seem to follow and how then can you say That you did not meddle with that Question And if he were to continue in the same Estate no question he was also to continue in the same Place For Heaven is no place for such an Estate as Adam had in Paradise I shall wonder if any will be so bold as to affirm That Adam was Created in Patriâ and not in Viâ How was he to be tryed by his Obedience if he were not Viator but Comprehensor It seems also strange that any doubt should be made whether Adam being Created after the Image and Likeness of God were capable of Heavenly Blessedness The Reasons which I alleadged notwithstanding any thing you say against them seem cogent 1. By the Second Death you might see I meant not the same degree yet the same kind of punishment The Scripture seems to speak of several degrees of Hell-Torment yet all is called the Second Death And this Second Death viz. Hell-Torment Adam by his sin became liable unto therefore if he had not sinned he should have enjoyed a Life directly opposite to that Death viz. Coelestial Glory The perpetual Death which Adam without a Saviour should have suffered was not a perpetual abiding in the Estate of Death viz. a perpetual separation of Soul and Body or a meer privation of that Life he had before his Fall but an enduring of eternal Torment and so consequently the Life promised upon condition of Obedience was not a perpetuating of his earthly Life but the fruition of Heavenly Happiness 2. I grant God was able to change Adam's State not changing his Place but it seems rather that both should have been changed And though we know not the Nature of the Life to come yet we know it is not such a Life as Adam had in Paradise to Eat Drink Marry c. 3. It is not in vain to say How in an ordinary way of Providence should there have been room for Men upon Earth if Adam and his Posterity still increasing and multiplying in infinitum should there have continued for ever Your Friend and mine Mr. Blake having urged this Argument seems to enervate it when he hath done saying But a thousand of these God can expedite when we are at a stand But yet that without a Miracle it could be done he doth not say and he there professedly opposeth you in this Point Whereas you add Especially seeing God knew there would be no place for such difficulties I know not to what purpose it is For the Opinion which I impugn doth suppose that upon which such difficulties do arise 4. How should Paradise be a Type of Heaven if Man should never have come to Heaven If Heaven had not belonged unto him upon condition of his Obedience Whereas you say That you little know where or what that Paradise was I do not well know what you mean By that Paradise I suppose you understand as I
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
20. There is Ira Paterna Castigans as well as Ira Hostilis Exterminans Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are which you say I almost repeat I do not know I expressed mine own sence in mine own words and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger and say That there is no Hatred though there be Anger My chief design in those Animadversions was That in your Second Edition which you promised you might have occasion if not to confirm your Assertions yet to clear your Expressions I know you oppose their sence that so distinguish but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit if you say that you do not I am satisfied Your words were of Affliction as Affliction therefore of Affliction in general You say Aphor. p. 70. The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment c. But you confess now that you should have said Chastisement and so I have my desire in this Particular viz. your better expression God is not the Father of the Unregenerate though Elect in respect of Actual Adoption But you know that Ephes 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons c. God having loved such with an everlasting Love viz. Benevolentiae though not Complacentiae no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion viz. in order to their Conversion But you know I speak of Reprobates and that it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated Whether that import the Election of Jacob and the Reprobation of Esau I now dispute not but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect and his hatred of the Reprobate Deus omnes homines diligit inquit Aquinas etiam omnes Creaturas in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum non tamen quadcunque bonum vult omnibus In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna dicitur eos odio habere reprobare Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se suâ naturâ and so I think do they against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms but though Suffering as Suffering be evil yet as Sanctified it is not evil It is good for me that I was afflicted Psal 119. 71. Afflictions were then indeed to be loved if they were good of their own Nature but being only good as sanctified we are not simply to desire them but a sanctified use of them and in that respect to rejoice in them Jam. 1 2 3. Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus That which worketh for our good c. Where do I argue so Rather thus That which is sanctified to us doth work for our good and so though it be evil in it self yet it is good to us But Affliction is sanctified c. I am apt to oversee but neither I nor they I think whom you first opposed deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction if that were all you aimed at in your Question What I mean by Comformity unto Christ you might set by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing which is acceptable with God 1 Pet. 2. 