our qualification inherent or the foundation of other Graces but as it includes the Correlative Term or Immediate Cause of Justification whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference and continual aspect This is that which in other terms some have delivered Fides justificat relative non effective aut formaliter c. Take a few words more from this Author Ibid. The Apostle levels his whole Discourse to this Poinâ— maintained by us That seeing Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by Faith and not through Works none after him should in this life at any time N. B. whether before or after the infusion of Grace or Inherent Righteousness presume to seek or hope for like approbation from God otherwise than only by Faith How I exclude Love I have shewed even as you do viz. Love of Complacency which you grant doth follow Acceptance that Act of Faith by which we are justified And when I say that Protestants generally deny Faith which is without Works to justifie â—mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them You might easily have perceived this to be my meaning by what I said out of Cajetan de fide non sterili sed faecunda operibus A Tree is not said to be barren except it doth not bring forth Fruit when the Season doth require 5. I shewed you what I take to be meant Jam. 2. 23. when it is said And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for Righteousness viz. That by Abraham's readiness to obey God in offering up Isaac the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear it was then most manifest That Abraham believed God indeed and that his Faith was a true justifying-Justifying-Faith it being operative and shewing forth it self so evidently by Works of Obedience when they were required of him so that the Scripture did well and truly say of him That he believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness Cajetan doth explicate it me-thinks very well Adverte saith he prudens Lector quòd Jacobus non sentit fidem absque operibus mortuam esse c. Sed sentit fidem sine operibus id est renuentem operati esse mortuam esse vanam non justificantèm Er rectè sentit quoniani quae non est paruta operari moâ—tua est Suâpte enim naturâ operatur per dilectionem ut Paulus dicit Quodergo Jacobus affert verba Gen. 15. Credidit Abraham Deo c. ad hoc affert quodcredidit paratus operari Er propereà dicâ— quod in opere oblationes filit impleta inquam est Scriptura loquens de fide Abrahae parata operari Impleta inquam est quoad executionem maximi operis ad quod parata erit fides Abrahae 〈◊〉 And though you make light of this interpretation of James as if it were nothing against you yet Calvin doubted not to say Nodo insolubili constrictos teneo quicunque justitiam Abrahae coram Deo imputatam fingunt quia immolavit filium Isaac qui nondum natus erat quum Spiritus Sanctus pronunciat justum fuisse Abraham Itaque necessario restat ut aliquâ—d posterius notari discamus Quomodo igitur Jacobus id fuisse impletum dicit Nempe oftendere vult qualis illa futrit fides quae justificavit Abraham non otiosa scilicet out evanida sed quae illum Deo reddidit obsequentem sicut etiam Heb. 11. 8. habetur Calvin it seems never dreamed of being justified one way at first and another way afterwards I would not have you put him off with a taunt as you did before Parcius ista tamen c. But let Mr. Blake also be heard speak James indeed saith he saith that Abraham was justified by Works when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar Jam. 2. 21. But either there we must understand a Working-Faith with Piscator Bareus Pemble c. and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct Questions the one Whether Faith alone justifies without Works which he concludes in the Affirmative The other What Faith justifies whether a Working-Faith only and not a Faith that is dead idle Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle who straight infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son And the Scripture was fulfilled that saith Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for Righteousness How otherwise do these accord He was justified by Works and the Scripture was fulfilled that saith He was justified by Faith Neither can I reconcile what he saith if this be denied with the whole current of the Gospel And he adds a little after All Works before or after Conversion are inherent in us or wrought by us are excluded from Justification Your Interpretations viz. Abraham believed i. e. believed and obeyed Or Yet the Scripture was fulfilled c. For Faith did justifie him but not only Faith are so uncouth and incongruous that I wonder how you could perswade your self much more think to perswade others to embrace them Paul cites those words to prove that Abraham was justified only by believing and that Justification is by Faith only And shall we admit of such an interpretation Faith doth justifie but not only Or Abraham was justified by Believing and Obeying What is this else but to make the Scripture a nose of wax and to wrest it which way we please Yea What is it else but to make the Scripture plainly to contradict it self And yet forsooth you pretend to stand upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the plain words of Scripture But Paul you say speaks of Justification as Begun and that you grant is by Faith only Well and for proof of his Doctrine say I he alledgeth the words of Moses concerning Abraham Must not those words then be understood of the same Justification Will you say with Bellarmine that Paul speaking of the first Justification doth fetch a proof from the second As on the other side he saith that James speaking of the second Justification doth fetch a proof from the first This is Caelum Terrae miscere Mare Caelo 6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be so but also shewed where the same phrase is so used viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9. And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel those places and interpret the one by the other Thus Camero Fides inquit dicitur perfici operibue quia Fides dum producit opera ostenait quà m sit perfecta ut 2 Cor. 12. 9. Virtus Christ dicitur perfict in infirmitatibus quia tum scilicet se maximè exerit prodit And so Maccovius Fides fuit perfecta ex operibus quomodo virtus Christi perficitur in infirmitate 2 Cor. 12. 9. quia in ea se exerit consimili ratione Fides perfici per opera dicitur quia per ea se prodit Generally I find the words thus expounded by those
