peccata missa facere which the Scripture he saith following the Metaphor further calls peccata in mare proâ—icere Mich. 7. 19. It is true Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment Remittere or missa facere peccata as Grotius saith is as much as punire nolle Yet this hinders not but that sin or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned yea I think it doth confirm it For if it be proper to say That God will not punish sin and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin then it is proper to say That God doth remit or pardon sin In a word therefore my words about which you make so much adoe are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them They do not import that our Actions even the best of them if strictly examined are not sinful or that God doth not see any sin in them but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them and accept them in Christ who is the High-Priâ—st that doth bear and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things Exod. 28. 38. as if they had no sin in them Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions and yet grant the justifying of our Persons Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions Surely if the Action be sinful the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too And though you pass over the next because you reverse your former Assertion yet in that which I there said you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me 1. You grant what I say 2. I have said before That though in mine Opinion sin may properly be said to be remitted yet this is in reference unto punishment 3. You had no reason to imagine that I should think that my Actions or the Actions of the best upon Earth can be justified against all Accusations as if they were absolutely good and perfect when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions and how it is through Christ covered and not imputed unto us Yea and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture viz. Eccles 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8 9. Job 9. 4. Exod. 28. 38. to prove that neither our Persons nor our Actions are so righteous but that we may be accused of and condemned for sin in them and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be It is strange how you should pass by all this it being directly before your eyes and should raise a suspicion as if I should mean quite contrary 1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ afterward they may be justified by our Works when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it viz. That first it is meant only of good Works and then that God doth not justifie those good Works for their own sake as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them Illud semper retimeatur inquit Davenantius hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione persone in Christo Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant Deus neque ipsos neque eorum opera grata haberet nisi hos illa in Christo magis quà m in seipsis amplexaretur What you say of Chamîer and others as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ might well have been spared as being nothing at all against me who am far from making our Works meritorious when I make even the best of them imperfect and to need pardon 2. It is evident by this very Section to which you now reply that I spake only of good Actions For how absurd and sensless were it to say that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous as I there say that our Works are not The two former Sections also clearly shew of what Works I spake so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere 1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing though it be that and somewhat more 2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of I speak for my self 3. I take all sin to be against the Law as it is distinguished from the Gospel though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel Of that Law I suppose St. John spake saying Sin is a transgression of the Law 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul By the Law is the knowledg of sin Rom. 3. 20. And again I had not known sin but by the Law for I had not know lust or as the Margent hath it concupiscence viz. to be sin except the Law had said Thou shalt not covet Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments 4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief and neglect of the Sacraments c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue The first precept requires us to have the Lord and him only for our God and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath Part. 2. Chap. 4. § 21 22 23. What you add after makes all for me in this particular only some things seem meet to be observed 1. This I confess to me is strange Philosophy That the Earth of which Man's Body was made ceased not to be Earth still when it was made Man As well may you say That Adam's rib of which Eve was formed ceased not to be a Rib still and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixt Bodies 2. The Precept and Threatning you say are parts of the New Law though they be common with the Old Here you seem to grant That nothing is commanded or threatned in the New Law which is not commanded or threatned in the Old Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness and a Two-fold Justification one in respect of the Old Law another in respect of the New The Precept believe belongs to the Old Law but as it is not only a Precept but also a Condition upon performance of which Salvation is promised Believe and thou shalt be saved so it belongs to the New Law So this Threatning If thou dost not believe thou shalt perish belongs to the Old Law as threatning death for every sin and consequently for unbelief which is a sin and it belongs to the New Law as leaving an Unbeliever under