19. Yet I grant sin is the Root of all suffering so it was of Christ's suffering though not his sin but ours Only I thought it meet to put you in mind that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin which the places alledged do shew and so other places The Object of Love is not only present Good There is a Love of Desire as well as of Delight The Spouse wanting Christ was sick of Love Cant. 5. 8. I did not say That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil but that it is not evil as sanctified Suffering though sanctified is suffering still and so evil but as sanctified it is good and not evil Those Arguments prove nothing against me nor I am perswaded against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms It is granted That Death in it self is Evil an Enemy a Punishment to be feared avoided c. Yet as it is sanctified it is good a Friend a Mercy to be desired embraced c. 2 Cor. 5. 6 7 8. Phil. 1. 21 23. It is evil 1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good 2. To them also to whom it is so managed but not as it is so managed Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi saith Grotius Well but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words as what they that use them do mean by them That which you speak of our discharge before believing might have been omitted the question being about Believers and so believing presupposed Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law this I think is a sufficient reason Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto Candidus imperti The Law so concurs to the constitution of Guilt as were there no Law there were no Transgression In the other two Particulars which follow we do accord also 1. Neither did I mean so as if there were no explicit threatning to Unbelievers but only this That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing it implies that death is only threatned in case of unbelief And tho there be an express threatning to Unbelievers viz. Mark 18. 16. yet not only to Unbelievers The threatning of death only to Unbelievers is I think only implyed in the promise of Liâ—e made to Believers 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess 1. 7 8. than what you express 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith the Fruit whereof is Obedience it will condemn the disobedient i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law while they remain in that estate though it hold out Mercy upon condition that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar but his reasons for that Position I do not know If no Law no sin for sin is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Your saying Aphor. p. 89. Whosoever will believe to the end shall be justified may seem to imply That though a Man â—elieve yet he remains unjustified as well as unglorified until he go on and hold out unto the end otherwise I suppose all will yeeld That a Man must believe unto the end that he may be justified unto the end 1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply
though their Condemnation by reason of the Gospel as of every Mercy neglected or abused will be the greater The Father as I have said before doth judg though by Christ see Acts 17. 31. And however I see not how you can conclude any thing to the purpose by this Argument If for every several Accusation there must be a several Righteousness then there will be need of infinite Righteousnesses seeing there may be infinite accusations But one Righteousness viz. that of Christ's Satisfaction for us will take off all Accusations brought against us else how doth the Apostle say Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. Rom. â— 33 34. Indeed the Promise is made upon condition of believing and therefore the not performing of the Condition debars from benefit of the Promise But this I conceive is not properly a new Accusation but only a making good of the former accusation we having nothing to shew why it should not stand in force against us Your self did well distinguish p. 22. betwixt a Condition as a Condition and a Condition as a Duty Now Faith as a Condition is required in the Gospel but as a Duty in the Law For the Law requires us in all things to obey God that is comprehended in the first Precept therefore it requires us to believe in Christ God commanding it Else not to believe were no sin for sin is a transgressiin of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. Now as Believing is a Duty so notbelieving doth afford matter of Accusation and cause of Condemnation But as Believing is a Condition so Not-believing doth only leave the Accusation otherwise made in force against us and for sin whereof we are accused and found guilty leaves us to condemnation Thus I think are those Texts to be understood John 3. 18. and ult Whereas you say That the Accusation may be three-fold truly in that manner it may be manifold But indeed the Accusation is but one and the same viz. that we are Non-credentes For Pagans do not so much as appear and Hypocrites Solifidians do but appear to be Believers For the several Sentences from whence you argue 1. You urged Joh. 5. 