c. may be understood as those are more clearly to the purpose Joh. 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin viz. in so high degree as it follows but now they have no cloak for their sin But still it is by the Law that all sinners are convinced and condemned As for Righteousness whereby one is justified from a false Accusation it is but such as the Devil himself may have as hath been noted before though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accusations whatsoever And when Satan doth accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel he doth but only shew that such stand guilty by the Law and so are to be condemned as having no benefit of the Gospel because they have not performed the Condition of it So that still it is the Law by which Satan doth accuse and bring to condemnation But by the way I observe That in this place of your Aphor. p. 308. you say That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2 3 14 15 16. Paul concludeth that neither Faith nor Works is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law but the Righteousness which is by Faith i. e. Christ's Righteousness Yet before in this Writing you stand upon the very Letter of the Text and will have it to prove That Faith it self properly taken is our Righteousness If you say that you mean our Evangelical Righteousness yet so you agree not with your self in your Aphorisms where you make Paul in those Texts to speak of our Legal Righteousness 1. They against whom James disputed relied on Faith as the Condition of the New Covenant but it was not such a Faith as the New Covenant doth require it was a Faith renuens operari upon that account James confuted them not as if Faith alone without Works though yet a Faith ready to shew it self by Works were not the Condition of Justification 2. I am sorry that Beza's words which I cited and which to me seem very excellent should be so censured by you as if there were I know not how many mistakes in them but truly I think the mistakes will be found to be in your censure To your Exceptions I answer 1. Quis vel ex nostris vel ex Transmarinis Theologis Fidem pro Causa nempe Instrumentali Justificationis non habet 2. Beza ait tu negas Vtri potius assentiendum Quid dico Beza Quis enim istud non dicit Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere rationes antè allatae expendantur 3. Affirmes tanthùm non probas Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones Media Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur neque enim ad justificationem procurandam sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est 4. Nec Beza nec alius quisquam quòd sciam distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ Justificatione Continuatâ quasi sc alia hujus alia illius esset conditio perspectam habuit Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo 1. Certain it is All Works are not the fulfilling of the Old Law 's Condition but all Works whereby we are justified are the fulfilling of it and therefore as I said in the Animadversions to be justified by Works and to be justified by the Law are with Paul one and the same See Rivet Disp de Fide Justif § 21. the words are before cited 2. We are justified by the New Law against the Accusation of the Old Law Certainly if we be accused of Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ we are accused of being Sinners For are Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ no sins 3. Who doth not so distinguish of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere except some few whom I have no mind to follow But how will this Distinction inter quod opus quà opus serve to keep in Obedience as having a joint interest with Faith in Justification What dark Equivocal I pray is this That Faith doth justifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of Christ's Righteousness Your self acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to justifie in this respect and in this respect I say Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Justification I take what you grant viz. That Paul doth not imply Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Justification afterward you should prove and not content your self with the bare affirming of it Doth not Paul by that Gen. 15. Abraham believed God c. prove that Abraham was justified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience Yet that was not the first time that Abraham either believed or was justified The truth therefore is Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which justifieth both at first and last but not as concurring with Faith unto Justification either at first or last 1. There is a necessity of Faith shewing it self by Works that so it may appear to be such a Faith whereby Christ is truly apprehended and received But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in justifying because only such a Faith doth justifie as doth also produce Works You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Justification at first yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified 2. For the Texts alledged that Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified c. is as plain you say as We are justified by Faith But if it be so plain it may seem wonderful that Bellarmine should never make use of it when he labours to prove That Faith alone doth not justifie which so far as I observe he doth not Nor do the Rhemists on the place take any notice of those words who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but seem to make for them Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it Quod autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent puerile est Certainly all good that we do may justifie quadantemus so far as it is good But can we therefore be simply and absolutely or if you like those terms better fully and perfectly justified either by our Words or Works Those places that require forgiving of others that so God may forgive us shew indeed that it is no true Justifying Faith which doth not as occasion requires manifest it self in that kind but we are not therefore justified as well by forgiving others as by believing nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Justification That in 1 John 1. 9. and Acts 3. 19. shews that
