though I use not to speak so yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction It is true Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae non simpliciter absolutè sed quoad istam causam but they that use that distinction mean I think only this that Works shew Faith to be sound and good yet it is Faith and not Works by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified Do not I pray here lay hold on the word absolutely it is referred to the word justified not to the word Faith I do not say That Faith absolutely considered doth justifie no it doth justifie as it is considered relatively Faith i.e. Christ apprehended by Faith is that whereby we are absolutely justified Though Works may justifie against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the Condition so I would say not Conditions in respect of the Justification of which we speak of the New Covenant yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justifie but only against that Accusation shewing that a Man did perform the Condition viz. believe and so is simply and absolutely justified not by Works which do but only declare him to be so but by Faith as the Condition or Instrument for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do of Justification Faith doth not justifie as Working i.e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works your self deny this in respect of our Justification at first yet Faith doth not justifie except it be of a Working-Nature i.e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context 1. All Works if good are Works of the Law viz. the Moral Law which as I said in the Animadversions is the eternal Rule of Righteousness And of that Law the Apostle speaks when he excludes Works from Justification as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10. Evangelii inquit Maccovius nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter Adversarii cum urgentur ex operibus legis non justificari hominem admittunt hoc dicunt ita quidem esse sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis Evangelii Sed si obtineat hac distinctio tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata quae committuntur in Doctrinam Evangelii Non ergo erit adaequarâ—a definitio peccati quam dat Spiritus Sanctus 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege Certè interim Evangelii Doctrinae praecipitur Lege Nam Deus postulat ut Evangelio credamus c. So Pemble Nor yet saith he hath this Distinction viz. Works of the Law and Works of the Gospel any ground in Scripture or in Reason For both tell us That the Works commanded in the Law and Works commanded in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them What Work can be named that is enjoyned us in the New Testament which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul c. What is there against the Gospel which is not a transgression of the Law You will say It doth not command Faith in Christ I answer Yea it doth For that which commands us in general to believe what-ever God shall propose unto us commands us also to believe in Christ as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him The Gospel discovers to us the Object the Law commands us the obedience of believing it The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant as it requireth that they which have believed be careful to maintain good works Tit. 3. 8 14. and to walk circumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuratè i. e. quam proximè ad Legis Dei praecepta as Beza doth well expound it Ephes 5. 15. But this is far and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification I see no strength in them and therefore I answer Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law For that Accusation being only made void by Faith where there is final Unbelief there that Accusation hath its full force Besides though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justifie than by manifesting a Man's Faith by which Faith indeed and not by Works he is justified Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of is against a true Charge and the same with Remission of sins as well as that which Paul doth speak of For can they that have but a dead Faith be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith such as James doth require can work that Effect Justification against a false Accusation is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of Nemo enim iniquus adco as Bradshaw speaketh aut injustus dari potest qui falsò accusari consequenter etiam eatenus merito justificari non possit Indeed Justification aginst the Accusation of final Unbelief is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith and not by Works which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith and so of Justification Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification are Competitors with Christ or Copartners with him so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith and partly by Works Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith which Faith both when Justification is first begun and when it is continued must be a Working-Faith i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require If our Divines affirm That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works means in point of merit as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose surely it is because they know no other Justification by Works but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious Hear one whom I and so I presume you also take for a good Divine viz. Mr. Blake This Justification saith he wrought freely by Grace through Faith Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent
Righteousness by which we are justified So that de Dieu's Opinion and yours are much different Again Sola Fides inquit amplectens istam obedientiam sc Christi imputatur in justitiam Ibid. p. 104. And pag. 105. Fidei imputatio est in justitiam perfectam qualis est Obedientia Christi Operum imputatio in imperfectam qualia sunt ipsa Opera in hâc vitâ And pag. 109. he cites Bucer in Colloq Ratisb as agreeing with him and saying thus Dixeramus nos secuti Apostolum omnem Scripturam duplicem esse Sanctorum justitiam quâ justi sunt coram Deo hominibus Vnam Christi perfectam quâ illis spes omnis gratiae Dei salutis vitaeque sempâ—ternae tota nititur Alteram in ipsis per Spiritum Christi inchoatum quâ considere non debent proptereà quòd ea imperfecta semper est dum hîc vivunt Deo non nisi ex liberali infinitâ ejus misericordiâ merito Christi probari non potest Hâc justitia nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae Justitiam hanc Inchoatam sentimus esse quidem veram vivam Justitiam Dei praeclarum eximium donum vitamque novam in Christo hâc justitiâ constare omnesque Sanctos hac ipsâ quoque justitia justos esse coram Deo coram hominibus propter eam Sanctos quoque à Deo justificari justificatione Operum i. e. comprobari eos à Deo laudari remunerari Attamen quamlibet haec justitia sit vera ac viva suo etiam modo N. B. justificans tamen non esse ejusmodi non sic veram vivam solidam ut quisquam Sanctorum justificari ea possit justificatione vitae multo minus ut sit ipsa justitia vel justificatio vitae Thus then de Dieu in the Matter it self doth not differ from other Protestant-Writers who generally hold That the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us is that by which we are fully and perfectly justified and yet we must also have Inherent Righteousness which will justifie us in some sort but not fully and perfectly because it self is imperfect For Placeus I have him not but because you alledge his words I will say something to him He speaks indeed of a Two-fold Accusation and of a Two-fold Justification But 1. he seems to differ from me and others only modo loquendi For he saith Ab accusatione priore qua sc objicitur nos esse peccatores sola fide justificamur qua Christi gratiam justitiam amplectimur à posteriore qua objicitur nos esse infideles justificamur etiam operibus quatenus iis Fides N. B. ostenditur This seems to be in effect the same with that of Maccovius Conciliationem hîc inter Paulum Jacobum hanc ponunt Theologi quidem ex Scriptura sola Fides nos justificat apprehensivè opera declarativè 2. To speak properly they are not I think two distinct Accusations For to omit this That to be Infideles is to be Peccatores and so the one Accusation doth include the other To omit this I say the latter Accusation is but a re-inforcing of the former Thou art a Sinner saith the Accuser and therefore to be condemned Not so saith the Party accused for I am a Believer and therefore justified Hereupon the Accuser replies Nay it is not so as thou pretendest thou art indeed no Believer therefore the guilt of thy sins is upon thee and thou art under condemnation All this is but one Accusation prosecuted and confirmed against a Plea made against it If they were distinct Accusations tâ—en we might be freed from the one and yet be condemned by the other but it is here quite otherwise For the force of the former Accusation doth depend upon the latter neither are we freed from the former except we be freed from the latter whereas you seem to carry it so as if we were first justified from the former Accusation and then were again to be justified from the latter this seems to be the result of your Opinion 1. Because I grant Faith to be required of us that so Christ's Righteousness may become ours do I therefore make Faith it self to be our Righteousness viz. that whereby we are fully justified A part of Inherent Righteousness I grant Faith is by which we may be justified in some measure but that is not the justification here enquired of 2. You should not put me to prove That your Assertion is without Scripture it is sufficient for me to say it until you alledge Scripture for it 3. Christ's Satisfaction is solely and wholly our Righteousness whereby we are justified from all Condemnation though except we believe in him we cannot enjoy that benefit by him See 2 Cor. 5. ult and Acts 13. 39. 4. The New Covenant doth hold out unto us Christ's Righteousness to be made ours by Faith that so we may be freed from the Condemnation of the Old Covenant to which Condemnation we are left if we believe not and our Condemnation will be so much the sorer by how much the sin in neglecting so great Salvation is the greater 5. I confess indeed that there is more than Faith in the Condition of the New Covenant but not as to Justification For that which you add James saith We are justified by Works and Christ by our Words the question is not Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words but how and in what sense we are said to be so justified There is a Particular Justification and a Declarative Justification thus we are justified by our Works and Words but a full and formal Justification is only by Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us 6. To say That we are healed partly by the Medicine and partly by the Application I still think to be improper neither do you bring any thing whereby to shew the