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
illam quae in Sententiae pronuntiatione reputatione consistit Yet he hath nothing at all that I see of Justification at the Great Judgment much less that it is the actual most proper and compleat Justification He saith moreover Sententia haec fuit 1. in mente Dei quasi concepta per modum decreti justificandi 2. Fuit in Christo capite nostro à mortuis jam resurgente pronuntiata 3. Virtualiter pronuntiatur ex primâ illa relatione quae ex fide ingeneratâ exurgit 4. Expressè pronunciatur per Spiritum Dei testantem Spiritibus nostris reconciliationem nostram cum Deo In hoc testimonio Spiritâ—s non tam propriè ipsa justificatio consistit quà m actualis anteâ concessae perceptio per actum fidei quasi reflexum But as for the pronouncing of this Sentence at the Last Judgment he doth not so much as make any mention of it Neither doth Calvin that I find in his Institutions though he treat at large of Justification and that in sensu forensi speak any thing of Justification at the Last Judgment nor indeed any that I meet with except it be on the by as Bucanus and Maccovius who agree with me as I have shewed before 2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after That so Faith may appear true and genuine such as doth indeed receive Christ and so justifie Is not this a sufficient reason why they are inquired after But in that which follows about via ad Regnum c. you are quite extra viam You forget that we are now about Justification or at least that I do not make the Condition of Justification and of Salvation every way the same as you sometimes do This may suffice for your two first Objections To the Third and Fourth I answer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant Particula Enim non semper rei causam denotat sed illationis consequentiam sive ab effecto sive à causà sive à signo seu undecunque petitam Sic quando Christus dicit electis Venite benedicti c. Esurivienim c. particula illa non cum causa salutis sed cum signo causae connectitur Nam illa bona opera quae ibi recensentur sunt signa verae fidei adoptionis insitionis in Christum praedestinationis ac favoris divini quae sunt verae causae salutis You are therefore too free and forward in saying That the Uses pretended for this enquiring after mâ—re Signs are frivolous What though the business at Judgment be to enquire of the Cause and to sentence accordingly May not the Cause take it in the Law-sense be made to appear by Signs even as the Cause in the Logical-sense doth appear by the Effect and the Tree by the Fruit That Obedience is ipsa Causa de quâ quaeritur the terms Therefore and Because do not prove no more than the term For And here I may with better reason say than you did Appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum But here I must mind you of one thing which it seems you do not observe viz. That those terms which you build upon Because and Therefore are neither in the Original nor any Translation that I know except the Vulgar Latin which hath Quia Bellarmine urging these Particles Amesius answers Mat. 25. 21 23. Nulla particula reperitur nisi in Versione non probanda Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3. 1. You cite abundance of Texts but to what purpose You would have me try whether they speak only of Signs or or Conditions Conditions of what do you mean Of Justification That you are to prove but how it can be proved by any of those Texts I cannot see They speak of the necessity of Obedience unto Salvation of God's rendring unto Men according to their Deeds of the reward of good Works c. But doth it therefore follow that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Justification I am loth to be so plain with you as sometimes you are with me otherwise I could say I have seldom seen so many places of Scripture alledged to so little purpose Some of those places you seem to lay more weight upon as John 16. 27. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. and 1 John 3. 22 23. For here you do not only note the places but you also cite the words as if they were more especially to be observed Now for that Joh. 16. 27. The Father hath loved you because you have loved me What do you infer from thence That Works justifie as part of the Condition of Justification If this be a good Consequence I may say Reddat mihi minam qui me docuâ—t Dialecticam 1. Works and Love differ as well as Works though Works flow both from Love and Faith Calvin makes those words because you have loved me to denote an unfeigned Faith which proceedeth from a sincere Affection here called Love And I grant that such a Love viz. of Desire doth go before Justifying Faith 3. God doth love those that love him and that love Christ amore amicitiae yet amore benevolentiae he loves us before we love him 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Secundum hanc rationem inquit Calvinus hîcâ— dicimur amari à Deo dum Christum diligimus quia pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis c. That in 2 Cor. 5. 10. according to c. avails your Cause nothing For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgment so as that we shall receive according to them and yet be no part of the Condition of Justification but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified So for that in Joh. 3. 22. because we keep his Commandments c. I say with Calvin Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris or andi fiduciam sed in hoc tantùm insistit non posteà fide disiungi pietatem sincerum Dei cultum Nec absurdum videri debet quod particulam Causalem N. B. usurpet utcunque de causâ non disputetur Nam accidens inseparabile interdum Causae loco poni solet Quemadmodum siquis dicat Quia Sol Meridie supra nos lucet plus tunc esse caloris Neque enim sequitur ex luce oriri calorem 1. You shall confound Justification and Salvation betwixt which you know I make a great difference 2. I see not that any of the Texts alledged do prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Justification or to Right to Salvation Obedience is an Argument à posteriore of our Right unto Salvation and à priore a means of our enjoyment of it More than this by any Text of Scripture I presume will not be proved Your First and Second have nothing but mere Words Ad 3. I answer No more is the word Justification in any of the Texts which you cited Ad 4. What trick do you mean Or what prejudice Do you so wonder