are justified This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument though I left out the word only And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me as I think in every point wherein we differ if he have occasion to treat of it It is true saith he that Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour not as Lord that justifies Christ rules his People as a King teacheth them as a Prophet but makes atonement for them as a Priest by giving himself in Sacrifice his Blood for remission of Sins These must be distinguished but not divided Faith hath an eye at all the Blood of Christ the Command of Christ the Doctrine of Christ but as it ties and fastens on his Blood so it justifies He is set out a propitiation through Faith in his Blood Rom. 3. 24. not through Faith in his Command It is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin and not the Sovereignty of Christ These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work Sovereignty doth not cleanse nor Blood command us Faith in his Blood not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty doth justifie us There are several acts of Justifying-Faith Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification It is not Abraham's Obedience Moses Self-denyal Gideon or Sampson's Valour that was their Justification but his Blood who did enable them in these things by his Spirit Your Similitude is not suitable for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband may be enriched or dignified by him though she never look at him as rich or honourable but only as her Husband But we must look at Christ as a Priest and as making Satisfaction for us that so we may be justified by him For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult Rom. 8.34 where those words It is Christ that died shew how Christ doth justifie us and free us from condemnation viz. by dying and so satisfying for our sins That which follows of Christ's Resurrection c. seems as to our Justification but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction which he made for us by his Death that so we may be justified by him 6. You grant that Christ not as King but as Priest doth justifie us meritoriously and satisfactorily and that is it which I urge That Christ's Satisfaction which as Priest he made for us is that whereby or for which we are justified Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us and so receive him as to that purpose viz. our Justification though I grant whole Christ or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfie for us except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us and as a King to govern us So I usually Preach and Teach 1. When you say That I leave the Errour in his Language but not in his Sense your words are ambiguous For they may import That I leave i.e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way but not the other Or that I leave i.e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language but not in his Sense This I take to be your meaning for else you could not say except ironically which I do not suspect that it is a fair Exposition and that you like it I have no reason to strive about another's words especially not knowing how they are brought in but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them 2. Where Ames hath those words you do not shew But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth nor with himself in saying Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis The whole Word of God is the Object of justifying-Justifying-Faith though not of Faith as Justifying and so much is acknowledged by Amesius as appears by his words before cited Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration Besides I find Amesius to have such words as you mention but withall to add such as plainly to express what I say Christus inquit est adaequatum objectum Fidei quatenus N. B. Fides Justificat Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam N. B. propter quam justificamur 1. The Text 1 John 4. 19. cannot I think be rightly understood but as I interpreted it For v. 10 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us in giving his Son for us And v. 19. he shews whence it is that we love God viz. from hence that God loved us first i.e. we apprehending the Love of God to us answer his love with love again Amat non immerito qui amatus sine merito as Bernard speaketh Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us before we can love him for what he hath done for us 2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love of which I speak 3. Embracing which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the compleating Act of Justifying-Faith doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii we can never sincerely embrace Christ if we do not desire him but amor delectationis or complacentiae doth follow after embracing viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed All that you add holds only in respect of the former kind not in respect of the latter 1. There are divers kinds of Love but I speak of that Love which differs from Desire and so did you seem to understand it as I noted from your words Aphorism p. 267. 2. Whereas you say There is no need of Faith to make it present before it can be accepted and loved you cannot by Faith mean Assent for that you grant doth go before Love and Acceptance And if by Faith you mean Acceptance surely there must be Acceptance before a thing can be accepted though in time these go together But perhaps you only mean That though Faith as an Assent must go before in time and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature yet not so as to make a thing present For you add That God's Offer doth make it present But though the Offer be present yet the thing offered is not present so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must