propriety of it The Application of the Medicine is indeed requisite yet it is the Medicine properly that doth heal though not except there be an Application of it Common Speech is not always Proper Speech neither can any that are acquainted with Scripture and know how to distinguish between Proper and Improper Speeches think it strange that there are improper Speeches found in Scripture What will you say of those This is my Body The Rock was Christ and a hundred such-like For Rules of Logick if you had made use of any I might have considered of them 7. May not a Similitude illustrate though there be such a difference as you speak of betwixt that from which it is fetched and that to which it is applied But why do you joyn Repentance and Obedience with Faith in point of Justification I speaking only of Faith and you as yet having said nothing for the joint interest of the other 8. In your Aphorisms you plainly assert two distinct Righteousnesses as requisite unto Justification that there you make them
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-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-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
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
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
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
Repentance must go before Justification and is required unto Justification but not so as Faith is required Repentance is required that we may be justified but not that we may be justified by it as we are by Faith though Instrumentally and Relatively as it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified For Prayer it is a Fruit of Faith and therefore called The Prayer of Faith Jam. 5. 15. Repentance saith Mr. Ball Of the Coven c. 3. p. 18. is the Condition of Faith and the Qualification of a Person capable of Salvation but Faith alone is the Cause of Justification and Salvation on our part required And immediately after he adds It is a penitent and petitioning Faith whereby we receive the promises of Mercy but we are not justified partly by Prayer partly by Repentance but by that Faith which stirreth up Godly sorrow for sin and inforceth us to pray for Pardon and Salvation And again Prayer is nothing else but the Stream or River of Faith and an issue of the desire of that which joyfully we believe Of Faith Part 1. Chap. 8. pag. 105. For that place Acts 22. 16. the Exposition which I gave of it in the Animadversions is confirmed by this That the nature of a Sacrament is to signifie and seal as the Apostle shews Rom. 4. 11. Quatenus ergò fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus inquit Calvinus ut remissionem peccatorum percipiat 〈◊〉 solo Christi sanguine Lavacrum animae vocatur Ita ablutio cujus meminit Lucas non causam designat sed ad sensum Pauli refertur qui symbolo accepto peccata suae esse expiata N. B. melius cognovit Cum testimonium haberet Paulus gratiae Dei jam illi remissa erant peccata Non igitur Baptismo demum ablutus est sed novam gratiae quam adeptus erat confirmationem accepit That Paul's sins were but incompleatly washed away by Faith until he was baptized your Similitudes which are too often your only proofs do not prove Yea a Kings Coronation of which you speak when the Kingdom is hereditary is I think but a confirmation of what was done before The purifying of the Heart spoken of 1 Pet. 1. 22. is I conceive to be understood as Jam. 4. 8. Jer. 4. 14. viz. of purifying from the filth of sin by Sanctification And for 1 Pet. 4. 18. who denies the diligence of the Righteous to be a means of their Salvation But what is that to prove Works to concur with Faith unto Justification 1. I take what you grant That at first believing a Man is justified so fully as that he is acquitted from the guilt of all Sin and from all Condemnation And surely at the last one can have no fuller Justification than this is That afterwards he is acquitted from the guilt of more sins is not to the purpose seeing he is acquitted from all at first and but from all at last though this all be more at last than at first Otherwise the Justification of one who hath fewer sins should not be so full as the Justification of him whose sins are more in number 2. That there is a further Condition of Justification afterward than at first hath been said often but was never yet proved 3. That which you call Sentential Justification viz. at the Last Judgment I hold to be only the manifestation of that Justification which was before That because Obedience is a Condition of Salvation heretofore it is also a Condition of Justification I deny as you see all along in the Animadversions and therefore I thought it enough here to touch that which you say of full Justification especially seeing your self hold Obedience to be no Condition of Justification at first You lay the weight of your 78th Thesis upon the word full which therefore was enough for me to take hold of For your Queries therefore about Sentential Justification at Judgment I have told you my mind before and you might sufficiently understand it by the Animadversions When you prove 1. that Justification at Judgment is a Justification distinct from Justification here and not only a manifestation of it 2. That Justification at Judgment hath the same Conditions with Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it viz. Glorification And 3. That consequently Obedience is a Condition of Justification at Judgment When you shall prove I say these things I shall see more than yet I do In the mean while besides what hath been said before hear what Bucan saith to this purpose An perficitur justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ In Justificatione quemadmodum judicamur reputamur à Deo justi ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae Ratione igitur decreti divini sententiae ipsius de vitâ aternâ prolatae à Deo judice item ratione justitiae quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis jam perfecta est justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ nisi quòd in alterâ magis patefacienda N. B. si◠ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda Ea tamen tota perficitur in hac vitâ in quâ potest homo dici plenè perfectéque justificatus Filii Dei sumus ergo justificati sed nondum patefactum est quid erimus 1 John 3. 