though I use not to speak so yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction It is true Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae non simpliciter absolutè sed quoad istam causam but they that use that distinction mean I think only this that Works shew Faith to be sound and good yet it is Faith and not Works by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified Do not I pray here lay hold on the word absolutely it is referred to the word justified not to the word Faith I do not say That Faith absolutely considered doth justifie no it doth justifie as it is considered relatively Faith i.e. Christ apprehended by Faith is that whereby we are absolutely justified Though Works may justifie against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the Condition so I would say not Conditions in respect of the Justification of which we speak of the New Covenant yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justifie but only against that Accusation shewing that a Man did perform the Condition viz. believe and so is simply and absolutely justified not by Works which do but only declare him to be so but by Faith as the Condition or Instrument for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do of Justification Faith doth not justifie as Working i.e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works your self deny this in respect of our Justification at first yet Faith doth not justifie except it be of a Working-Nature i.e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context 1. All Works if good are Works of the Law viz. the Moral Law which as I said in the Animadversions is the eternal Rule of Righteousness And of that Law the Apostle speaks when he excludes Works from Justification as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10. Evangelii inquit Maccovius nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter Adversarii cum urgentur ex operibus legis non justificari hominem admittunt hoc dicunt ita quidem esse sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis Evangelii Sed si obtineat hac distinctio tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata quae committuntur in Doctrinam Evangelii Non ergo erit adaequarâ—a definitio peccati quam dat Spiritus Sanctus 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege Certè interim Evangelii Doctrinae praecipitur Lege Nam Deus postulat ut Evangelio credamus c. So Pemble Nor yet saith he hath this Distinction viz. Works of the Law and Works of the Gospel any ground in Scripture or in Reason For both tell us That the Works commanded in the Law and Works commanded in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them What Work can be named that is enjoyned us in the New Testament which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart and with all thy Soul c. What is there against the Gospel which is not a transgression of the Law You will say It doth not command Faith in Christ I answer Yea it doth For that which commands us in general to believe what-ever God shall propose unto us commands us also to believe in Christ as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him The Gospel discovers to us the Object the Law commands us the obedience of believing it The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant as it requireth that they which have believed be careful to maintain good works Tit. 3. 8 14. and to walk circumspectly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuratè i. e. quam proximè ad Legis Dei praecepta as Beza doth well expound it Ephes 5. 15. But this is far and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification I see no strength in them and therefore I answer Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law For that Accusation being only made void by Faith where there is final Unbelief there that Accusation hath its full force Besides though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justifie than by manifesting a Man's Faith by which Faith indeed and not by Works he is justified Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of is against a true Charge and the same with Remission of sins as well as that which Paul doth speak of For can they that have but a dead Faith be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith such as James doth require can work that Effect Justification against a false Accusation is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of Nemo enim iniquus adco as Bradshaw speaketh aut injustus dari potest qui falsò accusari consequenter etiam eatenus merito justificari non possit Indeed Justification aginst the Accusation of final Unbelief is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith and not by Works which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith and so of Justification Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification are Competitors with Christ or Copartners with him so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith and partly by Works Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith which Faith both when Justification is first begun and when it is continued must be a Working-Faith i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require If our Divines affirm That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works means in point of merit as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose surely it is because they know no other Justification by Works but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious Hear one whom I and so I presume you also take for a good Divine viz. Mr. Blake This Justification saith he wrought freely by Grace through Faith Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent
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
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
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
Theologorum Reformatorum I have given you enough to this purpose before Now to your Reasons why this is to set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere I answer Ad 1. Not Apprehendere Credere simpliciter but Apprehendere Credere in i.e. Apprehendere Christum Credere in Christum are all one And when it is said That this doth justifie the meaning is Christus fide apprehensus justificat so that this doth not set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Credere as some do set it up who make it as our Act simply considered to be that Righteousness by which we are justified Ad 2. Their meaning is not obscure as you pretend that you may the better oppose it The Object of Faith Christ's Righteousness apprehended by Faith doth justifie and so Faith is said to justifie not as considered in it self but in respect of its Object which it apprehendeth because it apprehendeth that viz. Christ's Righteousness which doth justifie Ad 3. The formal reason why Faith doth justifie is its Apprehension yet still that is in respect of the thing apprehended Causae applicanti illud tribuitur quod immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam Id fidei ipsi tribuitur quod reapse Christo debetur as Davenant before cited doth express it whose words you said were not against you though none can be more in this Matter For the second Point you are quite mistaken For I do not put a difference betwixt Justification and Right to Salvation but betwixt Justification and Salvation it self i.e. the full enjoyment of it viz. Glorification I have frequently expressed my self to this effect That by Faith alone we are justified and so have Right to Salvation yet by VVorks and Obedience also we must come fully to enjoy Salvation In hoc Foedere scil Evangelico saith Davenant De Justit Actual cap. 30. pag. mihi 396. ad obtinendam reconciliationem justificationem atque aeternam vitam non alia requiritur Conditiò quam verae vivae fidei Presently after he explains himself thus Justificatio igitur jus N. B. ad aeternam vitam ex Conditione solius Fidei suspenditur By the way you may observe how he calls Faith the Condition and the only Condition of our Justification and yet he makes it not to be Causa sine quâ non but Causa Instrumentalis Causa applicans as appears by his words before cited Your following Arguments are not against me you do but fight as they say with your own shadow Yea you having objected against your self Rom. 5. 10. You answer directly as I use to do viz. That Paul doth not distinguish betwixt Reconciliation and a Right to Salvation but betwixt Reconciliation and actual and Compleat Salvation You add That Paul makes them both Fruits of Free Grace And what Protestant say I doth not so A necessity of good Works as the way of attaining unto Salvation is asserted yet it is denied that good VVorks are meritorious of Salvation That in Rom. 8. 6. whence you infer That only Faith is not the Condition proves not that Faith alone is not the Condition of Justification and Right to Salvation which is all that I contend for VVhat you mean by those words Life as well as Righteousness I do not know Neither do I see what those Verses 13 14 17. viz. of Rom. 8. are for your purpose VVhereas by the way you say Faith justifies not quà Instrumentum vel Apprehensio proximè sed quà Conditio praestita because Justification is given as a Reward and Rewards are given on Moral Considerations and not merely Physical I have told you before That I also include a Moral Consideration and do not make Faith to justifie merely as it is of such an apprehensive Nature but as being of such a Nature God therefore in that respect hath been pleased to make choice of it for that end that by it apprehending Christ and his Righteousness i.e. properly by Christ and his Righteousness apprehended by it we should be justified FINIS Page 2. 1. 2. 4. Vindic Lib. 1. Part. 2. Sect. 20. Ibid. Ibid. 3. Part 1. Quaest 19. Art 11. Ibid. Part 1. Quest 19. Art 12. Thes Theolog Disput 26. Animad p. 162. Vindic. Lib. 1. Part. 1. §. 3. §. 4. Advers Tilen pag. 193. De Provident Disp 5. Thes Theolog part 1 Disp 26. Part 2. Disp 14. Vindic. Lib. 2. Digr 3. §. 3. §. 2. §. 1. 3. 9. Ibid. 4. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 15. Exe◠cit 2. Ibid. Of the Coven chap. 5. Ibid. 5. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Of the Coven Chap. 5. p. 23. Ibid. Ibid. De Resur cap. 15. Ibid. c. 38. Ibid. c. 8. Ibid. Maccov de statu primi ho. Disp 5. Ibid. 7. 24. Ibid. Vide Gataker cont Gomarum p. 14 15. Ibid. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 10 Ibid. 58. Ibid. 11. 9. 