autorem agnoscit ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes qui Hebraea Biblia Grace reddiderunt à quibus Apostoli Evangelista multa in Scriptis suis quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet crebrò mutuentur Quamobrem plus quà m verisimile videtur Spiritum Sanctum quum novo loquendi more utaâ—ur quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Pharase Hunc sinquit Deum quis colet quis credet in eum Where Credet in eum is as much as fiduciam in eo collocaâ—it And so the Phrase of Believing in used in the New Testament seems to import as much as the Phrases of Trusting in and staying on used in the Old Testament as namely Isa 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of Faith part 1. chap. 3. p. 24 c. So far as I can judg your success is not answerable to your desire But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on your Knees I know not to what purpose you did speak of it For if it were only to shew the sincerity of your desire What is your Cause advantaged though that be granted as I know not why any should question it What is that which you say is yeelded That Faith doth not justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant Yet you make Justifying-Faith as such to be the Condition of the whole Covenant For you make it to include Obedience and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience 2. Of Justification begun and Justification continued and consummated by sentence at Judgment I have spoken before not is there need here to say any more of it 1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks But what of that Doth he speak so as you interpret him 2. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James express themselves diversly yet they agree in the Matter viz. That Works do not concur with Faith unto Justification Mr. Ball speaking of those words Faith is imputed unto Righteousness saith This Passage is diversly interpreted by Orthodox Divines all aiming at the same Truth and meeting in the Main being rather several Expressions of the same Truth than different Interpretations Then he shews three several ways where by those words are interpreted which differ as much as these Interpretations which you mention They that say That the Apostle speaketh of Justification coram Deo by Works understand a working-Working-Faith They that expound it of Justification coram Hominibus take the meaning to be That by Works a Man doth appear to be justified They that understand it of the Justification of the Person make the sense the same with those first mentioned and they that say it is meant of the Justification of a Man's Faith agree with those in the second place making Works to prove the sincerity of Faith and so to manifest a Man's Justification 3. Are not those words Hoc est Corpus meum as express words of Scripture as those which you alledg Though words be never so express yet not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be considered 4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done many years after that the Faith of Abraham whereby he was justified was a Working-Faith of a Working Nature a Faith fruitful in good Works his Faith bringing forth such fruit in due season and so shewing it self by Works when occasion did require Abraham no doubt had many other Works whereby his Faith did appear yet the Apostle thought meet to instance in that Work which was most remarkable and by which his Faith did manifest it self in a more especial manner Hoc facinus saith Chrysostome tanto praestantius erat cateris omnibus ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esseviderentur What your Parenthesis doth mean Legal Justificatiion I mean I do not well understand But how doth James speak of Justification as Continued and not as Begun Is his meaning this That a Man is indeed at first justified by Faith only but both Faith and Works together do continue his Justification So you understand it but surely James doth neither speak nor mean so For by Faith alone without Works in his sense a Man never was never can be justified This is clear by his whole Discourse for he calls him a vain Man that relies on such a Faith and calls it a dead Faith c. So that when a Man is first justified it is by a Working Faith not that Faith must necessarily produce Works at the first but it is as I said of a Working Nature of such a Nature as to produce Works when they are required which is the same with what you say out of Grotius and this doth answer all that you object against the Interpretation which I stand for Who can doubt but Abraham was justified long before he offered up Isaac the Scripture being express for it But how then Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was past Answ No indeed that Work was not nor could be but Faith apt to shew it self by that Work or any other when required and consequently a Working Faith might be and was the Condition of that Justification Grotius whom you cite giving you such a hint of it I wonder that you could not observe this James and Paul may well enough be reconciled though both of them speak of Justification as Begun For James doth not require Works otherwise than as Fruits of Faith to be brought forth in time convenient and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense Every observant Reader saith Dr. Jackson may furnish himself with plenty of Arguments all demonstrative that Works taken as St. James meant not for the Act or Operation only but either for the Act or promptitude to it are necessary to Justification c. And again Faith virtually includes the same mind in us that was in Christ a readiness to do Works of every kind which notwithstanding are not Associates of Faith in the business of Justification And thus he reconcileth the two Apostles who in this Point seem to differ St. James affirming we are justified by Works and not by Faith only speaks of the Passive Qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified or made capable of absolute Approbation or final Absolation This qualification supposed St. Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence or of the ground of the Plea for Absolution the one by his Doctrine must be conceived and the other sought for only by Faith The immediate and only cause of both he still contends not to be in us but without us and for this reason when he affirms that we are justified by Faith alone he considers not Faith as it is a part of
