that either comment upon them or have occasion to treat of them Dicitur ex operibus saith Calvin fuisse perfecta non quòd inde suam perfectionem accipiat sed quòd vera esse inde comprobetur So Beza Hoc igitur inquit ad declarationem quoque pertinet Fides enim eo perfectior dicitur quo pleniùs perspecta est ac cognita quo efficaciùs vires suas exerit quae prius non ita apparebant Fulke doth cite Beda thus expounding it His Faith was perfected by his Deeds that is by perfect execution of Works it was proved to be in his Heart Thus also Lud de Dieu Quatenus bona opera vitam fidei ejusque vim efficaciam sinceritatem produnt adeoque eam illustrant exornant rectè dicuntur persectio Fider And so Polanus Fides justificans perficitur ex bonis operibus non quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu essentiam constitutionem suam sed quatenus per ea firmatur manifestatur comprobatur sicut res aliqua tum fieri dicitur quum patefit And he cites the Interlineary Gloss upon Jam. 2. Per opera fides est augmentata comprobata And Lyra Et ex operibus fides consummata est Habitus enim firmatur manifestatur per opera Et similiter magnitudo fidei Abrahae apparuit ex ejus obedientiae offerendo filium propter quod dictum fuit sibi 〈◊〉 Domino Nunc cognori c. Thus also Mr. Ball Faith is perfected by Works not that the Nature of Faith receiveth complement or perfection from Works but because it doth declare and manifest it self by Love and good Works and is esteemed so much the more perfect as the Works produced are the more excellent To illustrate this I used also the Similitude of a Tree the goodness of whose Fruit doth but manifest the goodness of it and so the power of Faith doth but appear by its fruits viz. Works You say that Faith is really perfected by Works as a Tree is by bearing fruit But as our Saviour saith a Tree is known by his Fruit. The Fruit doth not make the Tree good but only shew it to be so And this very Similitude have Learned Divines used to this purpose Beza immediately after the words before cited adds Vt si dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas tum fuisse perfecta quum optimum aliquem frractum edidit Nam quia de causa judicamus ex effectus videtur quodammodo caâ—sâ— vis vel minuâ— vel augeri ex effectorum proportione Sed hoc ex effectis intelligitur quidem astimatur non autem emanat So Mr. Ball How then saith the Apostle that Faith is perfected by Works As we judg of the Cause by the Effects and by the proportion of the Effects the efficacy and force of the Cause may seem to be increased or diminished Every thing is acknowledged to be perfect when it worketh and is esteemed so much the more perfect by how much the more it worketh As we say the goodness of a Tree is perfect when it hath brought forth some excellent good Fruit. Thus Philosophers teach That the Form is not perfect when it is considered as the first Act but when it is taken as the second Act for by working it putteth forth its force and declareth it self And so Faith is perfected by Works c. as before cited You say also That Faith is really perfected by Works as a Covenant or Promise is by Performance But the Performance doth only manifest the perfection of a Covenant or Promise It is a perfect Covenant or Promise as soon as it is made if it be made sincerely and without guile though it appears more fully to be so when it is performed Again you say That Faith is really perfected by Works as it hath naturam medii viz. Conditionis to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification But you have not yet proved That there is any other Condition of Justification as Continued and Consummated than of Justification as Begun Apprehensio illa fidei habet fluxum suum continuum c. saith Rivet Quod continuum beneficium fide apprehensum si secundam Justificationem appellare velint adversarii imò tertiam quartam quintam millesimam non repugnamus dummodo constet nullâ alia ratione N. B. nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus quà m câ quâ semel justificati fuimus à precedentibus St. James doth not speak of Works perfecting Faith more to the continuing and consummating of Justification than to the beginning of it For which must ever be remembred he speaks of Faith as apta nata operari and such a Faith is requisite that we may be justified as well at first as afterward Otherwise Works neither at first nor afterward do concur with Faith to our Justification A preparation or promptitude of Heart saith Mr. Ball to good Works is an effect of Faith as immediate as Justification And again Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life and leave the accomplishment to Works but doth rest upon the Promise of Life until we come to enjoy it Yet again you say That Faith is really perfected by Works as Works are a part of that necessary Matter not necessary at the first moment of Believing but necessary afterward when we are called to it whereby we are justified against the Charge of non-performance of the New-Covenants Condition even against the Charge of being an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite But all this proves not that Works give any perfection to Faith but only that they shew the perfection i.e. the sincerity force and efficacy of it Works may manifest a Man to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite but it is his Faith which being unfained doth indeed make him to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite All therefore that you have said makes nothing against my interpretation of those words Jam. 2. 22. And by Works was Faith made perfect 7. Your self deny necessitatem praesentiae operum in respect of our being justified at first And for the Conducibility of Works to the effect of Justification James speaketh not of it but only shews that Justifying Faith is not without Works viz. when God doth call for them He shews that Justifying-Faith is a Working-Faith a Faith ready to Work when occasion doth require But that Works do therefore conduce unto Justification as well as Faith he doth not shew neither doth this any way follow upon the other A Working-Faith is the Condition of Justification i.e. Faith which is of such a nature as to bring forth the Fruit of good Works in due season yet are we not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith For we are justified by Faith only apprehending Christ and his Righteousness though the same Faith that doth this will also produce good Works as Abraham's Faith did That Works do justifie the Faith but not the Person
Christ apprehended and received by Faith justifieth not Faith whereby it is apprehended and received unless it be by an improper speech whereby the Act of the Object by reason of the near and strict connexion betwixt them is given to the Instrument 3. What you have said before about Works perfecting Faith hath been considered Though Faith may save without manifestation yet not except it be of that nature as to manifest it self by Works when God doth call for them You say Works do perfect Faith ut Medium Conditio you mean of Justification but that Works are Medium Conditio Justificationis you do not prove The Tree and its Fruit are considered as distinct ut Causa Effectum non ut Totum Pars and so the perfection of the Tree is only manifested by its Fruit. It is not therefore a good Tree because it beareth good Fruit but it therefore beareth good Fruit because it is a good Tree For the Third If Procreation as you grant do not perfect Marriage in its Essence then it adds only an accidental perfection unto it 4. Your Explication is indeed now more full so that I can better see your meaning yet still I am unsatisfied For I do not conceive that Faith properly is our Covenant but that whereby we embrace God's Covenant Though a Covenant differ from a Promise yet it doth include a Promise Now a Promise is de futuro so that our reciprocal Promise both of Faith and Obedience I take to be our Covenant Faith is in part the matter of the Covenant but not properly the Covenant it self and perhaps when you call it our Covenant you only mean that it is the matter of our Covenant I being there the Respondent it was sufficient for me to deny the proof did lie upon you Yet nevertheless the Assertion viz. Faith alone is the