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
be for it must be present by way of Enjoyment but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for so that the thing though it be offered yet until it be accepted it is absent because it is not enjoyed The thing offered must be desirously and in that respect lovingly accepted but it must first be accepted and then loved so as to joy and delight in it 3. We look at Christ as enjoyed when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight of which Love I speak Gaudium oritur ex hoc saith Raimundus de Sebundae quòd aliqua res scit se habere id quod habet non ex hoc duntaxat quod habet There must both be the Having of a thing and also the Knowing that we have it that we may rejoyce in it 4. As Assent must go before Acceptance so must Acceptance go before that Love of which I speak 1. I did not say or think that you thought so of all Love viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed for there is no distinguishing here of these as I have shewed before the Object is not present except it be enjoyed You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object and I thought you had meant that kind of Love because you did distinguish Love from Desire Therefore I said Love as you take it considereth its Object as present and enjoyed viz. Love as distinguished from Desire I know not I confess what to make of Love but either a Desire if the Object be absent or a Delight if the Object be present 2. That which you say concerning Acceptance Election and Consent is nothing to me who do not enquire whether they be divers acts or no but only shew that they go before Enjoyment and so differ from Love as I take it viz. Love of Complacency which doth follow Enjoyment I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance and the Love of Complacency to follow after it Although Amare velle bonum be one and the same yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio si objectum absit vel cum Complacentiâ si adsit Aquinas doth not satisfie me when he saith Nullus desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato if he mean that a thing is amatum prius quà m desideratum The very Desiderare I think is Amare and so is Gaudere also but the one is Amare quod abest the other Amare quod adest So you in the next Section say Desire is Love and Complacency is Love 1. I did not doubt much less deny that there is Amor Desiderii as well as Amor Complacentiae only I shewed that your words there must be meant of the former in which sense I did not oppose you but as it is taken in the other sense and so you seemed to take it before because you did expresly distinguish it from Desire Neither is your second any thing against me 3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense as according to the most proper sense viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was 1. The places which you alledg John 16. 27. and 14. 21. do not prove that Love viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love and Christ's Love to us so that we must first love God and Christ before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ therefore we love God and Christ 1 John 4. 19. The meaning of those other places as Calvin notes is this That they that love God insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris restimonium To which may be added That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more 2. Not only Love but Obedience also must go before Glorification but it doth not therefore follow That they must go before Justification as your self hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first is more than I can find in Scripture 1. What some have answered and what you have read in others I know not you cite none whose Works are extant but only Mr. Ball and him at large On the Covenant but where in that Book you do not shew I find there that he doth use the words Instrument and Condition promiscuously The Covenant of Grace saith he exacteth no other thing inherent in us as a Cause viz. instrumental of Justification or a Condition N. B. in respect of which we are justified but Faith alone This is point-blank against that which you say of him And again It is saith he the sole Instrumental or Conditional N. B. Cause required on our part to Justification As I shewed before in the Animadversions ad pag. 243. our Divines say Fides sola justificat sed Fides quae justificat non est sola but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith Thus Stapleton somewhere I cannot now cite the place testifyeth of them saying Omnes adunum Protestantes docent Fidem justifcantem esse vivam operantem per charitatem atque alia bona opera 2. I grant That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite if you will call it so as I see not but you may though Amor Concupiscentiae is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae and so you speak of it p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae then neither do I speak against you For of that do I speak and had reason I think to understand you as speaking of it because you spake of Love as distinct from Desire Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency which are the Species of it but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love that Love which is not the one of these must needs be the other We accept or chuse a thing because we first Love i.e. desire it or as we use to say have a mind to it and having accepted and chosen it we further love it so as to delight in it except our Love turn into Hatred as Amnon's unchast Love did but the very Accepting or Chusing of a thing is not that I see properly a Loving of it 3. I grant that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance Consent c. the Love of Desire doth not but the Love of Complacency doth This is all that I have desired and so much you have yeelded 1. The distinction of Fides quae and Fides quà as it is frequently used by our Learned Writers so it doth hold good
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
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
subordinate is more than I observe But though Faith be subordinate unto Christ's Satisfaction in the matter of Justification yet that we are justified by Faith as a distinct Righteousness I cannot yeeld no more than that the Application of a Medicine is a distinct Medicine by which one is healed I am glad that you plainly disclaim a Coordination of Christ's Righteousness and Faith in the Work of Justification But if they be but subordinate then me-thinks they should not be two distinct Righteousnesses by which we are justified I see not how we can be justified I speak of an Universal Justification opposite to all condemnation that which Bucer calls Justificationem Vitae both by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us and also by our own personal Righteousness You say A Man having a Medicine and not applying it may properly be said to die for want of Application but to speak properly I think It is not the want of Application of the Medicine but the Disease that doth kill the Man So though a Man wanting Faith shall be condemned yet take Faith meerly as a Condition not as a Duty it is not properly the want of Faith but Sin that is the cause of his Condemnation though his want of Faith may as aggravate his Sin so increase his Condemnation That I speak your words is more than I do know How Christ's Righteousness may be called our Legal Righteousness I shewed by Rom. 10. 4. viz. as serving us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us and for want of which the Law otherwise would have condemned us Neither did I blame you meerly for calling Christ's Satisfaction our Legal Righteousness but for making another Righteousness of our own which you call our Evangelical Righteousness necessary unto Justification Now also you overlook that which I alledged about Christ's Satisfaction as being our Evangelical Righteousness 1. Doth the Old Covenant prescribe Christ's Satisfaction as our Righteousness You said a little before I do not think that Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction is that which the Law required as if I said That the Law did require it whereas I meant only this That the Law required Satisfaction and Christ made it for us so that Christ's Satisfaction serveth us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us and so may be called our Legal Righteousness But the New Covenant doth hold out Christ's Righteousness to be apprehended by us and made ours Faith that so thereby we may be justified Where the Scripture speaks of a Two-fold Righteousness so as you do or how this makes for the unfolding of the main Doctrine or tends to heal our Breaches I do not see You affirm these things but do not prove them 2. What plain ground you laid down in your Aphorisms for that Two-fold Righteousness I do not know What I could observe any way Argumentative I was willing to examine and so am still 1. If it imply Blasphemy to say That Christ repented and believed for us Doth it follow that Faith or Repentance is our Righteousness by which we are justified Can nothing be required of us and performed by us but it must therefore be our Righteousness and by it as our Righteousness we must be justified 2. The Scriptures which I alledged viz. Rom. 9. 29. 10. 6. Gal. 5. 5. and Rom. 3. 22. do sufficiently distinguish Faith from that Righteousness whereby we are justified and shew it to be only a means whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness and so by that Righteousness of Christ are justified The Argument I think is good notwithstanding any thing you say unto it Faith is only a means whereby Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto us unto Justification Therefore it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified Rivet speaking of the Remonstrants saith Volunt igitur Fidem cum operibus venâ—re in partem justitiae debitae Fidem justificare non Relativè ut organum apprehendens objectum sed Inherenter c. Hoc iniquitatis mysterium c. 1. You might easily know what I meant by Simply and Absolutely justified in the sight of God if you did well consider the other Members of the distinction viz. to be wholly freed from all Condemnation the same that Mr. Bradshaw meant by Universal Justification You know sufficiently the distinction betwixt Simpliciter or Absolutè secundum quid Bradshaw having said Hoc modo sc justificatione particulari non Electi soli sed Reprobi ipsi coram Deo Justificari possunt Adds immediately Neutri vero eorum absolute hoc modo justificari possunt Hoc modo justificari non est penitùs à peccati reatu sed ab hujus vel illius peccati imputatione injustâ liberari 2. Comparative Righteousness I shewed to be but a less degree of Unrighteousness but Ironical Righteousness is down-right Unrighteousness whereas a less Unrighteousness in comparison of a greater is a kind of Righteousness Minus malum respectu majoris habet rationem boni 3. I do not deny the Righteousness of Faith though I deny Faith to be that Righteousness by which we are justified Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith and sincere Obedience yet are we not therefore justified by Obedience but Declarativè as it is the fruit of Justifying Faith nor by Faith but Apprehensivè as by it we apprehend and receive Christ's Righteousness 1. I never doubted much less denied Faith to be a part of Inherent Righteousness 2. It is indeed a strange Righteousness that will not justifie so far forth as it will reach but it is not strange to Protestant-Divines that Inherent Righteousness cannot reach so far as to justifie in that sense as we speak of Justification Ilud concedimus inquit Daven esse in omnibus justificatis justitiam quandam inherentem quam si formalem causam statuant Justifactionis liceat enim vocabulum procudere non repugnabimus sed predictae Justificationis quae respondet stricto examini Coelestis Judicis nec formalis nec meritoria esse â—llo modo potest And he lays down these two Positions 1. Christi Mediatoris in nobis habitantis atque per Spiritum sese nobis unientis perfectissima Obedientia est formalis causa justificationis Nostrae utpote quae ex donatione Dei applicatione Fidei fit nostra 2. Justitia per Spiritum Christi nobis impressa inherens non est formalis causa per quam stamus justificati hoc est per quam liberati judicamur à damnatione acceptati ad vitam aternam tanquam eâdem digni per hanc qualitatem nobis inherentem That you may not catch at the word digni he afterward expresseth it thus Atque hie ne inanem de vocabulis velitationem instituamus illud praemittêdum nos per formalem causam Justificationis nihil aliud intelligere quam illud per quod stamus in conspectu Dei Ã
having cited Acts 18. 26. Ephes 3. 17. Gal. 3. 14. he saith These Scriptures speak of Faith as the Souls Instrument to receive Christ Jesus c. See there much more to this purpose I will add to these one more viz. J. Goodwin who though in divers things he be cross and contrary to our Divines yet in this at least in words he doth comply with them professing to hold That Faith doth justifie instrumentally If the propriety of Words must always be strictly examined we shall scarce know how to speak It is well if we can find words whereby to express our selves so as that others may understand if they please what we mean All that our Divines mean when they speak of Faith justifying Instrumentally or as an Instrument I suppose is this and so much also they usually express That Faith doth not justifie absolutely or in respect of it self but Relatively in respect of its Object Christ and his Righteousness laid hold on and received by Faith Neither should you me-thinks strive about the word Receiving how it should be the Act of Faith It sufficeth That the Scripture makes Believing in Christ and Receiving of Christ one and the same John 1. 12. That which you say of our most famous Writers ordinarily laying the main stress of the Reformed Cause and Doctrine on a plain Error did deserve to have been either further manifested or quite concealed to me it seems very injurious both to our most famous Writers and also to the Reformed Cause and Doctrine My meaning is That Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ whom the Gospel doth give for Righteousness to such as receive him i. e. believe in him And thus our Divines frequently express themselves Luther Fides justificat quia apprehendit possidet illum thesaurum scil Christum presentem Loc. Com. Class 2. loc 19. ex tom 4. And again Fides non tanquam opus justificat sed ideò justificat quia apprehendit misericordiam in Christo exhibitam Ibid. ex tom 1. in Gen. So Calvin Quod objicit nempe Osiander vim justificandi non inesse fidei ex seipsâ sed quatenus Christum recipit libenter admitto Fides instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae Thus also Hemingius Justificamur autem fide non quod fides ea res sit quâ justi sumus sed quia est Instrumentum quo Christum apprehendimus complectimur Davenant Hoc necessariò intelligendum est quatenus suum objectum apprehendit credenti applicat nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ And again Quî igitur Fides apprehendit applicat nobis Christi justitiam id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur Ames Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans quia non habet N. B. vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi And again Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam non est simpliciter per modum objecti sed per modum objecti N. B. nobis donati Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum omnia cum eo Scriptura disertis verbis testatur Rom. 8. 32. Hic tamen observandum est accuratè loquendo apprehensionem Christi justitiae ejus esse fidem justificantem quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi apprehensio justificationis ut possessionis nostrae praesentis fructus est effectum apprehensionis prioris Pemble We deny that Faith justifies us as it is a Work c. It justifies us only as the Condition required of us and an Instrument of embracing Christ's Righteousness nor can the contrary be proved Mr. Ball When Justification and Life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified That Faith receiving the Promise doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised Mr. Blake Faith as an Instrument receives Righteousness unto Justification Of the Coven chap. 12. pag. 82. If you agree with me as you say in this particular you will agree also with these whom I have cited for I agree with them their meaning and mine so far as I can discern is the same See also Mr. Ball of Faith Part 1. chap. 10. pag. 135. For the Twofold Righteousness which you make necessary unto Justification I think also I have said enough before But seeing that in the place on which I made the Animadversion you mention it as a Reason why Faith must justifie in a proper sense and not Christ's Righteousness only I cannot but observe how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contrary way viz. That Faith doth not justifie as taken properly because then we should be justified by a Two-fold Righteousness We are not justified saith he by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects But if we be justified by the Work of Faith we shall be justified partly by that Righteousness which is in us viz. of Faith and partly by the Righteousness of Christ without us And again We cannot be properly justified by both for our own Faith and Christ's obedience too For if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith what needs the imputation of Christ's Obedience to make us just If for Christ's Righteousness we be perfectly justified How can God account us perfectly just for our Faith 1. If you do not oppose the Literal sense of Scripture to Figurative I do not oppose you but grant that Faith doth justifie figuratively viz. as apprehending Christ by whom we are justified In these places saith Pemble where it is said Faith is imputed for Righteousness the Phrase is to be expounded Metonymice i. e. Christ's Righteousness believed on by Faith is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness A figurative sense may be a plain sense yet it is not a proper sense for surely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other Distinguendum est inquit Rivetus inter has phrases quae etsi in unum sensum conveniunt differunt nihilominùs in eo quòduna est figurata altera propâ—ia Figurata est Fides imputatur ad justitiam Propria est Justitia imputatur credenti Tum enim justitiae nomen ponitur directè pro eâ— justitia cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus est pro justis habet In primo autem Fidei tribuitur quod ejus non est proprè sumptae Nec enim est justitia nec justitiae loco habetur sed objectum ejus est justitia vera quae per fidem nobis imputatur ut pro nostra habeatur quam credendo amplexi sumus Haec si capere nolint aut veteratores Romani aut Novatores Sociniani sufficiat nobis Apostolos autores habere qui operibus nostris ergò fidei quâ opus omnem justitiae laudem detrahunt eamque in justitiâ quae sine operibus nobis imputatur constituunt That the sense by me and others put on Scripture is forced you affirm but
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-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
autorem agnoscit ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes qui Hebraea Biblia Grace reddiderunt à quibus Apostoli Evangelista multa in Scriptis suis quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet crebrò mutuentur Quamobrem plus quà m verisimile videtur Spiritum Sanctum quum novo loquendi more utaâ—ur quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Pharase Hunc sinquit Deum quis colet quis credet in eum Where Credet in eum is as much as fiduciam in eo collocaâ—it And so the Phrase of Believing in used in the New Testament seems to import as much as the Phrases of Trusting in and staying on used in the Old Testament as namely Isa 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of Faith part 1. chap. 3. p. 24 c. So far as I can judg your success is not answerable to your desire But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on your Knees I know not to what purpose you did speak of it For if it were only to shew the sincerity of your desire What is your Cause advantaged though that be granted as I know not why any should question it What is that which you say is yeelded That Faith doth not justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant Yet you make justifying-Justifying-Faith as such to be the Condition of the whole Covenant For you make it to include Obedience and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience 2. Of Justification begun and Justification continued and consummated by sentence at Judgment I have spoken before not is there need here to say any more of it 1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks But what of that Doth he speak so as you interpret him 2. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James express themselves diversly yet they agree in the Matter viz. That Works do not concur with Faith unto Justification Mr. Ball speaking of those words Faith is imputed unto Righteousness saith This Passage is diversly interpreted by Orthodox Divines all aiming at the same Truth and meeting in the Main being rather several Expressions of the same Truth than different Interpretations Then he shews three several ways where by those words are interpreted which differ as much as these Interpretations which you mention They that say That the Apostle speaketh of Justification coram Deo by Works understand a working-Working-Faith They that expound it of Justification coram Hominibus take the meaning to be That by Works a Man doth appear to be justified They that understand it of the Justification of the Person make the sense the same with those first mentioned and they that say it is meant of the Justification of a Man's Faith agree with those in the second place making Works to prove the sincerity of Faith and so to manifest a Man's Justification 3. Are not those words Hoc est Corpus meum as express words of Scripture as those which you alledg Though words be never so express yet not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be considered 4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done many years after that the Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified was a Working-Faith of a Working Nature a Faith fruitful in good Works his Faith bringing forth such fruit in due season and so shewing it self by Works when occasion did require Abraham no doubt had many other Works whereby his Faith did appear yet the Apostle thought meet to instance in that Work which was most remarkable and by which his Faith did manifest it self in a more especial manner Hoc facinus saith Chrysostome tanto praestantius erat cateris omnibus ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esseviderentur What your Parenthesis doth mean Legal Justificatiion I mean I do not well understand But how doth James speak of Justification as Continued and not as Begun Is his meaning this That a Man is indeed at first justified by Faith only but both Faith and Works together do continue his Justification So you understand it but surely James doth neither speak nor mean so For by Faith alone without Works in his sense a Man never was never can be justified This is clear by his whole Discourse for he calls him a vain Man that relies on such a Faith and calls it a dead Faith c. So that when a Man is first justified it is by a Working Faith not that Faith must necessarily produce Works at the first but it is as I said of a Working Nature of such a Nature as to produce Works when they are required which is the same with what you say out of Grotius and this doth answer all that you object against the Interpretation which I stand for Who can doubt but Abraham was justified long before he offered up Isaac the Scripture being express for it But how then Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was past Answ No indeed that Work was not nor could be but Faith apt to shew it self by that Work or any other when required and consequently a Working Faith might be and was the Condition of that Justification Grotius whom you cite giving you such a hint of it I wonder that you could not observe this James and Paul may well enough be reconciled though both of them speak of Justification as Begun For James doth not require Works otherwise than as Fruits of Faith to be brought forth in time convenient and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense Every observant Reader saith Dr. Jackson may furnish himself with plenty of Arguments all demonstrative that Works taken as St. James meant not for the Act or Operation only but either for the Act or promptitude to it are necessary to Justification c. And again Faith virtually includes the same mind in us that was in Christ a readiness to do Works of every kind which notwithstanding are not Associates of Faith in the business of Justification And thus he reconcileth the two Apostles who in this Point seem to differ St. James affirming we are justified by Works and not by Faith only speaks of the Passive Qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified or made capable of absolute Approbation or final Absolation This qualification supposed St. Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence or of the ground of the Plea for Absolution the one by his Doctrine must be conceived and the other sought for only by Faith The immediate and only cause of both he still contends not to be in us but without us and for this reason when he affirms that we are justified by Faith alone he considers not Faith as it is a part of