22. to prove that God Creator judgeth none 2. How are any freed from the Sentence of the first Law but by the benefit of the New Law therefore I see no ground for that which you seem to insinuate viz. That we must first be freed from the Sentence of one Law and then of another Indeed I do not see That the Gospel hath any Sentence of Condemnation distinct from the Law only it doth condemn Unbelievers in that it doth not free them from that condemnation which by the Law is due unto them That there is a sorer punishment as of a distinct kind than that Death threatned Gen. 3. you do not prove neither I presume can it be proved There are I grant several degrees of that Death yet all of the same kind viz. The loss of Heavenly Happiness and the enduring of Hell-Torment And if there must be a several Righteousness for every several degree of Punishment there must be more Righteousnesses than you either do or can assign I say as before I do not think this Thou art an Vnbeliever I speak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the Gospel-Condition to be a new Accusation but only a Plea why the former should stand good viz. that we are sinners and so to be condemned by the Law because the benefit of the Gospel which we lay claim to doth not belong unto us we not performing the condition to that end required of us Whereas you say We are devolved to the New Law before our Justification is compleat Are we not devolved to it for the very beginning of our Justification So again Christ's Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righteousness c. But the New Covenant gives the personal Interest Doth not the New Covenant give Christ also in whom we have interest I note these Passages because your meaning in them perhaps is such as I do not sufficiently understand I say still Here is no occasion properly of a new Accusation but only of a removens prohibens a taking away of that which would hinder the force of the former Accusation And so there is no new Righteousness of ours required unto Justification but only a Condition without which we cannot have interest in Christ's Righteousness that thereby we may be justified In your Aphorisms you speak only of a Two-fold Righteousness requisite unto Justification now you speak of a Two-fold Justification necessary to be attained But the Scripture speaks of Justification by Christ and Justification by Faith as of one and the same Justification Acts 13. 39. Rom. 5. 1. The Second Cause as you call it viz. Whether the Defendant have performed the condition of the New Covenant is indeed this Whether he have any thing truly to alledge why upon the former Accusation he should not be condemned And so he must be justified indeed by producing his Faith and so his sincere Obedience to testifie his Faith yet not as a new Righteousness of his own but only as intitling him to Christ's Righteousness as that whereby he must be justified Whereas you speak of a Three-fold Guilt viz. Reatus culpae 2. Reatus non-praestitae Conditionis 3. Reatus poena propter non praestitam conditionem 1. As Omne malum est vel Culpae vel Poena so omnis reatus seems to be so too 2. The not-performing of a Condition as a Condition brings no new guilt of Punishment if it did surely it were Culpa and so the second Member falls in with the first but only the loss of the Remedy or Reward promised upon the performing of that Condition though the not performing of the Condition as a Duty will bring a new guilt of Punishment 3. Therefore the Reatus peenae is not properly ob non praestitam Conditionem but ob culpam admissam which Reatus doth remain in force because the Condition required for the removing of it is not performed We must take heed of straining Law-terms too far in Matters of Devinity I see not how the firmness of my title to Christ's Righteous ness for Justification may properly be called my Righteousness whereby I am justified though the firmness of that title may be questioned and must be proved yet if it prove false it is not that properly which doth condemn I speak of the Meritorious Cause of Condemnation but sin committed against the Law is that which doth put into a state of Condemnation and for want of that Title there is nothing to free from Condemnation The Obligation unto Punishment is not dissolved by Satisfaction made by Christ as to Unbelievers because for want of Faith the Satisfaction of Christ is not imputed unto them 1. For that far greater Punishment which you speak of I have said enough
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
or Belief in the Promise is the only Condition And again Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification which is among the number of true Causes not being a Cause without which the thing is not done but a Cause whereby it is done The Cause without which a thing is not done is only present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the Eye is an active Instrument for Seeing and the Ear for Hearing so is Faith also for Justifying If it be demanded whose Instrument it is It is the Instrument of the Soul wrought therein by the Holy Ghost and is the free Gift of God So Amesius when Bellarmine objected Sacramenta promissiones applicant nostras faciunt non ergo per modum instruments applicantis fides sola justificat He answers Sola tamen ex its quae sunt in nobis vel à nobis erga Deum sola fides accipiendo quia Sacramenta sunt à Deo erga nos Promissionem applicant ut instrumenta dandi non accipiendi Thus then is Faith taken for an Instrument of Justification in that by Faith we receive the Promise or Christ promised by whom we are justified Bellarmine again objecting Hoc non multum refert nam utrumque est instrumentum Dei He answers Plurimum refert quia sicut Sacramenta quamvis aliquo sensu possint dici instrumenta nostra quatenus per illa tanquam per media assequimur finem nostrum propriè tamen sunt instrumenta Dei sic etiam Fides quamvis possit vocari instrumentum Dei quia Deus justificat nos ex fide per fidem Rom. 3. 