Condition of the Covenant for so much as concerns Justification is sufficiently proved by those places where we are said to be justified by Faith and that without Works viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification And for the reason of the Assertion viz. because Faith alone doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness much hath been said of it before What do our Divines more inculcate than this Wotton saith that only Faith doth justifie Quia solâ— fide rectà in Christum tendimâ— promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur De Reconcil Part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. Amesius saith Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest â—sse causa justificans quia non habet vim a plicandi nobis justitiam Christi Contra Bellar. tom 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. Sect. 5. So Bucanus Fides inquit sola justificat quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum unica facultas in nobis quâ recipimus justitiam Christi Loc. 31. ad Qâ—â—st 37. Thus also Mr. Ball By Repentance we know our selves we feel our selves we hunger and thirst after Grace but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it is Faith alone c. And a little after When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith it is manifestly signified That Faith receiving the Promise doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised You your self do sometimes say That Faith hath in it an aptitude to justifie in this respect only you deny that this aptitude of Faith is sufficient and say that therefore it doth justifie because God in his Covenant hath made it the Condition of Justification Now I also grant That if Faith were not ordained to that end of God its bare aptitude or its being that whereby we apprehend Christ would not justifie Yet I say it appear by Scripture That because Faith alone hath this aptitude to justifie viz. by apprehending Christ therefore God hath made it alone the Condition of Justification This appears in that we are said to be justified by Believing in or on Christ which imports an apprehending and receiving of him Joh. 1. 12. 2. Repentance doth avail with Faith yet are we justified only by Faith and not by Repentance and that for the reason even now alledged viz. because not Repentance but Faith is the Hand by which Christ is received 3. Though Remission of Sins be ordinarily ascribed to Repentance yet it is no where said That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness as it is said of Faith Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance yet Faith and not Repentance iâ— made the Condition and Instrument of Justification as being that which doth apprehend the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 4. That though Faith only be the Condition of Justification at first yet Obedience also is a Condition afterward is often said but never proved I take Justification both at first and afterward to be by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us therefore not by Obedience but by Faith by which alone we apprehend the Righteousness of Christ that so it may be ours unto Justification Certainly that was not the beginning of Abraham's Justification which is mentioned Gen. 15. 6. Yet by that doth the Apostle prove that Abraham was and all must be justified not by Obedience but by Faith only 1. Faith apt to produce good Works is necessary to procure that first change which makes us in God's account Justos ex Injustis For if it be not such a Faith it is dead and of no force 2. I hope you will not deny but that being justified by Believing every after Act of Faith doth find us justified for you are against the Amission and Intercision of Justification Yet I confess That the continuance of Faith is necessary to the continuance of Justification So it must needs be seeing we are justified by Faith therefore every Act of Faith may be said to justifie as well as the first Act because by after-Acts of Faith we continue justified Nihil erit absurdi inquit Rivetus si dicamus in quâ—libet verae fidei actu imputari justitiam credenti Etsi enim justificatio sit actus momentaneus cujus nunquam planè amittitur effectus in piis qui semel justificatâ— sunt indigent nihilominùs renovatione sensus justificationis suae qui sensus fit per fidem tunc dicitur etiam fides imputarâ— ad justitiam Nam apprehensio illâ— fides habet fluxum suum continuum secundùm plus minus praesertim cum fidelis si justificatus subinde in peccata incidat propter quae opus etiam habet remissione peccatorum Quod continuum beneficirum fide apprehensum si secundam justificationem appellare velâ—â—t adversarii imò tertiam quaâ—tam quintam millesimam non repugnabimus dummodo constet nullâ— alià ratione nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus quà m 〈◊〉 quâ— semel justificati futmus à praecedentibus Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Justification no more afterward than at first 3. Your reasons whereby you endeavour to
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
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-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-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
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-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
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
Faith when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without VVorks Indeed VVorks are requisite in their place but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification shew any Orthodox VVriter that doth hold so though as necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified Say not that you speak of Justification as continued for VVorks as St. James doth speak of them are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good VVorks if this be wanting it is no Justifying Faith but as St. James calls it a dead Faith altogether vain and unprofitable Ad 3. That Faith without VVorks is a hardening of Unbelievers I grant sed quid tum postea Do therefore VVorks justifie as well as Faith But I do not think that St. James brings in chap. 2. 18. an Unbeliever so speaking For how should an Unbeliever a professed Unbeliever we mean for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite speak of his Faith saying And I will shew thee my Faith Calvin doth far better interpret it saying Jacobus dicit promptum fore piis sanctè viventibus excutere hypocritis talem jactantiam quâ inflati sunt Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief i. e. a true Assent but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith even that Faith whereby we are justified at first as your self do hold And you confess also that Faith doth justifie at first without VVorks yet say I not except it be of a VVorking-Nature i.e. ready to VVork when VVorks are required and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith VVorks do not justifie neither at first nor afterward Ad 5. Faith without VVorks is dead as to the effect of Justification even altogether unprofitable i. e. Faith renuens operari or which is not parata operari as Cajet an doth well express it But this is nothing to prove a Co-interest of VVorks with Faith in point of Justification it only proves That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature VVhereas you add Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works and on the other side Faith without Works this doth nothing hinder but that the opposition is as I said betwixt Faith and Faith i. e. several kinds of Faith whereof the one is accompanied with VVorks and the other not the one is operative and fruitful the other idle barren That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work but also by VVorks is more than St. James doth say and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith Indeed it is more than you can say without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued which distinction St. James never thought of For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith as he affirms that to be which is without VVorks That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by VVorks is made perfect as accomplishing its ends