also drinks his blood shed so it did till the Sacrament was instituted and so it still doth extra Sacramentum out of the Sacrament but if we apply this to the receiving of Christ in the Sacrament then drinking is as necessary both to answer the whole act of Faith and the whole purpose of the Sacrament in participating his blood shed and receiving a full Refection And therefore though eating only be expressed in that v. 57. yet he could not but see that our Saviour when he spoke in the singular number mentions and enjoyns them both v. 34 36. His instancing in the command about the Passover enjoyning to kill rost sprinkle and eat but not binding every one to perform all but some one thing some another p. 361. proves as all his former impertinent for the concernment here is in the reception or partaking of the Sacrament of the Passover by eating of the Eucharist by eating and drinking and I hope he will not deny but all and every one of the Israelites were bound to eat the Passover and to eat it as the Lord enjoyned it under pain of being cut off Exod. 12. Indeed if we take in all the actions to be done in and about the Sacrament of the Eucharist those that concern the consecration and administration as well as the reception of it every one is not bound to perform all but that which concerns the Reception belongs to all not to do all that our Saviour did but all that the Disciples then did belongs to all to do because they then represented the whole company of the faithful He closes up this point and his whole discourse with some passion against Protestants charging them with an unworthy and base esteem of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour not thinking that either of them as they are in this Sacrament is fit to confer saving grace to such as devoutly receive them p. 363. Thus where Argument and Reason is wanting there Passion must make it out But as to the worth and power of our Saviours body and blood we acknowledge it * See N◠3. 5. above and the fitness of either to confer sufficient grace and how it does when in case of necessity the one is devoutly received but we question how they that wilfully refuse one of them the blood shed can be said devoutly to receive or can expect that sufficient grace which is given in the Sacrament to them that receive it according to our Saviours Institution It is not any derogating from the worth of our Saviours body and blood but a due regard to his Will and Command that causes us to stand upon receiving both What he adds runs still upon that Assertion that there is not any express command given in Scripture to all particular Christians to receive both pag. 365. which we shewed above to be false by our Saviours commands in his Institution of this Sacrament Drink ye all and Do this by what he severely denounced Joh. 6.53 by what S. Paul delivers as received from our Saviour 1 Cor. 11. That which this Author immediately subjoyns and the custome of the Primitive Ancient and Modern Church is evidently to the contrary will appear to be far from Truth as to the Primitive and Ancient Church when we come to the survey of Antiquity in this point To conclude I could wish that Mr. Spencer who pretends he undertook this work for no other end then to inform the misled spirits of this age as he tels us in the close of his book would have a conscionable regard to an open and apparent Truth which he contends against as in this so other points of Romish doctrine and that he would think of reducing those misled spirits which he has drawn out of the way by such deceiving assertions as he has delivered in this Treatise and bent all his wits to render them plausible to the Vulgar A Brief Survey of Antiquity for the trial of the former points Whether they can as held by the Church of Rome pass for Catholick Doctrine SECT I. Introduction VIncentius Lirinensis gives us a safe Rule for trial of Points of faith and Catholick doctrine Duplici modo munire fidem suam debet Primo divina legis authoritate deinde Ecclesiae Cath. Traditione cap. 1. If any saith he would continue safe and sound in a sound faith he ought two wayes to fortify his belief First by the Authority of Gods word or Scripture then by the Tradition of the Catholick Church bringing down from age to age the known sense of that word Then for the Tradition of the Church it must be universal to prove it Catholick Doctrine That is properly Catholick which was received or believed Quod semper ubique creditum c. 3. every where through all the Churches and alwayes through every Age. According to this Rule we ought to direct the Tryal and may justly expect that the Church of Rome imposing these and many other points upon the World for Catholick faith should give us them clearly proved by this Rule whereas we finde them in these points pittifully destitute of Scripture which is the first and main ground-work of faith Yet because Scripture is Scripture and by all Christians received for the word of God and challenges the first place in the Rule of Faith therefore they think themselves concerned to bring Scripture for every point such as their best wits have found out any way capable of being wrested to their purpose far from that clearness and force of proof which those places of Scripture have that hold out unto us matters of Faith SECT I. Of worshiping Angels and Saints HOw forsaken the Romanists are of Scripture here may appear Romanists here destitute of Scripture proof by what could be alledged by Mr. Spencer in defence of it as we saw