as Faith is neither doth the Scripture make them Conditions of Justification as it doth Faith For the Third 1. Neither doth James speak of any other Justification 2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are justified by it as a Work or Duty but only as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness See Calv. Instit lib. 3. cap. 11. § 7. And Pemble of Justif Sect. 2. chap. 2. pag. 38. 3. No more do the greatest Transgressors need pardon for that wherein they do not transgress 4. Works as Works either justifie by way of merit or not at all But Faith doth not justifie as a Work or Duty required of us but as an Instrument receiving Christ or if you will a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified See Pemble of Justif § 2. chap. 1. pag. 24. The Exclusion viz. of VVorks from being concurrent with Faith unto Justification is not only Mr. Pemble's but generally all Protestants and indeed Paul's and the Scriptures and to take in VVorks in that sense is as Mr. Blake before cited truly saith against the whole current of the Gospel 1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it is not to deny it to mean as it speaketh Whether the Reasons which I alledged against your interpretation of St. James be forced let others judg 2. It avails your cause nothing to prove That James by working doth mean VVorks indeed I presume Mr. Pemble would not deny that but his meaning I conceive was That VVorks are only spoken of as Fruits of Justifying Faith and are only said to justifie because they are as Dr. Jackson speaketh a passive qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified Hence saith he also is the seeming inconvenience of St. James his Causal form of Speech 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 easily answered For the immediate and principal cause proposed it is usual to attribute a kind of causality to the qualification of the Subject though only requisite as a mere passive disposition without which the principal or sole Agent shall want his efficacy All that St. James intended is this That Justifying Faith is of a VVorking-Nature and not such a Faith as some rely on viz. barren and without VVorks Now for your Reasons I answer Ad 1. You speak of the unprofitableness of bare Faith i. e. say you Assent But quorsum hoc You know that Protestants make Faith to justifie not as it is a bare Assent but as it is a Receiving of Christ and a Recumbency on him Fides haec justificans saith Ames non est illa generalis quâ in intellectu assensum praebemus veritati in Sacris literis revelatae c. Fides igitur illa propriè dicitur justificans quâ incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem peccatorum salutem And this Faith they hold not barren but fruitful in good VVorks though not VVorks but Faith it self apprehending and applying Christ be it whereby we are justified Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum ex eo constat quod sola est fides quae Dco promittenti credit quae sola acquiescit in gratuitâ promissione Dei in Christo remissionem peccatorum apprehendit c. Vnde etiam sequitur Fidem non justificare quatenus est opus justitiae sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi c. Nec Jacobus dissentit à Paulo quamvis alio modo loquendi utatur ut redarguat eos qui seipsos fallebant inani fidei justificationem tribuentes quam probat non esse veram 〈◊〉 exemplo Charitatis quae nullam vim habet si tota sit in verbis c. 2. 16. Operibus autem justificari apud Jacobum idem est quod apud Paulum 1 Tim. 3. 16. justificari spiritu i. e. Vi spiritus dare sui experimentum quomodo experimentum dedit Abraham fidei suae offerendo filium suum homo probatus fit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tentatione Jac. 1. 12. quae probatio non facit ut res sit sed per experientiam docet rem esse Vnde etiam fides dicitur perfici per opera quia per ea se prodit Ergo cum Paulo vult Jacobus hominem justificari fide sed uterque eâ quae sui experimentum dat per opera etsi neuter vult opera esse justificationis causas aut ad justitiam coram Deo acceptaâ—i quorum primum volunt Pontificii alterum Sociniani Remonstrantes Concludimus cum Apostolo colligimus fide justificari hominem absque operibus Legis Rom. 3. 28. sub quibus comprehendimus quaelibet opera quae secundum Legem fiunt etiam à sanctis fideâ—ibus Cum enim inter Legem factorum sive operum Legem fidei distinguat Apostolus ibid. v. 27. si ex operibus justificemur Legis operum fidei distinctio 〈◊〉 vana Argumentum ex eâ deductum pro fidei justificatione nut abit quod absurdum ut vitemus scientes non justificari hominem ex operibus Legis sed tantum per fidem Jesu Christi etiam nos in Jesum Christians credimus ut justificemur ex fide Jesu Christi non ex operâ—â—s Legis Gal. 2. 22. Sed cum eodem Apostolo fidum esse hunc sermonem affirmamus studendum esse â—is qui credideruat Deo ut bona opera tueantur Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omni inquinamento c. 2. Cor. 7. 1. quod cum fiat de die in diem 2 Cor. 4. 16. quamdiù caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum c. Gal. 5. 17 in eo non possumus coram Deo justificari Nam in justificando partialem justitiam Deus non respicit sed perfectâm plenam quia Lex maledicit omnibus qui non permanebunt in omnibus quae praecipit Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. I have been the larger in citing this Author both because he is eminent and also doth speak so fully to the Point and doth meet with many of your Opinions But to proceed It is Faith and Faith i. e. several kinds of Faith which St. James opposeth one to the other viz. Faith which is a bare Assent and without Works such a Faith as the Devils have and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Christ and the mercy of God in Christ and is attended with VVorks as the Fruits and Effects of it as the Faith of Abraham and Rahab was Though therefore he concludes That Faith cannot save him that hath not VVorks yet iâ— follows not that VVorks concur with Faith unto Justification but only that a Justifying Faith will shew it self by VVorks Ad 2. It is granted That Faith which is no more than a bare Assent is neither Justifying nor Saving But what of this Is there no other Faith than Assent Do not you your self make Acceptance which is more than Assent the compleating Act of Justifying Faith And how can you say That there is the same force ascribed to VVorks as to
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-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
even at first when you say VVorks are not requisite in respect of their presence with Faith though that Faith say I is of a working Disposition differ much in their very Nature 2. If you will be true to your own Principles you cannot say That VVorks make Faith alive or that Faith is not alive without VVorks as actually present though you consider Faith meerly as a Condition of Justification seeing you hold Faith to be alive in that respect when we are first justified though there be no VVorks present with it And though as there must be a promptitude to VVorks at first so there must be VVorks themselves in due season yet that VVorks do afterward concur with Faith unto Justification is more than yet I see or I presume ever shall see proved 3. Therefore my Argument stands good against you until you can make it appear That Faith alone without the Coparâ—nership of VVorks is the Condition of Justification at first but Faith and VVorks together of Justification afterward I have shewed some Reasons against it but I can see none for it Your Similitude of a Fine c. is no proof Similitudes may illustrate something but they prove nothing 1. You said The Apostle saith That Faith did Work in and with his Works whereas the Apostle using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not speak of working in but only of working with 2. Of what validity that distinction is of Justification Inchoated and Justification Continued and Consummate you have not yet shewed 3. VVhat Calvin's Opinion otherwise was is not to the purpose I only alledged his Exposition of those words Fides cooperata est operibus suis and I think his Exposition is genuine So also Mr. Manton That sense which I prefer saith he is That his Faith rested not in a naked bart Profession but was operative it had its efficacy and influence upon his Works co-working with all other Graces it doth not only exert and put forth it self in acts of Believing but also in working Beza renders it Administra fuit operum ejus and expounds it Efficax foecunda bonorum operum 1. I shewed before how not only Piscator and Pemble but many others both before and after them interpret those words By Works his Faith was made perfect i. e. By VVorks his Faith did appear perfect i. e. sound and good This Exposition is such that as yet I see no reason to dislike it 2. I grant that Faith without VVorks viz. when God doth require them is dead as to the effect of Justifying Yea and it is also dead in it self being but a dead Assent having no life no operative vertue in it 3. Abraham's Faith was is and shall be manifested to be perfect i. e. sincere by his VVorks to all that were are and shall be able to discern the true nature of Justifying Faith Although there were none then that could discern this which yet is not to be supposed Isaac was then of age to discern it and so other of Abraham's Family to whom the thing was known yet to after-Ages the perfection of Abraham's Faith is made manifest by his VVorks especially his offering his Son upon the Altar And if God did say Now I know that thou fearest me c. why may it not be said speaking of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that thereby Abraham's Faith and its Perfection appeared to God himself Certain it is that the VVork spoken of did proceed from Faith Heb. 11. 7. And therefore as the Effect doth shew the Cause to be perfect so did Abraham's VVorks especially that of offering up Isaac shew his Faith to be perfect To the Second 1. Though Justifying Faith include in it three Acts mentioned Heb. 11. 13. yet there are but two of them properly and peculiarly Acts of Faith For Seeing or Knowing the first there mentioned is but presupposed unto Faith Bellarmine in this saith truly though it was little to his purpose Cognit to apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem sed non est ipsa propriè fides The other two Acts viz. Perswasion and Embracing though distinct yet are both comprehended in Believing 2. I see no cloudiness in this Believing justifieth not as it is our Act but in respect of its Object neither is this to speak darkness except to a dark Understanding which I know yours is not But you know what is said of some Faciunt nimium intelligendo ut nihil intelligant VVhat is more vulgar with Divines and those no vulgar ones neither than to say That Faith doth not justifie as it is a VVork of ours but in respect of its Object Christ whom it apprehendeth and by whom so apprehended we are justified Hujus satisfactionis âpprehendendae medium saith one whom Râ—vet much commends fides est Deo sic â—â—dinante ut non alii illius participes sint quà m qui eam sincerâ fide amplectuntur non ita tamen ut ipsa fides ratione sui nos Deo gratos faciat acceptos sâ—d rvatione objecti quod apprehendit cujus meritum nobis applicat perfectam obedientiam So Rivet himself saith Fides non justificat quaetenus est opus justitia sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi Divers others to this purpose have been cited before Your Question Why doth not the Object justifie without the Act is soon answered Because the Act Believing is required on our part Deo sic â—â—dinante as the Author before-cited saith That so the Object Christ's Righteousness may become ours unto Justification yet still it is in respect of the Object Christ's Righteousness that the Act Believing doth justifie You darken my words when you transform them thus It justifieth in respect to its Object I say in respect of its Object and so you first cited it My meaning is this It is the Object of Faith viz. Christ's Righteousness though as apprehended by Faith whereby we are justified Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum saith Amâ—sius non absolute consideratum quo sensu Christus etiam est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide à pprehensum This is clear by that Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified I will add Mr. Ball 's words which in sense are the same with mine and there is little difference as to clearness or cloudiness in the Expression The Third Exposition is That when Faith is imputed for Righteousness it iâ— not understood materially as though the Dignity Worth and Perfection of Faith made us just but relatively and in respect of its Object that is to us believing Righteousness sc of Christ is freely imputed and by Faith we freely receive Righteousness and remission of sinâ— freely given of God And therefore to say Faith justifieth and Faith is imputed for Righteousness are phrases equivalent For Faith justifieth not by its merit or dignity but as an Instrument and correlatively that is the merit of
Repentance must go before Justification and is required unto Justification but not so as Faith is required Repentance is required that we may be justified but not that we may be justified by it as we are by Faith though Instrumentally and Relatively as it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified For Prayer it is a Fruit of Faith and therefore called The Prayer of Faith Jam. 5. 15. Repentance saith Mr. Ball Of the Coven c. 3. p. 18. is the Condition of Faith and the Qualification of a Person capable of Salvation but Faith alone is the Cause of Justification and Salvation on our part required And immediately after he adds It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the promises of Mercy but we are not justified partly by Prayer partly by Repentance but by that Faith which stirreth up Godly sorrow for sin and inforceth us to pray for Pardon and Salvation And again Prayer is nothing else but the Stream or River of Faith and an issue of the desire of that which joyfully we believe Of Faith Part 1. Chap. 8. pag. 105. For that place Acts 22. 16. the Exposition which I gave of it in the Animadversions is confirmed by this That the nature of a Sacrament is to signifie and seal as the Apostle shews Rom. 4. 11. Quatenus ergò fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus inquit Calvinus ut remissionem peccatorum percipiat 〈◊〉 solo Christi sanguine Lavacrum animae vocatur Ita ablutio cujus meminit Lucas non causam designat sed ad sensum Pauli refertur qui symbolo accepto peccata suae esse expiata N. B. melius cognovit Cum testimonium haberet Paulus gratiae Dei jam illi remissa erant peccata Non igitur Baptismo demum ablutus est sed novam gratiae quam adeptus erat confirmationem accepit That Paul's sins were but incompleatly washed away by Faith until he was baptized your Similitudes which are too often your only proofs do not prove Yea a Kings Coronation of which you speak when the Kingdom is hereditary is I think but a confirmation of what was done before The purifying of the Heart spoken of 1 Pet. 1. 22. is I conceive to be understood as Jam. 4. 8. Jer. 4. 14. viz. of purifying from the filth of sin by Sanctification And for 1 Pet. 4. 18. who denies the diligence of the Righteous to be a means of their Salvation But what is that to prove Works to concur with Faith unto Justification 1. I take what you grant That at first believing a Man is justified so fully as that he is acquitted from the guilt of all Sin and from all Condemnation And surely at the last one can have no fuller Justification than this is That afterwards he is acquitted from the guilt of more sins is not to the purpose seeing he is acquitted from all at first and but from all at last though this all be more at last than at first Otherwise the Justification of one who hath fewer sins should not be so full as the Justification of him whose sins are more in number 2. That there is a further Condition of Justification afterward than at first hath been said often but was never yet proved 3. That which you call Sentential Justification viz. at the Last Judgment I hold to be only the manifestation of that Justification which was before That because Obedience is a Condition of Salvation heretofore it is also a Condition of Justification I deny as you see all along in the Animadversions and therefore I thought it enough here to touch that which you say of full Justification especially seeing your self hold Obedience to be no Condition of Justification at first You lay the weight of your 78th Thesis upon the word full which therefore was enough for me to take hold of For your Queries therefore about Sentential Justification at Judgment I have told you my mind before and you might sufficiently understand it by the Animadversions When you prove 1. that Justification at Judgment is a Justification distinct from Justification here and not only a manifestation of it 2. That Justification at Judgment hath the same Conditions with Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it viz. Glorification And 3. That consequently Obedience is a Condition of Justification at Judgment When you shall prove I say these things I shall see more than yet I do In the mean while besides what hath been said before hear what Bucan saith to this purpose An perficitur justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ In Justificatione quemadmodum judicamur reputamur à Deo justi ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae Ratione igitur decreti divini sententiae ipsius de vitâ aternâ prolatae à Deo judice item ratione justitiae quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis jam perfecta est justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ nisi quòd in alterâ magis patefacienda N. B. si◠ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda Ea tamen tota perficitur in hac vitâ in quâ potest homo dici plenè perfectéque justificatus Filii Dei sumus ergo justificati sed nondum patefactum est quid erimus 1 John 3. 2. At si executionem respicias rationem habeas vitae gloriae quae nobis adjudicatur quae nobis inhaesura est quia in nobis non perficitur in hâc vitâ imperfecta etiam Justificatio in hâc vitâ censeri potest 1. I think there is not the like right of Salvation and Justification but that although we must be saved by Works though not by the Merit of them yet we cannot be justified by Works except it be by the merit of them My reason is Because that whereby we are justified must fully satisfie the Law for it must fully acquit us from all Condemnation which otherwise by the Law will fall upon us This Works cannot do except they be fully conform to the Law and so be meritorious as far forth as the Creature can merit of the Creator But being justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed to us and so put into a state of Salvation we must yet shew our Faith by our Works which though they be imperfect and so not meritorious yet make way for the full enjoyment of Salvation And me-thinks the Scripture is so frequent and clear in distinguishing betwixt Justification and Salvation as to the full enjoyment of it that it may seem strange that you should so confound them as you do and argue as if there were the same reason of the one as of the other 2. You might easily see that by Via Regni as opposed to Causa Regnandi I meant only to exclude the Merit of Works not to deny Works to be a Means and a Condition required of us for the obtaining of compleat Salvation Salvation is a Chain
consisting of many Links but so is not Justification it is but one Link of that Chain 3. If all the World of Divines be against this That Justification at Judgment is but a Declaration of our Justification here I have hitherto it seems been in some other World For truly so far as I observe both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as we here partake of it As for Justification at Judgment it is but rarely touched either in Scripture or in other Writings Neither so far as I can see will it consist with either to make Justification at Judgment a compleating of our Justification as if before we were but imperfectly justified but rather they shew that our Justification is then fully declared and made manifest and that then we come to the full enjoyment of that benefit which we have right unto by our Justification viz. Glorification For whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. I have spoken enough of this before but you do so continually repeat the same things that I am forced also to repeat things oftner than I would 1. That Justification by Sentence viz. at the Last Judgment and Continued Justification are several kinds of Justification distinct from Justification begun and have several Conditions you continually affirm or suppose but never prove 2. My debate with you was about those words That which we are justified by we are saved by and the full possession or enjoyment of Salvation What your reply is to the purpose I cannot see And besides you had need to clear those words In justifying it is the same thing to give a right to a thing and to give the thing it self For if you mean That as soon as a right to a thing is given by Justification the thing it self also is actually given it appears to me far otherwise For I think that Justification presently gives a right to Glorification For what doth debar from that right but sin Now the guilt of sin is done away by Justification therefore there is a present right too to Glorification yet no present enjoyment of it How I do yeeld your Assertion you do not shew Your Repetitions indeed have been troublesome unto me I grant here more than you desire viz. That not only to morrow there will be Condemnation to him that shall not sincerely obey but even to day there is condemnation to him his Faith being not prompt and ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience is not such as doth justifie him at all But though Faith whereby we are justified must and will shew it self by Works yet we are not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith Paul doth exclud Works as well from Justification afterward as at first viz. as concurring with Faith unto the Effect of Justifying for he shews that Abraham was Justified not only at first but also afterward by Faith and not by Works Rom. 4. 2 3. And James doth require Works as well to Justification at first as afterward viz. as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified For otherwise he saith it is a dead Faith ineffectual and unprofitable Though Works do not presently appear upon our first believing yet if they do not appear in due season that Faith doth not justifie Such a Believer doth not cease to be but indeed never was in Christ viz. as a justified Person is in him How is Justification at Judgment a declaring of a Righteousness in question The Word of God the tru◠whereof is unquestionable assures us that all true Believers are justified And that such and such were true Believers God by his Word and Spirit did evidence unto them before though then he will make it more fully evident unto all That Satan shall publickly accuse at the Last Judgment is more than I see either Scripture or Reason for He shall then be judged himself and that in some sort by the Saints 1 Cor. 6. 3. He shall then have little courage to accuse the Saints though now he doth it Yet I question also whether Satan do at any time directly put up unto God any Accusations against the Saints He seems to be called the Accuser of the Brethren Apoc. 12. 10. because by his Instruments he is ever traducing and slandering them He is said to accuse them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before God or in the sight of God not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto God as the unjust Steward was accused to his Master 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 16. 1. That in Joh 1. 2. seems to be parabolically expressed Satan knows his Accusations against the Saints to be false Therefore he knows it is to little purpose to accuse them unto God Especially at the Last Judgment by the very separating of the Elect from the Reprobate he will see that it is in vain to bring any Accusation against the Elect and therefore how there should then be any such publick Accuser or any question of the Righteousness of the Saints I do not see besides that excepting those who will be found alive at Christ's coming all have received their doom before though not so openly as then they shall That Obedience is a Condition of Glorification not of right unto it but of possession and enjoyment of it I here and every-where confess 1. What mean you by those words Doth Obedience get Faith Doth any such thing follow upon that which I say But you say If Obedience only manifest Faith how then doth it procure Right Answ It is not said That Obedience doth procure right but only thus much is signified That none can have right without Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith by which right is procured As I said before of Works so I say now of keeping the Commandments which doth comprehend in it all good Works it is spoken of only as a Fruit of Faith which Faith indeed doth Instrumentally and Relatively procure Right For the words of James I have said enough before I have neither list nor leisure to repeat the same things continually upon every occasion What your multitude of other Texts is I do not know but if they be not more forced than by my Opinion the words of James are there will be little cause to complain of the forcing of them 2. That Faith without Obedience doth give right at first you grant The same right I hold is still continued only by Faith though Faith if not of such a Nature as to produce Obedience can neither give right at first nor afterward continue it Though Repentance must go before Justification yet Faith alone may justifie and so give right which though it be not the same with Justifying yet it is necessarily joined with it 3. Jus in re I take to be such a Right as from which the Possession it self is not nor can be separated 4. The Text doth not ascribe Jus ad rem to Obedience but only Declarativè as a Fruit of Faith it
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
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
