20. There is Ira Paterna Castigans as well as Ira Hostilis Exterminans Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are which you say I almost repeat I do not know I expressed mine own sence in mine own words and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger and say That there is no Hatred though there be Anger My chief design in those Animadversions was That in your Second Edition which you promised you might have occasion if not to confirm your Assertions yet to clear your Expressions I know you oppose their sence that so distinguish but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit if you say that you do not I am satisfied Your words were of Affliction as Affliction therefore of Affliction in general You say Aphor. p. 70. The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment c. But you confess now that you should have said Chastisement and so I have my desire in this Particular viz. your better expression God is not the Father of the Unregenerate though Elect in respect of Actual Adoption But you know that Ephes 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons c. God having loved such with an everlasting Love viz. Benevolentiae though not Complacentiae no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion viz. in order to their Conversion But you know I speak of Reprobates and that it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated Whether that import the Election of Jacob and the Reprobation of Esau I now dispute not but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect and his hatred of the Reprobate Deus omnes homines diligit inquit Aquinas etiam omnes Creaturas in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum non tamen quadcunque bonum vult omnibus In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna dicitur eos odio habere reprobare Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se suâ naturâ and so I think do they against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms but though Suffering as Suffering be evil yet as Sanctified it is not evil It is good for me that I was afflicted Psal 119. 71. Afflictions were then indeed to be loved if they were good of their own Nature but being only good as sanctified we are not simply to desire them but a sanctified use of them and in that respect to rejoice in them Jam. 1 2 3. Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus That which worketh for our good c. Where do I argue so Rather thus That which is sanctified to us doth work for our good and so though it be evil in it self yet it is good to us But Affliction is sanctified c. I am apt to oversee but neither I nor they I think whom you first opposed deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction if that were all you aimed at in your Question What I mean by Comformity unto Christ you might set by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing which is acceptable with God 1 Pet. 2. 19. Yet I grant sin is the Root of all suffering so it was of Christ's suffering though not his sin but ours Only I thought it meet to put you in mind that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin which the places alledged do shew and so other places The Object of Love is not only present Good There is a Love of Desire as well as of Delight The Spouse wanting Christ was sick of Love Cant. 5. 8. I did not say That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil but that it is not evil as sanctified Suffering though sanctified is suffering still and so evil but as sanctified it is good and not evil Those Arguments prove nothing against me nor I am perswaded against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms It is granted That Death in it self is Evil an Enemy a Punishment to be feared avoided c. Yet as it is sanctified it is good a Friend a Mercy to be desired embraced c. 2 Cor. 5. 6 7 8. Phil. 1. 21 23. It is evil 1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good 2. To them also to whom it is so managed but not as it is so managed Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi saith Grotius Well but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words as what they that use them do mean by them That which you speak of our discharge before believing might have been omitted the question being about Believers and so believing presupposed Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law this I think is a sufficient reason Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto Candidus imperti The Law so concurs to the constitution of Guilt as were there no Law there were no Transgression In the other two Particulars which follow we do accord also 1. Neither did I mean so as if there were no explicit threatning to Unbelievers but only this That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing it implies that death is only threatned in case of unbelief And tho there be an express threatning to Unbelievers viz. Mark 18. 16. yet not only to Unbelievers The threatning of death only to Unbelievers is I think only implyed in the promise of Liâ—e made to Believers 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess 1. 7 8. than what you express 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith the Fruit whereof is Obedience it will condemn the disobedient i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law while they remain in that estate though it hold out Mercy upon condition that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar but his reasons for that Position I do not know If no Law no sin for sin is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Your saying Aphor. p. 89. Whosoever will believe to the end shall be justified may seem to imply That though a Man â—elieve yet he remains unjustified as well as unglorified until he go on and hold out unto the end otherwise I suppose all will yeeld That a Man must believe unto the end that he may be justified unto the end 1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply
the Deeds of the Law the Old Covenant shall no flesh be justified Rom. 3. 20. See also Acts 13. 39. 1. To be accused as an Unbeliever and a Rejecter of Christ c. is to be accused as a finner and as one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them For else Unbelief and rejecting of Christ were no sin that Christ is not spoken of in the Law is nothing as I have shewed before 2. That Accusation that a Man is an Unbeliever and a Rejecter of Christ if it be made good doth leave a Man to the Law and makes all its Accusations to be in force against him with aggravation of his Sin for contempt of Mercy For the Authors which you cite I can examine but few of them because I have them not Bradshaw so far as I see makes nothing for you He saith Bona opera quodammodo justificare dicuntur quôd fidem iâ—samque 〈◊〉 justificationem nostram arguendu accomprobando utramque ista ratione justificent This is but what others say That Faith doth justifie the Person and Works justifie the Faith and that is indeed no more than what all Protestants do say viz. That Works declare and manifest Faith to be such as whereby the Person is justified and that therefore a Man is said to be justified by Works because thereby he appears to have Faith whereby he is justified Again he saith Obedientia non minùs quà m ipsa ex quâ oritur sides ad falutem aeternans est nobis necessaria utpote sine quâ justitiam Christi imputatam prodess nobis posse spes nulla exist at This is but what Protestants generally acknowledge That Obedience is necessary as a Fruit of Justifying Faith so that without Obedience it is in vain to think of being justified by Christ's Righteousness Yet is not our Obedience therefore a Righteousness by which we are justified Again he saith Cujuslibet Christiani quicum actu Deus in gratiam rediit duplex est Justitia Imputata una Inhaerens altera But he doth not say That we are justified by Inherent as well as by Imputed Righteousness He is as far from that as other Protestants generally are and other Protestants generally are as ready to assert the necessity of that Two-fold Righteousness as he is Again he saith Per justitiam Christi nobis imputatam non possimus dici absolutè sive omni modo justi c. He means We are not freed from future Obedience though we be freed from the guilt of Disobedience This except Libertines none I presume will deny But all this as to the Controversie betwixt us about a Two-fold Righteousness requisite unto Justification is that I see just nothing But concerning Bradshaw and the places which you point at in him I observe that § 21. is twice so figured and therefore which of the two you did intend may be a question I before noted what is in the former but in the latter there is something which peradventure you intended though I judg it as little to your purpose as the rest He saith Nova Nostra Obedientia pro gradâ— suo mensurâ etiam justitia nostra dicitur quâ formaliter inherenter habitualiter sivè ex operibus justi pro ipsius modulo coraâ— Deo etiam verè dicamuâ— utpote cujus ratione pro justis ex parte à Deo ipso censeamur cujusque intuitu etiam in foro divino aliquo modo si id opus esset justificari possimus But 1. you see what mincing of the matter here is Pro gradu suo mensurâ Pro ipsius modulo exparte Aliquomodoâ—e si id â—pus esset This is not to the Point we have in hand who speak of universal and entire Justification 2. Here he makes against you for he clearly makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect cujus ratione pro justis ex parte à Deo censemur whereas you hold all Righteousness to be perfect or none at all What you mean by citing Wotton de Reconcil part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. I cannot imagine for nothing do I there see for you but much against you though touching other Particulars in debate betwixt us As in the very beginning of the Chapter Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus And the title of the Chapter is Quomodo Fides Causa Instrumentalis Justificationem Nostram operetur And pag. 100. he cites and approves that of Downam Fides sola est quae nobis jus tribuit ad omnes Dei promissiones in Evangelio consequenà s c. And pag. 103. that of our Church Nihil ex hominis parte flagitatur ad ipsius justificationem praeter veram vivam fidem And immediately after he adds Neque tamen hac Fides spem dilectionem timorem panitentiam excludere censenda est quasi ad eum qui justificandus est non pertinerent sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi N. B. significantur penitùs excludi Atqut hoc quidem justificandi munus solâ— Fidei convenire his rationibus ostendo c. The rest of the Chapter is taken up with those Reasons Now what there is for your purpose judg you The next place which you refer me to is more punctually cited viz. part 2. lib. 2. cap. 35. pag. 383. but neither there do I find any thing that makes for you He there answers Bellarmine's Arguments whereby he would prove That Fides est solus assensus non etiam siducia But what is this ad rhomâ—â—â— I know not whether you may lay hold on those words Fidem Justificantem sive quatenus Justificat non esse unam virtutem nec ullam quidem virtutem sed justificare omninò solummodò ex officiò loco quae Deus misericors illi sponte liberè concessit ut dixi parte 1. lib. 2. cap. 28. So it is printed but it should be cap. 18. for there are but nineteen Chapters of that Book What you can gather from this if this were it you aimed at I cannot tell especially he referring us to the other place before mentioned where there is much against you but nothing I think for you And as little for your purpose do I meet with in part 2. lib. 1. cap. 7. pag. 144. where he only saith Accedat etiam oportet ut idonei simus quibusaditus ad Coelum pateat habitualis justitia sive Sanctitas de quâ c. Mat. 5. 8. Denique vitae etiam sanctimenâ—â bonis operibus opus est ut Regnum Coeleste comparemus Heb. 12. 14. Matth. 25. 34 35. But doth he say That this Habitual Righteousness which he maketh all one with Holiness therein opposing you as I do is requisite unto Justification Otherwise that it is requisite Who doth question Whereas you next cite part 2. lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 127. n. 3 4. I doubt whether you did well observe what the Author there meaneth
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