above Cap. 1. from the reverence given to the Angels by Lot and others or to men living as to Elias and Elisha which proved impertinent and fell short of that worship which the Church of Rome allows and practises It is also confessed by some of them * Salmeron in 1 Tim. 2. disp 8. Sect. postremò that this business of worshiping and Invocating Saints or Angels is not expressed in the New Testament and reason given for it because it would seem hard to the Jews and give occasion to the Gentiles to think new Gods put upon them As little help have they from the Tradition of the Catholick Church or witness of Antiquity which here runs with a full stream against them And now for the Trial we will first speak to the General Religious worship as incompetent to a Creature though most excellent such as are Saints and Angels the particulars of this worship by Invocation and Image-worship we shall examine below Our first evidence of Antiquity shall be from the force of the word Religion The force of the word Religion whereby the Fathers did prove and
by his mediation by and in whom we can call him Father and for his other part of reply then one Christian living may not pray for another who sees not the disparity between praying for and praying to or invocating and that at such distance as they do Saints and Angels but of this of the living to pray for one another more conveniently * Nu. 6. below In the other places 1 Tim. 2.5 1 Jo. 2. 1. He will have the protestant mistaken The office of Mediator and Advocate in excluding thereby all Mediators or Advocates of Intercession the Text speaking only of a Mediator of Redemption because it follows in one place who gave himself a ransom and in the other He is the propitiation for our sins Secondly that the Text speaks of such a Mediator or Advocate that deserves to be heard for his own worth and merits pa. 69. That we may better discover this usual but ungrounded evasion Note First others besides Christ may be said to Intercede for us Intercession of Saints as the blessed Saints no question do but that makes them not Mediators or Advocates of Intercession for they do it without our Invocating of or application by prayer to them out of that charity and propension which all the members of Christ have to one another also they do it in general in such desires as make for the accomplishment of that body of which they are members Out of which propensity we pray also for them i.e. for their consummation and glorious resurrection c. yet this renders us not their mediators Secondly Note that to state them in the condition of Mediators and Advocates they must be enabled to receive our particular requests and prayers and so to present them unto God yea as the word Advocate significantly implies they must be admitted in that Court to plead their cause for whom they appear This being made manifest that they are no way enabled thereunto it will easily be seen whether the Protestants are mistaken in excluding them from this office or the Romanists in admitting them to it without or rather against scripture For this Author was wont in his imputed mistakes to shew the word or thing in which he placed the mistake otherwise taken and applied to others in scripture and it s but reason that he who will enlarge to others what the scripture seems to restrain should be bound to make it appear by scripture and not do it by limitations and distinctions of his own invention as it fares with all Romanists in this point and that of Image-worship That which this Author makes the pretence of his distinction or limiting to Christ only such a kind of mediation viz. of redemption from the words following viz. ransom and propitiation overthrows his distinction and shews the whole office belongs to Christ only for it shews that his mediation of Intercession or Advocateship and his fitness thereunto is grounded on his bloodshed or ransom or making God thereby propitious which the Apostle through the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks most evidently shewing our high priest is entred to appear for us Heb. 9.24 i. e. to be our Advocate or Mediator of Intercession and that he entred with blood This also shews the distinction is not good Distinction of Mediator of Redemption and Intercession for one member of it is grounded upon the other in the Intercession of our Mediator and Advocate upon his redemption for that tells us none can come under one member of it to interceed as an Advocate with God to whom the other belongs not too So for his other exception or limitation That Christ is the only Mediator or Advocate that can intercede by his own worth and merits comes to the same purpose for he that can do so must be a Redeemer too It is a great Truth but that it should not exclude as they pretend the Saints and Angels from being Mediators in and by the merits of Christ is only a saying of their own without all proof or warrant of scripture and a bold saying it is For when scripture saith there is one Mediator and tells us of no other points us out our Advocate and tells us of no other directs us by whom and in whose name we must come to God and shews us no other how can we without great presumption take upon us to appoint others though in order to him that is appointed For our coming to or praying to God is a worship of God an immediate serving of him and therefore binds us to go the way he prescribes as the rule * Nu. 1. above directs us and reason also perswades it for else there would be no thing fixed and certain in