but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect The end of Faith is to justifie and your self say That Faith at first doth justifie without Works so that in your Opinion Faith without VVorks is perfect accomplishing its end in justifying at first But in St. James his sense Faith doth not cannot at all justifie without VVorks i. e. if it be not ready to work and in that respect VVorks do perfect Faith i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear but of that enough before Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation Continuation and Consummation of Justification you often say but never prove Sure I am James doth exclude Faith which is without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them from the very Initiation of Justification For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils who surely are so far from Justification that they have not so much as the initiation of it Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a VVorking Faith or by a Faith which produceth VVorks and so by his VVorks appears to be justified The words if taken without any qualification are against your self who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without VVorks If you will distinguish of Justification as at first and as afterward to make the Apostle agree with your meaning though indeed it will not serve Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so as to make him agree not only with them but also with himself and the whole current of the Gospel The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports no more than if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as appears by the whole series of the Discourse and more particularly by ◠17. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by it self i. e. alone without the concomitancy of VVorks as the Fruits of it Beza renders it per se Tremellius out of the Syriack Sola the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa which Cajetan corrects saying pro per se and that he expounds hoc est sola VVherein I suppose he followed Erasmus whose Annotation on the place is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. per se hoc est sola Ad 8. Rahab was justified by VVorks so as Abraham was and all must be even when they are first justified viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require Ad 9. Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief i. e. Assent and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19. such a Faith may be without VVorks and so is dead i.e. unprofitable but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of as I have shewed before who hold that Faith alone doth justifie without VVorks though withal they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without VVorks viz. when God doth call for them and this is all that St. James urgeth Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification quite besides yea and against St. James his meaning as I think I have sufficiently demonstrated Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James and reconcile him with St. Paul after the same manner as I and others do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes he saith Faith is taken for a bare Assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the Devils believe Sometimes it notes also a disposition joyned with assent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. James he saith considereth Faith in the former sense St. Paul in the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c.
confute this Assertion As our Justification is begun so it is continued viz. by Faith only and not by Works as concurrent with Faith unto Justification afterward though not at first seem to be of no force I answer therefore Ad 1. How do I contradict it by saying As it is begun so it is continued by Faith What though there be divers Acts of Faith yet still it is Faith and Faith without the concurrence of Works by which we are justified as well afterward as at first which is all that I assert Because a continued Act of Faith is requisite to the Continuation of Justification doth it therefore follow that Works have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of Justifying Ad 2. Do you think Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification and not also to the Inchoation of it Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons than is requisite unto Justification Your Similitudes are no Proofs and you still suppose that there is one Condition of Justification at first and another Condition thereof afterwards that though at first we are justified only by Faith yet afterward by Faith and Works But though Works are required of Justified Persons as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are justified yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Justification which as it is begun by Faith only so is it also continued Your self observe That Abraham's Believing mentioned Gen. 15. was not his first Act of Faith So then he was justified before by Faith and so was be also afterward even by Faith only as the Apostle from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works viz. as having a co-partnership with Faith in Justifying Abraham was justified both at first and afterward 1. Do you think that Abraham was justified from the guilt of those many sins which he committed after his first Justification by his Works Credat Judâ—â—â— for my part I cannot but detest such Doctrine I know no way whereby he could be justified from those sins but by Faith in Christ even as he was at first justified Besides as I noted before and that as acknowledged by your self Abraham was justified before he produced that Act of Faith spoken of Gen. 15. and in the interim no doubt he committed some sins yet still by Faith and not by Works as Paul sheweth he was justified 2. You do but still affirm without any proof at all That Abraham's Justification could not be continued by the same means viz. by Faith alone works not concurring with it unto Justification as it was begun 3. For Sentential Justification at the Last Judgment I have said enough before Bucan having said that Abraham was Justified operibus tanquam testimontis Justificatienis Adds Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus And again Fides principium existentiae facit ut simus justi Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt ut cognoscamur justi Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fides quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum 4. I think the Argument is good and sound Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified is an everlasting Righteousness therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification This alwayes presupposed That this Righteousness of Christ be apprehended by Faith for otherwise there is no being justified at all by it 1. To be just quoad praestationem Conditionis is but to be just in some respect and in some respect just even the most unjust may be Yet it is true This praestatio Conditionis will be of force to procure Universal Justification not that it is it self the Righteousness by which we are justified but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ and so by his Righteousness are universally justified And though this performing of the Condition be required unto Justification yet nevertheless that remains good which I said in the Animadversions If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law we are fully justified For can we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law except we perform the Condition required in the Gospel And if we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law will the Gospel accuse us It is the Law that worketh Wrath Rom. 4. 