59. Of the Coven c. 12. p. 78. Vide Gatakerum nosturm adversus Lucium Respons ad vindic Part. 2. Sect. 7. pag. 54. c. Et contra Gomarum p. 4. 22. Ibid. 60. Ibid. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 10. 65. Calv. in John 5. 23. Beza in eundem loc 14. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 11. 68. 15. Ibid. 12. 70. Ibid. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Rom. 9. 13. Part 1. Quest 23. Art 3. ad 1. Ibid. Ib. Ib. 16. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ibid. 13. 71. Ibid. 17. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. 72. Ibid. 14. 79. De Satisfact p. 57. Ibid. 18. 15. 83. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. 16. 85. Ibid. 17. 86. 19. Ib. 89. Ibid. 18. Ib. Ibid. Ib. Ib. Ibid. Ib. 91. Ibid. 19. 95. * Viz. By actual relation unto him De Reconcil Part 2. Lib. 2. Cap. 22. Of Persever ch 12. 23. Ibid. 103. Ad. 1. Ibid. Ad. 2. 24. Ad. 3. * Solifidians are no Believers as believing is a receiving of Christ and that is the believing by which we are justified Ibid. Ad. 4. Ibid. Ad. 5. Ibid. Ad. 6. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 27 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. De Justis c. 24. §. 21. Ibid. §. 23. Ibid. §. 25. Ibid. §. 26. 1 Joh. 3. 4. De Fide Justif Disp 12. p. 36. Apud Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. Ibid. 20. 108. Ibid. Ib. 110. 21. 111. De Fide Justif §. 15 16. Ibid. Ibid. 32. De Justif Habit. cap. 22. Ibid. Ibid. cap. 26. Duraeus Advers Whitak De Justif cap. 25. De Just Habit. cap. 26. Bell. Ener Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. p. 126. 32. Contra Camp ad Rat. 8. p. 178. De Justif Habit. cap. 26. Arg. 4. Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. c. 1. Arg. 11. De Recon par 2. l. 1. c. 19. Ibid. cap. 23. Ibid. lib. 2. c. 16. c. 19. Of the Covenant ch 16. p. 10 Ibid. Alio alio amicior similior Alsted Metaph. lib. 2. c. 5. Log. l. 1. c. 7 Of the Coven c. 16. p. III 33. Loc. cit Ibid. 34. Of the Coven p. 219. De Just Hab. c. 23. al Arg. 7. Ibid. ad
20. There is Ira Paterna Castigans as well as Ira Hostilis Exterminans Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are which you say I almost repeat I do not know I expressed mine own sence in mine own words and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger and say That there is no Hatred though there be Anger My chief design in those Animadversions was That in your Second Edition which you promised you might have occasion if not to confirm your Assertions yet to clear your Expressions I know you oppose their sence that so distinguish but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit if you say that you do not I am satisfied Your words were of Affliction as Affliction therefore of Affliction in general You say Aphor. p. 70. The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment c. But you confess now that you should have said Chastisement and so I have my desire in this Particular viz. your better expression God is not the Father of the Unregenerate though Elect in respect of Actual Adoption But you know that Ephes 1. 5. Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons c. God having loved such with an everlasting Love viz. Benevolentiae though not Complacentiae no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion viz. in order to their Conversion But you know I speak of Reprobates and that it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated Whether that import the Election of Jacob and the Reprobation of Esau I now dispute not but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect and his hatred of the Reprobate Deus omnes homines diligit inquit Aquinas etiam omnes Creaturas in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum non tamen quadcunque bonum vult omnibus In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna dicitur eos odio habere reprobare Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se suâ naturâ and so I think do they against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms but though Suffering as Suffering be evil yet as Sanctified it is not evil It is good for me that I was afflicted Psal 119. 71. Afflictions were then indeed to be loved if they were good of their own Nature but being only good as sanctified we are not simply to desire them but a sanctified use of them and in that respect to rejoice in them Jam. 1 2 3. Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus That which worketh for our good c. Where do I argue so Rather thus That which is sanctified to us doth work for our good and so though it be evil in it self yet it is good to us But Affliction is sanctified c. I am apt to oversee but neither I nor they I think whom you first opposed deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction if that were all you aimed at in your Question What I mean by Comformity unto Christ you might set by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing which is acceptable with God 1 Pet. 2. 19. Yet I grant sin is the Root of all suffering so it was of Christ's suffering though not his sin but ours Only I thought it meet to put you in mind that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin which the places alledged do shew and so other places The Object of Love is not only present Good There is a Love of Desire as well as of Delight The Spouse wanting Christ was sick of Love Cant. 5. 