this follow upon the other Taking Christ for Lord is virtually included in taking him for Priest see Rom. 14. 9. and 2 Cor. 5. 15. They cannot be divided though they be distinguished That Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest doth also receive him as Lord either expresly if Christ be propounded as Lord or at least implicitly yet Faith only as receiving Christ as Priest doth justifie for the reason alledged before to which I see nothing that you have said of force to refel it Wicked Men cannot unfeignedly receive Christ as Priest whiles they retain a Heart standing out in rebellion against Christ as Lord. Can they indeed embrace Christ as satisfying for them and yet not yeeld up themselves in obedience unto him The Apostle it seems was of another mind The love of Christ saith he constraineth us For we thus judg That if one died for all then were all dead And that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. And again I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life which I now live I live by Faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2. 20. This is the nature of that Faith which doth receive Christ as a Reconciler to work through Love Gal. 5. 6. May I not retort upon you and say When you have taught wicked Men that Faith alone doth justifie at first and they are willing to believe will you perswade them that they are unjustified again because Works do not follow after For my part I know no unjustifying of those who are once justified You speak sometimes of being justified to day by Faith without Works and of being unjustified to morrow or the day after except Works come in and help to justifie But I say Faith without a promptitude to Works doth not justifie at first such as do not receive Christ as Lord and do good Works when there is opportunity were never justified at all they never had a true justifying-Justifying-Faith which is never without Works as the seasonable Fruits and Effects of it Yet Faith both at first and last doth justifie without Works as concurrent with it unto Justification What you say of a willingness to receive Christ is nothing For I speak of a true actual receiving which I say cannot be of Christ as Priest except it be either expresly or implicitly of Christ as Lord also and yet we are justified by receiving him in the one respect and not in the other None can have that Faith which justifieth but they shall have also other Graces and VVorks of Obedience in their season Yet do not other Graces therefore or VVorks justifie as well as Faith Bellarmine obâ—ecting Fides vera potest 〈…〉 separarâ— Amesius answers Aliqua fides potest talis est Pontificia sed illa fides cui nos tribuimus justificandi virtutem cum unionem faciat nostri cum Christo à Christi Spiritu vivificante Sanctificante non potest separari Yet he saith Fides non justificat ut respicit praecepta operum faciendorum sed solummodò ut respicit promissionem gratiae So Dr. Prideaux Fides sola justificat non rationâ— existentia absque spe charitâte sed muneris Lect. 5. de Justif § 7. And Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 6. p. 73. Abraham was justified by Faith alone but this Faith though alone in the Act of Justification no other Grace co-working with it was not alone in existence did not lie dead in him as a dormant and idle quality Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that Faith which justifieth or as they testifie or give proof that Faith is lively but Faith alone justifieth as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ Here by the way observe how Amesius and Mr. Ball speak of Faith apprehending and embracing the Promise which manner of speech may also be observed in other eminent Divines yet you somewhere censure Mr. Cotton somewhat sharply for speaking in that manner 1. If it be as difficult for the Understanding to believe i. e. assent unto Christ's Priestly Office as is his Kingly then it seems also as hard for the VVill to consent to or accept of the one as the other If the VVill be inclined to a thing it will move the Understanding to assent unto it Quod valde volumus fac lè credimus That the Jews believed neither Christ's Kingly nor his Priestly Office was the perversness of their Will as well as the error of their Understanding What the Papists with whom you have met do say matters little we see what their great Rabbies say and maintain in their Disputations Yet it is no strange thing if even they also now and then let fall something wherein they give restimony to the Truth though in the whole current of their Discourses they oppose it Amesius sheweth That Bellarmine in that very place which you cite doth contradict himself whiles he is over-earnest to contradict Protestants Bellarminus hîc implicat seipsum contradictione ut nobis possit contradicere Whereas you cite Rivet disclaiming that which Bellarmine maketh to be the Opinion of Protestants viz. That Christ's Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification I have said enough about it before viz. That some understanding the Term one way some another our Divines express themselves variously yet all agree in the thing it self viz. That Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us is that by which we are justified See Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. where he answers this very Argument of Bellarmine though he contract his words and leave out those which you cite but however both there and in other places which I cited before he hath enough to this purpose concerning the formal Cause of Justification and how the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us may be so termed Dr. Prideaux also I see is offended at Bellarmine for saying Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur simus id nos cum rectâ ratione pugnare contendimus as if this were the Opinion of Protestants At quis unquam è nostris saith the Doctor noâ— per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion Annon formam quam libet inhaerentem quâ— formaliter justi denominemur semper explosimus In this sense also Davenant doth reject it Quod dicit Bellarminus impossibile esse ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter nugas agit atque tribuit illam ipsam sententiam Protestantibus quam
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
much of the Texts alledged for Faith's Justifying seeing that those Texts expresly say That we are justified by Faith and that Faith is imputed unto us for Righteousness which the other Texts do not say of Obedience Ibid. 1. Did you never understand my meaning about Faith's justifying until now Nay you seem not yet to understand it Doth not Faith justifie at all if it only justifies Instrumentally and Relatively Is this so strange unto you that when we are said to be justified by Faith it is meant in respect of the Object viz. Christ and his Righteousness which is indeed that by which we are justified though it must be apprehended by Faith that we may be justified by it Where is now the totus mundâ—s Theologorum Reformatorum which sometime you spake of My acquaintance in this kind is not so great I think as yours yet I have before alledged many to this purpose I will here add one more a Man of note Dr. Prideaux Lect. 5. de Justif § 11 14 16. Justificamur inquit per justitiam Christi c. Atqui Fides ex parte nostrâ hanc justitiam sic a Deo imputatam apprehendit solummodo applicat quia neque Charitati vel spei vel alteri habitui hoc munus competat And again Justificat primò Deus Pater admittendo imputando 2. Deus Filius Satisfaciendo advocatum agendo 3. Spiritus Sanctus revelando obsignando 4. Fides apprehendendo applicando 5. Opera manifestando declarando And again Animadvertere potuit Bertius nos non proprtè justificationem fidei attribuere sed metalepticè quà tenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illum habitum usitatâ Scripturae phrasi in habitum transfertur 2. For Christ's Righteousness justifying formally or being the formal cause of Justification I have shewed in what sense some of our Divines do hold it and some reject it and that the difference is rather in words than in the thing it self 3. To me it seems no obscurity to say Faith or Believing doth justifie because Christ's Righteousness except it be apprehended by Faith is not available to Justification Is not this as much as Faith doth justifie Instrumentally or as apprehending Christs Righteousness by which we are justified The reason why Christ's Righteousness cannot justifie except it be apprehended by Faith is this That God doth require Faith of us Faith I say apprehending Christ and his Righteousness Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that so we may be justified God's Will is properly the Cause yet there is a congruity in the thing it self an aptitude you grant in the nature of Faith it is of an apprehensive Nature and its apprehending of Christ's Righteousness the Will of God still presupposed doth make this Righteousness ours even as a Gift becomes ours by our receiving of it If Davenant's words which I cited be not against you then nothing that I can say is against you For I cannot express my own mind as to that point more clearly and fully than he doth I will repeat his words again De Justit Habit. cap. 28. Nihil usitatius quà m causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis justitiam Christi id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur Is not this against you who say Append. p. 120. Faith is a Work and Act of ours and if Faith justifie as an apprehension of Christ it justifieth as a Work Do not these words of Devenant tell you that it is not Causa applicans but res applicata not Fides but Christus fide apprehensus that doth justifie Faith then is said to justifie yet not in respect of it self but in respect of its Object it is not properly Faith apprehending or the apprehension of Faith but Christ and his Righteousness apprehended by which we are justified Much hath been said before to this purpose If this be nothing against you I know not how in this particular to say any thing against you if it be against you surely it is nothing but what that Reverend Author saith in the words cited And mark I pray upon what occasion he brings in those words Bellarmine De Justif lib. 2. cap. 9. saith that Calvin from Rom. 4. Vbi dicitur fidem Abrahae imputatam esse id justitiam gathers nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam nempe quâ justificamur quà m fidem in Christum id est N. B. Christi justitiam Christi fide apprehensam Against this he objects Apostolus dicit ipsam fidem imputari ad justitiam fides autem non est justitia Christi c. To this Davenant answers Sed frivota est haec objectio Nam nihil usitatius quà m causae applicanti c. Your Objection is the very same in effect with Bellarmine's so that if Davenants words be any thing against Bellarmine they are as much against you And truly as you put off the words of Davenant so you might with the same ease have answered all my Animadversions and so you may all these Exceptions by saying That they are not against you It is a strange faculty that you seem to have of making any thing for you as when you bid see Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. and nothing against you as here in this place Ibid. When Mr. Manton speaketh of Faith Justifying as a Relative Act his words immediately before which I also cited shew his meaning viz. That Faith justifieth in its relation to Christ as it receiveth Christ so that not every Act relating unto Christ but that which doth so relate unto him as to receive him is that which justifieth but what I say of the Act justifying must always be understood in the sense before explained That Faith in respect of its apprehensive nature is more than Causa sine quâ non to me is clear it is Causa applicans as Davenant in the words even now cited doth call it 2. To contend much about Faith's Instrumentality I do not like I mean in respect of the word Instrumentality so that we agree in the matter yet as our best Divines have used the word I see not but it is convenient to be used 3. I grant that it is a material question Whether it be the receiving of Christ only as Priest that doth justifie for the confounding of Christ's Offices and of the Acts of Faith as Mr. Blake before cited saith well is not to be endured But I see no necessary dependance of this question upon the other viz. Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument a sole-working Instrument or as an Ordinance or Relative Action required on our parts which Mr. Manton said is all to the same issue and purpose and so I think it is 87. For the distinction of God's Will you might at first apprehend what I meant though perhaps my Expressions were not altogether so clear as afterward neither indeed do
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
Righteousness by which we are justified So that de Dieu's Opinion and yours are much different Again Sola Fides inquit amplectens istam obedientiam sc Christi imputatur in justitiam Ibid. p. 104. And pag. 105. Fidei imputatio est in justitiam perfectam qualis est Obedientia Christi Operum imputatio in imperfectam qualia sunt ipsa Opera in hâc vitâ And pag. 109. he cites Bucer in Colloq Ratisb as agreeing with him and saying thus Dixeramus nos secuti Apostolum omnem Scripturam duplicem esse Sanctorum justitiam quâ justi sunt coram Deo hominibus Vnam Christi perfectam quâ illis spes omnis gratiae Dei salutis vitaeque sempâ—ternae tota nititur Alteram in ipsis per Spiritum Christi inchoatum quâ considere non debent proptereà quòd ea imperfecta semper est dum hîc vivunt Deo non nisi ex liberali infinitâ ejus misericordiâ merito Christi probari non potest Hâc justitia nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae Justitiam hanc Inchoatam sentimus esse quidem veram vivam Justitiam Dei praeclarum eximium donum vitamque novam in Christo hâc justitiâ constare omnesque Sanctos hac ipsâ quoque justitia justos esse coram Deo coram hominibus propter eam Sanctos quoque à Deo justificari justificatione Operum i. e. comprobari eos à Deo laudari remunerari Attamen quamlibet haec justitia sit vera ac viva suo etiam modo N. B. justificans tamen non esse ejusmodi non sic veram vivam solidam ut quisquam Sanctorum justificari ea possit justificatione vitae multo minus ut sit ipsa justitia vel justificatio vitae Thus then de Dieu in the Matter it self doth not differ from other Protestant-Writers who generally hold That the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us is that by which we are fully and perfectly justified and yet we must also have Inherent Righteousness which will justifie us in some sort but not fully and perfectly because it self is imperfect For Placeus I have him not but because you alledge his words I will say something to him He speaks indeed of a Two-fold Accusation and of a Two-fold Justification But 1. he seems to differ from me and others only modo loquendi For he saith Ab accusatione priore qua sc objicitur nos esse peccatores sola fide justificamur qua Christi gratiam justitiam amplectimur à posteriore qua objicitur nos esse infideles justificamur etiam operibus quatenus iis Fides N. B. ostenditur This seems to be in effect the same with that of Maccovius Conciliationem hîc inter Paulum Jacobum hanc ponunt Theologi quidem ex Scriptura sola Fides nos justificat apprehensivè opera declarativè 2. To speak properly they are not I think two distinct Accusations For to omit this That to be Infideles is to be Peccatores and so the one Accusation doth include the other To omit this I say the latter Accusation is but a re-inforcing of the former Thou art a Sinner saith the Accuser and therefore to be condemned Not so saith the Party accused for I am a Believer and therefore justified Hereupon the Accuser replies Nay it is not so as thou pretendest thou art indeed no Believer therefore the guilt of thy sins is upon thee and thou art under condemnation All this is but one Accusation prosecuted and confirmed against a Plea made against it If they were distinct Accusations tâ—en we might be freed from the one and yet be condemned by the other but it is here quite otherwise For the force of the former Accusation doth depend upon the latter neither are we freed from the former except we be freed from the latter whereas you seem to carry it so as if we were first justified from the former Accusation and then were again to be justified from the latter this seems to be the result of your Opinion 1. Because I grant Faith to be required of us that so Christ's Righteousness may become ours do I therefore make Faith it self to be our Righteousness viz. that whereby we are fully justified A part of Inherent Righteousness I grant Faith is by which we may be justified in some measure but that is not the justification here enquired of 2. You should not put me to prove That your Assertion is without Scripture it is sufficient for me to say it until you alledge Scripture for it 3. Christ's Satisfaction is solely and wholly our Righteousness whereby we are justified from all Condemnation though except we believe in him we cannot enjoy that benefit by him See 2 Cor. 5. ult and Acts 13. 39. 4. The New Covenant doth hold out unto us Christ's Righteousness to be made ours by Faith that so we may be freed from the Condemnation of the Old Covenant to which Condemnation we are left if we believe not and our Condemnation will be so much the sorer by how much the sin in neglecting so great Salvation is the greater 5. I confess indeed that there is more than Faith in the Condition of the New Covenant but not as to Justification For that which you add James saith We are justified by Works and Christ by our Words the question is not Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words but how and in what sense we are said to be so justified There is a Particular Justification and a Declarative Justification thus we are justified by our Works and Words but a full and formal Justification is only by Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us 6. To say That we are healed partly by the Medicine and partly by the Application I still think to be improper neither do you bring any thing whereby to shew the propriety of it The Application of the Medicine is indeed requisite yet it is the Medicine properly that doth heal though not except there be an Application of it Common Speech is not always Proper Speech neither can any that are acquainted with Scripture and know how to distinguish between Proper and Improper Speeches think it strange that there are improper Speeches found in Scripture What will you say of those This is my Body The Rock was Christ and a hundred such-like For Rules of Logick if you had made use of any I might have considered of them 7. May not a Similitude illustrate though there be such a difference as you speak of betwixt that from which it is fetched and that to which it is applied But why do you joyn Repentance and Obedience with Faith in point of Justification I speaking only of Faith and you as yet having said nothing for the joint interest of the other 8. In your Aphorisms you plainly assert two distinct Righteousnesses as requisite unto Justification that there you make them
the Act or in some material Circumstance And of such Actions Dr. Twisse whom you cite doth speak Qui dat elecmosynam vanae gloriae studio c. There is indeed some defect in the best Actions of the best Men quoad gradum But shall we therefore deny them to be good because they are some way defective and so not perfectly good And see here I pray to what you have now brought the matter even to make Imperfect Holiness no Holiness as well as Imperfect Righteousness no Righteousness For is not Holiness Goodness as well as Righteousness Therefore if every defect make Goodness no Goodness then there is no more an Imperfect Holiness which yet you grant then there is an Imperfect Righteousness Those words Neque put andum est fieri posse ut per Legem saltem aliquâ ex parte justificemur taken in rigore are not true For then there were no such thing as a particular Justification neither do they accord with that which I cited before out of Lud. de Dieu on Rom. 8. 4. to which place you did refer me Indeed we cannot be so justified by the Law as thereby to be freed from all condemnation and this seems to be all that your Author here cited did mean when he saith Si non es Legem transgressus Lege justificaris si transgressus es condemnaris But this doth no more prove That Righteousness must either be perfect or it is none at all though indeed it is none as to absolute and universal Justification than it doth prove that there is no Holiness at all except it be perfect For doth not the Law require perfect Holiness as well as perfect Righteousness And is not every transgression of the Law a privation of Holiness as well as of Righteousness How then can you admit an Imperfect Holiness to be Holiness and yet deny an Imperfect Righteousness to be Righteousness And if our Inherent Righteousness for of that we speak must needs be perfect if it be any at all must not the same be said of our Holiness this being a conformity to the Law as well as the other 1. You do not answer my Question viz. Whether those Orthodox Writers a multitude of whom you say you could heap up do make our Personal Righteousness that by which we are justified If they do not their calling it Evangelical is to no purpose 2. It is not preposterous to say That Righteousness viz. inherent is required unto Sanctification it being that whereby we are sanctified as Imputed Righteousness is that whereby we are justified You said before That I did ill oppose that whereby we are justified as if the same thing might not do both You grant then it seems that Righteousness may sanctifie I think it must and so is required unto Sanctification How you can make Inherent Righteousness it a se habere ad sanctificationem ut se habet Albedo ad Parietem to me seems very strange rather I think ut se habet Albeds ad Dealbationem 3. If you had spoken absolutely without any qualification He that affirmeth a man Righteous viz. by Inherent Righteousness and yet denieth him to be justified viz. by that Righteousness contradicteth himself you had condemned all our famous Divines I think of self-contradiction But your speech being so qualified as it is so far as he is Righteous I know not at whom it striketh But though none by the Law of Works can be pronounced perfectly righteous and therefore if they be tryed by it all will be found unrighteous yet doth it not therefore follow that there is no such thing as an Imperfect Righteousness You seem not to dislike what I say neither do I what you now say I grant that the New Covenant is to the wicked an unspeakable mercy in that by it they may be freed from the condemnation of the Old Covenant yet until they embrace the New Covenant they remain under the Old even under the condemnation of it 1. Concerning Christ's Satisfaction how it may be called both our Legal and our Evangelical Righteousness I have spoken before Legal Righteousness may either signifie the Righteousness of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Righteousness which is of or from the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is great difference between these two for the former is asserted but the latter is exploded Rom. 8. 4. 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9. Christ's Satisfaction may be called our Legal Righteousness in the former sense not the latter But in both respects it is our Evangelical Righteousness as being the Righteousness of the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Righteousness which the Gospel doth hold out unto us and the Righteousness which is of or from the Gospel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Righteousness which by the Gospel we are made partakers of through Faith And therefore it is called the Righteousness which is of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 9. 30. 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9. 2. In that Faith is the Condition or Instrument or what any please to call it whereby Christ's Righteousness is made ours unto Justification it rather follows that Faith it self is not properly our Righteousness by which we are justified Something out of Rivet I have cited before to this purpose hear also what another saith viz. Vignerius whose Disputation Rivet much commends and thought meet to annex it to his own Quidni in fide nostrâ gloriabimur si ex fide justificatio est ut operae Evangelico appositâ foederi conditione contra Apostolum qui exclusam esse dicit per Legem fidei gloriationem Rom. 3. 26. An possibile est ut sit fidei instrumentum accipiendae justitiae simul sit ipsa quam querimus justitia Vtut sanè glorietur homo solus tamen Christus est nostra justitia nec aliud agit Fides quam quòd Christum apprehendit nostram facit illius justitiam ut in eo inveniamur non nostram habentes justitiam quae ex Lege est sed illam quae est per fidem Christi justitiam quae est ex Deo per fidem Phil. 3. 9. 1. I see nothing in the place cited viz. Aphor. p. 127. 128. but a Similitude which proves nothing and I gave some touch of it in the Animadversions Whereas you now say In respect of the condition of our personal performance to make Christ's Satisfaction ours Faith is imputed unto us instead of our personal performance of Perfect Obedience it seems to imply as if personal performance of Perfect Obedience might be required as a Condition to make Christ's Satisfaction ours which were very strange For if Perfect Obedience could be performed by us what need were there of Christ ' Satisfaction to be imputed to us except for sin committed or contracted before this personal performance of perfect Obedience If Righteousness come by the Law Christ died in vain