at this That I cannot be perswaded by any of your Allegations that we are justified by our personal Righteousness Or that Works concur with Faith unto Justification as being part of the Condition that the Gospel doth require that thereby we may be justified Then all Protestant Divines are Men to be wondred at or at least never considered the Texts which you alledg and surely that were a great wonder Ad 5. For Justification at Judgment I will say no more until I see more proof of your Opinion about it Ad 6. The Qualifications spoken of tend to that end That we may enjoy Salvation but not that we may have right to Salvation They only manifest that Right which by Faith in Christ we do obtain Ad 7. Of James his words enough already Ad 8. I wish you were more Argumentative and less Censorious or at least more wary in expressing your censure To say It is next to non-sense is over-broad If you had said That you could see no good sense in it this had not been so much as truly I cannot in your words For may not a thing be spoken by way of Sentence and yet by way of Argumentation too I think Yes when a reason is given of the Sentence But what should that in Luke 19. 17. force me to confess That Works are more than Fruits of Faith by which we are justified Why do you stand so much upon the word Because when-as you acknowledg that Works are no proper cause May iâ— not be said This is a good Tree because it bringeth forth good Fruit and yet the goodness of the Tree is before the goodness of its Fruit and this is but only a manifestation of the other So what should I see in Luk. 19. 27 That none should be saved by Christ but such as are obedient unto him that I see but not that Obedience is that whereby we are at least in part justified Yea I think it worthy your consideration That the Texts which you alledg and build upon speaking only of Works and Obedience and not of Faith at all either must be interpreted That Obedience and Works are necessary Fruits of Justifying Faith or else they will reach further than you would have them even to make Obedience and Works the only Condition of Justification at Judgment Ad 9. Where you performed that I know not But however your Work was not to overthrow any Arguments for Merits for which I am far from urging but to answer my reason which I urged why those Scriptures which you alledged might rather seem to make Works meritorious of Salvation than to concur with Faith unto Justification viz. because they follow Justification but go before Salvation I know you will say That they go before Justification as Continued and Consummate at Judgment but for the overthrowing of that I need say no more till you say more in defence of it The Texts which you alledg speak only of Obedience and so if you will think to prove by them That Obedience is the Condition of our â—ustification you may as well say That it is the only Condition and so quite exclude Faith which is not mentioned in those Texts If you say It is in other Texts so say I do other Texts shew that Faith is the only Condition and that Obedience is not concurrent with Faith unto Justification though it necessarily flow from that Faith by which we are justified That may be alledged as the reason of the Justifying Sentence which yet is but the Fruit and Effect of Justifying Faith If Sententia be Praemii Adjudicatio then I think Causa Sententiae must be also Causae Praemii adjudicati The word For when we say Justified for Faith must note either the formal or the meritorious Cause the ratio Sententiae may be drawn from that which is neither the formal nor the meritorious Cause of Justification nor yet a Condition or Instrument of it but only a Fruit and Effect of that which is so 3. The Scripture doth not say That Works do justifie us in that sense as you take it viz. as joint Conditions with Faith of Justification 4. I think it not so proper to say We must be judged and receive our Reward by our Works as according to our Works And however to be judged by our Works is not as much as to be justified by them otherwise than as they are Fruits and Effects of Faith and so manifest our Interest in Christ by whom all that believe are justified Acts 13. 39. 