15. The Gospel doth free from Wrath though not without performing the Condition for then it suffereth the Law to have its force and to inflict Wrath and that so much the more in that so great a benefit was neglected 2. The performing of a Condition as the Condition is a Duty is a Righteousness but such as cannot justifie as we now speak of Justification But as the Condition is meerly a Condition the performing of it is not properly Righteousness though by it we partake of Righteousness viz. the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified 3. Therefore this is no contradiction to grant Faith to be the Condition of Justification and yet to deny it to be the Righteousness by which we are justified That which you think to be most clear Vignerius before cited thought most absurd An possibile est inquit ut sit Fides Instrumentum accipiendae justitia seu Conditio ad obtinendam justitiam requisita si ita loqui libeat simul sit ipsa quam quaerimus justitia Indeed you seem but to strive about words for here immediately you confess That it is but a Subordinate Righteousness meaning I think that which all acknowledg that it is but a means whereby to partake of Christ's Righteousness And you that charge others with Self-Contradiction seem not to agree with your self For here presently after you say This Personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis N. T. must be had before we can have that which freeth us from the Law yet elsewhere your Expressions are such as if being first justified from the Accusation of the Law by the Righteousness of Christ we should after be justified from the Accusation of the Gospel by Personal Righteousness However as I have said before this latter Accusation is but a further prosecution and confirmation of the former by taking away the Plea that some might make why the Accusation of the Law should not stand good and be of force to condemn them 4. Of what force is Satans Accusation against any if be cannot make good his Accusation so as to procure his Condemnation And are not Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ condemned by the Law Is it not for sin that they are condemned And is there any sin which is not against the Law The Gospel indeed may aggravate Sin and increase Condemnation and so those words which you cite The words which I speak shall judg you
c. may be understood as those are more clearly to the purpose Joh. 15. 22. If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin viz. in so high degree as it follows but now they have no cloak for their sin But still it is by the Law that all sinners are convinced and condemned As for Righteousness whereby one is justified from a false Accusation it is but such as the Devil himself may have as hath been noted before though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accusations whatsoever And when Satan doth accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel he doth but only shew that such stand guilty by the Law and so are to be condemned as having no benefit of the Gospel because they have not performed the Condition of it So that still it is the Law by which Satan doth accuse and bring to condemnation But by the way I observe That in this place of your Aphor. p. 308. you say That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2 3 14 15 16. Paul concludeth that neither Faith nor Works is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law but the Righteousness which is by Faith i. e. Christ's Righteousness Yet before in this Writing you stand upon the very Letter of the Text and will have it to prove That Faith it self properly taken is our Righteousness If you say that you mean our Evangelical Righteousness yet so you agree not with your self in your Aphorisms where you make Paul in those Texts to speak of our Legal Righteousness 1. They against whom James disputed relied on Faith as the Condition of the New Covenant but it was not such a Faith as the New Covenant doth require it was a Faith renuens operari upon that account James confuted them not as if Faith alone without Works though yet a Faith ready to shew it self by Works were not the Condition of Justification 2. I am sorry that Beza's words which I cited and which to me seem very excellent should be so censured by you as if there were I know not how many mistakes in them but truly I think the mistakes will be found to be in your censure To your Exceptions I answer 1. Quis vel ex nostris vel ex Transmarinis Theologis Fidem pro Causa nempe Instrumentali Justificationis non habet 2. Beza ait tu negas Vtri potius assentiendum Quid dico Beza Quis enim istud non dicit Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere rationes antè allatae expendantur 3. Affirmes tanthùm non probas Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones Media Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur neque enim ad justificationem procurandam sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est 4. Nec Beza nec alius quisquam quòd sciam distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ Justificatione Continuatâ quasi sc alia hujus alia illius esset conditio perspectam habuit Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo 1. Certain it is All Works are not the fulfilling of the Old Law 's Condition but all Works whereby we are justified are the fulfilling of it and therefore as I said in the Animadversions to be justified by Works and to be justified by the Law are with Paul one and the same See Rivet Disp de Fide Justif § 21. the words are before cited 2. We are justified by the New Law against the Accusation of the Old Law Certainly if we be accused of Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ we are accused of being Sinners For are Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ no sins 3. Who doth not so distinguish of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere except some few whom I have no mind to follow But how will this Distinction inter quod opus quà opus serve to keep in Obedience as having a joint interest with Faith in Justification What dark Equivocal I pray is this That Faith doth justifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of Christ's Righteousness Your self acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to justifie in this respect and in this respect I say Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Justification I take what you grant viz. That Paul doth not imply Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Justification afterward you should prove and not content your self with the bare affirming of it Doth not Paul by that Gen. 15. Abraham believed God c. prove that Abraham was justified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience Yet that was not the first time that Abraham either believed or was justified The truth therefore is Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which justifieth both at first and last but not as concurring with Faith unto Justification either at first or last 1. There is a necessity of Faith shewing it self by Works that so it may appear to be such a Faith whereby Christ is truly apprehended and received But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in justifying because only such a Faith doth justifie as doth also produce Works You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Justification at first yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified 2. For the Texts alledged that Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified c. is as plain you say as We are justified by Faith But if it be so plain it may seem wonderful that Bellarmine should never make use of it when he labours to prove That Faith alone doth not justifie which so far as I observe he doth not Nor do the Rhemists on the place take any notice of those words who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but seem to make for them Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it Quod autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent puerile est Certainly all good that we do may justifie quadantemus so far as it is good But can we therefore be simply and absolutely or if you like those terms better fully and perfectly justified either by our Words or Works Those places that require forgiving of others that so God may forgive us shew indeed that it is no true Justifying Faith which doth not as occasion requires manifest it self in that kind but we are not therefore justified as well by forgiving others as by believing nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Justification That in 1 John 1. 9. and Acts 3. 19. shews that