appellantur saith Hierom speaking of Zachary Elizabeth Job c. non quod omni vitio careant sed quòd major◠parte virtutum commendentur You grant that Holiness may be denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept Now this you must grant may recipere magis minus for so you grant that Holiness may And if Congruency why not Conformity For Congruency and Conformity though divers words yet import for any thing I see one and the same thing I take Faith to be in part our Inherent Righteousness as it is Officium not as it is Conditio praecisè considerata 3. Whether Habitual Faith or Actual be properly the Condition of the Covenant is little to our purpose And for the thing it self as I shall grant that we must not content our selves with a habit of Faith but must also act Faith So I think you will not deny that we are Fideles and so justified even when we sleep though no act of Faith be performed by us You say nothing to that which I answered concerning our Divines of whom you spake viz. That they hold That the Righteousness whereby we are justified is not our Personal Righteousness and therefore though they say as you alledge That our Justification is perfect and therefore as you infer our Righteousness viz. whereby we are justified must be perfect also yet all this is little to your purpose 2. To what you say I have said enough before viz. That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant as to Justification is not our Righteousness whereby we are justified but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction the only Righteousness by which we are justified And for being rei poenae Novae Legis for non-performance of its Condition I say still I know no punishment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition but only a leaving to the punishment of the Old Law which punishment yet I grant will be so much the more grievous as the sin which an Unbeliever both as an Unbeliever and otherwise is guilty of by Gospel-Aggravations is the more hainous 1. I as little doubt but that sincerity of Righteousness doth consist with imperfection of Righteousness viz. Inherent Righteousness which is really the same with Holiness how-ever in this or that respect we may distinguish the one from the other 2. How Hypocrisie can be taken for a seeming or appearing better than we are yet without affectation or dissimulation I do not understand If without any affectation or dissimulation of ours we seem better than we are it is another's errour not our fault neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites Your manifold distinctions of Sincerity do serve rather to confound the Reader than to unfold the matter I take sincerity to be no distinct Grace but the Modus of other Graces but why that Modus may not admit of degrees I confess I do not see I conceive Zeal to be of like nature yet one may be more or less zealous and so also more or less sincere You say here There is no Medium inter Ens non Ens of which I make no doubt but pag. 2. you think Relations to be inter Ens Nihil and what difference between Nihil non Ens You say That you have over and over shewed That Conformity to the Rule of the Condition doth consist in indivisibili Indeed you have divers times affirmed That all Conformity is of that nature but I could never yet see it proved But why do you now speak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Personal Righteousness and the Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteousness And this Righteousness though it be sincere I hold to be imperfect because the Conformity to the Rule is imperfect Sincerity saith Master Blake is said to be the New Rule or the Rule of the New Covenant But this is no Rule but our Duty taking the Abstract for the Concrete Sincerity for sincere walking and this according to the Rule of the Law not to reach it but in all parts to aim at it and have respect unto it Then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Psal 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Righteousness which in reference to its Rule N. B. labours under many imperfections And a little before he saith thus I know no other Rule but the Old Rule the Rule of the Moral Law that is with me a Rule a perfect Rule the only Rule 3. It seems very incongruous to grant that Apoc. 22. 11. Be holy still doth import an encrease of Holiness and yet to deny that Be righteous still doth import an increase of Righteousness For any thing I know some on the contrary may as well say That the latter words import an increase of Righteousness and yet the other no increase of Holiness Whereas you speak of varying the sense according to the variety of Subjects you take it for granted That here the Subjects are various whereas both by this and divers other places before cited it seems clear to me that the Subjects viz. Righteousness and Holiness are really the same one with the other For the Formale of Righteousness what is it but Conformity to the Law the only Rule of Righteousness And why such Conformity may not be more or less I am yet to learn That place indeed as many other speaks of a true Personal Righteousness in the Saints but yet not of a Perfect Righteousness in them and consequently not of such a Righteousness as whereby they are justified except it be only in some sort and in some measure which is not the Justification about which we contend This Imperfect Righteousness is measured by the Law of Works as a Rule though it be accepted only by the gracious condescension of the Gospel To Ephes 4. 24. you give many Answers but they seem but so many Evasions 1. I think there is no Question but the Apostle speaks by way of Precept and Exhortation q. d. If you have indeed learned Christ and have been taught by him you have learned to do so and so therefore have a care to do so Surely the Apostles words import a duty required and so implicity contain a Precept or Exhortation 2. That he speaks as well to Believers True Believers as mere Professors is as little to be doubted For he speaks unto them upon a supposition that they had learned Christ and had been taught by him which though it may belong to mere Professors yet to true Believers much rather 3. If the New Man which is created in Righteousness and Holiness may encrease as you grant then surely Righteousness and Holiness in which the New Man is created and without which the New Man is nothing must increase also To say That the New Man may increase in Holiness but not in
Righteousness is for one that would say any thing so that he may but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As well might it be said That the New Man is created in Holiness but not in Righteousness 4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law to which we must labour to conform still more and more not only extensivè but also intensivè 5. The very conjunction of the words here as in other places shews that they are used as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Besides how we should give unto God the things that are God's and to Men the things that are Mens and not conform to the Law which doth prescribe our Duty towards God and towards Men I cannot see and surely Conformity to the Law is the Righteousness now in question 1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum What need is there of any other justification Vpon the Laws Convictions saith Mr. Blake there may follow Gospel-Aggravations but Conviction is the Work of the Law If Conviction then surely Condemnation If the Law do not condemn what can And what can the Law condemn for but for sin It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation 2. Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. 2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestiam Conditionem it is no new Accusation but a making good of a former Accusation and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Legis save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur 3. I confess I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of I did not find them in your Aphorisms but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification so I understood it But truly now that you lay open your conception more than before I can see no solidity in it We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith but not by Faith as being it self our Righteousness Faith is indeed required unto Justification yet not as our Righteousness but as a Condition Instrument or Means for I would not strive about words whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness I see not that the Scripture doth speak of such a Two-fold Justification one by Christ and his Righteousâ—ess another by Faith as our Righteousness but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith By him all that believe are justified Acts 13. 39. Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness of which I expresly spake I take it to be really the same with Holiness What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaeus is nothing against me I speaking of Righteousness in one sense and they in another Besides you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words for Sons is as much as reus culpae and insons as much as non-reus culpae whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae and Insons for Non-reus poenae how-ever his words are not to our purpose 1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe that which I said about the Materiality and Formality as well of Holiness as of Righteousness 2. As Holiness you grant is a Conformity to the Law as it doth constituere debitum officii so I conceive is Righteousness Inherent I still mean and not a Conformity to the Rule as it constituteth Conditionem praemit obtinendi poenae vitandae si nimirùm seclusà omni consideratione officii Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur 1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting as Righteous or Accounting just is I think as much as Justifying 2. I did not nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned speak so generally but to presuppose Faith whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ and then our Actions By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice c. Heb. 11. 4. At length after many words which touch not me in your 6th you grant as much as I did or do desire viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled before our external Obedience can be accepted Whereas you there add That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works that Abel 's Works were accepted I answer It was not indeed by the Law of Works yet as they were a sincere though imperfect Conformity to that Law as a Rule so they were accepted by the New Covenant The Law of Works directs the Covenant of Grace accepts though we come short of what the Law requires The Law as Mr. Blake saith still commands us though the Covenant in Christ through the abundant Grace of it upon the terms that it requires and accepts frees us from the Sentence of it And again A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience In this sence our Imperfection hath its perfectness otherwise I must say That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness c. He means the Law of Works which as before noted he saith is a Rule a perfect Rule the only Rule 1. I shall not deny but that our Faith and Obedience may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness Yet I think That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners For besides that the unsoundness of Faith and so of Obedience is sin besides this I say if our Faith be not sound it is in vain we are yet in our sins we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law there being no freedom for us without Faith 2. I know none that say Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works For my part I should say We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works i. e. from the condemnation of it God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions notwithstanding our imperfection for which the Law if we should be sentenced by it would condemn us But here by the way let me observe this That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms doth seem to manifest thus much That when you composed those Aphorisms you either knew not or liked not that Twofold Justification which now you so often speak of and somewhere say That my ignorance in this Point is it that doth mainly darken all my Discourse That common saying is not always true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For my words 1. I see not why those Acquitting us from all sin should offend you For you might see by what I there said That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us And so the Phrases used in Scripture of God not remembring our sins his covering them casting them behind his back into the bottom of the Sea c. they
as that no Accusation can be prejudicial to him though he may be accused yet it matters not seeing he cannot be condemned Else the Apostle had triumphed before the Victory saying Who shall lay any thing to the charge c. Who is he that condemneth Rom. 8. 33 34. 3. The Apostle doth not only say There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus Rom. 8. 1. but also Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect v. 33. viz. when they are in Christ and so justified Which in effect is as much as if it were said There shall be no condemnation to such But you grant That other Texts speak as much and that such neither now are nor ever shall be under condemnation Yet you say That they would be to morrow condemned if no more were done than is done You mean I suppose if they did not renew the Act of Faith but I say and you grant it they who are once justified though they sin daily yea and may lie long in sin as David did yet they shall renew the Act of Faith and have the joy of God's Salvation restored unto them as he prayed Psal 51. 12. Neither is there any intercision of Justification though there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it To your Objections I answer Ad 1. He that is once justified can contract no guilt so as to fall from his Justification Besides when I spake of Justification being perfect I only mean That a Justified Person is justified not in part only but fully i. e. from all sins which at present he is guilty of not but that his Justification hath need to be renewed in respect of new sins and so his Justification may be said to increase extensivè as extending to more and more sins as they are increased more and more But that in this respect we shall be more fully justified at the last Judgment than we are now is but by accident and not from the Nature or Essence of Justification Ad 2. Justification per Sententiam Judicis Sententiam magis publicam makes as I said but for the more full and perfect manifestation of it In die judicis inquit Maccovius Christus non ram justificaturus N. B. est credentes quà m declaraturus est ex optribus eorum eos credidisse in hac vitâ justificatos fuisse Thus undoubtedly is that to be understood in Acts 3. 19. For without question no sins shall then at the last Judgment be blotted out which were not blotted out before but the blotting of them out shall then more fully appear than before In resurrectione à mortuis inquit Rainoldus noster Christus qui veniet judicatum vivos mortuos quemadmodum ipse pronunciat ea quae ligaverint ipsius ministri ligatum iri in coelis ita quae priùs in terrâ remissa fuerint confirmabit ipse suâ sententiâ ut remissa deleta in aeternum omnia nimirum fidelium sanctorum peccata Quare quaecunque quorumcunque peccata remissa fuerint in hoc seculo etiam in futuro seculo remittentur quoniam autem peccata non fuerint remissa in hoc seculo non remittentur in futuro nempe peccata hominum incredulorum impiorum Petrus Act. 3. hoc locupletissimè confirmavit Resipiscite inquit ut deleantur peccata vestra postquam venerint tempora refrigerationis c. Nostri cum affirmant peccata non remitti in futuro seculo sed in isto tantum negant id quod astruunt Pontificii peccata remissum iri in futuro seculo quae in praesents non remittebantur Nam Christus confirmabit sententiam suam quam priùs tulit cum feret sententiam illam novissimam in ultimo judicio Itaque peccata nulla tum remittentur nisi quae quisque testimonio conscientiae suae hîc percipit remissa esse in presenti seculo Certè ipse Bellarminus agnovit vel agnoscere potuit è verbis Calvini que citat nos hoc judicio esse praesertim in eo ipso loco Calvini quem citat ubi dit Calvinus Christum Mat. 12. 32. hâc partitione usum esse quâ judicium complexus est quod sentit in hac vitâ uniuscujusque conscientia postremum illud quod palam N. B. in resurrectione feretur For peccata futura which you also here speak of I have said enough in answer to the former Objection And you may see much more to this purpose in the Account given to the Parliament by the Ministers which they sent to Oxford p. 7 8 9. Ad 3. Castigatory Punishment is no part of that Condemnation from which we are freed by Justification but a means to preserve us from falling into Condemnation see 1 Cor. 11. 32. Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional viz. upon condition of the continuance of our Faith yet the continuance of the Condition being certain so also is the continuance of our Justification There is not the like reason of Predestination which is only a decreeing of what God will do for us but God justifieth as you say pro praesenti and whom he once justifieth he will always justifie else the Apostle would not say Whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. Though Means must be used and Conditions performed for the continuation and consummation of our Justification yet it being certain that the Means shall be used and the Conditions performed it is also certain that our Justification shall be continued and consummated Here perhaps you may take hold of what I say and object It shall be consummated therefore as yet it is not consummated Answ It is not I grant in respect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to Justified Persons but it is already consummated so that they have a full right to the enjoyment of those Benefits Therefore the Apostle speaks as of a thing already done Whom he justified them he also glorified see also Rom. 5. 1 2. Ad 5. If by this the solemnizing of all is wanting you mean That yet there wants the manifestation of our Justification it hinders not but that our Justification is already perfect though it be not so perfectly made manifest as hereafter it shall be So if by Marriage not solemnized you mean a Marriage not publickly celebrated I see not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in it self as perfect as the other But it seems strange that you should think that we should scarce be called Justified now but in reference to Justification at the last Judgment when-as both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as a thing that we are here actually partakers of What you say of Mr. Lawson as if he held That Justification here is but a right to Justification hereafter I much wonder at His Reasons I know not but if that be his Opinion the whole current of Scripture and the general consent of
prove not 2. I acknowledg but one Righteousness by which we are justified viz. the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed unto us see Rom. 5. 18. Your Similitude makes against you For our Hands and Teeth are but Instruments whereby we are fed so our Faith is but an Instrument whereby we are justified And mark here how you can use the Comparison your self which yet you dislike when others use it But doth the Scripture no where say That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness Doth not the Scripture call Christ our Righteousness Jer. 23. 6. Doth it not say That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth Rom. 10. 4. Is not this as much as if it were said That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness See also Rom. 5. 18 19. and 2 Cor. 5. ult What Mr. Gataker saith concerning this Point not having the Book which I suppose you mean his Defence of Wotton I cannot tell What Wotton and J. Goodwin say I see but am not satisfied with it Maccovius de Justif in divers Disputations doth professedly oppose Wotton and answers his Objections If you had urged any of his or the others Arguments I should have taken them into consideration but seeing you do not it is enough I think to oppose their authority with the Authority of others no way inferiour unto them Davenant Scripturae quae asserunt ipsam fidem nobis imputari ad justitiam apertè indicant Christi justitiam credentibus imputari Nam fides qualitas in se considerata non potest magis imputari ad justitiam quà m aliae qualitates ab eodem Spiritu infusae sed hoc necessario intelligendum est quatenus suum objectum apprehendit credenti applicat nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ Among other Scriptures which he cites to this purpose that is one which you stand so much upon Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness Ex hisce inquit nos colligimus imputari credentibus Christi justitiam quando illam verâ fide apprehendunt And Bellarmine objecting Ipsa fides imputatur ad justitiam fides autem non est imputata Christi justitia sed qualitas in nobis inhaerens He answers Frivola est Objectio nam nihil usitatius quà m causae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Quia igitur fides apprehendit applicat nobis justitiam Christi id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur So Ames answering the very same words of Bellarmine saith Fides imputatur ad justitiam Rom. 4. 5. idem est cum eo quod dicitur v. 6. Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus remittit peccata v. 7. Fides autem ipsa absolutè considerata neque est justitia sine opere neque remissio peccatorum necesse est igitur ut fides imputata relativè involvat suum objectum id est Christum fide apprehensùm Bucan Quomodo igitur fides dicitur in justitiam imputari Non absolutè sed relativè c. And having cited Rom. 3. 22 25. he saith Quibus locis Fidei voce metonymià continentis pro re contentâ Christus crucifixus intelligitur sed fide apprehensus Hoc sensu fides Abrahae imputata est ei ad justitiam seu pro justitiâ Rom. 4. 9. Et fides cuilibet credenti imputatur ad jùstitiam i.e. Christus crucifixus apprehensus fide censetur nostra justitia censetur inquam à Deo è tribunali suo sententiam justitiae pronunciante Quemadmodum igitur manus quae recipit the saurum donatum non ditat sed thesauras sic nec fidei opus vel actio nos justificat sed ipse Christus quem fide apprehendimus Et hoc est quod Theologi Orthodoxi dicunt nos justificari fide correlativè ratione Objecti fidem imputari in justitiam Quae asserto inde manifesta est quod apud Paulum Rom. 3. 27 28. opponitur haec enuntiatio Fide sumus justi propositioni huic Justificamur ex operibus tanquam contradictoriae Quarè ex naturà contradictionis perspicuum est non justificari quemquam Fide in quantum est opus sive nostrum sive Dei in nobis sed in quantum Christi meritum includit Rivet Fides excludit seipsam quà opus est Vnum enim opus non justificat nec quidem potest justificare Redeundum ergo ad Controversiae statum quo Fides statuitur justificare non quatenus est opus sive per se sed relativè quatenus significat applicationem justitiae Christi i.e. non nostrae sed alienae The same Author also saith thus Apostolus non distinguit inter Opera Legis Opera Fidei sed in hoc negotio Fidem semper quibuslibet operibus opponit Vnde etiam sequitur fidem non justificare quatenus est opus justitiae sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi That we are justified by Faith is without controversie the Scripture being express for it but when you say That Faith properly taken doth justifie which the Scripture saith not in this I dissent from you And also because you make Faith one Righteousness by which we are justified as indeed you must if properly we be justified by it Davenant urgeth from Rom. 5. 18. That there is unum tantùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quod ad justificationem vitae potest valere nempe unius Christi obedientia Whence he infers Justificatio igitur vitae non redundat in nos ab ullâ qualitate in nobismet ipsis inherente sed ab hâc justitiâ completâ Mediatoris nobis donatâ imputatâ Nostra justitia inherens non habet in se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est perfectionem justitiae completam absolutam Ergo non potest producere in nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. You mistake my Argument and do not mind the Text which I alledged viz. Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified c. Therefore not only all that believe in Christ are justified but it is by him that they are justified i. e. by his Obedience as it is expressed Rom. 5. 19. So that Christ's Obedience is that which is properly imputed for Righteousness though it be so imputed only to those that believe Faith to apprehend it is required of us that it may be imputed to us and in that respect Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness 1. The first Note seems to shew thus much That some may make Faith an Instrument of Justification and yet deny that we are properly justified by it as by an Instrument Though if this be granted I see not what you gain by it For as I said in the Animadversion they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification when they deny that we are properly justified
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