5. Your For must needs be the same with Propter When you say We are justified for Faith surely in Latin it must be propter Fidem Here enim will not be suitable 1. That which I intimated is this That in respect of God such an outward judicial Proceeding needed not no more than God doth need a Sign Whether the Judicial Proceeding be all upon mere Signs and the Ipsa Causa Justitiae not meddled with is not to the purpose Though why may not that which is in some respect Justitia Causae and so Justitia Personae quoad istam Causam be Signum Fidei per consequens Justitiae Christi nobis per Fidem imputatae qua simpliciter absolutè justificamur 2. and 3. That which is the Condition of Glorification is not therefore the Condition of Justification or of right to Glorification which doth immediately flow from Justification or at least is inseparably joined with it No Man can be accused to be Reus Poenae and so to have no right to Glorification but he that is accused to be Reus Culpae and from that Accusation we are justified by Faith which is made manifest by our Works 1. I perceive I did mistake your meaning the contexture of your words being such that one might easily mistake the meaning of them 2. Your Affirmation is no Proof and as well may you say That because in other places of Scripture the Righteous are usually spoken of in respect of Personal Righteousness in opposition to the wicked and ungodly therefore all those places prove That Personal Righteousness is that whereby we are justified Because we must have a Righteousness inherent in us as well as a Righteousness imputed to us are we therefore justified as well by the one as the other Appello Evangelium pariter ac torum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum 1. Your Aphorisms tend to prove Justification by Works to which end you press the words of St. James and reject the Interpretation which our Divines give of them 2. Paul indeed and James did not consider Works in the same sense For Paul considered them as concurring with Faith unto Justification and so rejected them but James looked at them as Fruits of Justifying-Faith and so asserted the necessity of them You do not rightly understand Paul's words Rom. 4. 4. of which I have spoken before He doth not speak absolutely for so he should quite abolish Works which in other
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
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
He only answereth an Argument of Hemingius denying that which he saith Hemingius supposeth viz. Eandem justitiam esse viam ad vitam aternam cum in Lege tum in Evangelio But of a Two-fold Righteousness he there makes no mention not I say of a Two-fold Righteousness required of us at all much less required of us that thereby we may be justified He saith indeed Quid enim si Lex Dei in decalogo sit norma illius justitia quae eâ—t via Vitae Eternae Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta quid impediet quo minùs justificetur quispiam sine Legis impletione He doth not mean That the Righteousness prescribed in the Law is one Righteousness and the Righteousness constituted in the Gospel another Righteousness whereby we are justified but that we are justified only by this latter and not at all by the other He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteousness as being both necessary unto Justification he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect which Righteousness he makes to consist meerly in remission of sins See part 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 12. cap. 3. per totum To the very same purpose i. e. nothing at all to yours is that Ibid. cap. 6. p. 138. n. 2. where he taxeth Hemingius for taking it as granted Nullam esse justitiam vel injustitiam nisi in Lege praestitâ vel non praestitâ And then he saith Nam si alia sit justitia quae Lege non contineatur fieri potest ut alia etiam sit via Aeternae Vitae consequendae He doth not grant as you seem to understand him that Justitia quae in Lege continetur est una justitia quae ad Justificationem à nobis requiritur for that indeed he denies and saith That there is another Righteousness now in the Gospel ordained for that end and remission of sins as I said he makes to be that Righteousness even the only Righteousness by which we are formally justified Immediately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow Verum nec peccatum quidem Legis in Decalogo cancellis circumscribitur This is not directly to the Point now in hand yet because it may reflect upon it and somewhat we have about it afterward I therefore think meet to note it by the way and say That if it be as he saith then it seemeth St. John did not give us a full definition of sin when he said Sin is a transgression of the Law but of that more hereafter Wotton's Argument is of small force Fides inquit in Christum crucifixum non praecipitur in Lege but I have before him shewed that it is otherwise He himself presently after cites that 1 John 3. 23. This is his Commandment That we believe c. Now the Law contained in the Decalogue requires us to do whatsoever God commandeth for if we do not so we do not make him our only Lord God as the Law requireth That the Apostle doth oppose as he saith Faith to the Law Gal. 3. 12. makes nothing for him For Faith as a Duty is required in the Law though as a Condition it be required only in the Gospel Neither doth that advantage him which he also objecteth That the Law hath nothing to do with Christ as Mediator Gal. 5. 