8. I did not say That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil but that it is not evil as sanctified Suffering though sanctified is suffering still and so evil but as sanctified it is good and not evil Those Arguments prove nothing against me nor I am perswaded against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms It is granted That Death in it self is Evil an Enemy a Punishment to be feared avoided c. Yet as it is sanctified it is good a Friend a Mercy to be desired embraced c. 2 Cor. 5. 6 7 8. Phil. 1. 21 23. It is evil 1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good 2. To them also to whom it is so managed but not as it is so managed Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi saith Grotius Well but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words as what they that use them do mean by them That which you speak of our discharge before believing might have been omitted the question being about Believers and so believing presupposed Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law this I think is a sufficient reason Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse of the Law c. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto Candidus imperti The Law so concurs to the constitution of Guilt as were there no Law there were no Transgression In the other two Particulars which follow we do accord also 1. Neither did I mean so as if there were no explicit threatning to Unbelievers but only this That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing it implies that death is only threatned in case of unbelief And tho there be an express threatning to Unbelievers viz. Mark 18. 16. yet not only to Unbelievers The threatning of death only to Unbelievers is I think only implyed in the promise of Liâ—e made to Believers 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess 1. 7 8. than what you express 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith the Fruit whereof is Obedience it will condemn the disobedient i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law while they remain in that estate though it hold out Mercy upon condition that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar but his reasons for that Position I do not know If no Law no sin for sin is a transgression of the Law 1 John 3. 4. Your saying Aphor. p. 89. Whosoever will believe to the end shall be justified may seem to imply That though a Man â—elieve yet he remains unjustified as well as unglorified until he go on and hold out unto the end otherwise I suppose all will yeeld That a Man must believe unto the end that he may be justified unto the end 1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply
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
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
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
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
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
illam quae in Sententiae pronuntiatione reputatione consistit Yet he hath nothing at all that I see of Justification at the Great Judgment much less that it is the actual most proper and compleat Justification He saith moreover Sententia haec fuit 1. in mente Dei quasi concepta per modum decreti justificandi 2. Fuit in Christo capite nostro à mortuis jam resurgente pronuntiata 3. Virtualiter pronuntiatur ex primâ illa relatione quae ex fide ingeneratâ exurgit 4. Expressè pronunciatur per Spiritum Dei testantem Spiritibus nostris reconciliationem nostram cum Deo In hoc testimonio Spiritâ—s non tam propriè ipsa justificatio consistit quà m actualis anteâ concessae perceptio per actum fidei quasi reflexum But as for the pronouncing of this Sentence at the Last Judgment he doth not so much as make any mention of it Neither doth Calvin that I find in his Institutions though he treat at large of Justification and that in sensu forensi speak any thing of Justification at the Last Judgment nor indeed any that I meet with except it be on the by as Bucanus and Maccovius who agree with me as I have shewed before 2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after That so Faith may appear true and genuine such as doth indeed receive Christ and so justifie Is not this a sufficient reason why they are inquired after But in that which follows about via ad Regnum c. you are quite extra viam You forget that we are now about Justification or at least that I do not make the Condition of Justification and of Salvation every way the same as you sometimes do This may suffice for your two first Objections To the Third and Fourth I answer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant Particula Enim non semper rei causam denotat sed illationis consequentiam sive ab effecto sive à causà sive à signo seu undecunque petitam Sic quando Christus dicit electis Venite benedicti c. Esurivienim c. particula illa non cum causa salutis sed cum signo causae connectitur Nam illa bona opera quae ibi recensentur sunt signa verae fidei adoptionis insitionis in Christum praedestinationis ac favoris divini quae sunt verae causae salutis You are therefore too free and forward in saying That the Uses pretended for this enquiring after mâ—re Signs are frivolous What though the business at Judgment be to enquire of the Cause and to sentence accordingly May not the Cause take it in the Law-sense be made to appear by Signs even as the Cause in the Logical-sense doth appear by the Effect and the Tree by the Fruit That Obedience is ipsa Causa de quâ quaeritur the terms Therefore and Because do not prove no more than the term For And here I may with better reason say than you did Appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum But here I must mind you of one thing which it seems you do not observe viz. That those terms which you build upon Because and Therefore are neither in the Original nor any Translation that I know except the Vulgar Latin which hath Quia Bellarmine urging these Particles Amesius answers Mat. 25. 