on Faith and not only in respect of the beginning of it yet it is true Justification is neither begun nor continued nor consummated upon such a Believing as is not attended with other Duties That this is the Uniform Doctrine of the prime Protestants I shewed by the confession of our greatest Adversary to which you oppose nothing 2. Though some other things besides Faith must go before Justification yet do they not therefore justifie as well as Faith it being only Faith that doth apprehend Christ by whom so apprehended we are justified Neque tamen haec fides saith Wotton spem dilectionem timorem poenitentiam excludere censenda est quasi ad eum qui justificatus est non pertinerent sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi N. B. significantur penitùs excludi Atque hoc quidem justificandi munus soli Fidei convenire his rationibus ostendo Quia solâ Fide rectà in Christum tendimus ut per eum justificemur promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur 2. Vbicunque Spiritus Sanctus disertis verbis loquitur de justificatione impii ejusque causas ex hominis parte assignat nullam ejusmodi causam assignat nisi fidem But hear also Luther who doth both thunder and lighten in this particular Cur insane Sophista asseris dilectionem spem alias virtutes Scio has esse insignia Dei dona divinitùs mandata per Spiritum Sanctum in nostris cordibus excitari ali Scio fidem sine his donis non existere sed nunc nobis quaestio est quid cujusque proprium sit Tenes manu varia seminae non autem quaero ego quae cum quibus conjuncta sint sed quae cujusque propria virtus Hîc apertè dic quid faciat Sola Fides non cum quibus virtutibus conjuncta sit Sola autem Fides apprehendit promissionem credit promittenti Deo Deo porrigenti aliquid admovet manum id accipit Hoc proprium solius Fidei est Charitas Spes Patientia habent alias materias circa quas versantur habent alios limites intra quos consistunt Non enim amplectuntur promissionem sed mandata exequuntur audiunt Deum mandantem non audiunt Deum promittentem ut Fides facit In the next Section we are agreed To this long Section I need not say much For now that you explain your self there seems to be but little difference betwixt us All that I aim at is this That Christ simply considered is not the Object of Justifying Faith but Christ as promised in the Gospel so that to believe in Christ doth imply a believing of the Promise and that not only so as to assent unto it but so also as to apply it And therefore we often find in Scripture That the Axiome or Proposition concerning Christ is made the Object of Justifying and Saving Faith see Rom. 10. 9. 1 Joh. 5. 1. Acts 8. 37. Joh. 6. 69. And thus our Divines often speak of Faith justifying as apprehending the Promises Sola Fides saith Luther apprehendit Promissionem So Wotton Solâ Fide Promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur And Mr. Ball For Faith only doth behold and receive the Promises of Life and Mercy c. When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified That Faith receiving the Promise doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised But I willingly grant That the Axiome Proposition or Promise doth but serve to convey Christ unto us and the apprehending and receiving of him is the Faith by which we are justified Only I say it is Christ in the Promise or Christ promised who must be apprehended and received unto Justification Fidei objectum quod saith Ames vel materiale est quicquid â Deo revelatur ac proponitur credendum c. Hoc objectum est immediatè semper aliquod axioma vel enuntiatio sub ratione veri sed illud in quo principaliter terminatur Fides de quo propter quod assensus praebetur illi axiomati per fidem est Ens incomplexum sub ratione boni Rom. 4. 21. Heb. 11. 13. Actus enim credentis non terminatur ad axioma sed ad rem fatentibus Scholasticorum clarissimis Ratio est quia non formamus axiomata nisi ut per ea de rebus cognitionem habeamus Principalis igitur terminus in quem tendit actus credentis est res ipsa quae in axiomate praecipuè spectatur All this I like well enough save that he seems to make the Act of Faith exercised about an Axiome or Enunciation to be only Assent as to that which is true whereas somtimes it is also Apprehension and Receiving as of that which is good though it's true this Act of Faith is principally terminated in the thing which the Axiome or Enunciation doth contain in it 1. I do not say That the receiving of Christ as King is Fides quae justificat though I grant it is Actus fidei quae justificat 2. I refer quà to Justificât q. d. Faith which justifieth doth receive Christ as King yet this is not the Act of Faith whereby it justifieth Or if you will thus Christ as King is the object of Faith which justifieth but not of Faith as it justifieth Indeed Faith which justifieth hath respect to the whole Word of God yet only to the Word of Promise concerning Christ and the Mercy of God in Christ as it justifieth Non tam quaeritur inquit Ames quae aut quid sit Fides quae justificat quà m quae sit ratio quâ proprè dicitur justificare And presently after follow the words which I cited in the Animadversions Again Vna eadem inquit Fides est quâ placemus Deo ad reconciliationem jam reconciliati dirigimur sustentamur ad placendum ipsi in Obedientiâ novâ And again Fidem illam quae justificat praesupponere involvere inferre concedimus fidem Historiae atque etiam in quibusdam olim miraculorum sed historiae ac miraculorum fidem saepè à justificatione separari palam est Quamvis multa sint exercitia objecta Fidei non tamen justificans est nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christo Hinc omnes illi quorum fides in eo capite Heb. 11. laudatur collimabant ad promissionem illam miserecordiae in Christo 3. Where do I say That the receiving of Christ as King doth justifie that you ask me in what sense it doth so I say Justifying Faith doth receive Christ as King but not as justifying or that Faith in that respect doth not justifie 4. Faith as the Condition of Justification is the receiving of Christ as satisfying for us 5. If Christ's Satisfaction only be our Righteousness by which we are justified and Christ as Priest only made Satisfaction for us then by receiving Christ as Priest only we
are justified This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument though I left out the word only And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me as I think in every point wherein we differ if he have occasion to treat of it It is true saith he that Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour not as Lord that justifies Christ rules his People as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes atonement for them as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his Blood for remission of Sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the Blood of Christ the Command of Christ the Doctrine of Christ but as it ties and fastens on his Blood so it justifies He is set out a propitiation through Faith in his Blood Rom. 3. 24. not through Faith in his Command It is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin and not the Sovereignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work Sovereignty doth not cleanse nor Blood command us Faith in his Blood not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty doth justifie us There are several acts of justifying-Justifying-Faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abraham's Obedience Moses Self-denyal Gideon or Sampson's Valour that was their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these things by his Spirit Your Similitude is not suitable for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband may be enriched or dignified by him though she never look at him as rich or honourable but only as her Husband But we must look at Christ as a Priest and as making Satisfaction for us that so we may be justified by him For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult Rom. 8.34 where those words It is Christ that died shew how Christ doth justifie us and free us from condemnation viz. by dying and so satisfying for our sins That which follows of Christ's Resurrection c. seems as to our Justification but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction which he made for us by his Death that so we may be justified by him 6. You grant that Christ not as King but as Priest doth justifie us meritoriously and satisfactorily and that is it which I urge That Christ's Satisfaction which as Priest he made for us is that whereby or for which we are justified Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us and so receive him as to that purpose viz. our Justification though I grant whole Christ or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfie for us except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us and as a King to govern us So I usually Preach and Teach 1. When you say That I leave the Errour in his Language but not in his Sense your words are ambiguous For they may import That I leave i.e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way but not the other Or that I leave i.e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language but not in his Sense This I take to be your meaning for else you could not say except ironically which I do not suspect that it is a fair Exposition and that you like it I have no reason to strive about another's words especially not knowing how they are brought in but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them 2. Where Ames hath those words you do not shew But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth nor with himself in saying Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith though not of Faith as Justifying and so much is acknowledged by Amesius as appears by his words before cited Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration Besides I find Amesius to have such words as you mention but withall to add such as plainly to express what I say Christus inquit est adaequatum objectum Fidei quatenus N. B. Fides Justificat Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam N. B. propter quam justificamur 1. The Text 1 John 4. 19. cannot I think be rightly understood but as I interpreted it For v. 10 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us in giving his Son for us And v. 19. he shews whence it is that we love God viz. from hence that God loved us first i.e. we apprehending the Love of God to us answer his love with love again Amat non immerito qui amatus sine merito as Bernard speaketh Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us before we can love him for what he hath done for us 2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love of which I speak 3. Embracing which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the compleating Act of Justifying-Faith doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii we can never sincerely embrace Christ if we do not desire him but amor delectationis or complacentiae doth follow after embracing viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed All that you add holds only in respect of the former kind not in respect of the latter 1. There are divers kinds of Love but I speak of that Love which differs from Desire and so did you seem to understand it as I noted from your words Aphorism p. 267. 2. Whereas you say There is no need of Faith to make it present before it can be accepted and loved you cannot by Faith mean Assent for that you grant doth go before Love and Acceptance And if by Faith you mean Acceptance surely there must be Acceptance before a thing can be accepted though in time these go together But perhaps you only mean That though Faith as an Assent must go before in time and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature yet not so as to make a thing present For you add That God's Offer doth make it present But though the Offer be present yet the thing offered is not present so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must
our qualification inherent or the foundation of other Graces but as it includes the Correlative Term or Immediate Cause of Justification whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference and continual aspect This is that which in other terms some have delivered Fides justificat relative non effective aut formaliter c. Take a few words more from this Author Ibid. The Apostle levels his whole Discourse to this Poinâ— maintained by us That seeing Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by Faith and not through Works none after him should in this life at any time N. B. whether before or after the infusion of Grace or Inherent Righteousness presume to seek or hope for like approbation from God otherwise than only by Faith How I exclude Love I have shewed even as you do viz. Love of Complacency which you grant doth follow Acceptance that Act of Faith by which we are justified And when I say that Protestants generally deny Faith which is without Works to justifie â—mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them You might easily have perceived this to be my meaning by what I said out of Cajetan de fide non sterili sed faecunda operibus A Tree is not said to be barren except it doth not bring forth Fruit when the Season doth require 5. I shewed you what I take to be meant Jam. 2. 23. when it is said And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness viz. That by Abraham's readiness to obey God in offering up Isaac the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear it was then most manifest That Abraham believed God indeed and that his Faith was a true Justifying-Faith it being operative and shewing forth it self so evidently by Works of Obedience when they were required of him so that the Scripture did well and truly say of him That he believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Cajetan doth explicate it me-thinks very well Adverte saith he prudens Lector quòd Jacobus non sentit fidem absque operibus mortuam esse c. Sed sentit fidem sine operibus id est renuentem operati esse mortuam esse vanam non justificantèm Er rectè sentit quoniani quae non est paruta operari moâ—tua est Suâpte enim naturâ operatur per dilectionem ut Paulus dicit Quodergo Jacobus affert verba Gen. 15. Credidit Abraham Deo c. ad hoc affert quodcredidit paratus operari Er propereà dicâ— quod in opere oblationes filit impleta inquam est Scriptura loquens de fide Abrahae parata operari Impleta inquam est quoad executionem maximi operis ad quod parata erit fides Abrahae 〈◊〉 And though you make light of this interpretation of James as if it were nothing against you yet Calvin doubted not to say Nodo insolubili constrictos teneo quicunque justitiam Abrahae coram Deo imputatam fingunt quia immolavit filium Isaac qui nondum natus erat quum Spiritus Sanctus pronunciat justum fuisse Abraham Itaque necessario restat ut aliquâ—d posterius notari discamus Quomodo igitur Jacobus id fuisse impletum dicit Nempe oftendere vult qualis illa futrit fides quae justificavit Abraham non otiosa scilicet out evanida sed quae illum Deo reddidit obsequentem sicut etiam Heb. 11. 8. habetur Calvin it seems never dreamed of being justified one way at first and another way afterwards I would not have you put him off with a taunt as you did before Parcius ista tamen c. But let Mr. Blake also be heard speak James indeed saith he saith that Abraham was justified by Works when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar Jam. 2. 21. But either there we must understand a Working-Faith with Piscator Bareus Pemble c. and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct Questions the one Whether Faith alone justifies without Works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What Faith justifies whether a working-Working-Faith only and not a Faith that is dead idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who straight infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by Works and the Scripture was fulfilled that saith He was justified by Faith Neither can I reconcile what he saith if this be denied with the whole current of the Gospel And he adds a little after All Works before or after Conversion are inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification Your Interpretations viz. Abraham believed i. e. believed and obeyed Or Yet the Scripture was fulfilled c. For Faith did justifie him but not only Faith are so uncouth and incongruous that I wonder how you could perswade your self much more think to perswade others to embrace them Paul cites those words to prove that Abraham was justified only by believing and that Justification is by Faith only And shall we admit of such an interpretation Faith doth justifie but not only Or Abraham was justified by Believing and Obeying What is this else but to make the Scripture a nose of wax and to wrest it which way we please Yea What is it else but to make the Scripture plainly to contradict it self And yet forsooth you pretend to stand upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the plain words of Scripture But Paul you say speaks of Justification as Begun and that you grant is by Faith only Well and for proof of his Doctrine say I he alledgeth the words of Moses concerning Abraham Must not those words then be understood of the same Justification Will you say with Bellarmine that Paul speaking of the first Justification doth fetch a proof from the second As on the other side he saith that James speaking of the second Justification doth fetch a proof from the first This is Caelum Terrae miscere Mare Caelo 6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be so but also shewed where the same phrase is so used viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9. And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel those places and interpret the one by the other Thus Camero Fides inquit dicitur perfici operibue quia Fides dum producit opera ostenait quà m sit perfecta ut 2 Cor. 12. 9. Virtus Christ dicitur perfict in infirmitatibus quia tum scilicet se maximè exerit prodit And so Maccovius Fides fuit perfecta ex operibus quomodo virtus Christi perficitur in infirmitate 2 Cor. 12. 9. quia in ea se exerit consimili ratione Fides perfici per opera dicitur quia per ea se prodit Generally I find the words thus expounded by those
that either comment upon them or have occasion to treat of them Dicitur ex operibus saith Calvin fuisse perfecta non quòd inde suam perfectionem accipiat sed quòd vera esse inde comprobetur So Beza Hoc igitur inquit ad declarationem quoque pertinet Fides enim eo perfectior dicitur quo pleniùs perspecta est ac cognita quo efficaciùs vires suas exerit quae prius non ita apparebant Fulke doth cite Beda thus expounding it His Faith was perfected by his Deeds that is by perfect execution of Works it was proved to be in his Heart Thus also Lud de Dieu Quatenus bona opera vitam fidei ejusque vim efficaciam sinceritatem produnt adeoque eam illustrant exornant rectè dicuntur persectio Fider And so Polanus Fides justificans perficitur ex bonis operibus non quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu essentiam constitutionem suam sed quatenus per ea firmatur manifestatur comprobatur sicut res aliqua tum fieri dicitur quum patefit And he cites the Interlineary Gloss upon Jam. 2. Per opera fides est augmentata comprobata And Lyra Et ex operibus fides consummata est Habitus enim firmatur manifestatur per opera Et similiter magnitudo fidei Abrahae apparuit ex ejus obedientiae offerendo filium propter quod dictum fuit sibi 〈◊〉 Domino Nunc cognori c. Thus also Mr. Ball Faith is perfected by Works not that the Nature of Faith receiveth complement or perfection from Works but because it doth declare and manifest it self by Love and good Works and is esteemed so much the more perfect as the Works produced are the more excellent To illustrate this I used also the Similitude of a Tree the goodness of whose Fruit doth but manifest the goodness of it and so the power of Faith doth but appear by its fruits viz. Works You say that Faith is really perfected by Works as a Tree is by bearing fruit But as our Saviour saith a Tree is known by his Fruit. The Fruit doth not make the Tree good but only shew it to be so And this very Similitude have Learned Divines used to this purpose Beza immediately after the words before cited adds Vt si dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas tum fuisse perfecta quum optimum aliquem frractum edidit Nam quia de causa judicamus ex effectus videtur quodammodo caâ—sâ— vis vel minuâ— vel augeri ex effectorum proportione Sed hoc ex effectis intelligitur quidem astimatur non autem emanat So Mr. Ball How then saith the Apostle that Faith is perfected by Works As we judg of the Cause by the Effects and by the proportion of the Effects the efficacy and force of the Cause may seem to be increased or diminished Every thing is acknowledged to be perfect when it worketh and is esteemed so much the more perfect by how much the more it worketh As we say the goodness of a Tree is perfect when it hath brought forth some excellent good Fruit. Thus Philosophers teach That the Form is not perfect when it is considered as the first Act but when it is taken as the second Act for by working it putteth forth its force and declareth it self And so Faith is perfected by Works c. as before cited You say also That Faith is really perfected by Works as a Covenant or Promise is by Performance But the Performance doth only manifest the perfection of a Covenant or Promise It is a perfect Covenant or Promise as soon as it is made if it be made sincerely and without guile though it appears more fully to be so when it is performed Again you say That Faith is really perfected by Works as it hath naturam medii viz. Conditionis to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification But you have not yet proved That there is any other Condition of Justification as Continued and Consummated than of Justification as Begun Apprehensio illa fidei habet fluxum suum continuum c. saith Rivet Quod continuum beneficium fide apprehensum si secundam Justificationem appellare velint adversarii imò tertiam quartam quintam millesimam non repugnamus dummodo constet nullâ alia ratione N. B. nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus quà m câ quâ semel justificati fuimus à precedentibus St. James doth not speak of Works perfecting Faith more to the continuing and consummating of Justification than to the beginning of it For which must ever be remembred he speaks of Faith as apta nata operari and such a Faith is requisite that we may be justified as well at first as afterward Otherwise Works neither at first nor afterward do concur with Faith to our Justification A preparation or promptitude of Heart saith Mr. Ball to good Works is an effect of Faith as immediate as Justification And again Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life and leave the accomplishment to Works but doth rest upon the Promise of Life until we come to enjoy it Yet again you say That Faith is really perfected by Works as Works are a part of that necessary Matter not necessary at the first moment of Believing but necessary afterward when we are called to it whereby we are justified against the Charge of non-performance of the New-Covenants Condition even against the Charge of being an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite But all this proves not that Works give any perfection to Faith but only that they shew the perfection i.e. the sincerity force and efficacy of it Works may manifest a Man to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite but it is his Faith which being unfained doth indeed make him to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite All therefore that you have said makes nothing against my interpretation of those words Jam. 2. 22. And by Works was Faith made perfect 7. Your self deny necessitatem praesentiae operum in respect of our being justified at first And for the Conducibility of Works to the effect of Justification James speaketh not of it but only shews that Justifying Faith is not without Works viz. when God doth call for them He shews that justifying-Justifying-Faith is a working-Working-Faith a Faith ready to Work when occasion doth require But that Works do therefore conduce unto Justification as well as Faith he doth not shew neither doth this any way follow upon the other A working-Working-Faith is the Condition of Justification i.e. Faith which is of such a nature as to bring forth the Fruit of good Works in due season yet are we not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith For we are justified by Faith only apprehending Christ and his Righteousness though the same Faith that doth this will also produce good Works as Abraham's Faith did That Works do justifie the Faith but not the Person
though I use not to speak so yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction It is true Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae non simpliciter absolutè sed quoad istam causam but they that use that distinction mean I think only this that Works shew Faith to be sound and good yet it is Faith and not Works by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified Do not I pray here lay hold on the word absolutely it is referred to the word justified not to the word Faith I do not say That Faith absolutely considered doth justifie no it doth justifie as it is considered relatively Faith i.e. Christ apprehended by Faith is that whereby we are absolutely justified Though Works may justifie against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the Condition so I would say not Conditions in respect of the Justification of which we speak of the New Covenant yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justifie but only against that Accusation shewing that a Man did perform the Condition viz. believe and so is simply and absolutely justified not by Works which do but only declare him to be so but by Faith as the Condition or Instrument for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do of Justification Faith doth not justifie as Working i.e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works your self deny this in respect of our Justification at first yet Faith doth not justifie except it be of a Working-Nature i.e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context 1. All Works if good are Works of the Law viz. the Moral Law which as I said in the Animadversions is the eternal Rule of Righteousness And of that Law the Apostle speaks when he excludes Works from Justification as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10. Evangelii inquit Maccovius nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter Adversarii cum urgentur ex operibus legis non justificari hominem admittunt hoc dicunt ita quidem esse sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis Evangelii Sed si obtineat hac distinctio tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata quae committuntur in Doctrinam Evangelii Non ergo erit adaequarâ—a definitio peccati quam dat Spiritus Sanctus 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege Certè interim Evangelii Doctrinae praecipitur Lege Nam Deus postulat ut Evangelio credamus c. So Pemble Nor yet saith he hath this Distinction viz. Works of the Law and Works of the Gospel any ground in Scripture or in Reason For both tell us That the Works commanded in the Law and Works commanded in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them What Work can be named that is enjoyned us in the New Testament which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul c. What is there against the Gospel which is not a transgression of the Law You will say It doth not command Faith in Christ I answer Yea it doth For that which commands us in general to believe what-ever God shall propose unto us commands us also to believe in Christ as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him The Gospel discovers to us the Object the Law commands us the obedience of believing it The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant as it requireth that they which have believed be careful to maintain good works Tit. 3. 8 14. and to walk circumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuratè i. e. quam proximè ad Legis Dei praecepta as Beza doth well expound it Ephes 5. 15. But this is far and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification I see no strength in them and therefore I answer Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law For that Accusation being only made void by Faith where there is final Unbelief there that Accusation hath its full force Besides though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justifie than by manifesting a Man's Faith by which Faith indeed and not by Works he is justified Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of is against a true Charge and the same with Remission of sins as well as that which Paul doth speak of For can they that have but a dead Faith be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith such as James doth require can work that Effect Justification against a false Accusation is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of Nemo enim iniquus adco as Bradshaw speaketh aut injustus dari potest qui falsò accusari consequenter etiam eatenus merito justificari non possit Indeed Justification aginst the Accusation of final Unbelief is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith and not by Works which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith and so of Justification Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification are Competitors with Christ or Copartners with him so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith and partly by Works Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith which Faith both when Justification is first begun and when it is continued must be a working-Working-Faith i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require If our Divines affirm That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works means in point of merit as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose surely it is because they know no other Justification by Works but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious Hear one whom I and so I presume you also take for a good Divine viz. Mr. Blake This Justification saith he wrought freely by Grace through Faith Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent
with Justification by Works And what the Apostle speaks of Election we may well apply to Justification the same medium equally proves the truth of both If by Grace then it is no more of Works otherwise Grace were no more Grace But if it be of Works then it is no more of Grace otherwise Works were no more Works Rom. 11. 6. Calvin also useth this Argument to confute those who would have Works to concur with Faith unto Justification that then we should have somewhat to boast of which is not to be admitted Sed quoniam inquit bona pars hominum justitiam ex fide operibus compositam imaginatur praemonstremus id quoque sic inter se differre fidei operumque justitiam ut altera stante necessariò altera evertatur Dicit Apostolus se omnia pro stercoribus reputasse ut Christum lucrifaceret c. Phil. 3. 8 9. Vides contrariorum esse hîc comparationem indicari propriam justitiam oportere pro derelicto haberi ab eo qui velit Christi justitiam obtinere Id ipsum quoque ostendit cum negat per Legem excludi gloriationem nostram sed per fidem Vnde sequitur quantisper manet quantulacunque operum justitia manere nobis nonnullam gloriandi materiam Jam si fides omnem gloriationem excludit cum justitiâ fidei sociari nullo pacto justitia operum potest In hunc sensum tam clarè loquitur quarto cap. ad Rom. ut nullum cavillis aut tergiversationibus locum relinquat St operibus inquit justificatus est Abraham habet gloriam Subjungit atque non habet gloriam apud Deum Consequens ergo est non justificatum esse operibus Ponit deinde alterum argumentum à contrariis Quum rependitur operibus merces id fit ex debito non ex gratiâ Fidei autem tribuitur justitia secundum gratiam Ergo id non est ex meritis operum Valeat igitur eorum somnium N. B. qui justitiam ex fide operibus conflatam comminiscuntur Who those multitudes of Divines be of whom you speak I cannot tell because you name none but I think that few or none of them will be found of your mind viz. That Paul doth only exclude Works from Justification in point of merit as if Justification might be by Works in some other respect so as that no merit thereby is presupposed So far as I observe our Divines note this as one main Argument whereby the Apostle doth wholly exclude Works from Justification because otherwise the merit of Works could not be denied which yet is to be exploded Thus the Centurists among many other Arguments whereby the Apostles they say prove Justification to be by Faith alone note this for one Non est gloriandum in nobis sed in Domino Ergo non ex operibus sed gratis justificamur ne quis glorietur Ephes 2. 1 Cor. 1. Ad 5. All good Works as I have shewed before and consequently those whereby we perform obedience to the Redeemer are works of the Law it being the Rule to which they must be conformed But it is Faith in the Redeemer not Obedience to the Redeemer by which we are justified though justifying-Justifying-Faith must and will shew it self by Obedience Ad 6. All Works that have an agency in Justification are meritorious and so make the Reward to be of Debt and not of Grace Now to your Answers to my Arguments in oppositum I reply And for the first thus If Abraham's Gospel-Works did justifie him otherwise than by evidencing his Faith whereby he was justified if they be made to have a co-interest with Faith in his Justification then they are set in Competition or Copartnership with Christ's Righteousness That no Work of the Gospel doth justifie Mr. Pemble proveth by this That every Work of the Gospel is a Work of the Law also and therefore the Apostle denying that a Man is justified by the Works of the Law doth consequently deny that he is justified by the Works of the Gospel That Works do justifie as Conditions under Christ is repugnant to what your self hold in respect of Justification as begun and I see not that the Scripture shews us any other Condition of Justification afterward than at first 2. My Conclusion That Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith is not against Jam. 2. 21. no more than Paul's Doctrine Rom. 3. 4. is For I mean as Paul doth That Abraham's Works did not concur with his Faith to his Justification but James meant only That Abraham's Faith was not such as some presume of a dead idle Faith but a living working Faith and that his Works did manifest his Faith to be such as whereby he was justified Cum obtulisset inquit Bucanus Abraham Isaac filium suum super altare ex operibus justificatus est hoc est compertus est fuisse justificatus per fidem idque ex operibus tanquam testimoniis Justificationis Et sic homo operibus justificatur id est comprobatur esse illa persona quae Christi obedientiâ justificatur ex vitae sanctificatione quae tanquam effectus illam sequitur de illa testatur Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsonum operibus Nam sunt duo principia unum existentiae alterum cognitionis Ità fides principium existentiae facit ut simus justi Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt ut cognoscamur justi Ideo Dominus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fidei quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum Mat. 25. Venite benedicti c. For the second 1. The Apostle Rom. 4. 4. speaketh without any distinction To him that worketh c. Now as you know non est distinguendum ubi lex non distinguit 2. If Works justifie then they must be meritorious The Apostle doth not simply deny a Reward to belong of Grace to him that worketh but to him that worketh so as to be justified by his Works Such an one having no need of remission of sins because his Works do justifie him which they cannot do if they be imperfect and so he need pardon he is said to receive the Reward not of Grace but of Debt 3. Faith as a Work is excluded from Justification only it justifieth as an Instrument or Hand receiving Christ and his Righteousness Or which is to the same effect Faith doth not justifie as it is a Duty which if we perform not we sin but as a Condition upon which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for our Justification You are not to be blamed for making use o◠Bellarmine's Argument for so indeed it is not his Answer but for not taking notice how our Divines do answer it See Ames contra Bellar. tom 4. lib. 5. cap 4. ad 6. Love Hope and Obedience are not Instruments of receiving Christ
Faith when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without VVorks Indeed VVorks are requisite in their place but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification shew any Orthodox VVriter that doth hold so though as necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified Say not that you speak of Justification as continued for VVorks as St. James doth speak of them are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good VVorks if this be wanting it is no Justifying Faith but as St. James calls it a dead Faith altogether vain and unprofitable Ad 3. That Faith without VVorks is a hardening of Unbelievers I grant sed quid tum postea Do therefore VVorks justifie as well as Faith But I do not think that St. James brings in chap. 2. 18. an Unbeliever so speaking For how should an Unbeliever a professed Unbeliever we mean for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite speak of his Faith saying And I will shew thee my Faith Calvin doth far better interpret it saying Jacobus dicit promptum fore piis sanctè viventibus excutere hypocritis talem jactantiam quâ inflati sunt Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief i. e. a true Assent but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith even that Faith whereby we are justified at first as your self do hold And you confess also that Faith doth justifie at first without VVorks yet say I not except it be of a VVorking-Nature i.e. ready to VVork when VVorks are required and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith VVorks do not justifie neither at first nor afterward Ad 5. Faith without VVorks is dead as to the effect of Justification even altogether unprofitable i. e. Faith renuens operari or which is not parata operari as Cajet an doth well express it But this is nothing to prove a Co-interest of VVorks with Faith in point of Justification it only proves That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature VVhereas you add Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works and on the other side Faith without Works this doth nothing hinder but that the opposition is as I said betwixt Faith and Faith i. e. several kinds of Faith whereof the one is accompanied with VVorks and the other not the one is operative and fruitful the other idle barren That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work but also by VVorks is more than St. James doth say and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith Indeed it is more than you can say without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued which distinction St. James never thought of For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith as he affirms that to be which is without VVorks That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by VVorks is made perfect as accomplishing its ends but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect The end of Faith is to justifie and your self say That Faith at first doth justifie without Works so that in your Opinion Faith without VVorks is perfect accomplishing its end in justifying at first But in St. James his sense Faith doth not cannot at all justifie without VVorks i. e. if it be not ready to work and in that respect VVorks do perfect Faith i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear but of that enough before Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation Continuation and Consummation of Justification you often say but never prove Sure I am James doth exclude Faith which is without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them from the very Initiation of Justification For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils who surely are so far from Justification that they have not so much as the initiation of it Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a VVorking Faith or by a Faith which produceth VVorks and so by his VVorks appears to be justified The words if taken without any qualification are against your self who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without VVorks If you will distinguish of Justification as at first and as afterward to make the Apostle agree with your meaning though indeed it will not serve Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so as to make him agree not only with them but also with himself and the whole current of the Gospel The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports no more than if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by the whole series of the Discourse and more particularly by ◠17. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self i. e. alone without the concomitancy of VVorks as the Fruits of it Beza renders it per se Tremellius out of the Syriack Sola the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa which Cajetan corrects saying pro per se and that he expounds hoc est sola VVherein I suppose he followed Erasmus whose Annotation on the place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. per se hoc est sola Ad 8. Rahab was justified by VVorks so as Abraham was and all must be even when they are first justified viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require Ad 9. Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief i. e. Assent and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19. such a Faith may be without VVorks and so is dead i.e. unprofitable but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of as I have shewed before who hold that Faith alone doth justifie without VVorks though withal they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them and this is all that St. James urgeth Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification quite besides yea and against St. James his meaning as I think I have sufficiently demonstrated Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James and reconcile him with St. Paul after the same manner as I and others do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes he saith Faith is taken for a bare Assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Devils believe Sometimes it notes also a disposition joyned with assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. James he saith considereth Faith in the former sense St. Paul in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To conclude It is not Faith as working that doth justifie but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness and so doth justifie is a Working Faith Your self grant that VVorks are not necessary quoad praesentiam in respect of Justification as begun and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis in respect of Justification as continued is more I presume than ever will be proved 1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin because I see nothing but bare words As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius Justin Martyr and the rest who for 1000 years after Paul you say give as much to Works as you ever did or more and make Faith to justifie as a Condition and not as an Instrument what-ever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against the full scope of the whole Page or Book I wish you had cited some Books or Pages or but Scraps as you call them whereby to make good what you say I am not of such Reading much less of such Memory as to give an account of so many Authors Some of them either wholly or in part I have read but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it But for the Opinion of the Ancient VVriters in this Point I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in â—â—em than I am viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmines Allegations and cap. 29. where he produceth his own And Eckhard Compend Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who alledgeth Chrysostome Ambrose Basil Cyril Austine and Bernard as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed into us for our Justification And he alledgeth Ambrose Hierome Athanasius Clemens Alex Origen Nazianzen Chrysostome Basil Theodoret Hesychius Primasius Epiphanius Philastrius Austin Sedulius Mâ—xentius Theodulus Fortunatus Victor Mar. and Bernard as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without VVorks and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetusta antiâ—â—â— ate tesiamonia quod ad hanc rem spectat delibare Beda omitted by Eckhard is cited by B. Vsher as writing on Psal 77. thus Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabetur sed per solam justitiam fides To your other Query concerning Calvin P. Martyr c. I answer in the words of Amesius Fides specialis misericordia duplici ratione sic vocatur 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam 2. Qua misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit priore sensu justifiâ—ationem antecedit posteriore sensu sequitur justificatioâ—em Sed quia una eadem est fides quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprehendendo applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit perfectio vel consolatio ejus in hâ—c certitudine apparet quam etiam hostes gratis precipuè impugnant idcircò per istam certitudinem quae tamen quoad sensum à fide potest ad tempus separari fides justificanâ— solet à multis describâ— And again Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit atque adeò conjunctam secum habet specîalâ—m ac certam persuasionem de gratiâ ac misericordiâ Dei iâ— Christo Vnde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non malè soepè describitur ab Orthodoxis prefertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest 2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis c. 2. By Apprehending I do not mean bare Assent but Embracing or Receiving or Applying Amesius cites and approves these words of Contarenus Accipimus justificationem per fidem Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellat applicationem inquienâ— passionem Christi esse veluti Medicinam communem quam quisque sibi applicat per fidem Sacramenta Protestantes appellant apprebensionem non eâ significatione qua pertinet aâ— cognitionem intellectus sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ intirely yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction which is the Righteousness by which we are justified There is no danger in this Doctrine so long as People are taught withal that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them except they also have him as a King reigning over them Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction or of Christ as satisfying for us is that act of Faith whereby we are justified Your Similitude doth not suit because a Husband cannot be offered to a VVoman in several respects as Christ may be unto a Sinner I do not conceive Faith to justifie modo Physico or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel this Act of Faith would not avail As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ yet should they not be justified because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical Act of Faith and withal made the Condition of Justification in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness I see not but I may well say That Faith doth justifie us apprehending Christ and his Righteousness this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification it is all one to say Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and Faith doth justifie as the Condition required unto Justification Whereas therefore you prove That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in it self doth not justifie it is nothing to me who do not ascribe any thing to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in it self but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us to that end that we may be justified And thus I think do others mean when they say That Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness they do not I suppose exclude but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Justification Pemble having said We are justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ the benefit whereof unto our justification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise and gives us assurance of the Performance He adds a little after He that looked on Christ believing in him may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith not for the worth and by the
to the Breath as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Breath doth properly signifie c. So that the meaning of St. James is As the Body without Breath is dead even so Faith without Works which are as it were the breathing of a lively Faith is dead But if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be meant the Soul as 1 Cor. 6. ult I hope you will not so understand it as to compare Faith to the Body and Works to the Soul as if Works were the Soul of Faith and so did give Life unto it whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works and Works do but evidence Faith and the lively power of it The Apostle saith Fulk in this Similitude doth not make Faith the Body and Works the Soul but Works the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith which is trust in God c. 2. God you say needs no Signs Well but God say I requiring such a Faith whereof Works are Signs as Fruits and Effects of it we must look to the signs of our Faith to find it such as God requires of us to our Justification Maccovius it seems met with the Objection At Deo non est opus experimento Resp Hoc sane verum est at non proinde sequitur homines non praebere sui experimentum Deo 3. Faith may be real and yet not justifying A real Assent yea and Consent if limited so as to exclude Christ's dominion over us is not that Faith which your Opposers plead for 4. The New Testament doth make a working Faith yet not Faith as working the Condition of Justification I wonder how you can stumble at this when as you constantly hold That we are justified at first by Faith without Works yet surely that Faith whereby we are justified at first is a working Faith i.e. of a working Nature and will when there is opportunity shew it self by Works That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification is more than your own Principles will admit without that distinction of Justification Inchoated and Justification Continued of which though you make much use yet I see little ground for it Now for Dr. Preston's words which I cited I think they are clear enough against you For first he saith That Faith alone justifieth and maketh Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified You limit it to Justification as begun but he speaks of Justification simply considered and not as begun only 2. He speaks indeed of a double Justification but not as you do nor to that intent to bring in a double Righteousness as requisite unto Justification All that he intends is this That we are justified only by Faith according to Paul's Doctrine yet as James teacheth our Faith must appear to be a true Justifying Faith by VVorks otherwise it is but a false and feigned Faith as it pretendeth to be Justifying and he that pretendeth it is a Hypocrite His words without doing violence unto them can have no other sense put upon them VVhen any one is accused of being but a seeming Believer or a mere Believer without Obedience take Believing merely as it is the Condition of Justification by the Covenant it is but as I have often said the making good this Accusation That he is a Transgressor of the Law and to be condemned by the Law for the transgression of it and so much the more in that he neglected the benefit offered in the New Covenant So that in this case to justifie a Man by his Faith and VVorks is but indeed to plead that he is justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him through Faith which Faith is proved to be sound and good by his VVorks 1. I see you are very tenacious of your Opinion but if you will not forsake your Opinion till you see better Arguments to draw you from it marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they see better Arguments to draw them to it But to the Matter Me-thinks you might easily see the meaning of this that Abraham's first Justification could not be by Faith which was without VVorks i.e. by Faith which was not of a working Nature Thus in that very page 52. I explained my self saying Faith if it be alone without VVorks i.e. renuens operari c. cannot justifie 2. Do not you see that your Answer is to no purpose in limiting the words of the Apostle to Continued and Consummate Justification whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith which is without VVorks or which is not of a working Disposition from being able to justifie as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable That which you so slight as if it were indignus vindice nodus Calvin a Man as likely to see into the Apostle's meaning as another calls nodum insolubilem as I have before noted That more Conditions are required unto Justification afterward than at first is more than I can find and more I am perswaded than will ever be proved Did Paul when he speaketh so much of Justification by Faith without VVorks viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification mean that we are so justified indeed to day but not so to morrow or some time after All his Arguments shew the contrary Yea doth he not prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was justified only by Believing when as yet that was not the beginning of his Justification So when James saith That we are not justified by Faith which is without VVorks such a Faith being dead and no better than the Faith of Devils was his meaning this That hereafter indeed we cannot be so justified but yet at present we may If you be of this mind Non equidem invideo miror mà gis 3. Of the sense of James his Discourse enough before And for v. 17. I think it might easily let you see that he speaketh not as you suppose only of Continued and Consummate Justification but of Inchoated also and consequently that he cannot be interpreted otherwise than thus That Faith which doth not shew it self by VVorks is dead ineffectual and of no force to justifie either at first or afterward as not being that Faith which is required unto Justification viz. a working Faith or Faith which is of a working Nature I have noted before what Oecumenius one that was long before either Calvin or Luther saith upon that very Verse as also how in the judgment of the Syriack Interpreter and other Learned Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is to be understood 1. Though Faith may be true and real without Works yet a living Faith it is not for a living Faith is operative so that a working Faith and a non-working Faith are of different Natures this being but a bare and naked Assent but the other an apprehending of Christ and a receiving of him I little doubt but the Faith of Devils and the Faith of Men who are justified