consisting of many Links but so is not Justification it is but one Link of that Chain 3. If all the World of Divines be against this That Justification at Judgment is but a Declaration of our Justification here I have hitherto it seems been in some other World For truly so far as I observe both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as we here partake of it As for Justification at Judgment it is but rarely touched either in Scripture or in other Writings Neither so far as I can see will it consist with either to make Justification at Judgment a compleating of our Justification as if before we were but imperfectly justified but rather they shew that our Justification is then fully declared and made manifest and that then we come to the full enjoyment of that benefit which we have right unto by our Justification viz. Glorification For whom he justified them he also glorified Rom. 8. 30. I have spoken enough of this before but you do so continually repeat the same things that I am forced also to repeat things oftner than I would 1. That Justification by Sentence viz. at the Last Judgment and Continued Justification are several kinds of Justification distinct from Justification begun and have several Conditions you continually affirm or suppose but never prove 2. My debate with you was about those words That which we are justified by we are saved by and the full possession or enjoyment of Salvation What your reply is to the purpose I cannot see And besides you had need to clear those words In justifying it is the same thing to give a right to a thing and to give the thing it self For if you mean That as soon as a right to a thing is given by Justification the thing it self also is actually given it appears to me far otherwise For I think that Justification presently gives a right to Glorification For what doth debar from that right but sin Now the guilt of sin is done away by Justification therefore there is a present right too to Glorification yet no present enjoyment of it How I do yeeld your Assertion you do not shew Your Repetitions indeed have been troublesome unto me I grant here more than you desire viz. That not only to morrow there will be Condemnation to him that shall not sincerely obey but even to day there is condemnation to him his Faith being not prompt and ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience is not such as doth justifie him at all But though Faith whereby we are justified must and will shew it self by Works yet we are not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith Paul doth exclud Works as well from Justification afterward as at first viz. as concurring with Faith unto the Effect of Justifying for he shews that Abraham was Justified not only at first but also afterward by Faith and not by Works Rom. 4. 2 3. And James doth require Works as well to Justification at first as afterward viz. as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified For otherwise he saith it is a dead Faith ineffectual and unprofitable Though Works do not presently appear upon our first believing yet if they do not appear in due season that Faith doth not justifie Such a Believer doth not cease to be but indeed never was in Christ viz. as a justified Person is in him How is Justification at Judgment a declaring of a Righteousness in question The Word of God the tru◠whereof is unquestionable assures us that all true Believers are justified And that such and such were true Believers God by his Word and Spirit did evidence unto them before though then he will make it more fully evident unto all That Satan shall publickly accuse at the Last Judgment is more than I see either Scripture or Reason for He shall then be judged himself and that in some sort by the Saints 1 Cor. 6. 3. He shall then have little courage to accuse the Saints though now he doth it Yet I question also whether Satan do at any time directly put up unto God any Accusations against the Saints He seems to be called the Accuser of the Brethren Apoc. 12. 10. because by his Instruments he is ever traducing and slandering them He is said to accuse them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before God or in the sight of God not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto God as the unjust Steward was accused to his Master 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 16. 1. That in Joh 1. 2. seems to be parabolically expressed Satan knows his Accusations against the Saints to be false Therefore he knows it is to little purpose to accuse them unto God Especially at the Last Judgment by the very separating of the Elect from the Reprobate he will see that it is in vain to bring any Accusation against the Elect and therefore how there should then be any such publick Accuser or any question of the Righteousness of the Saints I do not see besides that excepting those who will be found alive at Christ's coming all have received their doom before though not so openly as then they shall That Obedience is a Condition of Glorification not of right unto it but of possession and enjoyment of it I here and every-where confess 1. What mean you by those words Doth Obedience get Faith Doth any such thing follow upon that which I say But you say If Obedience only manifest Faith how then doth it procure Right Answ It is not said That Obedience doth procure right but only thus much is signified That none can have right without Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith by which right is procured As I said before of Works so I say now of keeping the Commandments which doth comprehend in it all good Works it is spoken of only as a Fruit of Faith which Faith indeed doth Instrumentally and Relatively procure Right For the words of James I have said enough before I have neither list nor leisure to repeat the same things continually upon every occasion What your multitude of other Texts is I do not know but if they be not more forced than by my Opinion the words of James are there will be little cause to complain of the forcing of them 2. That Faith without Obedience doth give right at first you grant The same right I hold is still continued only by Faith though Faith if not of such a Nature as to produce Obedience can neither give right at first nor afterward continue it Though Repentance must go before Justification yet Faith alone may justifie and so give right which though it be not the same with Justifying yet it is necessarily joined with it 3. Jus in re I take to be such a Right as from which the Possession it self is not nor can be separated 4. The Text doth not ascribe Jus ad rem to Obedience but only Declarativè as a Fruit of Faith it
out of which you take them 2. I think nothing is more clear than that Mr. Ball 's words following those which you cited gainsay your Opinion viz. of Works concurring with Faith unto Justification For he expresly saith That Faith alone justifieth and that Works do but testifie and give proof that Faith is lively Is not this the very thing that I so much contend for And yet you stick not to say That he yeeldeth Faith and Works to be the Condition of Justification as if they were Copartners in this respect whereas he ascribeth Justification wholly to Faith and excludeth Works from having any concurrence with it in justifying A little before the place by you cited he opposeth those who make Faith and Works the Condition without which Remission cannot be obtained and saith it is impossible to conceive how Faith and Works should be conjoyned as Con-causes in Justification seeing Faith attributes all to Free-Grace and Works challenge to themselves And a little before that again he saith We read of two ways of Justification by Faith and by Works but of a third manner by Faith and Works both as joint Causes or Con-causes we find nothing in Scripture As he makes Faith to be more than a bare Condition if by Condition be meant only Causa sine qu◠non so do I yet he doth use the words Condition and Instrument promiscuously and doth sometimes call Faith the one way sometimes the other He supposeth also That if Works concur with Faith unto Justification they are Con-causes and not such Conditions as are only Causae sine quibus non as you seem to take it 3. You say that you allow of the Explicatory terms as I judg them Why then you allow of this Faith alone doth justifie yea as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ for so immediately Mr. Ball doth explain himself And for this very reason he denies Works to justifie because Works do not embrace Christ Your distinction of Inchoated and Continued Justification will here stand you in no stead For besides that Mr. Ball speaks of Justification simply considered it 's certain that Works neither at first nor afterward conconcur with Faith in embracing the promise of free-forgiveness in Jesus Christ and therefore if Faith justifie in this respect as Mr. Ball saith it doth and you seem to give your approbation of what he saith surely both at first and afterward Faith alone doth justifie though Works appear in their season yet they do not concur with Faith unto Justification 4. That which you cite out of Mr. Ball p. 20. doth not reach home to your purpose To say as he there doth A disposition to good Works is necessary to Justification is no more than to say A lively and working Faith or a Faith apt and ready to Work is necessary unto Justification So when he saith Good Works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification and so to our final absolution if God give opportunity he meaneth only this that Works are necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ and so are justified and absolved The Faith that is lively saith he to embrace Mercy is ever conjoyned with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all well-pleasing and the sincere performance of all holy Obedience as opportunity is offered doth ever attend that Faith whereby we continually N. B. lay hold on the Promises once embraced Actual good Works of all sorts though not perfect in degree are necessary to the continuance of Actual Justification because Faith can no longer lay claim to the Promises of Life than it doth virtually or actually lead us forward in the way to Heaven It is clear that as well afterward as at first he ascribes Justification only to Faith as being only that which doth embrace the Promises though he require a working Disposition at first and Works themselves afterward as opportunity serveth to testifie and give proof that Faith is lively as he expresly speaketh The words which you further add I have cited before and they are directly against you shewing that as I and others take the word Condition Faith is the only Condition of Justification and Works no part of it And see what Mr. Ball addeth immediately after those words Faith and Works are opposed in the Matter of Justification not that they cannot stand together in the same Subject for they be inseparably united but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court to the Justification or Absolution of Man That which you cite from p. 21. is not to be understood as you seem to take it of actual walking but of a disposition to walk as he said p. 20. A disposition to Works c. This disposition is the qualification of that Faith or always conjoined with that Faith whereby we are partakers of Christ's Righteousness This plainly appears to be his meaning both by the words immediately going before and also by the words in the preceding Page both which are already cited 1. If Personal Righteousness be not perfect but have need of pardon for the imperfection of it then there is no being justified by it This very reason Luther Melancthon Calvin and Chemnitius give why we cannot be justified by Inherent Righteousness as I noted before out of Wotton de Recon part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. num 4. And to this purpose I also have cited before the words of Calvin Davenant Amesius Rivet and Maccovius As for the Metaphysical Perfection of Being which you speak of it is but such as doth belong to things that are most imperfect And for Praestatio Conditionis N. Legis it is not as I have said before properly that Righteousness by which we are justified though it be required to that end that we may be partakers of Christ's Righteousness and so viz. by that Righteousness of Christ be justified 2. Of Justification quà m continuationem Sententiam Judicis nempe in ultimo Judicio enough hath been said before Neither Calvin nor any of our famous Divines that I know nor yet the Scriptures so far as I can find do teach that we are justified by Faith alone at first but by Faith and Works afterward yea I have shewed the contrary both from the Scriptures and from our Divines yet they both teach That Faith whereby we are both at first and afterward justified hath in it at first a readiness to Works and afterward doth work as opportunity is offered Quid commerita est Fides inquit Maccovius in progressu vitae ut tantum non possit quantum in initio Ergone ingenium fides mutaverit c. De Justif Disp 10. See Calvin Instit lib. 3. cap. 14. § 11. and Rivet in Gen. 15. Exercit. 83. pag. 404. Col. 1. Whereas you say that Calvin maintaineth a true Personal Righteousness What is that to the purpose Who doth not
and others do the Garden wherein Adam was placed a place upon Earth for certain it was and very pleasant yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of Those words Thou shalt die being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed but also of eternal torment it follows That the Life implicitly promised is to be understood not only of the continuance of that Life but of Eternal Blessedness I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works but that some are so under that Covenant that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant nor are guilty of contemning it being utterly ignorant of it To whom God doth not say Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved to them in effect he doth say Obey perfectly and live or If thou sin thou shalt die eternally But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say Believe c. that Promise is altogether unknown unto them they live and die without ever hearing of it so that to them it is as if it had never been Consider I pray what the Apostle saith to this purpose Ephes 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death Do not many continue in the same Condition I yeeld that none are so under the Covenant of Works but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy and that by vertue of the New Covenant but that which I stand upon is this That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised being not revealed unto some nor any way dispensed unto them they cannot be said to be under it nor shall be judged as transgressors of it Add 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant might have been enjoyed Add 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made Man after his Fall though plunging himself into sin continually more and more yet had contracted no more Guilt nor incurred any greater Condemnation than he did by his first Transgression And 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects but as rebelling I conceive only against the Law not against the Gospel they being such as never were acquainted with it Add 4. There are common Mercies which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save If such Mercies as meer Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes 2. 12. Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose to shew That as they that sinned without the Law shall perish without the Law even so they that sinned without the Gospel shall perish without the Gospel That 2 Thess 1. 7 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ but also of such as know not God The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts viz. such as know not God so he describes the Gentiles 1 Thess 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel c. that is such as having had the Gospel preached unto them would not receive it either not at all or not sincerely Yet Christ he saith will in flaming fire take vengeance on both as well on the former as on the latter And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me and so as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do Infidels saith he that were never under any other Covenant than that of works and Covenant-breaking Christians are in the same condemnation there are not two Hells but one and the same for those that know not God and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ 2 Thess 1. 