maketh it appear that there is such a Right which Faith hath procured 5. I do indeed believe That a Man may have and hath Jus ad Gloriam without Obedience even as he is justified without Obedience For certainly as soon as a Man is justified he hath Jus ad Gloriam For what doth hinder but sin the guilt of which by Justification is done away Yet still I say Faith which doth justifie and so gives right to Glory will shew it self by Obedience Those words If he live to Age are needless for we speak continually of the Justification of such as are of Age. But how can you seriously ask me this Question when your self put it out of all question holding that a Man that is of Age I presume is at first justified and consequently as I think you will not deny hath Jus ad Gloriam by Faith without Obedience 6. It is no debasing of Faith to say That after it as a Fruit of it Obedience is required to give Jus in re i.e. to bring into the actual possession of Glory How can you pretend this to be a debasing of Faith who debase it much more in making it unsufficient to give Jus ad rem except there be Obedience concurrent with it Though yet herein you do not keep fair correspondence with your self without a distinction of Jus Inchoatum and Jus Continuatum which distinction how it will hold good I do not see If any shall think that you have said enough to prove That we are justified by a Personal Righteousness I shall think that such are soon satisfied 1. When we speak of Justification we speak of it as taking off all Accusation and as opposed to all Condemnation And what Righteousness is sufficient for this but that which is perfect 2. That Lud. de Dieu hath not the same Doctrine on Rom. 8. 4. as you deliver I have sufficiently shewed before And if he had I take the Authority of Calvin and Davenant whom I cited and to whom many others might be added to be of more force against it than de Dieu's could be for it That Holiness and Obedience is necessary unto Salvation so that no Salvation is to be expected without it it were pitty as I said in the Animadversions any should deny but to argue from Salvation to Justification Dr. Fulk told the Rhemists is Pelting Sophistry Yet you seem to wonder that I make a great difference between the Condition of Justification and the Condition of Salvation As for Right to Salvation that 's another thing as Faith alone doth justifie so it alone gives Right to Salvation Yet because this Faith is of a working Nature therefore before the actual Enjoyment of Salvation Faith as occasion doth require will shew it self by Obedience and that is all which the Apostle teacheth Rom. 8. 13. Verum est quidem saith Calvin nos solâ Dei misericordiâ justificari in Christo sed aequè istud verum ac certum omnes qui justificantur vocari à Domino ut dignè suâ vocatione vivant It is true He that proved a Man lived not after the flesh but mortified it doth justifie him from that Accusation That he is worthy of Death but that is only because a Man 's not living after the flesh but mortifying it proves the truth of his Faith whereby he hath interest in Christ and so is freed from all Condemnation as the Apostle clearly sheweth Rom. 8. 1. If that be a Reatus to make Faith only the Condition of Justification yet Obedience also a Condition of Glorification I say with the Oratour Quod maximè accusatori optandum est habes confitentem reum But what Reatus there is in this I do not see nor could our choicest Divines it seems see any in it Rivet saith that Opera sequuntur Justificationem sed praecedunt Glorificationem the words were cited more at large before So Amesius Nos non negamus bona opera ullam relationem ad salutem habere habent enim relationem adjuncti consequentis effecti ad salutem ut loquuntur adeptam adjuncti antecedentis ac disponentis ad salutem adipiscendam Thus also Davenant De Justit Actual cap. 32. sub initio Verum est nos negare bona opera requiri 〈◊〉 Conditiones Salutis nostrae â—si per bona opera intelligamus exactè bona quae Legis rigori respondeant si etiam per Conditiones salutis intelligamus Conditiones foederis quibus recipimur in favorem Dei ad jus N. B. aeternae vitae Haec enim pendent ex solâ conditione fidei Christum Mediatorem apprehendentis At falsum est nos negare bona opera requiri ut Conditiones salutis si per bona opera intelligamus illos fructus inchoatae justitiae quae sequuntur justificationem N. B. praecedunt glorificationem ut via ordinata ad eandem What some Divines in their private Contests with you may do I know not I shew what eminent Divines in their publick Writings do deliver even the same that I maintain viz. That Faith alone is the Condition of Justification and of right to Salvation and Glory and yet that Works are also requisite as the Fruits of that Faith and as making way for the actual enjoyment of Glory For the term Instrument I was not willing to wrangle about it neither am I willing to strive about words Yet I told you I thought it might well enough be used as our Divines do use it And I always let you know That thô perhaps Faith may more fitly be called a Condition yet not so as to make it to be merely Causa sine quâ non but so as to ascribe some Causality and Efficiency unto it in respect of Justification viz. in that it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's Righteousness by which through Faith imputed unto us we are justified Faith saith Mr. Ball is not a bare Condition without which the thing cannot be for that is no cause at all but an Instrumental Cause c. This as you might see by many Passages is the very reason why I think the Scripture doth attribute Justification to Faith alone and not to Works nor any other Grace besides Faith because only Faith doth embrace Christ and his Righteousness Though therefore I neither was nor am willing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet I neither did nor do disclaim the word Instrument as unmeet to be used And indeed seeing Faith hath some Causality in Justifying what Cause it should be rather than Instrumental I do not know Hear Mr. Ball again if you please If when we speak of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace by Condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part as precedent concomitant and subsequent to Justification Repentance Faith and Obedience are all Conditions but if by Condition we understand what is on our part required as the Cause of the good promised though only Instrumental Faith