Christ apprehended and received by Faith justifieth not Faith whereby it is apprehended and received unless it be by an improper speech whereby the Act of the Object by reason of the near and strict connexion betwixt them is given to the Instrument 3. What you have said before about Works perfecting Faith hath been considered Though Faith may save without manifestation yet not except it be of that nature as to manifest it self by Works when God doth call for them You say Works do perfect Faith ut Medium Conditio you mean of Justification but that Works are Medium Conditio Justificationis you do not prove The Tree and its Fruit are considered as distinct ut Causa Effectum non ut Totum Pars and so the perfection of the Tree is only manifested by its Fruit. It is not therefore a good Tree because it beareth good Fruit but it therefore beareth good Fruit because it is a good Tree For the Third If Procreation as you grant do not perfect Marriage in its Essence then it adds only an accidental perfection unto it 4. Your Explication is indeed now more full so that I can better see your meaning yet still I am unsatisfied For I do not conceive that Faith properly is our Covenant but that whereby we embrace God's Covenant Though a Covenant differ from a Promise yet it doth include a Promise Now a Promise is de futuro so that our reciprocal Promise both of Faith and Obedience I take to be our Covenant Faith is in part the matter of the Covenant but not properly the Covenant it self and perhaps when you call it our Covenant you only mean that it is the matter of our Covenant I being there the Respondent it was sufficient for me to deny the proof did lie upon you Yet nevertheless the Assertion viz. Faith alone is the Condition of the Covenant for so much as concerns Justification is sufficiently proved by those places where we are said to be justified by Faith and that without Works viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification And for the reason of the Assertion viz. because Faith alone doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness much hath been said of it before What do our Divines more inculcate than this Wotton saith that only Faith doth justifie Quia solâ— fide rectà in Christum tendimâ— promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur De Reconcil Part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. Amesius saith Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest â—sse causa justificans quia non habet vim a plicandi nobis justitiam Christi Contra Bellar. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. Sect. 5. So Bucanus Fides inquit sola justificat quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum unica facultas in nobis quâ recipimus justitiam Christi Loc. 31. ad Qâ—â—st 37. Thus also Mr. Ball By Repentance we know our selves we feel our selves we hunger and thirst after Grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is Faith alone c. And a little after When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified That Faith receiving the Promise doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised You your self do sometimes say That Faith hath in it an aptitude to justifie in this respect only you deny that this aptitude of Faith is sufficient and say that therefore it doth justifie because God in his Covenant hath made it the Condition of Justification Now I also grant That if Faith were not ordained to that end of God its bare aptitude or its being that whereby we apprehend Christ would not justifie Yet I say it appear by Scripture That because Faith alone hath this aptitude to justifie viz. by apprehending Christ therefore God hath made it alone the Condition of Justification This appears in that we are said to be justified by Believing in or on Christ which imports an apprehending and receiving of him Joh. 1. 12. 2. Repentance doth avail with Faith yet are we justified only by Faith and not by Repentance and that for the reason even now alledged viz. because not Repentance but Faith is the Hand by which Christ is received 3. Though Remission of Sins be ordinarily ascribed to Repentance yet it is no where said That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness as it is said of Faith Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance yet Faith and not Repentance iâ— made the Condition and Instrument of Justification as being that which doth apprehend the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 4. That though Faith only be the Condition of Justification at first yet Obedience also is a Condition afterward is often said but never proved I take Justification both at first and afterward to be by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us therefore not by Obedience but by Faith by which alone we apprehend the Righteousness of Christ that so it may be ours unto Justification Certainly that was not the beginning of Abraham's Justification which is mentioned Gen. 15. 6. Yet by that doth the Apostle prove that Abraham was and all must be justified not by Obedience but by Faith only 1. Faith apt to produce good Works is necessary to procure that first change which makes us in God's account Justos ex Injustis For if it be not such a Faith it is dead and of no force 2. I hope you will not deny but that being justified by Believing every after Act of Faith doth find us justified for you are against the Amission and Intercision of Justification Yet I confess That the continuance of Faith is necessary to the continuance of Justification So it must needs be seeing we are justified by Faith therefore every Act of Faith may be said to justifie as well as the first Act because by after-Acts of Faith we continue justified Nihil erit absurdi inquit Rivetus si dicamus in quâ—libet verae fidei actu imputari justitiam credenti Etsi enim justificatio sit actus momentaneus cujus nunquam planè amittitur effectus in piis qui semel justificatâ— sunt indigent nihilominùs renovatione sensus justificationis suae qui sensus fit per fidem tunc dicitur etiam fides imputarâ— ad justitiam Nam apprehensio illâ— fides habet fluxum suum continuum secundùm plus minus praesertim cum fidelis si justificatus subinde in peccata incidat propter quae opus etiam habet remissione peccatorum Quod continuum beneficirum fide apprehensum si secundam justificationem appellare velâ—â—t adversarii imò tertiam quaâ—tam quintam millesimam non repugnabimus dummodo constet nullâ— alià ratione nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus quà m 〈◊〉 quâ— semel justificati futmus à praecedentibus Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Justification no more afterward than at first 3. Your reasons whereby you endeavour to
confute this Assertion As our Justification is begun so it is continued viz. by Faith only and not by Works as concurrent with Faith unto Justification afterward though not at first seem to be of no force I answer therefore Ad 1. How do I contradict it by saying As it is begun so it is continued by Faith What though there be divers Acts of Faith yet still it is Faith and Faith without the concurrence of Works by which we are justified as well afterward as at first which is all that I assert Because a continued Act of Faith is requisite to the Continuation of Justification doth it therefore follow that Works have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of Justifying Ad 2. Do you think Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification and not also to the Inchoation of it Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons than is requisite unto Justification Your Similitudes are no Proofs and you still suppose that there is one Condition of Justification at first and another Condition thereof afterwards that though at first we are justified only by Faith yet afterward by Faith and Works But though Works are required of Justified Persons as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are justified yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Justification which as it is begun by Faith only so is it also continued Your self observe That Abraham's Believing mentioned Gen. 15. was not his first Act of Faith So then he was justified before by Faith and so was be also afterward even by Faith only as the Apostle from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works viz. as having a co-partnership with Faith in Justifying Abraham was justified both at first and afterward 1. Do you think that Abraham was justified from the guilt of those many sins which he committed after his first Justification by his Works Credat Judâ—â—â— for my part I cannot but detest such Doctrine I know no way whereby he could be justified from those sins but by Faith in Christ even as he was at first justified Besides as I noted before and that as acknowledged by your self Abraham was justified before he produced that Act of Faith spoken of Gen. 15. and in the interim no doubt he committed some sins yet still by Faith and not by Works as Paul sheweth he was justified 2. You do but still affirm without any proof at all That Abraham's Justification could not be continued by the same means viz. by Faith alone works not concurring with it unto Justification as it was begun 3. For Sentential Justification at the Last Judgment I have said enough before Bucan having said that Abraham was Justified operibus tanquam testimontis Justificatienis Adds Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus And again Fides principium existentiae facit ut simus justi Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt ut cognoscamur justi Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fides quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum 4. I think the Argument is good and sound Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified is an everlasting Righteousness therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification This alwayes presupposed That this Righteousness of Christ be apprehended by Faith for otherwise there is no being justified at all by it 1. To be just quoad praestationem Conditionis is but to be just in some respect and in some respect just even the most unjust may be Yet it is true This praestatio Conditionis will be of force to procure Universal Justification not that it is it self the Righteousness by which we are justified but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ and so by his Righteousness are universally justified And though this performing of the Condition be required unto Justification yet nevertheless that remains good which I said in the Animadversions If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law we are fully justified For can we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law except we perform the Condition required in the Gospel And if we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law will the Gospel accuse us It is the Law that worketh Wrath Rom. 4. 15. The Gospel doth free from Wrath though not without performing the Condition for then it suffereth the Law to have its force and to inflict Wrath and that so much the more in that so great a benefit was neglected 2. The performing of a Condition as the Condition is a Duty is a Righteousness but such as cannot justifie as we now speak of Justification But as the Condition is meerly a Condition the performing of it is not properly Righteousness though by it we partake of Righteousness viz. the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 3. Therefore this is no contradiction to grant Faith to be the Condition of Justification and yet to deny it to be the Righteousness by which we are justified That which you think to be most clear Vignerius before cited thought most absurd An possibile est inquit ut sit Fides Instrumentum accipiendae justitia seu Conditio ad obtinendam justitiam requisita si ita loqui libeat simul sit ipsa quam quaerimus justitia Indeed you seem but to strive about words for here immediately you confess That it is but a Subordinate Righteousness meaning I think that which all acknowledg that it is but a means whereby to partake of Christ's Righteousness And you that charge others with Self-Contradiction seem not to agree with your self For here presently after you say This Personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis N. T. must be had before we can have that which freeth us from the Law yet elsewhere your Expressions are such as if being first justified from the Accusation of the Law by the Righteousness of Christ we should after be justified from the Accusation of the Gospel by Personal Righteousness However as I have said before this latter Accusation is but a further prosecution and confirmation of the former by taking away the Plea that some might make why the Accusation of the Law should not stand good and be of force to condemn them 4. Of what force is Satans Accusation against any if be cannot make good his Accusation so as to procure his Condemnation And are not Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ condemned by the Law Is it not for sin that they are condemned And is there any sin which is not against the Law The Gospel indeed may aggravate Sin and increase Condemnation and so those words which you cite The words which I speak shall judg you
c. may be understood as those are more clearly to the purpose Joh. 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin viz. in so high degree as it follows but now they have no cloak for their sin But still it is by the Law that all sinners are convinced and condemned As for Righteousness whereby one is justified from a false Accusation it is but such as the Devil himself may have as hath been noted before though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accusations whatsoever And when Satan doth accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel he doth but only shew that such stand guilty by the Law and so are to be condemned as having no benefit of the Gospel because they have not performed the Condition of it So that still it is the Law by which Satan doth accuse and bring to condemnation But by the way I observe That in this place of your Aphor. p. 308. you say That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2 3 14 15 16. Paul concludeth that neither Faith nor Works is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law but the Righteousness which is by Faith i. e. Christ's Righteousness Yet before in this Writing you stand upon the very Letter of the Text and will have it to prove That Faith it self properly taken is our Righteousness If you say that you mean our Evangelical Righteousness yet so you agree not with your self in your Aphorisms where you make Paul in those Texts to speak of our Legal Righteousness 1. They against whom James disputed relied on Faith as the Condition of the New Covenant but it was not such a Faith as the New Covenant doth require it was a Faith renuens operari upon that account James confuted them not as if Faith alone without Works though yet a Faith ready to shew it self by Works were not the Condition of Justification 2. I am sorry that Beza's words which I cited and which to me seem very excellent should be so censured by you as if there were I know not how many mistakes in them but truly I think the mistakes will be found to be in your censure To your Exceptions I answer 1. Quis vel ex nostris vel ex Transmarinis Theologis Fidem pro Causa nempe Instrumentali Justificationis non habet 2. Beza ait tu negas Vtri potius assentiendum Quid dico Beza Quis enim istud non dicit Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere rationes antè allatae expendantur 3. Affirmes tanthùm non probas Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones Media Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur neque enim ad justificationem procurandam sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est 4. Nec Beza nec alius quisquam quòd sciam distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ Justificatione Continuatâ quasi sc alia hujus alia illius esset conditio perspectam habuit Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo 1. Certain it is All Works are not the fulfilling of the Old Law 's Condition but all Works whereby we are justified are the fulfilling of it and therefore as I said in the Animadversions to be justified by Works and to be justified by the Law are with Paul one and the same See Rivet Disp de Fide Justif § 21. the words are before cited 2. We are justified by the New Law against the Accusation of the Old Law Certainly if we be accused of Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ we are accused of being Sinners For are Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ no sins 3. Who doth not so distinguish of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere except some few whom I have no mind to follow But how will this Distinction inter quod opus quà opus serve to keep in Obedience as having a joint interest with Faith in Justification What dark Equivocal I pray is this That Faith doth justifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of Christ's Righteousness Your self acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to justifie in this respect and in this respect I say Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Justification I take what you grant viz. That Paul doth not imply Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Justification afterward you should prove and not content your self with the bare affirming of it Doth not Paul by that Gen. 15. Abraham believed God c. prove that Abraham was justified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience Yet that was not the first time that Abraham either believed or was justified The truth therefore is Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which justifieth both at first and last but not as concurring with Faith unto Justification either at first or last 1. There is a necessity of Faith shewing it self by Works that so it may appear to be such a Faith whereby Christ is truly apprehended and received But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in justifying because only such a Faith doth justifie as doth also produce Works You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Justification at first yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified 2. For the Texts alledged that Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified c. is as plain you say as We are justified by Faith But if it be so plain it may seem wonderful that Bellarmine should never make use of it when he labours to prove That Faith alone doth not justifie which so far as I observe he doth not Nor do the Rhemists on the place take any notice of those words who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but seem to make for them Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it Quod autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent puerile est Certainly all good that we do may justifie quadantemus so far as it is good But can we therefore be simply and absolutely or if you like those terms better fully and perfectly justified either by our Words or Works Those places that require forgiving of others that so God may forgive us shew indeed that it is no true Justifying Faith which doth not as occasion requires manifest it self in that kind but we are not therefore justified as well by forgiving others as by believing nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Justification That in 1 John 1. 9. and Acts 3. 19. shews that
places he doth maintain and plead for as without which we must not think to be saved but he speaks in reference to Justification and so he excludes Works even for this very reason because they cannot justifie except they be meritorious and such as that the reward of them is of debt and not of Grace viz. pardoning Grace for otherwise whatever reward the Creator doth bestow upon the Creature it is of Grace Yet it doth not therefore follow that Faith is meritorious because we are justified by Faith For Faith doth justifie Relatively in respect of Christ's Righteousness which it apprehendeth and by which so apprehended we are justified but so Works cannot justifie they must either justifie for their own worth or not at all save only Declaratirè by manifesting our Faith and so our Justification See Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 3. p. 19. c. 6. p. 69 70. 1. The Scriptures do plainly so distinguish as to deny Working that thereby we may be justified Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. Yet to asser Working that thereby we may be saved Phil. 2. 12. You will say That the former places speak of Meritorious and Legal Working But 1. All Working which is good is Legal as I have shewed before i.e. according to the Rule and Prescript of the Law even Gospel-Obedience is in that respect Legal And when the Apostle doth exclude the Deeds of the Law from Justification he doth not mean as some take it Deeds done by the Power of the Law without Grace but Deeds which the Law doth prescribe however done For he denies that Abraham was justified by his Works yet doubtless they were not done without Grace The Apostle taketh it as granted That all Works whereby we are justified are meritorious for if there be no meritoriousness in them he supposeth there is no being justified by them For indeed how can Working justifie if there be any defect and failing in it Therefore Faith it self doth not justifie in respect of it self but in respect of Christ whom it apprehendeth See Calvin Inst. lib. 3 cap. 11. § 7. the words were before-cited To your Second I have always denied that there is the same reason of Salvation viz. compleat and Justification and have always held That Justification at Judgment is but a manifestation of our present Justification To your Third None is Reus Poenae except he be Reus Culpae and there is no Reatus Culpae but by transgressing the Law though it may be aggravated and so the other by the Gospel But properly the not-fulfilling of the Condition of the Gospel taking it merely as a Condition and not as a Duty doth not bring a new Guilt but only leaves a Man in the old Guilt with an aggravation of it he having no benefit of the Gospel to free him from his Guilt and being the more deeply guilty in that he neglected the Mercy which he might have obtained 1. Some of your words I confess I do not understand nor can I see what reference they have to mine in the Animadversions But when you speak of Right to Justification and Salvation you seem to mean Sentential Justification at Judgment For else we have here Justification it self and not only a right unto it though we have only a right to Salvation and not Salvation it self I mean in respect of the fulness and perfection of it And though Justification and Salvation flow from the same Covenant yet there is more required unto Salvation than unto Justification by that Covenant and so you also hold in respect of your first Justification 2. You trouble your self more than needs with your Distinctions which as you do use them do but involve the Matter in more obscurity Surely my words of themselves Freedom from all sin in respect of imputation and from all condemnation for sin are far more perspicuous than when you so multiply Distinctions to find out forsooth the meaning of them For 1. Is not Freedom more plain than Liberation though they both signifie the same thing 2. Can there be an Active Liberation without a Passive or a Passive without an Active If God free us are we not freed And if we be freed doth not God free us What need then to distinguish in that manner If freedom relate to God it is Active if to us it is Passive And what difference betwixt Liberation or Freedom viz. from the Imputation of Sin and Condemnation for Sin and Absolution 3. The Reprobate are Condemnati per sententiam Judicis Joh. 3. 18. etiamsi sententiae publica prolatio ejùsque plena executio in ultimum usque diem sit dilata 4. Not only right to Absolution but Absolution it self is perfect to a Believer through Christ Rom. 8. 1. Neither are there any more Conditions of Justification at any time than Faith though more sins be every day committed and so more are to be pardoned yet still Faith as well afterward as at first doth procure the pardon of them without Works as therein concurrent with it Non aliam Justitiam saith Calvin ad finem usque vitae habent fideles quà m quae illic nempe Rom. 4. 2 Cor. 5. describitur 5. Actual Absolution and Judicial per sententiam Judicis is in this life and that perfect though there be not a perfect declaration of it till the Last Judgment 6. When you say Condemnation is not perfect if any at all till the Last Judgment you do in effect question whether there be any Justification till then For if no Condemnation then no Justification But Condemnation I say is perfect here though the Sentence be not publickly pronounced and fully executed till hereafter 7. I do not speak of freedom from all sin as the Antinomians do as if God did see no sin in his Children and they had no sin to be humbled for but I say That God doth not impute sin unto them so as to condemn them for it And so much surely the Scripture doth say if I understand it 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 1. For freedom from future sins I have said enough before 8. The word Justification may be used in sensu Judiciario as I have shewed before and yet Justification at Judgment be but a manifestation of our present Justification Your Quotations out of the Civilians are not against me for I say Sententia Judicis jam lata est etiamsi in extremo demum die plenè publicéque sit revelanda I speak also of an Authoritative Manifestation and therefore your Instance of a Woman manifesting a Felony c. is not to the purpose Obedience as a Fruit of Faith is necessary both necessitate pracepti so that it is sin to omit it and also necessitate medii so that we cannot be saved without it But if it be a Means say you then it is a Condition Well but a Means and a Condition say I of what Of Salvation It is granted Of Justification It is denied neither doth
