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
and others do the Garden wherein Adam was placed a place upon Earth for certain it was and very pleasant yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of Those words Thou shalt die being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed but also of eternal torment it follows That the Life implicitly promised is to be understood not only of the continuance of that Life but of Eternal Blessedness I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works but that some are so under that Covenant that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant nor are guilty of contemning it being utterly ignorant of it To whom God doth not say Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved to them in effect he doth say Obey perfectly and live or If thou sin thou shalt die eternally But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say Believe c. that Promise is altogether unknown unto them they live and die without ever hearing of it so that to them it is as if it had never been Consider I pray what the Apostle saith to this purpose Ephes 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death Do not many continue in the same Condition I yeeld that none are so under the Covenant of Works but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy and that by vertue of the New Covenant but that which I stand upon is this That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised being not revealed unto some nor any way dispensed unto them they cannot be said to be under it nor shall be judged as transgressors of it Add 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant might have been enjoyed Add 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made Man after his Fall though plunging himself into sin continually more and more yet had contracted no more Guilt nor incurred any greater Condemnation than he did by his first Transgression And 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects but as rebelling I conceive only against the Law not against the Gospel they being such as never were acquainted with it Add 4. There are common Mercies which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save If such Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 12. Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose to shew That as they that sinned without the Law shall perish without the Law even so they that sinned without the Gospel shall perish without the Gospel That 2 Thess 1. 7 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but also of such as know not God The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts viz. such as know not God so he describes the Gentiles 1 Thess 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel c. that is such as having had the Gospel preached unto them would not receive it either not at all or not sincerely Yet Christ he saith will in flaming fire take vengeance on both as well on the former as on the latter And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me and so as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do Infidels saith he that were never under any other Covenant than that of works and Covenant-breaking Christians are in the same condemnation there are not two Hells but one and the same for those that know not God and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ 2 Thess 1. 8. You pass by that which I alledged from Rom. 6. ult viz That death which is the wages of sin is opposed to Eternal Life which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven Ergo Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell and that you know is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say Call it the first or second Death as you please The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection Tertullian surely thought so or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument Age inquit scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione Negent operum societatem ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare Non sit particeps in sententia caro si non fuerit in causâ And again Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum And again also Non possunt separari in mercede caro anima quas opera conjungit And surely that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. That every Man may receive the things done in the Body doth imply That as the things were done in the Body so also the Reward must be received in the Body As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked until the Resurrection Therefore it is not probable that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant What-ever some new Philosophers may say true Philosophy I think doth tell us That it is the Body which by the Sensitive Soul doth â—eel pain even as it is the Eye which doth see by the Visive Faculty You observe not it seems that I did but answer your Queries which you made Append. p. 10. To the second When should he have risen I thought and still think it sufficient to answer That Adam and so others should either have risen in the end of the World as now they shall or when God should please to raise them It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection which he speaks of unto all when he expresly limits it to those that are Christs vers 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory Expressè resurrectio Christi est
take upon him the form of a Servant But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Humane Nature as subjection unto God is and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man did es nomine take upon him the form of a Servant for Man must be Servant unto God the Creature to the Creator He bids See the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies Speeches upon it These Speeches I cannot now see but I have seen them long ago and was not satisfied with them The words of the Assembly are such as that some question may be made of the meaning of them viz. Whether by Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself be not meant one and the same thing so that the latter words are exegetical to the former But to return to you who say The Question should be Whether it be only Poena Christi or Obedientia also that satisfieth and meriteth I think it is not simply Poena or Obedientia but Poena Obedientialis and Obedientia Poenalis 1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious 2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious though less properly 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect yet if absolutely due it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions Yet see not how Christ's good Actions I speak of meer Actions which have no penality or suffering mixed with them could properly be meritorious they being otherwise due supposing Man had not sinned and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him Though I am not of their mind who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate though Man had never sinned yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been Now hoc supposito all Christ's meer Active Righteousness would have been due but not his Passive Righteousness I have divers times told you That when we speak of Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory we are not to consider them meerly as Penal but as Obediential also so that your long Section hath nothing against me My interpretation of these words The Father judgeth no Man containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father neither can I admit any such exclusion but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain He that doth a thing yet not immediately by himself but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it may be said in some respect not to do it When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread he bad them go to Joseph c. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things Joseph is to do all such matters Yet Pharaoh indeed did all though not immediately but by Joseph Your Arguments p. 13. press not me who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ's Mediatorship and namely to his Kingly Office to judge the World only I shewed what I took to be the meaning of those Texts John 5. 22. 27. Wherein I followed Jansenius and Maldonate no absurd Expositors though Papists And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father v. 22. In Patre nihil mutatum est c. Est enim ipse in Filio in eo operatur saith Calvin And so Beza Negat Christus â Patre administrari hunc mundum ita viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur qui Patrem à Filio separabant cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filii manifestati in carne mundum regat You seem to make the present death of Adam a part of the rigorous execution of the Law when you say Aphor. p. 33. That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat In the day that thou eatest c. I do not think for that would have prevented both the Being the Sin and the Suffering of his Posterity How would this have been prevented if Adam's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence i. e. in the rigorous execution of it Therefore though you argue That the words of the Threat were not so meant as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full yet your very Argument supposeth That if the Sentence should have been so executed Adam should presently have died Now though Christ had not died yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been against this so far as I see you say nothing I desire to be as favourable an Animadverter as Truth will permit but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say I do not see If you had used the word Chastisements it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion For I shew that Chastisements are Punishments And whereas you speak of my great oversight it is indeed your great mistake for I did not take those words to express your Opinion only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion You might see that I make the Afflictions of God's Children in their Nature to be Evil and a Curse though not so to them they being sanctified and working for their good And I presume those Divines whom you oppose meant as both you and I do though you interpret them otherwise The difference here betwixt you and me is this You allow their Expression and dislike their meaning I allow their Meaning and dislike their Expression They distinguish betwixt Chastisements and Punishments which distinction in your Aphorisms you seem to allow only disliking the Application of it The distinction it self I dislike though I think that some who used it did not err in that which they intended in it In the Contents of Isa 27. there are these words God 's Chastisements differ from Judgments which words I hold incongruous I like not that of Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin Chap. 4. p. 139. Punishment aimeth chiefly at the satisfaction of Justice Correction at the amendment of the Offender That is not true of all Punishments see Geld. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of those that used them was not I think erroneous I would give you no cause to quarrel with me But is not this your own Argument Do you not thus oppose the Common Judgment as you call it They are ascribed to God's anger c. Aphor. p. 70. Do you not there oppose God's Anger to his Love Whereas Love and Hatred not Love and Anger are truly opposite God may be angry with us and yet love us yea therefore angry with us because he loveth us Rev. 3.
peccata missa facere which the Scripture he saith following the Metaphor further calls peccata in mare proâ—icere Mich. 7. 19. It is true Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment Remittere or missa facere peccata as Grotius saith is as much as punire nolle Yet this hinders not but that sin or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned yea I think it doth confirm it For if it be proper to say That God will not punish sin and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin then it is proper to say That God doth remit or pardon sin In a word therefore my words about which you make so much adoe are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them They do not import that our Actions even the best of them if strictly examined are not sinful or that God doth not see any sin in them but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them and accept them in Christ who is the High-Priâ—st that doth bear and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things Exod. 28. 38. as if they had no sin in them Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions and yet grant the justifying of our Persons Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions Surely if the Action be sinful the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too And though you pass over the next because you reverse your former Assertion yet in that which I there said you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me 1. You grant what I say 2. I have said before That though in mine Opinion sin may properly be said to be remitted yet this is in reference unto punishment 3. You had no reason to imagine that I should think that my Actions or the Actions of the best upon Earth can be justified against all Accusations as if they were absolutely good and perfect when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions and how it is through Christ covered and not imputed unto us Yea and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture viz. Eccles 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8 9. Job 9. 4. Exod. 28. 38. to prove that neither our Persons nor our Actions are so righteous but that we may be accused of and condemned for sin in them and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be It is strange how you should pass by all this it being directly before your eyes and should raise a suspicion as if I should mean quite contrary 1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ afterward they may be justified by our Works when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it viz. That first it is meant only of good Works and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them Illud semper retimeatur inquit Davenantius hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant Deus neque ipsos neque eorum opera grata haberet nisi hos illa in Christo magis quà m in seipsis amplexaretur What you say of Chamîer and others as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ might well have been spared as being nothing at all against me who am far from making our Works meritorious when I make even the best of them imperfect and to need pardon 2. It is evident by this very Section to which you now reply that I spake only of good Actions For how absurd and sensless were it to say that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous as I there say that our Works are not The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere 1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing though it be that and somewhat more 2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of I speak for my self 3. I take all sin to be against the Law as it is distinguished from the Gospel though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel Of that Law I suppose St. John