4. For though the Gospel only hold out Christ as Mediator to be believed in yet Christ being so held out the Law doth require us to believe in him For the Law doth require a belief of every Truth that God doth reveal and a performance of every thing that God doth enjoyn Now for Lud. de Dieu If the Justification which he speaks of Quâ ut sanctificati ac regeniti absolvimur à falsis Diaboli improborum criminationibus be meant of some particular Acts of which we are accused it is but such a Justification as the Reprobates themselves may partake of who may be accused of some things whereof they are not guilty See Bradshaw de Justif cap. 25. If it be meant of our estate in general as I suppose it is then this is indeed no distinct Justification but only a confirming of the other For in vain do we pretend to be justified by Faith by which alone de Dieu grants we are justified so as through Christ to be freely acquitted from the guilt of our sins if yet we remain unregenerate and unsanctified By the way I observe That de Dieu's words are against you Jacobus non agit de Justificatione quae partim fide partim operibus peragatur Thus much I had said in reference to this Author before I had him upon the Epistles but now that I have him I shall speak more fully to him or to you of him from that other place to which you remit me viz. his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he speaks likewise of a Two-fold Righteousness and of a Two-fold Justification yet so as but little to patronize your Cause Besides Imputed Righteousness which we have in Christ there is also he saith and who doth not an Inherent Righteousness which we have in our selves The former Righteousness he saith is that Quâ nos Deus etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes plenè tamen ipsius etiam Legis Testimonio justificat eique pro omninò conformibus habet in capite Christo de quâ justificatione Apostolus supra cap. 3. 4. 5. multis disputavit Altera est de quâ Rom. 6. 13. Ephes 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. Quâ nos Deus per regenerationem in nobis etiam ipsis Lege ex parte conformatos ex parte nunc justificat indies justificat magis ac magis prout incrementum capit regeneratio ac justificabit plenè ubi perfectio advenerit de quâ Justificatione agitur Jac. 2. 21 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justificationem Opera Legis ingrediuntur ut primam constituit sola Fides i. e. justitia Christi fide imputata non opera sic alteram censtituunt opera non fides Here 1. he makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect and so also the Justification which doth arise from it By this Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conformati ex parte nunc justificati But Imputed Righteousness and Justification by it he acknowledgeth to be perfect hereby we are plenè justificati tanquam Legi plenè conformes in capite Christo 2. He makes Faith only i. e. as he explains it the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith that whereby we are fully and perfectly justified Now you make all Righteousness as such perfect for otherwise you make it to be no Righteousness if it be imperfect And you make Faith and Works to concur unto the same Justification though you distinguish of the Inchoation Continuation and Consummation of it You also make Faith properly taken to be the Righteousness though not the only
by Faith they mean That Faith is not the Righteousness by which we are justified and that we are therefore only said to be justified by Faith because by Faith we receive the Righteousness of Christ by which Righteousness properly we are justified That this is the meaning of our Divines appears by that which I have before alledged 2. Therefore who those be of whom you speak I do not know However I do not see that your Objections are of force For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text though it be so interpreted as that by Faith imputed is meant Christ and his Righteousness viz. as apprehended by Faith and I presume that they whom you tax did so understand it And this doth not exclude Faith but include it Your Question therefore seems captious If by Faith be meant Christ's Righteousness then what word doth signifie Faith For by Faith is not simply meant Christ's Righteousness but as it is apprehended by Faith 3. Davenant's words which I cited are clearly to the purpose to which I cited them neither do I see any thing in them which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of Whereas you add It seems he discerned the mistake of them that affirm Christ's Active Righteousness as such to be our Righteousness I think your Scribe did mistake and it should be he discerned not For therein indeed in that Chapter but not in the words which I cited he differs both from you and me But I was willing to let that pass both because it is nothing to our present purpose and also I like not to shew my dissent from any eminent Writer except I be forced to it 4. What you say you will alledge out of Davenant against me is to be considered when it is alledged But here you profess your self far from approving what he saith viz. That Christ's Righteousness est formalis causa justificationis ex communi nostrorum sententiâ You should say Christ's Righteousness imputed to us for so Davenant hath it in the words which I cited And you should also consider how immediately before those words he explained himself about the formalis causa justificationis For Bellarmine objecting That though Christi obedientia sit meritoria causa justificationis nostrae propter quam Deus nos justificat yet Justitia inherens potest esse formalis per quam justificati constituimur and taxing Chemnitius for stating the question thus Quid sit id propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat c. He answers Sed immemorem se hîc praebet Jesuita qui eodem modo ipse loquitur de Just. lib. 2. cap. 1. De Causâ formali propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo disserendum est Atque reverà in Justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est quae simul meritoria esse possit Nisi enim illam contineat dignitatem in se propter quam homo ritè justificatus reputetur nunquam erit formalis causa per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei And again Vt itaque seponamus Philosophicas Speculationes de naturâ causae formalis quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostrae quaerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur per quod immediatè Deo gratus ad vitam aeternam acceptus stat cujus beneficio damnatoriam Legis sententiam evadere denique quo inti possit debeat ad coelestis Judicis favorem approbationem consequendam And again Quod igitur dicit Bellarminus impossibile esse ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter nugas agit c. Si autem per formalem causam intelligat illud ipsum quod Deus intuetur quando quemvis peccatorem justificat c. dico hoc non esse inhaerentem ullam qualitatem sed Christi obedientiam justitiam credentibus gratuitâ Dei misericordiâ donatam atque imputatam Impossibile quidem est ut haec justitia quae in Christo inhaeret sit etiam nostra per modum inhaesionis sed quando tanquam membra unimar Christo capiti non est impossibile ut nostra fiat per modum donationis salutiferae participationis atque hic modus sufficit ut in Justificatione formalis causae rationem efficaciam similitudinem obtineat Me-thinks all this should suffice to satisfie any ingenuous Man and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling about the term when there is so full and frequent explication of the meaning of it So also Amesius having out of Contarenus distinguished of Righteousness and stated the Question about the formal cause of Justification he saith Hoc sensu nos negamus formalem causam absolutae N. B. nostrae justificationis esse justitiam in nobis inhaerentem And again Non aliâ ratione formaliter nos justos nominari esse dicimus imputata Christi justitià quam quâ is cujus debitum ab altero solvitur nominatur est ab illo debito liber immunis quâ is cui procuratus est alterius favor aut gratia nominatur est alteri gratus For that which you cite out of his Med. l. 1. c. 27. § 12. I find there only these words Christi igitur justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur Phil. 3. 9. Those which you add are not in my Edition viz. Quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur However they are not repugnant to what I have cited both from him and Davenant because as Davenant expresly notes Causa formalis hîc etiam est meritoria Alsted's words as you cite them Christus est justitia mostra in sensu causal◠non in sensu formali carry no good sense at least are not so accurate For surely if Formalis Causa then Sensus Formalis is also Sensus Causalis You add So Rivet Disp de Fide but you should also have noted the Section Indeed § 13. he saith That Bellarmine doth affingere nobis sententiam de justitia Christi tanquam causâ formali And elsewhere he saith Forma justificationis consistit in justitiae Christi imputatione propter quam nobis remittuntur peccata So Treloatius Forma justificationis Activè sumptae est Actualis Justitiae Christi gratuita imputatio quâ meritum obedientia Christi nobis applicantur vi communionis arctissimae qua ille in nobis nos in illo Dr. Jackson saith That to demand what is the formal cause of Justification is as if one should ask what is the Latin for Manus and that it is the folly or knavery of our Adversaries to demand a formal Cause of the◠Justification who deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God He alone saith he is formally just who hath that form inherent in himself by which he is denominated just and so
accepted of God as Philosophers deny the Sun to be formally hot because it hath no form of heat inherent in it but only produceth heat in other Bodies Thus there is difference among our Divines about the term but they agree in the thing Some would have no formal Cause of Justification at all some would have such a Cause but would not have Christ's Righteousness imputed but the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to be it yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Cause of Justification in that sense as Davenant and Ames do explain it 1. As Faith alone is the Condition of our Justification so also Faith alone as continued though it is not continued alone is the Condition of our Continued Justification Neque etiam saith Calvin sic putemus commendari post gratuitam justificationem opera ut ipsa in locum justificandi hominis posteà succedant aut ejusmods officium cum Fide N. B. partiantur Nisi enim perpetuò maneat solida Fidei justificatio illorum immundities detegetur Nihil autem absonum est sic Fide hominem justificari ut non ipse modo justus sit sed opera quoque ejus supra dignitatem justa censeantur So Mr. Ball Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life and then leave it to works that we might attain the accomplishment by them but it doth ever rest upon the Promise until we come to enjoy it 2. I know no accusation but of the Law of Works though in case of unbelief and impenitency that Accusation be aggravated by the Law of Grace Though Calvîn thinks not that Joh. 5. 45. Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father there is one that accuseth you even Moses c. to be to this purpose as some do yet he grants That it is Legis proprièreos peragere infideles To question whether he spake of the Law of Works were to question whether the Sun shineth at noon-day When any is accused to be an Infidel or finally impenitent or a sinner against the Holy Ghost as it is a sin that he is accused of so the Accusation is from the Law but as Unbelief or Impenitency for why you bring in the sin against the Holy Ghost I do not know doth import a want of the Condition required in the Gospel so as I have said before it is no new accusation but only a re-inforcing of a former accusation and so the refelling of this Accusation by shewing the fruits of Faith and Repentance is not properly a justifying of our selves by any thing in our selves but only a proving and manifesting that we are indeed justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us 3. The imperfection of our Faith and Obedience doth prove that it is no Righteousness by which we can be justified consider always that I speak of absolute and universal Justification Si per se saith Calvin vel intrinsecâ ut loquuntur virtute justificaret fides ut est semper debilis imperfecta non efficeret hoe nisiex parte sic manca esset justitia quae frustulum salutis nobis conferret So Davenant Ad justificationem efficiendam non sufficit justitia suo quodam modo perfectae aliqu◠modo imperfecta sed necesse est eam esse legali modo perfectam omnibus suis numeris absolutam And again Nulla justitia coram Deo justificat sed quae ad amussin Legis perfecta est Sed nostra inhaerens non est talis c. Thus also Maccovius Quod nobis imputatur ad justitiam nempe propriè per se seu respectu sui i◠debet esse perfectissimum ut consistere possit cum judicio Dei Rom. 2. 2. At Fides non est perfectissima 1 Cor. 13. 9. To me it seems not hard to be certain of the meaning of that place Luke 7. 47. Many sins are forgiven her for she loved much It appears as I noted plainly enough by the Context what the meaning is viz. not that her love was the cause of the forgiveness of her sins but the forgiveness of her sins the cause of her love And you see how sharply Calvin whose words I cited censures those that interpret it otherwise The Parable going before those words are so clear That Maldonate is forced to say Videtur ex hac parabolâ non fuisse colligendum quod Christus colligit multa peccata illi mulieri remitti quia multum dilexisset sed contrà proptereà eam multum dilexisse quòd multa illi peccata remissa essent Quae res speciosam Calvino caeteris haereticis errandi occasionem praebuit negantibus huic mulieri propter praecedentia charitatis opera remissa peccata illa verò verba quoniam dilexit multum sic interpretantibus ut dictio illa quoniam non causam sed effectum consequentiam significet quod utinam nemo Catholicorum secutus esset And see how poorly and pittifully he comes off viz. either thus Vt Christum in versà parabolâ usum fuisse deceremus q. d. Sicut ille dilexit multum quia multum illi remissum fuerat ita huic mulieri è contrario quia dilexit multum remissa sunt peccata multa Or which he rather inclines unto thus Quod Christus hoc loco rogat Quis ergo eum plus diliget etsi futurum tempus est tamen ex consuetudine loquendi vim praeteriti habere puto q. d. Quem tu judicas ex effectu conjecturam faciens plus antè Dominum suum delexisse Vtrùm illi magis amicum fuisse cum amicitiae causâ faenerator debitum utrique remiserit What straits was this acute Man driven to because he was resolved to hold the Conclusion and yet saw how ill it did suit with the Premises 1. What others of whom you speak do I know not they may answer for themselves 2. I take affiance which is a Believing in or Relying on to be an Act of Faith it self the Act of Faith being as well Credere in as simpliciter Credere But internal Obedience or Love for these you make both one though indeed Believing it self is inward Obedience as well as Love the one being commanded as well as the other is not the Act of Faith though caused by Faith not actus elicitus though actus imperatus therefore this is not so immediate a product of Faith as the other 3. I conceive Affiance to be a part of Justifying-Faith and not only a Fruit of it To believe in Christ which is as much as to rely on him and to have affiance in him is requisite unto Justification He that believeth on him is not condemned John 3. 18. 1. As Justification is begun upon sole Believing so is it also continued and consummated The Scripture so far as I see makes Justification simply and absolutely to depend
efficacy of that Act of his but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us upon our obedience whereunto God is pleased of his free Grace to justifie us But still notwithstanding all you say my Argument remains good Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ therefore they concur not with it in justifying The Consequence is good because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification For this is that which Believing in or on Christ doth import which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ Joh. 1. 12. That Repentance and Obedience do concur with Faith in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification you only affirm but do not prove Indeed Repentance as taken for an acknowledgment of and sorrow for sin is requisite unto Justification at first For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins except we be sensible of them and humbled for them Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified It is neither Repentance nor Obedience though Repentance in the sence before-mentioned must go before this Justifying-Faith and so before Justification and obedience must follow after Penitentia saith Ames quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita sed non ut causa Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam cujus primaria pars est fides ut Act. 11. Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis atque adeo ipsius justificationis effectum qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quotunque modo accipiatur dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans quia N. B. non habet vim applicandi nobis just 〈◊〉 Christi Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali Resipisientia fides differentia hac indigitatur Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum fides in Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum See also Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 3. p. 18 19. 1. You need not trouble your self to prove That by VVorks are meant VVorks For surely a working Faith or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of VVorks doth imply VVorks But the Question is VVhether VVorks concur with Faith in justifying or only are inseparable Attendants and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth You hold the former yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun continued and consummate VVhether of us hath more ground from Scripture let it be judged by what hath been said about it But 1. whereas you say That VVorks are still opposed to Faith without VVorks or Faith alone and not to this or that sort of Faith I have shewed before from Oecumenius not to speak of our late VVriters that there is one sort of Faith that is with VVorks or of a working Disposition and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ and another sort of Faith that is without VVorks viz. a bare Assent and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other teaching that we are justified by the former not by the latter 2. You say It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity yet your self deny not only the efficacy but even the presence of VVorks to be requisite when we are at first justified and St. James denies Faith alone so as he doth speak of it to have any force at all to justifie as being dead and unprofitable Therefore you must needs grant That it is Faith alone without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh Besides if there be a working Disposition there will be VVorks themselves when there is opportunity But all this doth only prove That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition and produceth VVorks themselves when opportunity is offered That VVorks do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification it no way proveth 3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry is accepted of God when there is no opportunity to do the thing it self And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp though VVorks themselves be requisite when there is opportunity and still I must put you in mind that your self requires no more than a disposition to work when we are first justified 4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see He that expects mercy from God must shew mercy to his Neighbour Doth it therefore follow that VVorks of Mercy justifie as well as Faith No but that Justifying Faith must and will shew it self by VVorks of Mercy 5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent as in the Devils cannot justifie or save Who opposeth this Or whom doth it oppose So that the same Faith is justifying and saving I think all will yeeld yet is there more required unto Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it than unto Justification 6. VVho makes James v. 18. to speak such non-sence as you tell of Do they who say his meaning is That Faith is pretended in vain if it do not shew it self by VVorks as occasion doth require And what more can any gather from v. 20 22 24 26 You might save your labour of proving That by VVorks are meant VVorks you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified This is that which they mean who say that James doth speak of a working Faith i.e. a Faith ready to work and so actually working when God doth require it not as if instead of Works it were good sense always to put a working Faith Such sophistry doth not become us 7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works as fruits of Justifying Faith is ever granted that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification is never proved Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification Against this first you say James doth make VVorks or Working necessary to justifie I say he doth not but only drives at this That none must think to be justified by Faith except it be a working Faith as Abraham's and Rahab's was You say The Soul doth not truly signifie the Body to be alive But the word Jam. 2. 26. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breath which is but an effect of Life and not a cause of it Thus saith Pemble the comparison is exact As the Body without Breath is dead so is Faith without Works So Downam Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul but
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
out of which you take them 2. I think nothing is more clear than that Mr. Ball 's words following those which you cited gainsay your Opinion viz. of Works concurring with Faith unto Justification For he expresly saith That Faith alone justifieth and that Works do but testifie and give proof that Faith is lively Is not this the very thing that I so much contend for And yet you stick not to say That he yeeldeth Faith and Works to be the Condition of Justification as if they were Copartners in this respect whereas he ascribeth Justification wholly to Faith and excludeth Works from having any concurrence with it in justifying A little before the place by you cited he opposeth those who make Faith and Works the Condition without which Remission cannot be obtained and saith it is impossible to conceive how Faith and Works should be conjoyned as Con-causes in Justification seeing