8. You pass by that which I alledged from Rom. 6. ult viz That death which is the wages of sin is opposed to Eternal Life which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven Ergo Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell and that you know is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say Call it the first or second Death as you please The Argument drawn from the Bodies Co-partnership with the Soul I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection Tertullian surely thought so or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument Age inquit scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione Negent operum societatem ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare Non sit particeps in sententia caro si non fuerit in causâ And again Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum And again also Non possunt separari in mercede caro anima quas opera conjungit And surely that of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 10. That every Man may receive the things done in the Body doth imply That as the things were done in the Body so also the Reward must be received in the Body As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked until the Resurrection Therefore it is not probable that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant What-ever some new Philosophers may say true Philosophy I think doth tell us That it is the Body which by the Sensitive Soul doth â—eel pain even as it is the Eye which doth see by the Visive Faculty You observe not it seems that I did but answer your Queries which you made Append. p. 10. To the second When should he have risen I thought and still think it sufficient to answer That Adam and so others should either have risen in the end of the World as now they shall or when God should please to raise them It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection which he speaks of unto all when he expresly limits it to those that are Christs vers 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory Expressè resurrectio Christi est
take upon him the form of a Servant But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Humane Nature as subjection unto God is and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man did es nomine take upon him the form of a Servant for Man must be Servant unto God the Creature to the Creator He bids See the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies Speeches upon it These Speeches I cannot now see but I have seen them long ago and was not satisfied with them The words of the Assembly are such as that some question may be made of the meaning of them viz. Whether by Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself be not meant one and the same thing so that the latter words are exegetical to the former But to return to you who say The Question should be Whether it be only Poena Christi or Obedientia also that satisfieth and meriteth I think it is not simply Poena or Obedientia but Poena Obedientialis and Obedientia Poenalis 1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious 2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious though less properly 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect yet if absolutely due it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions Yet see not how Christ's good Actions I speak of meer Actions which have no penality or suffering mixed with them could properly be meritorious they being otherwise due supposing Man had not sinned and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him Though I am not of their mind who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate though Man had never sinned yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been Now hoc supposito all Christ's meer Active Righteousness would have been due but not his Passive Righteousness I have divers times told you That when we speak of Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory we are not to consider them meerly as Penal but as Obediential also so that your long Section hath nothing against me My interpretation of these words The Father judgeth no Man containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father neither can I admit any such exclusion but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain He that doth a thing yet not immediately by himself but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it may be said in some respect not to do it When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread he bad them go to Joseph c. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things Joseph is to do all such matters Yet Pharaoh indeed did all though not immediately but by Joseph Your Arguments p. 13. press not me who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ's Mediatorship and namely to his Kingly Office to judge the World only I shewed what I took to be the meaning of those Texts John 5. 22. 27. Wherein I followed Jansenius and Maldonate no absurd Expositors though Papists And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father v. 22. In Patre nihil mutatum est c. Est enim ipse in Filio in eo operatur saith Calvin And so Beza Negat Christus â Patre administrari hunc mundum ita viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur qui Patrem à Filio separabant cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filii manifestati in carne mundum regat You seem to make the present death of Adam a part of the rigorous execution of the Law when you say Aphor. p. 33. That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat In the day that thou eatest c. I do not think for that would have prevented both the Being the Sin and the Suffering of his Posterity How would this have been prevented if Adam's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence i. e. in the rigorous execution of it Therefore though you argue That the words of the Threat were not so meant as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full yet your very Argument supposeth That if the Sentence should have been so executed Adam should presently have died Now though Christ had not died yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been against this so far as I see you say nothing I desire to be as favourable an Animadverter as Truth will permit but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say I do not see If you had used the word Chastisements it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion For I shew that Chastisements are Punishments And whereas you speak of my great oversight it is indeed your great mistake for I did not take those words to express your Opinion only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion You might see that I make the Afflictions of God's Children in their Nature to be Evil and a Curse though not so to them they being sanctified and working for their good And I presume those Divines whom you oppose meant as both you and I do though you interpret them otherwise The difference here betwixt you and me is this You allow their Expression and dislike their meaning I allow their Meaning and dislike their Expression They distinguish betwixt Chastisements and Punishments which distinction in your Aphorisms you seem to allow only disliking the Application of it The distinction it self I dislike though I think that some who used it did not err in that which they intended in it In the Contents of Isa 27. there are these words God 's Chastisements differ from Judgments which words I hold incongruous I like not that of Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin Chap. 4. p. 139. Punishment aimeth chiefly at the satisfaction of Justice Correction at the amendment of the Offender That is not true of all Punishments see Geld. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of those that used them was not I think erroneous I would give you no cause to quarrel with me But is not this your own Argument Do you not thus oppose the Common Judgment as you call it They are ascribed to God's anger c. Aphor. p. 70. Do you not there oppose God's Anger to his Love Whereas Love and Hatred not Love and Anger are truly opposite God may be angry with us and yet love us yea therefore angry with us because he loveth us Rev. 3.