21 23. Nulla particula reperitur nisi in Versione non probanda Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3. 1. You cite abundance of Texts but to what purpose You would have me try whether they speak only of Signs or or Conditions Conditions of what do you mean Of Justification That you are to prove but how it can be proved by any of those Texts I cannot see They speak of the necessity of Obedience unto Salvation of God's rendring unto Men according to their Deeds of the reward of good Works c. But doth it therefore follow that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Justification I am loth to be so plain with you as sometimes you are with me otherwise I could say I have seldom seen so many places of Scripture alledged to so little purpose Some of those places you seem to lay more weight upon as John 16. 27. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. and 1 John 3. 22 23. For here you do not only note the places but you also cite the words as if they were more especially to be observed Now for that Joh. 16. 27. The Father hath loved you because you have loved me What do you infer from thence That Works justifie as part of the Condition of Justification If this be a good Consequence I may say Reddat mihi minam qui me docuâ—t Dialecticam 1. Works and Love differ as well as Works though Works flow both from Love and Faith Calvin makes those words because you have loved me to denote an unfeigned Faith which proceedeth from a sincere Affection here called Love And I grant that such a Love viz. of Desire doth go before Justifying Faith 3. God doth love those that love him and that love Christ amore amicitiae yet amore benevolentiae he loves us before we love him 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Secundum hanc rationem inquit Calvinus hîcâ— dicimur amari à Deo dum Christum diligimus quia pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis c. That in 2 Cor. 5. 10. according to c. avails your Cause nothing For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgment so as that we shall receive according to them and yet be no part of the Condition of Justification but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified So for that in Joh. 3. 22. because we keep his Commandments c. I say with Calvin Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris or andi fiduciam sed in hoc tantùm insistit non posteà fide disiungi pietatem sincerum Dei cultum Nec absurdum videri debet quod particulam Causalem N. B. usurpet utcunque de causâ non disputetur Nam accidens inseparabile interdum Causae loco poni solet Quemadmodum siquis dicat Quia Sol Meridie supra nos lucet plus tunc esse caloris Neque enim sequitur ex luce oriri calorem 1. You shall confound Justification and Salvation betwixt which you know I make a great difference 2. I see not that any of the Texts alledged do prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Justification or to Right to Salvation Obedience is an Argument à posteriore of our Right unto Salvation and à priore a means of our enjoyment of it More than this by any Text of Scripture I presume will not be proved Your First and Second have nothing but mere Words Ad 3. I answer No more is the word Justification in any of the Texts which you cited Ad 4. What trick do you mean Or what prejudice Do you so wonder
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
23d is this Duae sunt tantum viae ad salutem nulla est tertia c. Vna harum est per opera Legis altera est per fidem in Christum qui pro nobis Legem implevit Sed illa quae est per opera Legis postulat à nobis integerrimam impletionem quam quia nemo potest praestare omnes damnantur à Lege Ea verà quae per fidem est gratis propter opeera Christi donat justitiam vitam credentibus Qui ergò vult per opera salvari propria is alteram viam tollit è contrà qui vult per fidem salvari gratis is non potest per opera sua justificari Gal. 5. perhaps it should be Gal. 3. Rom. 4. 10. Ephes 2. Here he seems indeed to confound Justification and Salvation as if there were the same reason of both and Works were no more required unto Salvation than unto Justification But surely by Salvation he meant a Right unto Salvation which doth necessarily go along with Justification and whatsoever it be that doth justifie the same also doth give a right unto Salvation For otherwise he makes Works and new Obedience necessary to the full enjoyment of Salvation For he treats at large de novâ obedientiâ seu bonis operibus justificatorum and he goes through the several Commandments and brings in a Catalogue of Good Works which are required in every Commandment Though he sometimes only expresseth these Reasons why new Obedience and good Works must be performed ut glorificetur Deus inserviatur proximo sint testimonia verae fidei yet even these reasons do imply that new Obedience and good Works are necessary unto Salvation viz. in that sense as I have explained For can any think to be saved except they have a care to glorifie God to serve their Neighbour and to give testimony of their Faith But sometimes he