religion and worship For if in this point we may invent new wayes and new distinctions that have no ground in Gods word then that One God in the same verse would be obnoxious to mans conceit in framing other gods of lower rank as that one Mediator is to this distinction of the Romanists Again Here especially in a point of Gods worship Reasons against their Invocation that of the Apostle takes place What is not of Faith is Sin Rom. 14. ult For how can it be of faith to come unto God by Mediators whom they cannot believe to be appointed of God to stand between himself and us or between our Mediator Christ and us whom they cannot believe to hear or know our requests and desires having no warrant from God to assure their people that he will reveal or make known their desires to the Saints they invocate Furthermore it may be another reason against this presumption because it is God himself that prepares the heart to pray and inspires it what boldnesse then is it for any Creature as Mediator to present our prayers or as the Apostle Rom. 8.26 In our prayers according to Gods will the spirit makes intercession therefore prayers to Saints are not of the spirit not according to Gods will or else the spirit then maketh intercession by the Saints Lastly it is a senseless perverting of the order God has set us for our prayers at least mental must as the Romanists acknowledge Saints how said to know mens prayers be known to the Saints by revelation from God so our prayers must first come to God then by him to the Saints so by them to Christ to be presented to God The best account which the * Bel. l. de Beat. Sanctor c. 20. Cardinal can give us of their knowing prayers made to them is this First he rejects wholly that way which some have conceited that the Saints know prayers of the living by the report of Angels Of the two other wayes that they know by seeing in God as in a glass from the beginning of their beatitude those things that do any way belong to them or that they know by revelation from God when the prayers are made Of the former of these he saith it is
probable then comparing it with the latter he saith it is more probable then it yet the latter is more fit for convincing the Hereticks Where note that their best way is but probable and the Hereticks must be convinced in this point by that way which is less then probable So uncertain is this Article of their faith so unlikely to convince Hereticks however they perswade their people to it This Author saith nothing to their knowing of prayers he had indeed no reason to give himself the trouble of disputing that which their Church cannot agree on Beside all that has been said to it methinks reason should tell them how improbable it is that a finite Creature should admit and take care of ten thousand suits put up to it at once or that it should be consistent with the state of bliss for those glorified souls to be taken up or avocated by the care of earthly affairs yea such as for the most part are of a dolorous nature If God reveal unto them the conversion of a sinner as Luk. 15.7 which sometimes is made an argument by them its a matter of joy and answerable to their general votes and intercession for the accomplishing of the Church and consistent with their state of bliss Now come we to the prayers of men living one for another Prayers of men living for others no argument for praying to Saints departed often urged by this and other their Authors who having no permission or appointment from Gods word for making the Saints departed their Mediators and Advocates in the Court of Heaven seek pretence from this duty of the living Therefore to a Protestant asking how dare they admit of any other Mediator or Advocate then Christ this Author rejoynds How dare Protestants permit their children to pray them to pray to God for them for what is this but to be Mediators and Advocates pa. 61. And of Protestants usually commending themselves to the prayers of others This saith he is the very same intercession we put among the Saints and Angels pa. 62. Thus they are fain some times to mince it But a great disparity there is between the desiring of the prayers of the living and their invocating of Saints or Angels also between the prayers or interceding of men living for others and that Mediation or Advocateship they put upon Saints departed First We have warrant for the one and not for the other we therefore dare desire the prayers of the living because we are commanded to pray one for another and diverse reasons there are for it which hold not in the other case The mutual exercise of charity among those that converse together on earth and much need that bond as the Apostle calls it to hold them together Eph. 4.3 Col. 3.14 also the benefit we receive by being made sensible of others wants and sufferings Heb. c. 13 3. we our selves being also in the body as the Apostle tells us Lastly in this there is no peril of superstition as there must needs be in their religious addresses to the dead Secondly our praying others to pray for us is not Invocation or a Religious worship as theirs is to the Saints departed they placing a great part of their offices of Religion both publick and private in such Invocations Thirdly As the living when they are desired to pray for us are capable of this charitable duty knowing our necessities which Saints departed do not so their praying for us doth not make them Mediators and Advocates for us that is of a middle order between us and God Almighty as they make their