Faith attributes all to Free-Grace and Works challenge to themselves And a little before that again he saith We read of two ways of Justification by Faith and by Works but of a third manner by Faith and Works both as joint Causes or Con-causes we find nothing in Scripture As he makes Faith to be more than a bare Condition if by Condition be meant only Causa sine qu◠non so do I yet he doth use the words Condition and Instrument promiscuously and doth sometimes call Faith the one way sometimes the other He supposeth also That if Works concur with Faith unto Justification they are Con-causes and not such Conditions as are only Causae sine quibus non as you seem to take it 3. You say that you allow of the Explicatory terms as I judg them Why then you allow of this Faith alone doth justifie yea as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ for so immediately Mr. Ball doth explain himself And for this very reason he denies Works to justifie because Works do not embrace Christ Your distinction of Inchoated and Continued Justification will here stand you in no stead For besides that Mr. Ball speaks of Justification simply considered it 's certain that Works neither at first nor afterward conconcur with Faith in embracing the promise of free-forgiveness in Jesus Christ and therefore if Faith justifie in this respect as Mr. Ball saith it doth and you seem to give your approbation of what he saith surely both at first and afterward Faith alone doth justifie though Works appear in their season yet they do not concur with Faith unto Justification 4. That which you cite out of Mr. Ball p. 20. doth not reach home to your purpose To say as he there doth A disposition to good Works is necessary to Justification is no more than to say A lively and working Faith or a Faith apt and ready to Work is necessary unto Justification So when he saith Good Works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity he meaneth only this that Works are necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ and so are justified and absolved The Faith that is lively saith he to embrace Mercy is ever conjoyned with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well-pleasing and the sincere performance of all holy Obedience as opportunity is offered doth ever attend that Faith whereby we continually N. B. lay hold on the Promises once embraced Actual good Works of all sorts though not perfect in degree are necessary to the continuance of Actual Justification because Faith can no longer lay claim to the Promises of Life than it doth virtually or actually lead us forward in the way to Heaven It is clear that as well afterward as at first he ascribes Justification only to Faith as being only that which doth embrace the Promises though he require a working Disposition at first and Works themselves afterward as opportunity serveth to testifie and give proof that Faith is lively as he expresly speaketh The words which you further add I have cited before and they are directly against you shewing that as I and others take the word Condition Faith is the only Condition of Justification and Works no part of it And see what Mr. Ball addeth immediately after those words Faith and Works are opposed in the Matter of Justification not that they cannot stand together in the same Subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or Absolution of Man That which you cite from p. 21. is not to be understood as you seem to take it of actual walking but of a disposition to walk as he said p. 20. A disposition to Works c. This disposition is the qualification of that Faith or always conjoined with that Faith whereby we are partakers of Christ's Righteousness This plainly appears to be his meaning both by the words immediately going before and also by the words in the preceding Page both which are already cited 1. If Personal Righteousness be not perfect but have need of pardon for the imperfection of it then there is no being justified by it This very reason Luther Melancthon Calvin and Chemnitius give why we cannot be justified by Inherent Righteousness as I noted before out of Wotton de Recon part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. num 4. And to this purpose I also have cited before the words of Calvin Davenant Amesius Rivet and Maccovius As for the Metaphysical Perfection of Being which you speak of it is but such as doth belong to things that are most imperfect And for Praestatio Conditionis N. Legis it is not as I have said before properly that Righteousness by which we are justified though it be required to that end that we may be partakers of Christ's Righteousness and so viz. by that Righteousness of Christ be justified 2. Of Justification quà m continuationem Sententiam Judicis nempe in ultimo Judicio enough hath been said before Neither Calvin nor any of our famous Divines that I know nor yet the Scriptures so far as I can find do teach that we are justified by Faith alone at first but by Faith and Works afterward yea I have shewed the contrary both from the Scriptures and from our Divines yet they both teach That Faith whereby we are both at first and afterward justified hath in it at first a readiness to Works and afterward doth work as opportunity is offered Quid commerita est Fides inquit Maccovius in progressu vitae ut tantum non possit quantum in initio Ergone ingenium fides mutaverit c. De Justif Disp 10. See Calvin Instit lib. 3. cap. 14. § 11. and Rivet in Gen. 15. Exercit. 83. pag. 404. Col. 1. Whereas you say that Calvin maintaineth a true Personal Righteousness What is that to the purpose Who doth not