20. propriè tamen est instrumentum nostrum Deus nos baptizat pascit non nosmetipsi nos credimus in Christum non Deus If you desire more to this purpose besides what hath been said before I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant chap. 12. and Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin chap. 4. 1. The non-fulfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant doth condemn yet it is by the Law and for the transgressing of it that any are condemned there being no freedom from Condemnation but by the New-Covenant nor any by it without fulfilling the Condition of it Such as do not embrace the New-Covenant and that on the terms upon which it is made are left to the Condemnation of the Old-Covenant which will be so much the sorer as the Sin in despising the Mercy offered is the greater So that still as I said in the Animadversions the fulfilling of the Law viz. Christ's fulfilling it for us is that by which we are justified though Faith be required of us that Christ's fulfilling of the Law may be imputed unto us and so we may be justified by it The Accusations which you speak of viz. 1. Of not fulfilling the Condition of the New-Covenant 2. Of having therefore no part in Christ 3. Of being guilty moreover of far sorer punishment All these Accusations as I have often said are but a re-inforcing of that Accusation That we are guilty of transgressing the Law and so to be condemned and therefore the more guilty and the more to be condemned because freedom from that Guilt and Condemnation might have been obtained and was neglected see Acts 13. 38 41. Heb. 2. 3. 2. The Gospel doth not joyn Obedience with Faith as the Condition of our right unto Salvation though it require Obedience as a Fruit of that Faith whereby we obtain that Right and so as the way or means whereby to enter into the actual enjoyment of Salvation 3. You might see that I do not yeeld the Thesis wherein you make Faith and Obedience so to be Conditions of the New-Covenant as withal to be Conditions of Justification This both now and every-where I deny 1. If it be not much as you say to your purpose Why do you alledg it That Christ did not receive either of the Sacraments for that end as we receive them who can question 2. If you judg it uncertain whether Luke or Matthew did relate those words I will not drink hence-forth c. out of due place why are you so peremptory in your Aphorisms as to say Luke doth clearly speak of two Cups and doth subjoin these words to the first which was before the Sacramental 3. Why do you call that Supposition If Luke had not written a merry one Is it ridiculous to suppose such a thing Let us suppose says Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer that Question had not been put to our Saviour and that the Apostle had not written his Epistle to the Ephesians c. May not one as well sport with this Supposition of theirs as you with that of mine Luke himself shews That he wrote his Gospel after others Luk. 1. 1. Probable it is that he wrote after Matthew and Mark And how should any reading only these imagine that those words I will not drink c. were meant of any other than the Sacramental Cup they not making mention no not in appearance of any other Apud Matthaeum inquit Ames 26. 29. pronomen istud demonstrativum ex hoc fructu vitis necessariò refertur ad illud quod precedentibus verbis fuit eodem pronomine demonstratum Hoc est sanguis meus Though Matthew and Mark had not written yet it had been no such boldness to suppose Luke to relate some words out of that order wherein they were spoken such Anticipations as I said and you do not gain-say it being usual in the Scripture Thus again Amesius Ex ipso Luca quamvis ibi transponantur verba contrà colligitur aperte illa verba pertinere ad Calicem Mysticum Sacramentalem Coenae Domini Nam cap. 22. 17. dicitur Dominus gratias egisse super illud poculum in quo dicit fructum vitis postea mansisse eodem modo quo v. 19. gratias egit super panem Hâc autem gratiarum actione intelligi benedictionem Consecrationem Sacramentalem concedit Bellarminus cap. 10. c. 1. It is such a Justification as the Apostle where he doth professedly treat of that Subject doth scarce ever mention nor yet do Divines use to speak of it Therefore your totus Mundus Theologorum Reformatorum is Vox praetereà nihil Why do you alledge none of them Juris consultos enim in hâc causà minùs moror But and if we maintain the word Justification is taken in sensu forensi What of that May it not yet nevertheless be as I suppose it is viz. That Justification at the Last Judgment is only a full manifestation of that Justification which we have here and not as you affirm our actual most proper and compleat Justification as if here our Justification were but potential less proper and incompleat Amesius handling this Point saith Justificatio est sententiae pronuntiatio non physicam aliquam aut realem commutationem denotat in S. literis sed forensem aut moralem