2. At si executionem respicias rationem habeas vitae gloriae quae nobis adjudicatur quae nobis inhaesura est quia in nobis non perficitur in hâc vitâ imperfecta etiam Justificatio in hâc vitâ censeri potest 1. I think there is not the like right of Salvation and Justification but that although we must be saved by Works though not by the Merit of them yet we cannot be justified by Works except it be by the merit of them My reason is Because that whereby we are justified must fully satisfie the Law for it must fully acquit us from all Condemnation which otherwise by the Law will fall upon us This Works cannot do except they be fully conform to the Law and so be meritorious as far forth as the Creature can merit of the Creator But being justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed to us and so put into a state of Salvation we must yet shew our Faith by our Works which though they be imperfect and so not meritorious yet make way for the full enjoyment of Salvation And me-thinks the Scripture is so frequent and clear in distinguishing betwixt Justification and Salvation as to the full enjoyment of it that it may seem strange that you should so confound them as you do and argue as if there were the same reason of the one as of the other 2. You might easily see that by Via Regni as opposed to Causa Regnandi I meant only to exclude the Merit of Works not to deny Works to be a Means and a Condition required of us for the obtaining of compleat Salvation Salvation is a Chain
this follow upon the other Taking Christ for Lord is virtually included in taking him for Priest see Rom. 14. 9. and 2 Cor. 5. 15. They cannot be divided though they be distinguished That Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest doth also receive him as Lord either expresly if Christ be propounded as Lord or at least implicitly yet Faith only as receiving Christ as Priest doth justifie for the reason alledged before to which I see nothing that you have said of force to refel it Wicked Men cannot unfeignedly receive Christ as Priest whiles they retain a Heart standing out in rebellion against Christ as Lord. Can they indeed embrace Christ as satisfying for them and yet not yeeld up themselves in obedience unto him The Apostle it seems was of another mind The love of Christ saith he constraineth us For we thus judg That if one died for all then were all dead And that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him that died for them and rose again 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. And again I am crucified with Christ nevertheless I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me and the life which I now live I live by Faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me Gal. 2. 20. This is the nature of that Faith which doth receive Christ as a Reconciler to work through Love Gal. 5. 6. May I not retort upon you and say When you have taught wicked Men that Faith alone doth justifie at first and they are willing to believe will you perswade them that they are unjustified again because Works do not follow after For my part I know no unjustifying of those who are once justified You speak sometimes of being justified to day by Faith without Works and of being unjustified to morrow or the day after except Works come in and help to justifie But I say Faith without a promptitude to Works doth not justifie at first such as do not receive Christ as Lord and do good Works when there is opportunity were never justified at all they never had a true Justifying-Faith which is never without Works as the seasonable Fruits and Effects of it Yet Faith both at first and last doth justifie without Works as concurrent with it unto Justification What you say of a willingness to receive Christ is nothing For I speak of a true actual receiving which I say cannot be of Christ as Priest except it be either expresly or implicitly of Christ as Lord also and yet we are justified by receiving him in the one respect and not in the other None can have that Faith which justifieth but they shall have also other Graces and VVorks of Obedience in their season Yet do not other Graces therefore or VVorks justifie as well as Faith Bellarmine obâ—ecting Fides vera potest 〈…〉 separarâ— Amesius answers Aliqua fides potest talis est Pontificia sed illa fides cui nos tribuimus justificandi virtutem cum unionem faciat nostri cum Christo à Christi Spiritu vivificante Sanctificante non potest separari Yet he saith Fides non justificat ut respicit praecepta operum faciendorum sed solummodò ut respicit promissionem gratiae So Dr. Prideaux Fides sola justificat non rationâ— existentia absque spe charitâte sed muneris Lect. 5. de Justif § 7. And Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 