spake saying Sin is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. And again I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not know lust or as the Margent hath it concupiscence viz. to be sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments 4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief and neglect of the Sacraments c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue The first precept requires us to have the Lord and him only for our God and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath Part. 2. Chap. 4. § 21 22 23. What you add after makes all for me in this particular only some things seem meet to be observed 1. This I confess to me is strange Philosophy That the Earth of which Man's Body was made ceased not to be Earth still when it was made Man As well may you say That Adam's rib of which Eve was formed ceased not to be a Rib still and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies 2. The Precept and Threatning you say are parts of the New Law though they be common with the Old Here you seem to grant That nothing is commanded or threatned in the New Law which is not commanded or threatned in the Old Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness and a Two-fold Justification one in respect of the Old Law another in respect of the New The Precept believe belongs to the Old Law but as it is not only a Precept but also a Condition upon performance of which Salvation is promised Believe and thou shalt be saved so it belongs to the New Law So this Threatning If thou dost not believe thou shalt perish belongs to the Old Law as threatning death for every sin and consequently for unbelief which is a sin and it belongs to the New Law as leaving an Unbeliever under
Divines I think is against him Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day Sentential Justification I should rather call it Publick Sentential Justification or a publick manifestation of the Sentence of Justification For surely our Justification here is Sentential God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgment Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word Justification for Justification as you say by Sentence do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justifie those that believe Perhaps you will say Where is that Sentence Answ It is in the Scripture But you may say The Scripture speaks only in general Well but if God in the Scripture say That all that believe are justified as Acts 13. 39. then consequently he saith That you and I believing are justified And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular though it is true they have not that clear evidence and full assurance as they shall have hereafter So for Condemnation at the last day I think it to be but a more solemn and publick pronouncing of the Sentence together with the immediate and full execution of it For otherwise the Sentence is past already He that believeth not is condemned already John 3. 18. I do not deny that Declarative Justification at the last Judgment is properly Justification only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before only shews that it is more full Extensivè as freeing from the guilt of more sins but that is only per accidens Justification in it self considered was as perfect before for it freed from all sin and from all Condemnation and the other doth no more What the meaning of your Question was If we be not one real Person with Christ then one what I could not tell but the words did seem to imply That we must either be one real Person with Christ or else we could not any way be one with him whereas the Scripture is clear that Believers are one with Christ though that they are one real Person with him is not to be admitted Therefore I thought meet to answer as I did viz. That we are one Spirit as the Apostle expresseth it 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is spiritually one with Christ as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him No doubt but further Queries may still be made and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature Yet I see not why we should not content our selves with those Similitudes and Resemblances which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery as of the Vine and Branches Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members Ephes 5. To your next Section I need say no more than this Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re constet I have shewed my meaning all along viz. That Christ's Satisfaction and not Faith is properly that by which we are justified Whereas you say We are justified by Faith it self as the Condition and not so by Christ I can admit it only thus That Faith is the Condition required of us that so we may be justified by Christ Otherwise I cannot yeeld that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification is properly that by which we are justified but of that enough before For the Habit and Act of Faith I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature For Habits may be in us when we sleep or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits I think also that though acquired Habits follow Acts yet infused Habits such as Faith is go before 2. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ I see not how any can make the Act of Faith but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ And if any of our Divines say That it is not the Habit of Faith but the Act that doth justifie I think they mean that Faith doth justifie as acting i. e. receiving Christ So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justifie yea they make it the instrumental cause of Justification only they make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose though they differ as you say No Similitude is to be set on the Rack if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used it is sufficient But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul I see not how Faith is the perfection of it For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument I think you trouble your self to no purpose though I know you have some end in it But what if it be not an Instrument properly if yet it may not unfitly be so termed And for any thing I see it may even as generally Divines do so term it Fides saith Revet est velut organum manus animae quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur And again Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum c. So Trelcatius Jun. Ex parte hominis Justificationis passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductivè tota est Instrumentalis Fides est c. Thus also Calvin Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae Inst lib. 3. cap. 11. § 7. And Wotton Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus And again Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scripturis Fides insigniatur Nam nec Causa esse dicitur cujus tamen rationem obtinere Theologi omnes confitentur And Bellarmine saying that Luther makes Faith Formalem causam Justificationis Davenant answers Instrumentalem semper agnoscit non autem formalem c. Pemble saith Faith doth justifie Relatively and Instrumentally Of Justif § 2 chap. 1. p. 27. So Mr. Ball of Faith chap. 10. pag. 135. It is a cause only Instrumental c. And of the Covenant chap. 3. p. 19. Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification c. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is It is the Instrument of the Soul c. Mr. Blake's words I think do more nearly concern you And these things considered I am truly sorry that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification nay scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us c. And