Gal. 2. ult But how-ever such Obedience cannot be performed by any there being not a Just man upon Earth that doth good and sinneth not Eccles 7. 20. That Faith is as effectual or sufficient a Condition under the New Covenant as perfect personal Obedience if performed would have been under the Old Covenant if this were all that you meant though I like not your expression yet I allow the thing only this I think meet to observe That perfect personal Obedience was so the Condition of the Old Covenant that it was also the Righteousness required in it But Faith is so the Condition of the New Covenant as that it is not properly the Righteousness it self but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction which is the Righteousness that the New Covenant doth offer and afford to a Believer instead of Perfect Obedience personally to be performed by the Old Covenant For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn c. I do not think that we can be said truly and properly to pay any thing our selves as a price whereby to purchase the benefits of the New Covenant see Isa 55. 1. and Apoc. 22. 17. When we preach and press Holiness and Good Works we use to distinguish betwixt Via Regni Causa regnandi and we make them requisite unto Glorification but not unto Justification Dicimus inquit Rivetus bona opera necessaria esse tanquam adjunctum consequens justificationem tanquam effectum acquisitae satutis quatenus salus accipitur pro justificatione tanquam antecedens ad sà lutem quatenus accipitur pro glorificatione non dutem tanquam causam quae saliâ—tem efficiat 2. The acceptance of a Gift being a means to enjoy it is a means whereby the Gift doth inrich and so Faith is a means whereby Christ's Righteousness doth justifie us as being a means whereby it is imputed unto us and made ours But properly it is the Gift that doth inrich though not without the acceptance of it and so it is the Righteousness of Christ that doth justifie though not without Faith The Tryal of a Man's Title in Law to a Gift depends on the Tryal and Proof of his Acceptance of it because otherwise except he accept of the Gift it is none of his Yet for all this it is the Gift that doth inrich though it must be accepted that it may do it And so it is Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by though Faith be required of us that it may be made ours and so we may be justified by it That my words are contradictory one to another you say but the Reason which you add for proof of it is of little force I deny it to be as proper to say We are justified by Faith as a Condition as to say We are justified by Christ's Satisfaction as the Meritorious Cause yea and as the Righteousness by which we are justified What inconvenience doth arise from it if Paul and the Scriptures do oftner speak improperly than properly in this Point May not improper Speeches concerning some Point be more frequent in Scripture than proper Sacramental Speeches wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing signified are improper Yet are they more frequent in Scripture than those which in that kind are more proper 1. You not clearing the Question either there or any where else that I know in your Aphorisms seemed to leave it doubtful and so I thought meet to note it that you might prevent any ones stumbling at it 2. What you now add upon review doth less please For the Holiness that is in us is from God the imperfection of it is from our selves this therefore may be sinful though God's Work be good 1. Relation when it is founded in Quality may for any thing I see be intended and remitted as the Quality is wherein it is founded I like not Scheiblers joyning Similitude and Equality together as if there were the same reason of both One thing cannot be more or less equal though it may be nearer to or further from Equality than another but one thing may be more or less like when yet there is a true and proper likeness in both 2. That no Man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works is the same that I say But why do you put in these terms fully and exactly if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exact 3. That our Inherent Righteousness for I must still mind you that we are speaking of it is Non-reatus poene I deny and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent as being nothing to Inherent Righteousness about which now is all the Dispute Pag. 37. You seem to come up to what I say when you grant that our Gospel-Righteousness considered in esse officii as related to or measured by the Precept so our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees Here by Faith and Holiness you mean the same with that which immediately before you called Gospel-Righteousness which must needs be meant of Inherent Righteousness As for those words which you insert and that only quoad materiam praeceptam I know not well what they mean For how can officium as related to and measured by the Precept be considered but quoad materiam praeceptam 1. If I take Holiness as you say as opposite to Sin How do I make all the Actions of the Heathens Holy Do I make them not sinful I have ever approved of those Saying of the Ancients Sine câ—ltu veri Dei etiam quod virtus videtur esse peccatum est And Omnis infidelium vita peccatum est nihil est bonum sine summo bono Vbi enim deest agnitio aeternae incommut abilis veritatis falsa virtus est etiam in optimis moribus And Quicquid boni fit ab homine non propter hoc fit propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit se officio videatur bonum ipso non recto fine peccatum est Scripture also doth carry me that way namely these place Rom. 8. 8 9. and Heb. 11. 6. I wave that place Rom. 14. ult because it seems to look another way though Prosper de Vitâ— Contempl. lib. 3. cap. 1. doth urge it to this purpose There is not then the same reason of the Actions of Heathens as of the Actions of Believers these are imperfectly holy the other are altogether unholy 2. You grant that Holiness is the same with Righteousness which is opposed to Reatus Culpae And truly I should think that Inherent Righteousness is rather Non-reatus Culpae than Non-reatus Poenae For your Parenthesis If any were found that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works it is ever granted That such a perfect Righteousness is not found in any upon Earth but still it is denyed that because it is not perfect therefore it is none at all Justi
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