peccata missa facere which the Scripture he saith following the Metaphor further calls peccata in mare proâ—icere Mich. 7. 19. It is true Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment Remittere or missa facere peccata as Grotius saith is as much as punire nolle Yet this hinders not but that sin or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned yea I think it doth confirm it For if it be proper to say That God will not punish sin and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin then it is proper to say That God doth remit or pardon sin In a word therefore my words about which you make so much adoe are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them They do not import that our Actions even the best of them if strictly examined are not sinful or that God doth not see any sin in them but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them and accept them in Christ who is the High-Priâ—st that doth bear and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things Exod. 28. 38. as if they had no sin in them Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions and yet grant the justifying of our Persons Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions Surely if the Action be sinful the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too And though you pass over the next because you reverse your former Assertion yet in that which I there said you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me 1. You grant what I say 2. I have said before That though in mine Opinion sin may properly be said to be remitted yet this is in reference unto punishment 3. You had no reason to imagine that I should think that my Actions or the Actions of the best upon Earth can be justified against all Accusations as if they were absolutely good and perfect when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions and how it is through Christ covered and not imputed unto us Yea and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture viz. Eccles 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8 9. Job 9. 4. Exod. 28. 38. to prove that neither our Persons nor our Actions are so righteous but that we may be accused of and condemned for sin in them and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be It is strange how you should pass by all this it being directly before your eyes and should raise a suspicion as if I should mean quite contrary 1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ afterward they may be justified by our Works when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it viz. That first it is meant only of good Works and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them Illud semper retimeatur inquit Davenantius hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant Deus neque ipsos neque eorum opera grata haberet nisi hos illa in Christo magis quà m in seipsis amplexaretur What you say of Chamîer and others as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ might well have been spared as being nothing at all against me who am far from making our Works meritorious when I make even the best of them imperfect and to need pardon 2. It is evident by this very Section to which you now reply that I spake only of good Actions For how absurd and sensless were it to say that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous as I there say that our Works are not The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere 1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing though it be that and somewhat more 2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of I speak for my self 3. I take all sin to be against the Law as it is distinguished from the Gospel though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel Of that Law I suppose St. John spake saying Sin is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. And again I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not know lust or as the Margent hath it concupiscence viz. to be sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments 4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief and neglect of the Sacraments c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue The first precept requires us to have the Lord and him only for our God and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath Part. 2. Chap. 4. § 21 22 23. What you add after makes all for me in this particular only some things seem meet to be observed 1. This I confess to me is strange Philosophy That the Earth of which Man's Body was made ceased not to be Earth still when it was made Man As well may you say That Adam's rib of which Eve was formed ceased not to be a Rib still and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies 2. The Precept and Threatning you say are parts of the New Law though they be common with the Old Here you seem to grant That nothing is commanded or threatned in the New Law which is not commanded or threatned in the Old Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness and a Two-fold Justification one in respect of the Old Law another in respect of the New The Precept believe belongs to the Old Law but as it is not only a Precept but also a Condition upon performance of which Salvation is promised Believe and thou shalt be saved so it belongs to the New Law So this Threatning If thou dost not believe thou shalt perish belongs to the Old Law as threatning death for every sin and consequently for unbelief which is a sin and it belongs to the New Law as leaving an Unbeliever under
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-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
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
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
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