Mediatours of intercession but as Comprecatores fellow-suiters of the same rank condition and distance with us from God in the mutual exercise of this charitable duty they praying for us at our intreaty and we for them at theirs St. Aug. speaks home to this purpose in two instances from Scripture Aug. contra Epist Parmen l 2. c. 8. Non se facit mediatorem inter Deum populum sed rogat pro se orent invicem si Paulus mediator esset non ei constaret ratio qua dixerat unus mediator St. Paul makes not himself a Mediator between God and the people but intreats they should pray one for the other so the living praying for one another are not therefore Mediatours nay doing it upon mutual entreaty and intimation are therefore not mediatours If St. Paul should be their Mediatour it would not consist with what he had said there is one Mediatour which proves the former consequence that the mediation they give to Saints will not stand with that one Mediatour His other instance is from St. Johns we have an advocate 1 Ep. c. 2. from which he infers the Apostle could not make himself a Mediatour and so makes it conclude against Parmenian who placed the Bishop a Mediator between God and the people we shall examine the Cardinals answer by which he would shift this off when we come to tryal of Antiquity But This Author misreports St. Aug. when he saith pa 63. The Texts admit only one Mediatour and advocate of redemption and salvation but more then one of praying to Almighty God with us and for us by way of charity and society as St. Aug. saith citing contra Faust l. 22.21 I suppose it should be l. 20. for in the place cited he speaks of no such matter but in the l. 20.21 where St. Aug. speaks of our honouring them by way of charity and society as we honour holy men living which this Author misreports as if said they pray for us which is truth but his adding with us supposes they pray for us when we pray upon knowledge of our particular necessities and requests which is false He closes up this point with the proof of pretended Scripture Their Invocation destitute of Scripture-proof If any desire to have the Invocation of Saints and Angels proved by Scripture he may please to examine Job 5.1 Gen. 48.16 1 Sam. c. 28. Pitiful proofs in the first Eliphaz tells Job if he take it thus impatiently he cannot expect relief or comfort from God or Angels whose ministry in those dayes was frequent in the second place Jacob prayes to God for his blessing upon the lads and wishes the ministry of Angels for them as it had pleased God to use it in blessing and delivering him in all his troubles or we may say as Athanasius and other Fathers do that the Angel there was Christ In the third he produces Saul worshipping and invoking Samuel which many wayes fails of proving Invocation of Saints both in the truth of the thing and the consequence Proofs these fitting for such Articles of Faith CHAP. III. Of Images THe Council of Trent as we see by the Decree touching Images Pretended care for the people would seem very careful that the people be taught how they may safely conceive of and worship Images and that all superstition and filthy lucre be
Trent saith nothing which contraries the Protestant Doctrine saving that it cals that Justification which is not so according either to Scripture or Fathers Of this second and improper Justification we spoke * Chap. IV. nu 2 5. above and shewed how it brings the Controversie of Justification by Works to nothing if indeed they would pretend to no more by their second Justification then their Council seems to make of it So that we might spare farther labour in calling them to shew what proof they have for this doctrine of Justification by works in Scripture and Antiquity And as for their first Justification by inhaerent habitual Righteousness it is not concerned in this question of Justification by Works that Righteousness being Gods work not ours at all as they do acknowledge yet because we were in the former Treatise chap. 4. bound up by Mr. Spencers Replies to say only what he gave occasion for it will not be amiss for a fuller clearing of that wherein they and we do differ to enter a farther consideration of Inhaerent Righteousness of Faith and of Works as to this point of Justification By which it will appear They lay too much upon the Inherent and are too much afraid of an imputed Righteousness also that they give Faith too little in this business and are needlesly affraid of the Sola Fides Faith only Lastly that they speak too confusedly when they say and give out Men are justified by VVorks 1. For inhaerent Righteousness The question being Of Iohaerent Righteousness as to Justification by what Righteousness we are Justified before God We must in the first place draw from them the acknowledgement of some Truths Such as they indeed are loath readily to profess and plainly to speak out but such as are necessary for understanding this Question as to the two Terms in it Justification and Righteousness The first Truth is this Justification sounds opposition to Condemnation That Justification speaks opposition to Condemnation as Rom. 8.33 34. and stands primarily in the acquitting of a sinner from the guilt of his sin offence and punishment the remission or not imputing of his sin the reconciling of him to the favour of God and according to this importance or sense the Apostle St. Paul continually speaks of it The definition or description which the * Decret c. 4. Justificationem Impii non esse aliud quam translationem a statu