6. p. 73. Abraham was justified by Faith alone but this Faith though alone in the Act of Justification no other Grace co-working with it was not alone in existence did not lie dead in him as a dormant and idle quality Works then or a purpose to walk with God justifie as the passive qualification of the Subject capable of Justification or as the qualification of that Faith which justifieth or as they testifie or give proof that Faith is lively but Faith alone justifieth as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ Here by the way observe how Amesius and Mr. Ball speak of Faith apprehending and embracing the Promise which manner of speech may also be observed in other eminent Divines yet you somewhere censure Mr. Cotton somewhat sharply for speaking in that manner 1. If it be as difficult for the Understanding to believe i. e. assent unto Christ's Priestly Office as is his Kingly then it seems also as hard for the VVill to consent to or accept of the one as the other If the VVill be inclined to a thing it will move the Understanding to assent unto it Quod valde volumus fac lè credimus That the Jews believed neither Christ's Kingly nor his Priestly Office was the perversness of their Will as well as the error of their Understanding What the Papists with whom you have met do say matters little we see what their great Rabbies say and maintain in their Disputations Yet it is no strange thing if even they also now and then let fall something wherein they give restimony to the Truth though in the whole current of their Discourses they oppose it Amesius sheweth That Bellarmine in that very place which you cite doth contradict himself whiles he is over-earnest to contradict Protestants Bellarminus hîc implicat seipsum contradictione ut nobis possit contradicere Whereas you cite Rivet disclaiming that which Bellarmine maketh to be the Opinion of Protestants viz. That Christ's Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification I have said enough about it before viz. That some understanding the Term one way some another our Divines express themselves variously yet all agree in the thing it self viz. That Christ's Righteousness through Faith imputed unto us is that by which we are justified See Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. where he answers this very Argument of Bellarmine though he contract his words and leave out those which you cite but however both there and in other places which I cited before he hath enough to this purpose concerning the formal Cause of Justification and how the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us may be so termed Dr. Prideaux also I see is offended at Bellarmine for saying Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur simus id nos cum rectâ ratione pugnare contendimus as if this were the Opinion of Protestants At quis unquam è nostris saith the Doctor noâ— per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justificari asseruit But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion Annon formam quam libet inhaerentem quâ— formaliter justi denominemur semper explosimus In this sense also Davenant doth reject it Quod dicit Bellarminus impossibile esse ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter nugas agit atque tribuit illam ipsam sententiam Protestantibus quam
the condemnation of the Old Law both for that sin of unbelief and also for all other sins from the guilt of which he cannot be freed because he doth not perform the Condition which the New Law to that end doth require of him And as I have before noted the Condemnation of an Unbeliever is now increased as his Sin is by neglecting Salvation offered upon condition of believing 3. You say That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige But your Reason seems invalid Quia cessat materia vel capacitas subjecti You mean no Man can perform the Condition and so no Man is capable of the Promise made upon that Condition But why may it not be said That as the Precept which is also the Condition ceaseth not though none be able to obey it so the Promise doth remain though none can enjoy the benefit of it It may seem unreasonable that the Threatning should still be in force and the Promise be quite taken away 4. You say again That the Earth of which Man's Body was made doth still retain the form of Earth which surely doth need further Explication or Confirmation or both 5. The threatning of the New Law you say hath something proper to the New Law But for any thing I see the New Law doth threaten nothing which the Old Law doth not threaten though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of sin so there will be an increase of condemnation 6. Whereas you say that the right stating and clear apprehension of this part viz. of the difference between the Law and the Gospel and how far the Law of Works is abrogated is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadversions take notice of or than any thing as to difficulty that I deal with truly my desire was and so is only to give you some hints for the further clearing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphorisms But if you think that here in this Section which is somewhat long you have sufficiently explicated those Points I am not of your mind 1. All that you here say is nothing to my Animadversion only you strive a little about the acceptation of those words the Moral Law 2. Neither do I make the Moral Law as taken for the Precept conjunct with the Threatning a true part of the New Law yet the Moral