is it but to put out mens eyes or to bid defiance unto common-sense Relata recipiunt magis minus saith Burgersdicius Yet he saith Recipere magis minus non convenit omnibus Relatis Surely there is great difference betwixt Similitudo and Aequalitas so that neither Scheibler nor any Man else must think to carry it so as if there were eadem utriusque ratio so that because Aequalitas consistit in indivisibili therefore similitudo must do so too Perfect Righteousness indeed is quaedam Aequalitas not simply all Righteousness That an Action cannot be conform to the Precept except it be perfectly conform you must prove as well as assert before I can assent I could yet see no reason to doubt of that which Mr. Blake saith As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Samplar is an Image so Conformity imperfectly answering to the Rule is Conformity likewise 1. You do not well to confound Conformity and Equality And though the Law require perfect Conformity which none can perform it doth not follow that imperfect Conformity is none at all If a perfect Conformity to the Law could be performed by us then we should be justified by the Law which we cannot be yet the Regenerate conform to the Law in some measure and so it behoves us to do For then shall I not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments Ps 119. 6. I let pass your Second and Third Ad 4. I do not speak of Qualification considered absolutely but in reference to the Rule Mr. Blake saith well Neither do I understand how Holiness should be imperfect taken materially and Righteousness perfect taken formally in reference to a Rule We may for ought I know as well make Holiness formal and refer it to a Rule and Righteousness material in an absolute consideration without reference to any Rule at all And in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in Holiness or Righteousness it is as they come up or fall short of the Rule that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection Holiness and Righteousness are opposite unto sin therefore formally considered they are a Conformity to the Rule as Sinâ—is a deviation from it The Conformity therefore of our Actions and Dispositions to the Rule is not as you say the matter of our Righteousness but as I conceive it is the form and our Actions and Dispositions themselves are the matter of it viz. of our Personal and Inherent Righteousness and so of our Holiness The Rule of Righteousness to which as we conform more or less we are more or less righteous is the Law the sum whereof is contained in the Decalogue therefore it is said That Believers are under the Law as a Rule though not under it as a Covenant For Pana Evangelica of which you speak I have said enough of it before To your Queries and Objections I answer Ad 1. Christ doth justifie the Unrighteous God doth justifie the Ungodly Rom. 4. 5. But how They were unrighteous and ungodly before they were justified they are not so when they are justified though it is not their Personal Righteousness or Godliness whereby they are justified Know ye not that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit c. And such were some of you but you are washed c. 1 Cor. 6. 9 10 11. That of Tainovius cited by Mr. Ball is useful here In Scriptura saepe res dicitur quod paulò antè fuit ut caeci vident surai audiunt claudi ambulant c. Ad 2. The Law doth not justifie any but such as are perfectly righteous therefore they that are imperfectly though truly righteous cannot be justified by it Sumus verè justi saith Daevenant non putativè si respiciamus justitiam nistram habitualem sed haec vera justitia est adhuc inchoata imperfecta And again Sanctificationâ—m nostram non putativam fictitiam sed veram realem statuimus Bellarmini autem Dialecticam qui inde concludit nos justificari justitia inherente putativam arbitramur fictitiam And why should not Imperfect Righteousness be acknowledged True Righteousness as well as Imperfect Holiness is acknowledged True Holiness That of the Apostle Ephes 4. 24. in Righteousness and true Holiness or as the Original hath it in righteousness and holiness of Truth attributes Truth as well to Righteousness though imperfect as to Holiness Genitivus Veritatis saith Calvin on the place loco Epitheti positus est qui tam justitiae quam sanctitati convenit Ad 3. You seem quite to mistake the meaning of that in James 2. 10. It makes nothing against an Imperfect Righteousness but only shews That respect must be had to one Precept as well as to another because though a Man should keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point viz. so as wholly to wave it and to have no respect unto it he were guilty of all his Obedience were indeed none at all For at all For to obey is to do that which is commanded because it is commanded Now he that doth any one thing eo nomine because it is commanded will indeavour to do every thing that is commanded A Quatenus ad omne c. That this is the meaning of the words is clear by v. 11. See Calvin on the place Ad 4. The Law doth pronounce an imperfect Obeyer imperfectly righteous and therefore if he be left to the Law to stand or fall by it he shall not be justified for his Righteousness but shall be condemned for his Imperfection Ad 5. The Damned and Devils cannot be pronounced Righteous according to the Law as the Saints may Is there no difference betwixt Imperfect Obedience and Perfect if it may be called Perfect Disobedience The Unregenerate do something that but nothing as the Law requireth the Regenerate do something both that and as though not so perfectly as the Law requireth Licet modus agends inquit Daven bonus sit quia agunt ex fide charitate tamen gradus in hoc modo deficit quia non agunt ex tantà fide charitate quanta ab ipsa Lege praecipitur It is granted That the best action of any upon earth is not good and just according to the rigour of the Law for the rigour of the Law requires it to be perfectly good and just which it is not But it follows not that therefore it is not good and just at all Nam aliudest saith the same learned Author actionem esse verè bonam alud esse purè bonam ab omni vitio liberam sicut aliud est aurum verum aliud aurum purum ab omni foece depuratum That Rule therefore Bonum non nisi ex integrà causà oritur malum ex quolibet defiectu must be taken cum grano salis viz. so as that the Defectus must be either in the substance of
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
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-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
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