filiorum Adâ— Trent Council gives of Justification is this It is nothing else but a Translation from the state of the Sons of Adam into the Adoption of the sons of God through Jesus Christ Here is no mention of Remission of sins but elsewhere it is implied they grant it when they say Decret c. 7. Non est sola peccatorum remissio sed etiam sanctificatio In ipsa Justificatione una cum Remissione peccatorum fidem spem charitatem accipientes Justification is not only Remission of Sins but also Sanctification and a little after In Justification we receive faith hope and charity together with Remission of sins Here it is implyed that in Justification there is remission of sins but since the Jesuites prevailed it is made subsequent to the infused Righteousness which purges out the sin and that with them is Remission of sin or Deletion of it for these they confound as above noted and are loath to express Remission of sin as the Scripture doth by not imputing of sin A Second Truth Of the Grace of God taken for his Favour and Love which they are not so willing to profess is That by the Grace of God to which we finde Justification and Salvation often ascribed is meant the Favour Love or good Will of God towards Man I do not say they deny such an acception of Grace for the Trent Council condemning those that say Concil Trid. can 11. the Grace by which we are justified is only the Favour of God doth imply it to be of the Grace and favour of God that we are Justified and their Writers when put to it will acknowledge Grace so taken but decline so to interpret the word Grace where ever they can holding out for it the gift of grace inhaerent in us A third Truth Of Impuaed Righteousness they unwillingly profess and decline to speak of is that there is an imputed righteousness or that Christs righteousness is imputed to us for justification Their Council acknowledges * Decret c. 7. Christ the meritorious cause of Justification which doth closly imply this Truth viz. the application or imputation of his satisfaction or Merits to us for Justification and this imputation is mentioned when in that * Câ—non 11. Council they are Anathematiz'd that say Men are justified by the only imputation of Christs righteousness And we shall have occasion below to shew how the Cardinal admits of this Imputation in one place with a Non est absurdum It is not absurd to say Bel. l. 2. de Justific c. 10. Christs righteousness and merits are imputed to us as if we our selves had satisfied It seems we are but lightly concerned in this great Truth of the Imputation of Christs righteousness for justification but deny it they cannot A fourth Truth is Inhaerent Righteousness imperfect That inhaerent Righteousness is imperfect and weak both in the habit or first infusion and also in the working This they would fain decline as prejudicial to Justification by it but they must and do acknowledge this Truth as we shall see below Indeed these Truths have not been so readily professed since the Jesuites prevailed whose study seems not to be for Truth and Peace but to set every point of doctrine farther off from agreement Yet notwithstanding aâ—l the devices and endeavours of such dissemblers of Truth and enemies of Peace we gain by the former Truths this Evidence for clearing the Doctrine of Justification of a Sinner What Justifications is and wherein properly is stands That it is a not-imputing of his sin an absolving or acquitting him from his sins and the condemnation due to them a reconciling of him or receiving him into Gods favour an accepting of him in the beloved through the imputation of Christs satisfaction and merits apprehended by Faith Also that albeit Inhaerent Righteousness be at the same time given by which the sinner is made righteous also and truly righteous according to that measure of righteousness yet is all the righteousness inhaerently in him too weak and imperfect for his justification his appearing and standing in judgment he needs the righteousness of Christ to make a supply of what is wantting and to cover what is amiss Contaremus a Cardinal of Rome and a writer against Luther was in this point clearly Protestant convinced of the former Truth and expressing it as we shall see by his words below rehearsed But now let us see what work they make in that Church Of Inherent Right Habitual and Actual
Ps 96. By such expressions St. Aug. truly speaks the inhaerent righteousness given us of God and when he cals this Justifying a sinner he uses the word Justifie according to the Latin origination and importance of it for thereby a man is made truly righteous by that grace received righteous I say for its measure and proportion not to exclude Justification by an imputed righteousness through faith which is the primer and more proper meaning of the word Iustifie If therefore we finde St. August acknowledge another Righteousness and Iustification differing from that which he seems to ascribe to Inhaerent Righteousness then have we our intent and purpose and the Cardinal is impertinent in his allegations out of St. Aug. as also in those other which he pretends from other Fathers which we may let passe as speaking but the being of Inhaerent righteousness not proving justification by it Ambr. in Hexam l. 6. c. 8. Justitia unde justificatio derivata est in any proper sense as for example St. Ambrose who is one of those Fathers cited by the Card. speaks of it according to the Grammatical origination of the word Justice saith he from whence Instification is derived Now for