Law so taken being not dissolved or abrogated by the New Law as you grant Unbelievers while they remain such both for their unbelief and for their other sins are under condemnation as belonging unto them by the Old Law there being no Remedy provided for them by the New Law which hath no other threatning I think but that it leaves Unbelievers to the Old Law and the condemnation of it 1. I do not dislike your Thesis That Christ died not to satisfie for the violation of the Covenant of Grace as you understand it viz. for final unbelief Yet I hold That such as profess the Gospel and live in those sins which are not consistent with true and sincere Faith do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace and for such violation of that Covenant Christ died or else all such are left without Remedy I am in this fully of Mr. Blakes mind As a wife saith he by adultery so they by sin forsake the Covenant by which they stand betrothed and by consequence it must needs follow that Christ died for breach of the Covenant of Grace as well as for breach of the Covenant of Works unless we will say That all Men by name Christians and found in any of these sins are in a lost and unrecoverable condition joyning with those that have said That there is no Grace or Pardon for those that fall into sin after Baptism That he died not for their sins that live and die in final impenitency and unbelief may be easily granted and that rises to no more than that he died not for those that finally and unrecoverably break Covenant with him 2. Whereas you confess That for unbelief and impenitency though it be not final Men remain obligati ad poenam per Legem Naturae but deny it as to the proper Obligation of the New Law I conceive that the New Law providing no Remedy for them while they remain such in this respect they are as well by the New Law obligati ad poenam for the time as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are for ever You grant the Gospel doth non-liberare while Men continue in Unbelief yet you conceive That it doth not obligare ad poenam propriè viz. ad non-liberationem ad poenam majorem Now I conceive that while it doth non-liberare it may be said obligare ad non-liberationem though I should rather like to say That it doth relinquere in statu non-liberationis and so majoris poenae ob contemptum gratiae misericordiae oblatae In your Similitude The Malefactor whiles he refuses to come in and submit to the Terms upon which Pardon is offered remains in a state of Condemnation though the sentence be not executed upon him except he continue in his refusal of the offer unto the term prefixed But you profess your self willing to acknowledg That this non-liberatio may in some sort be called Poena and truly I think that Poena Nova Legis non alia est quà m non-liberatio à poenâ veteris Legis hoc tamen semper addito poenam veteris Legis ob neglectum liberationis in Lege Novâ oblatae graviorem reddi I mean Actually in the state of Damnation and you grant as much as I desire viz. That they are obliged even for that sin unto death per Legem Naturae non liberati per Legem Gratiae Why then should you deny that they are actually obliged to Damnation Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation Or betwixt obliged and actually obliged He that believeth not is condemned already John 3 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation and so remains as long as he remains in unbelief The Wrath of God abideth on him John 3. 36. That the Sentence is not yet executed but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it is another thing The Parenthesis which you say is wanting in your Aphorisms might help to make the words more clear as they stand they seem obscure which is all that I would have observed Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Philosophical Disputes yet I am also unwilling to recede from received Opinions except I see urgent cause for it Now that an Accident must have a Subject to exist in as it is generally held so I am perswaded it is true Burgersdicius whose authority I may well enough oppose to Scheiblers saith Accidens est Ens substantiae inhaerens Indeed the saith Relationes non tam inhaerent alicui subjecto quà m adhaerent but he doth not deny that they do inhaerere For he
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To conclude It is not Faith as working that doth justifie but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness and so doth justifie is a Working Faith Your self grant that VVorks are not necessary quoad praesentiam in respect of Justification as begun and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis in respect of Justification as continued is more I presume than ever will be proved 1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin because I see nothing but bare words As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius Justin Martyr and the rest who for 1000 years after Paul you say give as much to Works as you ever did or more and make Faith to justifie as a Condition and not as an Instrument what-ever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against the full scope of the whole Page or Book I wish you had cited some Books or Pages or but Scraps as you call them whereby to make good what you say I am not of such Reading much less of such Memory as to give an account of so many Authors Some of them either wholly or in part I have read but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it But for the Opinion of the Ancient VVriters in this Point