oppugnant De Justit Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. Yet in another sense he holds that Christ's Righteousness imputed to us is the formal Cause of our Justification the words were before cited And as others so Dr. Prideaux speaks the very same thing saying Justificamur per justitiam Christi non personae quâ ipse est vestitus sed meriti quâ suos vestit nobis imputatam But for the principal thing intended in this Section of yours Though wicked Men may be more ready to receive Christ as their Justifier than as their Ruler so you express it yet it follows not that the receiving of Christ as a Ruler is that Act of Faith which doth justifie For the difficulty of a thing is no good Argument to prove the necessity of it either at all or to such a purpose 2. My second Note was to this purpose quite to take away the force of your Argument and so I think it doth notwithstanding your Reply For have we not God's means to overcome that aversness of nature if the receiving of Christ as Lord do necessarily follow Pardon as well as if it be a Condition of Pardon When I make it a Fruit of Justifying-Faith to take Christ for Lord I do not say but that Christ may at once be received both as Priest and as Lord and so must if he be so propounded I speak of express propounding and receiving But my meaning is That though we be justified by receiving Christ as Priest perhaps not yet hearing of him expresly as Lord yet that Justifying-Faith will also put forth it self to take Christ for Lord when he is so set forth unto us To be justified before we take Christ as Lord is not to be justified before we take Christ as Christ For Christ is Christ as Priest though not only as Priest Indeed to receive Christ in respect of one Office so as to refuse him in respect of another were not to receive Christ as Christ but that is not the Case as I do put it And for the moral necessity of taking Christ as Lord which you ask what it is if it be not a Condition I suppose it may be morally necessary as a thing commanded and yet be no Condition of Justification For can nothing be commanded and so be morally necessary but it must be commanded and be necessary to that end that thereby we may be justified Works are commanded and so necessary yet you hold them to be no Condition of our Justification at first neither indeed are they afterward as that of Gen. 15. 6. with Rom. 4. 2 3. doth irrefragably prove Your Argument I thus retort He that is justified is in a State of Salvation and should be saved if he so died But he that hath Faith without VVorks is justified Ergo he is in a State of Salvation and if he so die shall be saved Answer for your self as you please for my part I say The same Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest and so justifieth is ready also to receive Christ as Lord when he is so propounded even as that Faith which justifieth is ready to produce Works when they are required 1. You should not only suppose but prove that the excluding of Obedience from Justification as co-partner with Faith in justifying is a Scandal given and an Error 2. If it were not Paul's design to advance Faith above Love c. in point of Justification what then means his so frequent asserting Faith to be that whereby we are justified and his never-mentioning Love c. to that purpose 3. Your self acknowledg an aptitude in Faith to justifie as apprehending Christ and I acknowledg that besides this God hath appointed Faith for that purpose in respect of its aptitude making choice of it rather than of any other Grace I have also oft enough considered what you have said Justificatio saith Davenant purgat abluit à reatu poenâ speccati idque uno momento perfectè De Justit Habit. cap. 23. ad Arg. 4. Though Justification be perfect as freeing from all Condemnation yet so long as there may be Accusation there is need of Justification Whereas you speak of the Law justifying c. It is God that justifieth Rom. 8. 33. though according to the Gospel or New-Covenant for that I presume you mean by the Law and by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness Christ as our Advocate doth plead our Cause and procure our Justification and at the Last Judgment as God's Vicegerent he will publickly pronounce Sentence I see nothing against me but that still you run upon this Supposition That there is the same Condition of Salvation and of Justification at Judgment whereas I suppose that VVorks are a Condition of Salvation as full and compleat but not so of Justification at Judgment that being but a manifestation of our present Justification and so VVorks looked at but as Fruits and Evidences of Faith whereby we are justified If Illyricus his Doctrine were the same with this his fellow-Protestants I dare say would not blame him for it Neither do I see how Illyricus could or any rational Man can grant VVorks to be necessary Fruits of Faith and yet deny them to be means or Conditions of Salvation in respect of the actual and full enjoyment of it For surely as Faith it self is required that we may be justified so the Fruits of Faith to be produced in due season are required that we may be glorified But why do you thus still jumble together Justification and Salvation saying Illyricus his Error was in denying Works to be necessary to Justification and Salvation Yet when you cite Bucer and Melancthon as asserting the necessity of good VVorks there is not a syllable in them about Justification as if VVorks were necessary in that respect Bucer in that Conference at Ratisbon which you cite though he maintain Inherent Righteousness as who doth not yet he saith Hâc justitiâ nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae as he is cited by Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. ubi plura vide So Melancthon is cited by Bellarmine as holding with other Protestants of prime note that Sola fides justificat tamen fides quae justificat non est sola And Wotton saith De Reconcil Part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. Num. 4. Lutherus Melancthon Calvinus Chemnitius ea potissimum causâ nos infusâ inhaerente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt quòd illa in nobis ita imperfectu sit ut in Dei conspectum quum ad judicandum candum accedat prodire non audeat But of Bucer and Melancthon more by and by For Illyricus what in other places he may hold I cannot tell but in the Centuries whereof he was the chief Author he seems to agree with other prime Protestants For he brings in 27 Arguments whereby the Apostles he saith prove Hominem solâ fide absque operibus Legis justificari Among which the
23d is this Duae sunt tantum viae ad salutem nulla est tertia c. Vna harum est per opera Legis altera est per fidem in Christum qui pro nobis Legem implevit Sed illa quae est per opera Legis postulat à nobis integerrimam impletionem quam quia nemo potest praestare omnes damnantur à Lege Ea verà quae per fidem est gratis propter opeera Christi donat justitiam vitam credentibus Qui ergò vult per opera salvari propria is alteram viam tollit è contrà qui vult per fidem salvari gratis is non potest per opera sua justificari Gal. 5. perhaps it should be Gal. 3. Rom. 4. 10. Ephes 2. Here he seems indeed to confound Justification and Salvation as if there were the same reason of both and Works were no more required unto Salvation than unto Justification But surely by Salvation he meant a Right unto Salvation which doth necessarily go along with Justification and whatsoever it be that doth justifie the same also doth give a right unto Salvation For otherwise he makes Works and new Obedience necessary to the full enjoyment of Salvation For he treats at large de novâ obedientiâ seu bonis operibus justificatorum and he goes through the several Commandments and brings in a Catalogue of Good Works which are required in every Commandment Though he sometimes only expresseth these Reasons why new Obedience and good Works must be performed ut glorificetur Deus inserviatur proximo sint testimonia verae fidei yet even these reasons do imply that new Obedience and good Works are necessary unto Salvation viz. in that sense as I have explained For can any think to be saved except they have a care to glorifie God to serve their Neighbour and to give testimony of their Faith But sometimes he speaks more expresly to this purpose saying Iis qui fidae gratis acceperunt remissionem peccatorum Apostoli etiam de novitate vitae concionantur poenas comminantur rurses sese peccatis sine poenitentiâ polluentibus And among other places he alledgeth that Phil. 2. Cum timore tremore vestram ipsorum salutem operamini And among other reasons Why all must repent and walk in newness of Life he brings in this as the sixth Subitus extremi judicii adventus And cites that 1 Joh. 2. Manete in eo ut cum apparuerit fiduciam habeamus non pudefiamus in adventu ejus And that 1 Thess 5. Ipsi planè scitis quòd dies ille Domini ut fur in nocte ita venturus sit Cum enim dixerint Pax tuta omnia tunc repentinus eis ingruet interitus sicut dolor partus mulieri praegnanti c. Proinde ne dormiamus c. And for the next reason he brings in this Poenae aterâ—â— impoenitentium citing Rom. 2. Juxta duritiam tuam cor poeniterenescium colligis tibi ipsi iram in die irae quo patefiet justum judicium Dei c. Ventura est indignatio ira afflictio anxietas adversus omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum c. This I think is sufficient to shew that Illyricus at least when he helped to write the Centuries was as much for Obedience and good Works as either Bucer or Melancthon for any thing that I see you cite out of them and that he made them so Fruits of Faith whereby we are justified and have right to Salvation that withal he made them Means or Conditions of Glorification and more than this the words of Bucer and Melancthon do not import Whereas you say that Davenant's words which I cited have nothing that you dislike save only that Grace is said to be infused in ipsa actu justificandi which yet you shew how it is not to be disliked you consider not for what end I cited those words viz. To shew that all Protestants generally acknowledg and profess so he Omnes enim agnoscimus clarè profitemur that Inherent Righteousness doth go along with Imputed Righteousness though it be this and not that by which we are justified and consequently That Works are necessary as Fruits of Faith and Means of Salvation though yet Works have no Copartnership with Faith in justifying Neither Bucer nor Melancthon nor any of our famous Divines that I know did teach other Doctrine And because you seem to carry it so as if Melancthon and Bucer had been of your Opinion though what I have said already may suffice to shew the contrary yet I will add a little more Melancthon saith Planè clarè dico Obedientia nostra hoc est justitia bonae conscientiae seu operum quae Deus nobis percepit necessariò sequi reconciliationem debet But here he saith no more for Works than generally Protestants do he is far from making them concurrent with Faith unto Justification Again Sed nos inquit sciamus suum locum esse justitiae operum longè verò aliâ consolatione opus esse in quaereâ—â—â— reconciliatione And again Cum â—citur fide just â—fiâ—amur non aliud dicetur quà m quod propter Filium Dei accipimus remissionem peccatorum reputamur justi Et quia oportet apprehendi hoc beneficium dicitur fide i. e. fiducia misericordiae promissae propter Christum Intellâ—gatur ergo propositio correlativè Fide sumus justi i. e. per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti And he alledgeth Basil saying Sine ullâ sophisticâ detrahit justificationem bonis operibus nec loquitur de ceremonialibus sed de omnibus virtutibus nec tentùm loquitur de operibus ante renovationem sed de virtutibus in renovatis ac jubet sentire quòd solâ fiduciâ misericordiae propter Christum promissae justi sumus Haec est inquit Basiliûs perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando ne quidem propter justitiam suam aliquis offertur sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram justitiam fide autem solâ in Christum justificari c. Bucer also commends Melancthon for saying Sola fide justificamur solius misericordiae fiduciâ justi pronuntiamur And presently he adds Nemini siquidem pio dubium esse potest quin per solam Dei misericordiam propiérque unius Christi meritum ac nulla omninò nostra quamlibet sancta opera germanissimos Spiritus fructus nos justificemur hoc est à Deo justi pronuntiemur 1. I am sorry to see you so bent to maintain what you have once done Is it fair to take hold on a few words of an Author and to pass by that which immediately followeth and shew that he meant quite contrary to what is pretended Is not this to make your self guilty of that which you accuse others of viz. to take up some scraps against the meaning of the whole Book and even the very Page
you seem to speak so clearly of it in your Aphorisms 2. How pertinent those Testimonies which you speak of are I cannot tell but truly as you cited Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. it is no hard matter to cite many 3. What you alledg out of Davenant I might evade by saying as you did That it is not against me but I will not put you off so I answer therefore Ad 1. Bona opera sunt necessaria omnibus fidelibus justificatis qui habent usum rationis per aetatem operari possunt Ita sanè res habet quis negat Sed num ideò bonis operibus aeqâ—è ac fide justificamur Adverte quaeso ipsa authoris tui verba Bona opera sunt necessaria justificatis non justificandis Nam ut scitè Augustinus Bona opera sequuntur justificatum non praceduâ—t justificandum Quid quod tuipse fateris nos fide absque operibus in initio justificari Ita inquies sed posteà ut justificati simus opera etiam à nobis requiruntur At Davenantius istud non dicit non iis certè verbis quae citasti Jubes autem legere sequentia lego igitur Facile est hujusmodi opera multa praesertim interna commemorare sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur Sedne hîc quidem dicit opera ista pariter ac fidem justificari Ea enim quae ad justificationem requiruntur cum iâ—s quae justificant confundi non debent ut benè monet Amesius Quin ipse Davenantius latum discrimen facit inter Fidem Opera cum Fidem ideò justificare dicat quod justitiam Christi apprehendat ac nobis applicet Id enim Fidei peculiare est nec Operibus ullo modo tribui potest Ex Davenantii igitur sententia non partim fide partin operibus sed fide solâ justificamur Ad 2. That Conclusion is the same in effect with the former Some internal Works must go before Justification yet they do not therefore justifie as well as Faith Davenantius eo ipso loco negat opera necessaria esse ad justificationem ut causas sed tantùm ut ab obtinendam Equestrem dignitatem necessarium est adire aulam regiam atque coram rege in genua se dimittere Fidem autem loco alio atque alibi citato dicit esse causam applicantem justitiam Christi atque ideò ei tribui quod proximè immediatâ— pertinet ad rem applicatam Fidem nempe dici justificare cum propriè justitia Christi fide apprehensa justificet id quod ego mordicusteneo Ad 3. De retinendo scilicet conservando Justificationis statu anteà satis responsum est Id nunc dico Davenantium nec in principio Justificationis nec in progressu ejus vim virtutémque justificandi operibus juxta ac Fidei tribuere etiamsi dicat bona opera ad Justificationis Statum retinendum conservandum esse necessaria id quod ego libenter agnosco Cum enim in ipso Justificationis exordio Fidem operibus gravidam esse oporteat procedente demum Justificatione Fidem opera parere necesse est Ad 4. Dico te extra oleas vagari cum ego de Conditione Justificationis loquar atqui istiusmodi quidem Conditione quâ justificari dicimur tu autem opponis mihi authorem deoperibus justificatorum i.e. Eorum qui jam justificati sunt fide quidem non operibus ex authoris istius sententiâ ad salutem necessariis disserentem The Pages to which you further refer me I cannot consult my Edition differing from yours as you might perceive by some places which I cited But your Inference is of no force as having no ground for it viz. That if I will be of Davenant 's mind I must be of yours I do not see that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do who hold that they justifie and urge the words of St. James for it whereas Davenant as I have shewed makes Faith to justifie as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness which surely Works cannot do He saith also Opera sequuntur Justificationem praecedunt Glorificationem being not acquainted it seems with your distinction of Justification as Inchoated and as Consummate at Judgment whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of Justification as of Glorification What Davenant doth mean when he calleth Faith an Instrument he doth sufficiently shew making Faith to have a Causality in Justifying by apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified But do our greatest Divines give as much to Works as you do This you will undertake you say to manifest Why then make it appear that they hold Works to justifie as well as Faith or to have a co-interest with Faith in the Effect of Justifying Except you perform this which I presume you never will you cannot make good your Undertaking So do our greatest Divines give more to Faith than you As you urge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. James for being justified by Works so you also insist upon the very Letter of St. Paul and will have Faith it self to be properly our Righteousness by which we are justified This our greatest Divines do not no more than the other Yet you stick not to brand them as making Man his own Justifier and Pardoner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truly this is overgross What professed Adversary could reproach our greatest Divines more than thus Whither will not a Man's partiality carry him if he be let alone May you not as well say That Christ made some their own Saviours because he said That their Faith had saved them I had thought that all the Glory did belong to the principal Agent rather than to the Instrument And to what purpose do you say Who can forgive sins but God only Do they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification deny this any more than you who make both Faith and VVorks Conditions of it Yea some will have that Monstrum horrendum and first-born of Abominations as they phrase it to be laid at your own door For my part I shall say no more than this That you seem as guilty this way your self as they whom you censure though neither you nor they I think are indeed guilty in this kind But why may not Man's Act be an Instrument of God's Act Or to speak more properly Man acting be an Instrument of God acting We are workers together with God 2 Cor. 6. 1. Surely not in a way of Co-ordination but in a way of Subordination and so Man may be God's Instrument I am not therefore of your mind but think that the Gospel rather is properly a Means and Ministers Instruments though to be nice and curious about words so that the Matter be found and good I do not love Ibid. 88. 1. That Faith doth justifie as it apprehendeth Christ appello totum Mundum
Theologorum Reformatorum I have given you enough to this purpose before Now to your Reasons why this is to set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere I answer Ad 1. Not Apprehendere Credere simpliciter but Apprehendere Credere in i.e. Apprehendere Christum Credere in Christum are all one And when it is said That this doth justifie the meaning is Christus fide apprehensus justificat so that this doth not set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere as some do set it up who make it as our Act simply considered to be that Righteousness by which we are justified Ad 2. Their meaning is not obscure as you pretend that you may the better oppose it The Object of Faith Christ's Righteousness apprehended by Faith doth justifie and so Faith is said to justifie not as considered in it self but in respect of its Object which it apprehendeth because it apprehendeth that viz. Christ's Righteousness which doth justifie Ad 3. The formal reason why Faith doth justifie is its Apprehension yet still that is in respect of the thing apprehended Causae applicanti illud tribuitur quod immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur as Davenant before cited doth express it whose words you said were not against you though none can be more in this Matter For the second Point you are quite mistaken For I do not put a difference betwixt Justification and Right to Salvation but betwixt Justification and Salvation it self i.e. the full enjoyment of it viz. Glorification I have frequently expressed my self to this effect That by Faith alone we are justified and so have Right to Salvation yet by VVorks and Obedience also we must come fully to enjoy Salvation In hoc Foedere scil Evangelico saith Davenant De Justit Actual cap. 30. pag. mihi 396. ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur Conditiò quam verae vivae fidei Presently after he explains himself thus Justificatio igitur jus N. B. ad aeternam vitam ex Conditione solius Fidei suspenditur By the way you may observe how he calls Faith the Condition and the only Condition of our Justification and yet he makes it not to be Causa sine quâ non but Causa Instrumentalis Causa applicans as appears by his words before cited Your following Arguments are not against me you do but fight as they say with your own shadow Yea you having objected against your self Rom. 5. 10. You answer directly as I use to do viz. That Paul doth not distinguish betwixt Reconciliation and a Right to Salvation but betwixt Reconciliation and actual and Compleat Salvation You add That Paul makes them both Fruits of Free Grace And what Protestant say I doth not so A necessity of good Works as the way of attaining unto Salvation is asserted yet it is denied that good VVorks are meritorious of Salvation That in Rom. 8. 6. whence you infer That only Faith is not the Condition proves not that Faith alone is not the Condition of Justification and Right to Salvation which is all that I contend for VVhat you mean by those words Life as well as Righteousness I do not know Neither do I see what those Verses 13 14 17. viz. of Rom. 8. are for your purpose VVhereas by the way you say Faith justifies not quà Instrumentum vel Apprehensio proximè sed quà Conditio praestita because Justification is given as a Reward and Rewards are given on Moral Considerations and not merely Physical I have told you before That I also include a Moral Consideration and do not make Faith to justifie merely as it is of such an apprehensive Nature but as being of such a Nature God therefore in that respect hath been pleased to make choice of it for that end that by it apprehending Christ and his Righteousness i.e. properly by Christ and his Righteousness apprehended by it we should be justified FINIS Page 2. 1. 2. 4. Vindic Lib. 1. Part. 2. Sect. 20. Ibid. Ibid. 3. Part 1. Quaest 19. Art 11. Ibid. Part 1. Quest 19. Art 12. Thes Theolog Disput 26. Animad p. 162. Vindic. Lib. 1. Part. 1. §. 3. §. 4. Advers Tilen pag. 193. De Provident Disp 5. Thes Theolog part 1 Disp 26. Part 2. Disp 14. Vindic. Lib. 2. Digr 3. §. 3. §. 2. §. 1. 3. 9. Ibid. 4. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 15. Exe◠cit 2. Ibid. Of the Coven chap. 5. Ibid. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Of the Coven Chap. 5. p. 23. Ibid. Ibid. De Resur cap. 15. Ibid. c. 38. Ibid. c. 8. Ibid. Maccov de statu primi ho. Disp 5. Ibid. 7. 24. Ibid. Vide Gataker cont Gomarum p. 14 15. Ibid. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 10 Ibid. 58. Ibid. 11. 9. 59. Of the Coven c. 12. p. 78. Vide Gatakerum nosturm adversus Lucium Respons ad vindic Part. 2. Sect. 7. pag. 54. c. Et contra Gomarum p. 4. 22. Ibid. 60. Ibid. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 10. 65. Calv. in John 5. 23. Beza in eundem loc 14. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 11. 68. 15. Ibid. 12. 70. Ibid. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Rom. 9. 13. Part 1. Quest 23. Art 3. ad 1. Ibid. Ib. Ib. 16. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ibid. 13. 71. Ibid. 17. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. 72. Ibid. 14. 79. De Satisfact p. 57. Ibid. 18. 15. 83. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. 16. 85. Ibid. 17. 86. 19. Ib. 89. Ibid. 18. Ib. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. 91. Ibid. 19. 95. * Viz. By actual relation unto him De Reconcil Part 2. Lib. 2. Cap. 22. Of Persever ch 12. 23. Ibid. 103. Ad. 1. Ibid. Ad. 2. 24. Ad. 3. * Solifidians are no Believers as believing is a receiving of Christ and that is the believing by which we are justified Ibid. Ad. 4. Ibid. Ad. 5. Ibid. Ad. 6. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 27 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. De Justis c. 24. §. 21. Ibid. §. 23. Ibid. §. 25. Ibid. §. 26. 1 Joh. 3. 4. De Fide Justif Disp 12. p. 36. Apud Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. Ibid. 20. 108. Ibid. Ib. 110. 21. 111. De Fide Justif §. 15 16. Ibid. Ibid. 32. De Justif Habit. cap. 22. Ibid. Ibid. cap. 26. Duraeus Advers Whitak De Justif cap. 25. De Just Habit. cap. 26. Bell. Ener Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. p. 126. 32. Contra Camp ad Rat. 8. p. 178. De Justif Habit. cap. 26. Arg. 4. Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. c. 1. Arg. 11. De Recon par 2. l. 1. c. 19. Ibid. cap. 23. Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. c. 19. Of the Covenant ch 16. p. 10 Ibid. Alio alio amicior similior Alsted Metaph. lib. 2. c. 5. Log. l. 1. c. 7 Of the Coven c. 16. p. III 33. Loc. cit Ibid. 34. Of the Coven p. 219. De Just Hab. c. 23. al Arg. 7. Ibid. ad