speaks more expresly to this purpose saying Iis qui fidae gratis acceperunt remissionem peccatorum Apostoli etiam de novitate vitae concionantur poenas comminantur rurses sese peccatis sine poenitentiâ polluentibus And among other places he alledgeth that Phil. 2. Cum timore tremore vestram ipsorum salutem operamini And among other reasons Why all must repent and walk in newness of Life he brings in this as the sixth Subitus extremi judicii adventus And cites that 1 Joh. 2. Manete in eo ut cum apparuerit fiduciam habeamus non pudefiamus in adventu ejus And that 1 Thess 5. Ipsi planè scitis quòd dies ille Domini ut fur in nocte ita venturus sit Cum enim dixerint Pax tuta omnia tunc repentinus eis ingruet interitus sicut dolor partus mulieri praegnanti c. Proinde ne dormiamus c. And for the next reason he brings in this Poenae aterâ—â— impoenitentium citing Rom. 2. Juxta duritiam tuam cor poeniterenescium colligis tibi ipsi iram in die irae quo patefiet justum judicium Dei c. Ventura est indignatio ira afflictio anxietas adversus omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum c. This I think is sufficient to shew that Illyricus at least when he helped to write the Centuries was as much for Obedience and good Works as either Bucer or Melancthon for any thing that I see you cite out of them and that he made them so Fruits of Faith whereby we are justified and have right to Salvation that withal he made them Means or Conditions of Glorification and more than this the words of Bucer and Melancthon do not import Whereas you say that Davenant's words which I cited have nothing that you dislike save only that Grace is said to be infused in ipsa actu justificandi which yet you shew how it is not to be disliked you consider not for what end I cited those words viz. To shew that all Protestants generally acknowledg and profess so he Omnes enim agnoscimus clarè profitemur that Inherent Righteousness doth go along with Imputed Righteousness though it be this and not that by which we are justified and consequently That Works are necessary as Fruits of Faith and Means of Salvation though yet Works have no Copartnership with Faith in justifying Neither Bucer nor Melancthon nor any of our famous Divines that I know did teach other Doctrine And because you seem to carry it so as if Melancthon and Bucer had been of your Opinion though what I have said already may suffice to shew the contrary yet I will add a little more Melancthon saith Planè clarè dico Obedientia nostra hoc est justitia bonae conscientiae seu operum quae Deus nobis percepit necessariò sequi reconciliationem debet But here he saith no more for Works than generally Protestants do he is far from making them concurrent with Faith unto Justification Again Sed nos inquit sciamus suum locum esse justitiae operum longè verò aliâ consolatione opus esse in quaereâ—â—â— reconciliatione And again Cum â—citur fide just â—fiâ—amur non aliud dicetur quà m quod propter Filium Dei accipimus remissionem peccatorum reputamur justi Et quia oportet apprehendi hoc beneficium dicitur fide i. e. fiducia misericordiae promissae propter Christum Intellâ—gatur ergo propositio correlativè Fide sumus justi i. e. per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti And he alledgeth Basil saying Sine ullâ sophisticâ detrahit justificationem bonis operibus nec loquitur de ceremonialibus sed de omnibus virtutibus nec tentùm loquitur de operibus ante renovationem sed de virtutibus in renovatis ac jubet sentire quòd solâ fiduciâ misericordiae propter Christum promissae justi sumus Haec est inquit Basiliûs perfecta integra gloriatio in Deo quando ne quidem propter justitiam suam aliquis offertur sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram justitiam fide autem solâ in Christum justificari c. Bucer also commends Melancthon for saying Sola fide justificamur solius misericordiae fiduciâ justi pronuntiamur And presently he adds Nemini siquidem pio dubium esse potest quin per solam Dei misericordiam propiérque unius Christi meritum ac nulla omninò nostra quamlibet sancta opera germanissimos Spiritus fructus nos justificemur hoc est à Deo justi pronuntiemur 1. I am sorry to see you so bent to maintain what you have once done Is it fair to take hold on a few words of an Author and to pass by that which immediately followeth and shew that he meant quite contrary to what is pretended Is not this to make your self guilty of that which you accuse others of viz. to take up some scraps against the meaning of the whole Book and even the very Page
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
you seem to speak so clearly of it in your Aphorisms 2. How pertinent those Testimonies which you speak of are I cannot tell but truly as you cited Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. it is no hard matter to cite many 3. What you alledg out of Davenant I might evade by saying as you did That it is not against me but I will not put you off so I answer therefore Ad 1. Bona opera sunt necessaria omnibus fidelibus justificatis qui habent usum rationis per aetatem operari possunt Ita sanè res habet quis negat Sed num ideò bonis operibus aeqâ—è ac fide justificamur Adverte quaeso ipsa authoris tui verba Bona opera sunt necessaria justificatis non justificandis Nam ut scitè Augustinus Bona opera sequuntur justificatum non praceduâ—t justificandum Quid quod tuipse fateris nos fide absque operibus in initio justificari Ita inquies sed posteà ut justificati