St. Aug. his allowing of the imputed righteousness and our Justification by it Aug. Enchir. cap. 41. Ipse ergo peecatum ut nos justitia nec nostra sed Dei simus nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis constitutum See his Enchirid where he thus explains that of the Apost 2 Cor. 5. ult He therefore was made sin that we might be righteousness and that not ours but of God and not in our selves but in him even as he was Sin not his own but ours and not in himself but in us This admits none of their exceptions as that we are made righteous in him because we have our righteousness by his Merit and the righteousness of God because we have it of his gift and by the infusion of his Grace This is all they can say and this though true of our inhaerent righteousness yet comes not home to the purpose of St Augustine who saith plainly As our Sauiour was made Sin not in himself but in us and manifestly acknowledges we are so also made righteousness in him that is righteousness is imputed to us See also how this is asserted by the Greek Fathers Chrys on that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 1.30 He doth not say he hath made us wise and just and holy but he is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification which is as if he had said He hath given himself unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And upon that of 2 Cor. 5. ult Made him sin for us the same Father thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum He suffered him to be condemned as a sinner And here also he observes as above The Apostle did not say we are made righteous but righteousness and that of God for it is the righteousness of God when it is not of Works 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that we are justified by the Grace of God and he gives this as a reason of the need we have of such a righteousness because there must be found no blot or stain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he observes the Apostle said not made him a sinner but sin for he named not the habit as if sin had been inhaerent in him but the bare quality as in the Abstract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in locum Which shewes that when he said righteousness rather then righteous there is a righteousness made ours beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or inhaerent quality With Chrysostom agree Oecumenius and Theophylact upon the places cited So St. Cyril Glaphyr 5. cap. ult Cyril sets out our Saviour under the name of Iosedeck which signifies the righteousness of God because we are justified in him through the mercy of God and unto this he applies that of Ierem. 23.6 The Lord our Righteousness Oecumenius upon Psal Oecum in Phil 3. v. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3.9 not having my own righteousness but the righteousness which is of God by faith gives us a distinction of Righteousness not properly or properly taken That is our Righteousness or the righteousness of Works This is the Righteousness which is by Grace and the faith of Christ And needful it is in this Question and the Testimonies of Fathers concerned in it to hold to the Justification properly taken To this imputed righteousness belongs that of the ancient Father Iustin Martyr Justin ad Diogen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What thing else can cover our sins but his righteousness and that which he adds to be justified in him only Which is a stronger expression then to be justifiedby him and then he cries out O sweet and happy exchange wherein that because as the Apostle He made sin for us we righteousness in him or as Iustin subjoyns because one mans righteousness justifies many unrighteous men To this also belongs what Chrysost hath who with reference to Isa 43.26 that thou mayst be justified Chrys homil 3. de poenitenti◠Eximens poenae donat justitiam facit enim peccatorem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expresseth himself as to this point Freeing us from punishment he gives righteousness for he makes a sinner to be alike or in the like condition to him that had not sinned which must needs be by not imputing sin and imputing righteousness upon his faith and repentance This imputing of Righteousness to him that believes will also appear by the Fathers using the expression of sola fide by faith only There is scarce any Father but so expresses himself I promised at the beginning to speak something of Faith only and of Works Of Sola Fides in this point of Justification as to that which Antiquity yields unto them in the business of our Justification What this Faith is which justifies was sufficiently debated * Chap. IV. nu 3 4 9. above and also why and in what respect Faith alone is said to justifie The expression is exclusive yet did not as appeared above in the fourth chapter exclude the praeparatory workings of the soul dispositive to Justification did not exclude Repentance and charity but admitted them as conditions to Remission did not exclude inhaerent Righteousness but only from being the formal cause of Justification properly taken else it was admitted as a Concomitant and necessary qualification of the subject or person justified Lastly it did not so exclude good works as if justifying faith could be without them but did infer them as necessary consequents engaging the soul to do them and till so it is not a believing to justification and unless it continue so doing that is still to engage the Soul to well doing or good works the state of