I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in â—â—em than I am viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmines Allegations and cap. 29. where he produceth his own And Eckhard Compend Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who alledgeth Chrysostome Ambrose Basil Cyril Austine and Bernard as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed into us for our Justification And he alledgeth Ambrose Hierome Athanasius Clemens Alex Origen Nazianzen Chrysostome Basil Theodoret Hesychius Primasius Epiphanius Philastrius Austin Sedulius Mâ—xentius Theodulus Fortunatus Victor Mar. and Bernard as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without VVorks and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetusta antiâ—â—â— ate tesiamonia quod ad hanc rem spectat delibare Beda omitted by Eckhard is cited by B. Vsher as writing on Psal 77. thus Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabetur sed per solam justitiam fides To your other Query concerning Calvin P. Martyr c. I answer in the words of Amesius Fides specialis misericordia duplici ratione sic vocatur 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam 2. Qua misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit priore sensu justifiâ—ationem antecedit posteriore sensu sequitur justificatioâ—em Sed quia una eadem est fides quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprehendendo applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit perfectio vel consolatio ejus in hâ—c certitudine apparet quam etiam hostes gratis precipuè impugnant idcircò per istam certitudinem quae tamen quoad sensum à fide potest ad tempus separari fides justificanâ— solet à multis describâ— And again Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit atque adeò conjunctam secum habet specîalâ—m ac certam persuasionem de gratiâ ac misericordiâ Dei iâ— Christo Vnde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non malè soepè describitur ab Orthodoxis prefertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest 2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis c. 2. By Apprehending I do not mean bare Assent but Embracing or Receiving or Applying Amesius cites and approves these words of Contarenus Accipimus justificationem per fidem Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellat applicationem inquienâ— passionem Christi esse veluti Medicinam communem quam quisque sibi applicat per fidem Sacramenta Protestantes appellant apprebensionem non eâ significatione qua pertinet aâ— cognitionem intellectus sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ intirely yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction which is the Righteousness by which we are justified There is no danger in this Doctrine so long as People are taught withal that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them except they also have him as a King reigning over them Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction or of Christ as satisfying for us is that act of Faith whereby we are justified Your Similitude doth not suit because a Husband cannot be offered to a VVoman in several respects as Christ may be unto a Sinner I do not conceive Faith to justifie modo Physico or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel this Act of Faith would not avail As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ yet should they not be justified because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical Act of Faith and withal made the Condition of Justification in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness I see not but I may well say That Faith doth justifie us apprehending Christ and his Righteousness this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification it is all one to say Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and Faith doth justifie as the Condition required unto Justification Whereas therefore you prove That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in it self doth not justifie it is nothing to me who do not ascribe any thing to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in it self but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us to that end that we may be justified And thus I think do others mean when they say That Faith doth justifie as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness they do not I suppose exclude but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Justification Pemble having said We are justified by Faith i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ the benefit whereof unto our justification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise and gives us assurance of the Performance He adds a little after He that looked on Christ believing in him may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith not for the worth and by the