simus opera etiam à nobis requiruntur At Davenantius istud non dicit non iis certè verbis quae citasti Jubes autem legere sequentia lego igitur Facile est hujusmodi opera multa praesertim interna commemorare sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta nunquam obtinebitur Sedne hîc quidem dicit opera ista pariter ac fidem justificari Ea enim quae ad justificationem requiruntur cum iâ—s quae justificant confundi non debent ut benè monet Amesius Quin ipse Davenantius latum discrimen facit inter Fidem Opera cum Fidem ideò justificare dicat quod justitiam Christi apprehendat ac nobis applicet Id enim Fidei peculiare est nec Operibus ullo modo tribui potest Ex Davenantii igitur sententia non partim fide partin operibus sed fide solâ justificamur Ad 2. That Conclusion is the same in effect with the former Some internal Works must go before Justification yet they do not therefore justifie as well as Faith Davenantius eo ipso loco negat opera necessaria esse ad justificationem ut causas sed tantùm ut ab obtinendam Equestrem dignitatem necessarium est adire aulam regiam atque coram rege in genua se dimittere Fidem autem loco alio atque alibi citato dicit esse causam applicantem justitiam Christi atque ideò ei tribui quod proximè immediatâ— pertinet ad rem applicatam Fidem nempe dici justificare cum propriè justitia Christi fide apprehensa justificet id quod ego mordicusteneo Ad 3. De retinendo scilicet conservando Justificationis statu anteà satis responsum est Id nunc dico Davenantium nec in principio Justificationis nec in progressu ejus vim virtutémque justificandi operibus juxta ac Fidei tribuere etiamsi dicat bona opera ad Justificationis Statum retinendum conservandum esse necessaria id quod ego libenter agnosco Cum enim in ipso Justificationis exordio Fidem operibus gravidam esse oporteat procedente demum Justificatione Fidem opera parere necesse est Ad 4. Dico te extra oleas vagari cum ego de Conditione Justificationis loquar atqui istiusmodi quidem Conditione quâ justificari dicimur tu autem opponis mihi authorem deoperibus justificatorum i.e. Eorum qui jam justificati sunt fide quidem non operibus ex authoris istius sententiâ ad salutem necessariis disserentem The Pages to which you further refer me I cannot consult my Edition differing from yours as you might perceive by some places which I cited But your Inference is of no force as having no ground for it viz. That if I will be of Davenant 's mind I must be of yours I do not see that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do who hold that they justifie and urge the words of St. James for it whereas Davenant as I have shewed makes Faith to justifie as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness which surely Works cannot do He saith also Opera sequuntur Justificationem praecedunt Glorificationem being not acquainted it seems with your distinction of Justification as Inchoated and as Consummate at Judgment whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of Justification as of Glorification What Davenant doth mean when he calleth Faith an Instrument he doth sufficiently shew making Faith to have a Causality in Justifying by apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified But do our greatest Divines give as much to Works as you do This you will undertake you say to manifest Why then make it appear that they hold Works to justifie as well as Faith or to have a co-interest with Faith in the Effect of Justifying Except you perform this which I presume you never will you cannot make good your Undertaking So do our greatest Divines give more to Faith than you As you urge the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. James for being justified by Works so you also insist upon the very Letter of St. Paul and will have Faith it self to be properly our Righteousness by which we are justified This our greatest Divines do not no more than the other Yet you stick not to brand them as making Man his own Justifier and Pardoner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Truly this is overgross What professed Adversary could reproach our greatest Divines more than thus Whither will not a Man's partiality carry him if he be let alone May you not as well say That Christ made some their own Saviours because he said That their Faith had saved them I had thought that all the Glory did belong to the principal Agent rather than to the Instrument And to what purpose do you say Who can forgive sins but God only Do they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification deny this any more than you who make both Faith and VVorks Conditions of it Yea some will have that Monstrum horrendum and first-born of Abominations as they phrase it to be laid at your own door For my part I shall say no more than this That you seem as guilty this way your self as they whom you censure though neither you nor they I think are indeed guilty in this kind But why may not Man's Act be an Instrument of God's Act Or to speak more properly Man acting be an Instrument of God acting We are workers together with God 2 Cor. 6. 1. Surely not in a way of Co-ordination but in a way of Subordination and so Man may be God's Instrument I am not therefore of your mind but think that the Gospel rather is properly a Means and Ministers Instruments though to be nice and curious about words so that the Matter be found and good I do not love Ibid. 88. 1. That Faith doth justifie as it apprehendeth Christ appello totum Mundum