efficacy of that Act of his but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us upon our obedience whereunto God is pleased of his free Grace to justifie us But still notwithstanding all you say my Argument remains good Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ therefore they concur not with it in justifying The Consequence is good because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification For this is that which Believing in or on Christ doth import which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ Joh. 1. 12. That Repentance and Obedience do concur with Faith in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification you only affirm but do not prove Indeed Repentance as taken for an acknowledgment of and sorrow for sin is requisite unto Justification at first For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins except we be sensible of them and humbled for them Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified It is neither Repentance nor Obedience though Repentance in the sence before-mentioned must go before this Justifying-Faith and so before Justification and obedience must follow after Penitentia saith Ames quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita sed non ut causa Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam cujus primaria pars est fides ut Act. 11. Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis atque adeo ipsius justificationis effectum qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quotunque modo accipiatur dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans quia N. B. non habet vim applicandi nobis just 〈◊〉 Christi Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali Resipisientia fides differentia hac indigitatur Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum fides in Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum See also Mr. Ball of the Coven c. 3. p. 18 19. 1. You need not trouble your self to prove That by VVorks are meant VVorks For surely a working Faith or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of VVorks doth imply VVorks But the Question is VVhether VVorks concur with Faith in justifying or only are inseparable Attendants and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth You hold the former yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun continued and consummate VVhether of us hath more ground from Scripture let it be judged by what hath been said about it But 1. whereas you say That VVorks are still opposed to Faith without VVorks or Faith alone and not to this or that sort of Faith I have shewed before from Oecumenius not to speak of our late VVriters that there is one sort of Faith that is with VVorks or of a working Disposition and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ and another sort of Faith that is without VVorks viz. a bare Assent and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other teaching that we are justified by the former not by the latter 2. You say It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity yet your self deny not only the efficacy but even the presence of VVorks to be requisite when we are at first justified and St. James denies Faith alone so as he doth speak of it to have any force at all to justifie as being dead and unprofitable Therefore you must needs grant That it is Faith alone without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh Besides if there be a working Disposition there will be VVorks themselves when there is opportunity But all this doth only prove That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition and produceth VVorks themselves when opportunity is offered That VVorks do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification it no way proveth 3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry is accepted of God when there is no opportunity to do the thing it self And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp though VVorks themselves be requisite when there is opportunity and still I must put you in mind that your self requires no more than a disposition to work when we are first justified 4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see He that expects mercy from God must shew mercy to his Neighbour Doth it therefore follow that VVorks of Mercy justifie as well as Faith No but that Justifying Faith must and will shew it self by VVorks of Mercy 5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent as in the Devils cannot justifie or save Who opposeth this Or whom doth it oppose So that the same Faith is justifying and saving I think all will yeeld yet is there more required unto Salvation as taken for the accomplishment of it than unto Justification 6. VVho makes James v. 18. to speak such non-sence as you tell of Do they who say his meaning is That Faith is pretended in vain if it do not shew it self by VVorks as occasion doth require And what more can any gather from v. 20 22 24 26 You might save your labour of proving That by VVorks are meant VVorks you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified This is that which they mean who say that James doth speak of a working Faith i.e. a Faith ready to work and so actually working when God doth require it not as if instead of Works it were good sense always to put a working Faith Such sophistry doth not become us 7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works as fruits of Justifying Faith is ever granted that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification is never proved Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification Against this first you say James doth make VVorks or Working necessary to justifie I say he doth not but only drives at this That none must think to be justified by Faith except it be a working Faith as Abraham's and Rahab's was You say The Soul doth not truly signifie the Body to be alive But the word Jam. 2. 26. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Breath which is but an effect of Life and not a cause of it Thus saith Pemble the comparison is exact As the Body without Breath is dead so is Faith without Works So Downam Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul but