A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 3 (5 of 5)

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness · Book 3 (5 of 5)

p. 1484. The Text doth not ascribe Jus ad rem to Obedience, but only Declarativè: as a Fruit of Faith it maketh it appear, that there is such a Right which Faith hath procured.

5. I do indeed believe, That a Man may have, and hath Jus ad Gloriam without Obedience, even as he is justified without Obedience. For certainly as soon as a Man is justified, he hath Jus ad Gloriam. For what doth hinder but sin, the guilt of which by Justification is done away? Yet still I say, Faith which doth justifie, and so gives right to Glory, will shew it self by Obedience. Those words [If he live to Age] are needless: for we speak continually of the Justification of such as are of Age. But how can you seriously ask me this Question, when your self put it out of all question, holding that a Man (that is of Age, I presume) is at first justified, and consequently (as I think you will not deny) hath Jus ad Gloriam, by Faith without Obedience?

6. It is no debasing of Faith to say, That after it, as a Fruit of it, Obedience is required to give Jus in re, i. e. to bring into the actual possession of Glory. How can you pretend this to be a debasing of Faith, who debase it much more in making it unsufficient to give Jus ad rem, except there be Obedience concurrent with it? Though yet herein you do not keep fair correspondence with your self, without a distinction of Jus Inchoatum, and Jus Continuatum; which distinction how it will hold good, I do not see.

If any shall think that you have said enough to prove, That we are justified by a Personal Righteousness, I shall 78think that such are soon satisfied.

1. When we speak of Justification, we speak of it as Ibid.taking off all Accusation, and as opposed to all Condemnation. And what Righteousness is sufficient for this, but that which is perfect?

2. That Lud. de Dieu hath not the same Doctrine on Rom. 8. 4. as you deliver, I have sufficiently shewed before: And if he had, I take the Authority of Calvin and Dav…nant (whom I ci…ed, and to whom many others might be added) to be of more force against it, than de p. 149Dieu's could be for it. That Holiness and Obedience is necessary unto Salvation, so that no Salvation is to be expected without it, it were pitty (as I said in the Animadversions) any should deny: but to argue from Salvation to Justification, Dr. Fulk told the Rhemists, is On Jam. 2. 24.Jas 2:24Pelting Sophistry: Yet you seem to wonder that I make a great difference between the Condition of Justification, and the Condition of Salvation. As for Right to Salvation that's another thing: as Faith alone doth justifie, so it alone gives Right to Salvation: Yet because this Faith is of a working Nature, therefore before the actual Enjoyment of Salvation, Faith, as occasion doth require, will shew it self by Obedience; and that is all which the Apostle teacheth Rom. 8. 13.

Verum est quidem (saith Calvin) nos solâ Dei misericordiâ Ad Loc.justificari in Christo: sed aequè & istud verum ac certum, omnes qui justificantur vocari à Domino, ut dignè suâ vocatione vivant.

It is true, He that proved a Man lived not after the flesh, but mortified it, doth justifie him from that Accusation, That he is worthy of Death: but that is only, because a Man's not living after the flesh, but mortifying it, proves the truth of his Faith, whereby he hath interest in Christ, and so is freed from all Condemnation, as the Apostle clearly sheweth Rom. 8. 1. If that be a Reatus to make Faith only the Condition of Justification, yet Obedience also a Condition of Glorification. I say with the Oratour, Quod maximè accusatori optandum est, habes consitentem reum: But what Reatus there is in this, I do not see, nor could our choicest Divines (it seems) see any in it.

Rivet saith, that Opera sequuntur Justificationem, sed Colleg. Controvers. Disp. 36. Contra Bellar. tom. 4. l. 6. c. 6. in initio.praecedunt Glorificationem; the words were cited more at large before.

So Amesius; Nos non negamus bona opera ullam relationem ad salutem habere: habent enim relationem adjuncti consequentis, & effecti ad salutem (ut loquuntur) adeptam, & adjuncti antecedentis ac disponentis ad salutem adipiscendam.

Thus also Davenant, (De Justit. Actual. cap. 32. sub initio;) Verum est, nos negare bona opera requiri, ut Conditiones Salutis nostrae, si per bona opera intelligamus p. 150exactè bona, & quae Legis rigori respondeant: si etiam per Conditiones salutis intelligamus Conditiones foederis, quibus recipimur in favorem Dei, & ad jus (N. B.) aeternae vitae. Haec enim pendent ex solà conditione fidei Christum Mediatorem apprehendentis. At falsum est, nos negare bona opera requiri, ut Conditiones salutis, si per bona opera intelligamus illos fructus inchoatae justitiae, quae sequuntur justificationem, & (N. B.) praecedunt glorificationem, ut via ordinata ad eandem.

What some Divines in their private Contests with you may do I know not; I shew what eminent Divines in their publick Writings do deliver, even the same that I maintain, viz. That Faith alone is the Condition of Justification, and of right to Salvation and Glory: and yet that Works are also requisite as the Fruits of that Faith, and as making way for the actual enjoyment of Glory.

For the term [Instrument], I was not willing to wrangle about it, neither am I willing to strive about words. Yet I told you, I thought it might well enough be used as our Divines do use it. And I always let you know, That thô perhaps Faith may more sitly be called a Condition, yet not so as to make it to be merely Causa sine quá non, but so as to ascribe some Causality and Efficiency unto it in respect of Justification, viz. in that it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's Righteousness; by which through Faith imputed unto us we are justified.

[Faith (saith Mr. Ball) is not a bare Condition, without Of the Coven. c. 6. p. 70.which the thing cannot be, (for that is no cause at all) but an Instrumental Cause, &c.]

This (as you might see by many Passages) is the very reason why (I think) the Scripture doth attribute Justification to Faith alone, and not to Works, nor any other Grace besides Faith; because only Faith doth embrace Christ and his Righteousness. Though therefore I neither was, nor am willing foreign, yet I neither did, nor do disclaim the word [Instrument] as unmeet to be used.

And indeed seeing Faith hath some Causality in Justifying, what Cause it should be rather than Instrumental, I do not know.

p. 151Hear Mr. Ball again, if you please, [If when we Of the Coven. c. 3. p. 20.speak of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace, by Condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part, as precedent, concomitant, and subsequent to Justification, Repentance, Faith and Obedience are all Conditions: but if by Condition we understand what i… on our part required as the Cause of the good promised, though only Instrumental, Faith or Belief in the Promise is the only Condition].

And again; [Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument Ibid. p. 19.of Justification, which is among the number of true Causes, not being a Cause without which the thing is not done, but a Cause whereby it is done. The Cause without which a thing is not done, is only present in the action, and doth nothing therein; but as the Eye is an active Instrument for Seeing, and the Ear for Hearing; so is Faith also for Justifying. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is? It is the Instrument of the Soul, wrought therein by the Holy Ghost, and is the free Gift of God].

So Amesius when Bellarmine objected; Sacramenta Contra Bell. tom. 4 lib. 5. c. 4. ad 11.promissiones applicant, & nostras faciunt! non ergo per modum instrumenti applicantis fides sola justificat.

He answers; Sola tamen ex iis, quae sunt in nobis, vel à nobis erga Deum: sola fides accipiendo: quia Sacramenta sunt à Deo erga nos, & Promissionem applicant, ut instrumenta dandi, non accipiendi.

Thus then is Faith taken for an Instrument of Justification, in that by Faith we receive the Promise, or Christ promised, by whom we are justified.

Bellarmine again objecting; Hoc non multum refert: nam utrumque est instrumentum Dei.

He answers; Plurimum refe…t, quia sicut Sacramenta quamvis aliquo sensu possint dici instrumenta nostra, quatenus per illa tanquam per media assequimur finem nostrum, propriè tamen sunt instrumenta Dei: sic etiam Fides, quamvis possit vocari instrumentum Dei, quia Deus justificat nos ex fide & per fidem, Rom. 3. 20. propriè tamen est instrumentum nostrum. Deus nos baptiz…t, & pascit, non nosmetipsi; nos credimus in Christum, non Deus.

If you desire more to this purpose, besides what hath been said before, I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant, p. 152chap. 12. and Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4.

1. The non-fulfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant 79doth condemn, yet it is by the Law, and for the transgressing of it that any are condemned; there being no freedom from Condemnation, but by the New-Covenant, nor any by it without fulfilling the Condition of it. Such as do not embrace the New-Covenant, and that on the terms upon which it is made, are left to the Condemnation of the Old-Covenant, which will be so much the sorer, as the Sin in despising the Mercy offered is the greater. So that still (as I said in the Animadversions) the fulfilling of the Law, viz. Christ's fulfilling it for us, is that by which we are justified, though Faith be required of us, that Christ's fulfilling of the Law may be imputed unto us, and so we may be justified by it.

The Accusations which you speak of, viz. 1. Of not fulfilling the Condition of the New-Covenant. 2. Of having therefore no part in Christ. 3. Of being guilty moreover of far sorer punishment.

All these Accusations (as I have often said) are but a re-inforcing of that Accusation, That we are guilty of transgressing the Law, and so to be condemned; and therefore the more guilty, and the more to be condemned, because freedom from that Guilt and Condemnation might have been obtained, and was neglected; see Acts 13. 38, 41. Heb. 2. 3.

2. The Gospel doth not joyn Obedience with Faith as the Condition of our right unto Salvation, though it require Obedience as a Fruit of that Faith, whereby we obtain that Right, and so as the way or means whereby to enter into the actual enjoyment of Salvation.

3. You might see that I do not yeeld the Thesis, wherein you make Faith and Obedience so to be Conditions of the New-Covenant, as withal to be Conditions of Justification▪ This both now and every-where I deny.

1. If it be not much (as you say) to your purpose; Why do you alledg it? That Christ did not receive either Ibid.of the Sacraments for that end as we receive them, who can question?

2. If you judg it uncertain, whether Luke or Matthew p. 153did relate those words, [I will not drink hence-forth, &c.] out of due place, why are you so peremptory in your Aphorisms as to say, [Luke doth clearly speak of two Cups, and doth subjoin these words to the first, which was before the Sacramental]?

3. Why do you call that Supposition, [If Luke had not written] a merry one? Is it ridiculous to suppose such a thing?

Let us suppose (says Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer) Of the Sabbath, Part 2. c. 6. p. 227.that Question had not been put to our Saviour, and that the Apostle had not written his Epistle to the Ephesians, &c.]

May not one as well sport with this Supposition of theirs, as you with that of mine? Luke himself shews, That he wrote his Gospel after others, Luk. 1. 1. Probable it is, that he wrote after Matthew and Mark: And how should any reading only these, imagine that those words [I will not drink, &c.] were meant of any other than the Sacramental Cup, they not making mention (no not in appearance) of any other?

Apud Matthaeum (inquit Ames.) 26. 29. pronomen Contra Bellar. Tom. 3. l. 4. c. 1. §. 48.istud demonstrativum, [ex hoc fructu vitis] necessario refertur ad illud, quod precedentibus verbis fuit eodem pronomine demonstratum, [Hoc est sanguis meus].

Though Matthew and Mark had not written, yet it had been no such boldness to suppose Luke to rela…e some words out of that order wherein they were spoken, such Anticipations (as I said, and you do not gain-say it) being usual in the Scripture.

Thus again Amesius; Ex ipso Luca (quamvis ibi Ib…d.transponantur verba) contrà colligitur aperte, illa verba pertinere ad Calicem Mysticum & Sacramentalem Coenae Domini. Nam cap. 22. 17. dicitur Dominus gratias egisse super illud poculum, in quo dicit fructum vitis postea mansisse, eodem modo quo v. 19. gratias egit super panem. Hâc autem gratiarum actione intelligi benedictionem & Consecrationem Sacramentalem concedit Bellarminus, cap. 10. &c.

1. It is such a Justification, as the Apostle where he Ibid. & 80.doth professedly treat of that Subject, doth scarce ever mention: nor yet do Divines use to speak of it. Therefore your [totus Mundus Theologorum Reformatorum], page missing p. 154duplicate page p. 155duplicate page p. 156how 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 docuit 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 In Loc.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) hîc dicimur Ibid.amari à Deo, dum Christum diligimus, quta 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 orandi fiduciam; sed in hoc tantùm insistit, In Loc.non posteà fide disjungi pietatem, & sincerum Dei p. 157cultum. Nec absurdum videri debet, quod particulam Causalem (N. B.) usurpet, utcunque de causà 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 Ibid.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.Ibid.

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 at this, That I cannot be perswaded by any of your Allegations, that we are justified by our personal Righteousness? Or that Works concur with Faith unto Justification, as being part of the Condition that the Gospel doth require, that thereby we may be justified? Then all Protestant Divines are Men to be wondred at, or at least never considered the Texts, which you alledg; and surely that were a great wonder.

Ad 5. For Justification at Judgment, I will say no more until I see more proof of your Opinion about it.

Ad 6. The Qualifications spoken of tend to that end, That we may enjoy Salvation, but not that we may have right to Salvation: They only manifest that Right, which by Faith in Christ we do obtain.

Ad 7. Of James his words enough already.

Ad 8. I wish you were more Argumentative, and less Censorious, or at least more wary in expressing your censure. To say [It is next to non-sense] is over-broad; If you had said, That you could see no good sense in i…, this had not been so much, as truly I cannot in your words. For may not a thing be spoken by way of Sentence, and yet by way of Argumentation too? I think, Yes, when a reason is given of the Sentence. But what p. 158should that in Luke 19. 17. force me to confess? That Works are more than Fruits of Faith, by which we are justified?

Why do you stand so much upon the word [Because], when-as you acknowledg that Works are no proper cause? May i… not be said, [This is a good Tree, because it bringeth forth good Fruit?] and yet the goodness of the Tree is before the goodness of its Fruit; and this is but only a manifestation of the other. So what should I see in Luk. 19. 27? That none should be saved by Christ, but such as are obedient unto him, that I see; but not that Obedience is that whereby we are (at least in part) justified. Yea, I think it worthy your consideration, That the Texts which you alledg and build upon, speaking only of Works and Obedience, and not of Faith at all, either must be interpreted, That Obedience and Works are necessary Fruits of Justifying Faith, or else they will reach furth…r than you would have them, even to make Obedience and Works the only Condition of Justification at Judgm…nt.

Ad 9. Where you performed that, I know not: But however your Work was no… to overthrow any Arguments for Merits, (for which I am far from urging) but to answer my reason, which I urged, why those Scriptures which you alledged, might rather seem to make Works meritorious of Salvation, than to concur with Faith unto Justification, viz. because they follow Justification, but go before Salvation. I know you will say, That they go before Justification as Continued and Consummate at Judgment▪ but for the overthrowing of that, I need say no more till you say more in defence of it.

The Texts which you alledg speak only of Obedience: and so if you will think to prove by them, That Obedience 81is the Condition of our …ustification; you may as well say, That it is the only Condition, and so quite exclude Faith, which is not mentioned in those Texts. If you say, It is in other Texts; so (say I) do other Te…ts shew that Faith is the only Condition, and that Obedience is not concurrent with Faith unto Justification, though it necessarily flow from that Faith by which we are justified. That may be alledged as the reason of the Justifying Sentence, which yet is but the Fruit and Effect p. 159of Justifying Faith. If Sententia be Praemii Adjudicatio, then (I think) Causa Sententiae must be also Causa Praemii adjudicati. The word [For], when we say [Justified for Faith], must note either the formal, or the meritorious Cause: the ratio Sententiae may be drawn from that, which is neither the formal nor the meritorious Cause of Justification, nor yet a Condition or Instrument of it, but only a Fruit and Effect of that which is so.

3. The Scripture doth not say, That Works do justifie us in that sense as you take it, viz. as joint Conditions with Faith of Justification.

4. I think it not so proper to say, [We must be judged, and receive our Reward by our Works] as [according to our Works]. And however, to be judged by our Works, is not as much as to be justified by them, otherwise than as they are Fruits and Effects of Faith, and so manifest our Interest in Christ, by whom all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.

5. Your [For] must needs be the same with [Propter]. When you say, [We are justified for Faith] surely in Latin it must be propter Fidem. Here [enim] will not be suitable.

1. That which I intimated is this, That in respect of Ibid.God, such an outward judicial Proceeding needed not, no more than God doth need a Sign. Whether the Judicial Proceeding be all upon mere Signs, and the Ipsa Causa Justitiae not meddled with, is not to the purpose. Though why may not that which is in some respect Justitia Causae, and so Justitia Personae quoad istam Causam, be Signum Fidei, & per consequens Justitiae Christi nobis per Fidem imputatae, qua simpliciter & absolutè justificamur?

2. and 3. That which is the Condition of Glorification, is not therefore the Condition of Justification, or of right to Glorification, which doth immediately flow from Justification, or at least is inseparably joined with it. No Man can be accused to be Reus Poenae, and so to have no right to Glorification; but he that is accused to be Reus Culpae: and from that Accusation we are justified by Faith, which is made manifest by our Works.

1. I perceive I did mistake your meaning, the contexture p. 160Ibid.of your words being such, that one might easily mistake the meaning of them.

2. Your Affirmation is no Proof; and as well may you say, That because in other places of Scripture the Righteous are usually spoken of in respect of Personal Righteousness, in opposition to the wicked and ungodly, therefore all those places prove, That Personal Righteousness is that whereby we are justified. Because we must have a Righteousness inherent in us, as well as a Righteousness imputed to us: are we therefore justified as well by the one as the other? Appello Evangelium pariter ac totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum.

1. Your Aphorisms tend to prove Justification by Ibid. & 82.Works, to which end you press the words of St. James, and reject the Interpretation which our Divines give of them.

2. Paul indeed and James did not consider Works in the same sense. For Paul considered them as concurring with Faith unto Justification, and so rejected them: but James looked at them as Fruits of Justifying-Faith, and so asserted the necessity of them. You do not rightly understand Paul's words, Rom. 4. 4. of which I have spoken before. He doth not speak absolutely; for so he should quite abolish Works, which in other places he doth maintain and plead for, as without which we must not think to be saved: but he speaks in reference to Justifica…ion, 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, Ʋbi (inquit) Sunt opera, illis deb tum praemium expenditur quod datur fidei, gratu…tum est. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. §. 18. vide ibid. plura.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 Declarativè, by manifesting our Faith, and so our Justification. See Mr Ball of the Coven. c. 3. p. 19. &c. 6. p. 69, 70.

p. 1611. The Scriptures do plainly so distinguish, as to deny 82Working, 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.

p. 1621. Some of your words (I confess) I do not understand, Ibid.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, ejúsque 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.

p. 163Non aliam Justitiam (saith Calvin) ad finem usque Iastit. l 3. &c. 14. §. 11.vitae habent fideles, quàm quae illi… (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…stea… of the Reprobate, who n…ither do, nor ever shall believe.(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 publicèque 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 necessitatè 83praecepti, 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 this follow upon the other.

Taking Christ for Lord is virtually included in taking Ibid.him for Priest; see Rom. 14. 9. and 2 Cor. 5. 15. They cannot be divided, though they be distinguished. That p. 164Faith 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 again…t 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, o… 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 …e (either expresly or implicitly) of Christ as Lord also: and yet we are justified by receiving p. 165him 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 objecting; Fides vera potest reips… à dilectione Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 4. ad 8.separari.

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 Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6.operum faciendorum, sed solummodò ut respicit promissionem gratiae.

So Dr. Prideaux; Fides sola justificat, non ratione existentiae, 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.— **Those words you alledg afterwards, but they are little to your purpose.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, Ibid. & 84.(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, f…c…lè credimus. That the Jews believed neither Christ's Kingly nor his p. 166Priestly 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 testimony to the Truth, though in the whole current of their Discourses they oppose it.

Amesius sheweth, That Bellarmine in that very place Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib 6. c. 1. ad 22.which you cite, doth contradict himself, whiles he is overearnest 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 Lect. 5. De Justif. §. 11.for saying, Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam, ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur, & simus, i… nos cum recta ratione pugnare contendimus; as if this were the Opinion of Protestants.

At quis unquam è nostris (saith the Doctor) not per justitiam Christi imputatam, formaliter justificari asseruit?

But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion; Annon formam quamlibet inharentem, quà 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 p. 167inhaerenter, nugas agit, atque tribuit illam ipsam sententiam Protestantibus, quam oppugnant. De Justit. Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. Yet in another sense he holds that Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, is the formal Cause of our Justification; the words were before cited.

And as others, so Dr. Prideaux speaks the very same Ʋbi supra.thing, saying, Justificamur per justitiam Christi, non personae, quâ ipse est vestitus, sed meriti, quâ suos westit, nobis imputatam.

But for the principal thing intended in this Section of yours, Though wicked Men may be more ready to receive Christ as their Justifier, than as their Ruler, (so you express it); yet it follows not, that the receiving of Christ as a Ruler, is that Act of Faith which doth justifie. For the difficulty of a thing is no good Argument to prove the necessity of it, either at all, or to such a purpose.

2. My second Note was to this purpose, quite to take away the force of your Argument, and so (I think) it doth notwithstanding your Reply. For have we not God's means to overcome that aversness of nature, if the receiving of Christ as Lord do necessarily follow Pardon, as well as if it be a Condition of Pardon? When I make it a Fruit of Justifying-Faith to take Christ for Lord, I do not say but that Christ may at once be received both as Priest and as Lord, and so must, if he be so propounded; I speak of express propounding and receiving: But my meaning is, That though we be justified by receiving Christ as Priest, perhaps not yet hearing of him (expresly) as Lord, yet that Justifying-Faith will also put forth it self to take Christ for Lord, when he is so set forth unto us. To be j…stifi…d before we take Christ as Christ. For Christ is Christ as Priest, though not only as Priest. Indeed to receive Christ in respect of one Office, so as to refuse him in respect of another, were not to receive Christ as Christ: but that is not the Case as I do put it. And for the moral necessity of taking Christ as Lord, which you ask what it is, if it be not a Condition: I suppose it may be morally necessary as a thing commanded, and yet be no Condition of Justification. For p. 168can nothing be commanded, and so be morally necessary, but it must be commanded and be necessary to that end, that thereby we may be justified? Works are commanded, and so necessary, yet you hold them to be no Condition of our Justification at first, neither indeed are they afterward, as that of Gen. 15. 6. with Rom. 4. 2, 3. doth irresragably prove.

Your Argument I thus retort, [He that is justified, is in a State of Salvation, and should be saved, if he so died. But he that hath Faith without VVorks, is justified; Ergo, he is in a State of Salvation, and if he so die, shall be saved]. Answer for your self as you please: for my part I say, The same Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest, and so justifieth, is ready also to receive Christ as Lord, when he is so propounded; even as that Faith, which justifieth, is ready to produce Works, when they are required.

1. You should not only suppose, but prove, that the 84excluding of Obedience from Justification (as co-partner with Faith in justifying) is a Scandal given, and an Error.

2. If it were not Paul's design to advance Faith above Love, &c. in point of Justification, what then means his so frequent asserting Faith to be that whereby we are justified, and his never-mentioning Love, &c. to that purpose?

3. Your self acknowledg an aptitude in Faith to justifie as appreh…nding Christ, and I acknowledg, that besides this God hath appointed Faith for that purpose, in respect of i…s aptitude, making choice of it rather than of any other Grace.

I have also oft enough considered what you have said. Ibid.Justificatio (saith Davenant) purgat, & abluit à reatu & poenâ peccati, idque uno momento, & perfectè. De Justit. Habit. cap. 23. ad Arg. 4.

Though Jus…ification be perfect, as freeing from all Condemnation; yet so long as there may be Accusation, there is need of Justification. Whereas you speak of the Law justifying, &c. It is God that justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. though according to the Gospel or New-Covenant, p. 169(for that, I presume, you mean by the Law) and by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Christ as our Advocate doth plead our Cause, and procure our Justification; and at the Last Judgment, as God's Vicegerent, he will publickly pronounce Sentence.

I see nothing against me, but that still you run upon Ibid. & 85.this Supposition, That there is the same Condition of Salvation, and of Justification at Judgment, whereas I suppose that VVorks are a Condition of Salvation, as full and compleat, but not so of Justification at Judgment, that being but a manifestation of our present Justification, and so VVorks looked at but as Fruits and Evidences of Faith, whereby we are justified. If Illyricus his Doctrine were the same with this, his fellow-Protestants (I dare say) would not blame him for it. Neither do I see how Illyricus could, or any rational Man can grant VVorks to be necessary Fruits of Faith, and yet deny them to be means or Conditions of Salvation, in respect of the actual and full enjoyment of it. For surely as Faith it self is required that we may be justified, so the Fruits of Faith (to be produced in due season) are required that we may be glorified. But why do you thus still jumble together Justification and Salvation, saying, [Illyricus his Error was in denying Works to b… necessary to Justification and Salvation?] Yet when you cite Bucer and Melancthon as asserting the necessity of good VVorks, there is not a syllable in them about Justification, as if VVorks were necessary in that respect.

Bucer in that Conference at Ratisbon, which you cite, though he maintain Inherent Righteousness, (as who doth not?) yet he saith, Hâc justitiâ nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae, as he is cited by Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. ubi plura vide.

So Melancthon is cited by Bellarmine as holding with De Justif. lib. 1. c. 14.other Protestants of prime note, that, Sola fides justificat, & tamen fides quae justificat, non est sola.

And Wotton saith, (De Reconcil. Part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. Num. 4.) Lutherus, Melancthon, Calvinus, Chemnitius, ea potissimum causâ nos infusâ & inhaerente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt, quòd illa in nobis ita imperfecta sit, ut in Dei conspectum, quum ad judicandum p. 170accedat, prodire non audeat. But of Bucer and Melancthon more by and by.

For Illyricus, what in other places he may hold I cannot tell, but in the Centuries (whereof he was the chief Author) he seems to agree with other prime Protestants; For he brings in 27 Arguments, whereby the Apostles (he saith) prove, Hominem solâ fide absque Cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. Col. 253, &c.operibus Legis justificari; Among which the 23d is this; Duae sunt tantum viae ad salutem, & nulla est tertia, &c. Ʋna 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 ser fidem est, gratis propter opera 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 justificart. 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 obedientià seu bonis operibus Ibid. Col. 279, &c. Ibid. Col. 283, &c. Ibib. Col. 279.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?

p. 171But sometimes he speaks more expresly to this purpose, Ibid. Col. 349, &c.saying, lis qui fidae gratis acceperunt remissionom 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 salutom 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 pudesiamus in adventu ejus: And that 1 Thess. 5. Ipsi planè scitis, quòd dies ille Domini, ut fur in nocte, it a venturus sit: Cum enim dixerint, Pax & tuta omnia, tunc repentinus eis ingruet interitus, sicut dolor partus multeri praegnanti, &c. Proinde ne dormiamus, &c.

And for the next reason he brings in this; Poenae aeternae impoenitentium, citing Rom. 2. Juxta duritiam tuam, & cor poenitere nescium, colligis tibi ipsi iram in die irae, quo patesiet 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 ipso 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 p. 172as 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 Tom. 1. loc. de bonis Oper.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) sctamus suum locum esse Ibid. de Vocab. Fid. Ibid.justitiae operum, longè verò aliâ consolatione opus esse in quaerendâ reconciliatione.

And again; Cum dicitur, fide justificamur, non aliud dicetur, quàm quòd propter Filium Dei accipimus remissionem peccatorum, & reputamur justi. Et quia oportet apprehendi hoc beneficium dicitur fide, i. e. fiduci… misericordiae promissae propter Christum. Intellegatur 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 Tom. 2. de Eccles. p. 133.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 effertur, sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram justitiam, fide autem solà in Christum justificari, &c.

Bucer also commends Melancthon for saying; Sola fide In Praefat. Enerrat. Epistolae ad Rom.justificamur, solius miscricordiae fiduciâ justi pronuntiamur.

And presently he adds; Nemini siquidem pio dubium esse potest, quin per solam Dei miscricordiam, proptérque p. 173unius 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 85have 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 Of the Coven. p. 70.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, Ibid. p. 69.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 quá 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 p. 174alone 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 Of the Coven. p. 70.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 for-forgiveness in Jesus Christ: and therefore if Faith justifie in this respect, (as Mr. Ball saith it **And p. 71. he proves it, because in Scripture every where Faith in Christ, in the Lord Jesus, or the Blood of Christ, is said to justifie, not Faith in other Promises, Threatnings, or Commandments.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 Of the Coven. p. 21.that is lively (saith he) to embrace Mercy, is ever conjoyned with an unseigned purpose to walk in all wellpleasing, 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 …rtually 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, p. 175as opportunity serveth, to testifie and give proof that Faith is lively, **Of the Coven. p. 73.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 Ibid.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 quàm continuationem, & Sententiam Judicis (nempe in ultimo Judicio) enough hath been said before. Neither Calvin, nor any of our famous D…vines, (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 p. 176first and afterward) justified, hath in it at first a readiness to Works, and afterward doth work, as opportunity is offered. Quìd 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 so? If that were all that you bade see Calvin for, truly you might soon cite Authors good store: but (as Martial speaks) Dic aliquid de tribus capellis. Shew that either Calvin, or any Judicious Orthodox Divine doth hold such a Personal Righteousness, as whereby we are justified: both Calvin and all our eminent and approved VVriters (that I know) deny this Personal Righteousness to be available unto Justification. Yea, and so do some of chief account in the Church of Rome. Contarenus, a Cardinal, to this purpose you may find cited by Amesius contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. Thes. 1. Pighius also, a great Romish Champion, is as clear and full for this as may be. In illo (inquit sc. Christo) justificamur, non in nobis; non nostrâ, sed illius De Fide & Just.justitiâ, quae nobis cum illo communicantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae inopes, extranos in illo docemur justitiam quaerere. Much more he hath to the same purpose, and herein doth so fully agree with Protestants (though about Faith, as being that alone whereby the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, he dissents from them); that Bellarmine having recited the Opinion of Protestants, saith, (De Justif. lib. 2. cap. 1.) In eandem sententiam, sive potius errorem incidit Albertus Pighius; he adds also, Et Authores Antididagmatis Coloniensis. And for Pighius he saith further, Bucerus in libro Concordiae in articulo de Justificatione, fatetur Pighii sententiam non dissentire à Lutheranorum sententiâ, quod attinet ad causam formalem Justificationis, sed solùm quantum ad causam apprehensivum, quam Lutherani solam fidem, Pighius dilectionem potius quam fidem esse d…finit. Here by the way observe, That Bucer (if Bellarmine did truly relate his Opinion, though not his only) made Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, the formal Cause of Justification, and Faith the only apprehensive Cause: and that therefore he was far from making us to be justified by our Personal Righteousness, & from making Works concurrent with Faith unto Justification; but that otherwise is evident enough by what hath been cited before out of him. The truth of my Conclusion (I think I may well conclude) is firm and clear, viz. That according to Calvin (and so Bucer and all our famous Writers) Personal Righteousness i… not that whereby we are justified. What colour you can have to p. 177except against this Conclusion, to say it is merely my own, is to me a wonder.

Ibid. Repentance and Love to Christ are not excluded from our first Justification, yet have they no co-interest with Faith in Justifying; Faith, not Repentance, or Love being Causa apprehensiva (as Bucer and other Protestants do speak) that which doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness, by which so apprehended we are justified. Neither is it denied, that outward Works are requisite, that we may continue justified here, and be sententially (solemnly and openly) justified at the last Judgment: yet it follows not that Justification as continued and consummated at Judgment, is by Works, as concurring with Faith unto Justification. It is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, by which we are justified from first to last, only this Faith being of a working Nature, we cannot continue justified, nor shall be (i. e. declared to be) justified at the last Judgment, except we have Works to testifie and give proof that our Faith is lively, a… Mr. Ball before cited doth e…press it: but thus also it will follow, that Works being wholly wanting, we never had a Justifying Faith, nor were at all justified.

86. 1. That the Qualification of Faith is part of the Condition of Justification, so that Faith alone, as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, is not the Condition (or Instrumental Cause, for I do not take Condition for Causa sine quâ non, but for that which hath some causality in it) you have not proved. The Condition of our Justification is that we b…lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ; this presupposeth a desire of him, and inferreth a delight in him, and submission to him; yet it is only believing in him, by which we are justified. 2. Though the taking of Christ for King be as Essential to tha… Faith which justifieth, as the taking of him for Priest, yet not to Fai…h as i… justifieth. Of Fides quae, and Fides quâ justificat, as also of taking Christ for King, and taking him for Priest, I have said enough before. 3. I mean that Faith only justifieth, as it receives Christ as Priest, thô that Faith which justifieth doth receive Christ as King also. 4. If it be (as you grant) Christ's Satisfaction, and not his Kingship (or Sovereignty) which justifie…h meritoriously, then (as far as I am able to judg) it is our apprehending of Christ's Satisfaction, and not our submitting to his Sovereignty, by which we are justified. The Act of Justifying Faith, as Justifying (me-thinks) can extend no further than to that Office of Christ, in respect of which he justifieth; or than as Christ is our Righteousness, by which we are justified; Christ as Advocate doth only justifie by pleading his Satisfaction for us, and our interest in it, and as Judg, by declaring us to be justified by it: and all this secundum foedus novum, which is the ground of our Justification. p. 1785. I so confess Faith to be the Condition of Justification▪ that nevertheless I hold it to justifie as apprehending Christ's Righteousness, God having in that respect required Faith of us, that we may be justified. And herein (as I have shewed before) I have Mr. Ball and other Judicious Divines agreeing with me, who call Faith a Condition of Justification, and yet make it to justifie as it apprehendeth Christ and his Righteousness.

Ibid. My words clearly shew my meaning, viz. That Justification as it is begun by Faith alone, so it is continued, so that Obedience hath no more insiuence into our Justification afterward than at first Justifying Faith at first is Obediential, i. e. ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience: and afterward, as there is opportunity, it doth actually bring forth the same; yet both at first and afterward it is Faith and not Obedience by which we are justified.

Ibid. 1. I have also oft enough told you, that you bring nothing of any force to prove Sentential Justification at Judgment a distinct kind of Justification, or any more than a declaration and manifesta… our present Justification. 2. For the Texts which you alledged, you do … answer what I objected. You alledged them to p…ove, That we are justified compleatly and finally at the Last Judgment, by perseverance in faithful Obedience. I objected, That they speak of Justification, as it is here obtained, and so make not for your purpose; to this you say just nothing only you seem to say something … those words in the end of the Animadversion, [They shew who are justified, nor by what they are justified]; but that which you say, … small force. For none can truly say as much of the Texts alledged for Faith's Justifying, seeing that those Texts expresly say, That we are justified by Faith, and that Faith is imputed unto us for Righteousness, which the other Texts do not say of Obedience.

Ibid. 1. Did you never understand my meaning about Faith's just…ing until now? Nay, you seem not yet to understand it. Doth not Faith justifie at all, if it only justifies Instrumentally and Relatively? Is this so strange unto you, that when we are said to be justified by Faith, i… i… meant in respect of the Object, viz. Christ and his Righteousness, which is indeed that by which we are justified, though i…st be apprehended by Faith, that we may be justified by it? Where … now the totus munnd…s Theologorum Ref…matorum, which some… you spake of? My acquaintance in this kind is no… so great (I think) as yours, yet I have before alledged many to this purpose. I will here add one more, a Man of note, Dr. Prideaux, (Lect. 5. de Justif. §. 11, 14, 16.) Justificamur (inquit) per justitiam Christi, &c. A…qui …des ex part… nostrâ hanc justitiam sic a Deo imputatam, appr…hendi… s…l… & applicat; quia neque Charitati, vel spei, vel p. 179alteri habitui hoc munus competat. And again, Justificat primo Deus Pater admittendo, & imputando. 2. Deus Filius, Satisfaciendo, & advocatum agen lo. 3. Spiritus Sanctus revelando & obsignando. 4. Fides apprehendendo & applicando. 5 Opera, manifestando & declarando. And again, Animadvertere …otuit Bertius, nos non propriè justificationem fidei attribuere, sed metalepticè, quatenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illum & habitum, usitatâ Scripturae phrasi, in habitum transfertur. 2. For Christ's Righteousness justifying formally, or being the formal cause of Justification, I have shewed in what sense some of our Divines do hold it, and some reject it, and that the difference is rather in words, than in the thing it self. 3. To me it seems no obscurity to say, [Faith or Believing doth justifie, because Christ's Righteousness, except it be apprehended by Faith, is not available to Justification]. Is not this as much as Faith doth justifie Instrumentally, or as apprehending Christs Righteousness by which we are justified? The reason why Christ's Righteousness cannot justifie, except it be apprehended by Faith, is this, That God doth require Faith of us; Faith (I say) apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, [Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ] that so we may be justified. God's Will is properly the Cause, yet there is a congruity in the thing it self, an aptitude (you grant) in the nature of Faith: it is of an apprehensive Nature, and its apprehending of Christ's Righteousness (the Will of God still presupposed) doth make this Righteousness ours, even as a Gift becomes ours by our receiving of it. If Davenant's words, which I cited, be not against you, then nothing that I can say is against you. For I cannot express my own mind, as to that point, more clearly and fully than he doth. I will repeat his words again; (De Justit. Habit. cap. 28.) Nihil usitatius quàm causae applicanti illud tribuere, quod propriè & immediatè perment ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides appreh…ndit, & app…icat nobis justitiam Christi, id fides ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur. Is not this against you, who say, Append. p. 120. [Faith is a Work and Act of ours; and if Faith justifie as an apprehension of Christ, it justifieth as a Work?] Do not these words of Davenant tell you, that it is not Causa applicans, but res applicata; not Fides, but Christus side apprehensus that doth justifie? Faith then is said to justifie, yet not in respect of it self, but in respect of its Object: it is not properly Faith apprehending, or the apprehension of Faith, but Christ and his Righteousness apprehended, by which we are justified. Much hath been said before to this purpose. If this be nothing against you, I know not how in this particular to say any thing against you: if it be against you, surely it is nothing but what that Reverend Author saith in the words cited. And mark (I pray) upon what occasion p. 180he brings in those words. Bellarmine (De Justif. lib. 2. cap. 9.) saith that Calvin, from Rom. 4. Ʋbi dicitur fidem Abrahae imp…tatam esse ad justitiam, gathers, nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam (nempe quâ justificamur) quàm fidem in Christum, id est, (N. B.) Christi justitiam Christi side apprehensam. Against this he objects, Apostolus dicit ipsam sidem imputari ad justitiam: fides autem non est justitia Christi, &c. To this Davenant answers, Sed frivola est haec objectio. Nam nihil …sitatues quàm causae a pli…anti, &c. Your Objection is the very same in effect with Bellarmine's▪ so that if Davenants words be any thing against Bellarmine, they are as much against you. And truly as you put off the words of Davenant, so you might with the same case have answered all my Animadversions, and so you may all these Exceptions, by saying, That they are not against you. It is a strange faculty that you seem to have, of making any thing for you, as when you bid see Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. and nothing against you, as he…e in this place.

Ibid. When Mr. Manton speaketh of Faith Justifying as a Relative Act, his words immediately before (which I also cited) shew his meaning, viz. That Faith justifieth in its relation to Christ, as it receiveth Christ: so that not every Act relating unto Christ, but that which doth so relate unto him as to recei…e him, is that which justi… eth: but what I say of the Act justifying, must always be understood in the sense before explained. That Faith in respect of its apprehensive nature, is more than C…sa si… a… non, to me is clear; it is Ca…sa app…icans, as D…enant in the words even now cited doth call it. 2 To contend much a…out Faith'… Instrumentality, I do not like; I me…n in respect of the word [Instrumentality], so that we agree in the matter▪ yet as o…r bes… Divin…s have used the word, I see not but it is convenient to be used. 3. I gran… th… i… i… a material question▪ Whe…h…r it be the rec…iving of Christ o…ly as Priest that doth justifie; for the confounding of Christ's Offices, and of the Acts of Faith (as Mr. Blake before cited saith well) is not to be endured. But I see no necessary dependance of this question upon the other, viz. Whether Faith justifie as an Instrument, a sole-working Instrument, or as an C…nance, or R…lati…e Action required on our parts; which Mr. Manton said is all to the same issue and purpose, and so I think it is.

87. For the distinction of God's Will, you might at first apprehend what I meant, though perhaps my Expressions were not altogether so … nei…her indeed do you seem to speak so clearly of …. 2. How pertine…t …hose Testimonies which you s… cannot tell; b… truly as you cited Calvin on Lug. 1. 6. …. 3. What you alledg out of Davenant, p. 181I 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 aequè ac side justificamur? Adverte, quaeso ipsa authoris tui verba. [Bona opera sunt necessaria justificatis], non justificandi…. Nam (ut scitè Augustinus) [Bona opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt De fide & operibus, cap. 14.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 its certè verbis quae citasti. Jubes autem legere sequentia; lego igitur, [Facile est hujusmodi opera multa (praesertum interna) commemorare sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta, nunquam obtinebitur]. Sed ne hic quidem dicit opera ista pariter ac fidem justificari. Ea enim, quae ad justificationem requiruntur, cum us quae justificant, confundi non debent, ut benè monet Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 5. §. 1.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 De Justit. Hab. cap. 24. Arg. 8.modo tribui potest. Ex Davenantii igitur sententia, non partim fide, partin operibus, sed fide sola 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 obtinen …am 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 tribu…, quod proximè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam; Fidem nempe dici justificare, cum propriè justitia Christi fi…e apprehensa justificet; id quod ego mordicus teneo. Ad 3. De retinendo scilicet, & conservando Justificationis statu, anteà satis responsam est. Id nunc dico Davenantium nec in principio Justificationis, nec in progressu ejus vim vartutémque justificandi operibus juxta ac Fidei …ribuere, et tamsi dicat bona opera ad Justificationis Statum retinendum & conservandum esse necessaria: id quod ego libenter agnosco. Cum enim in ipso Justificationis ex…rdio Fidem operibus gravidam esse oporteat, procedente denium Justificatione Fidem opera parere necesse est. Ad 4. Dico te extra oleas vagart, cum ego de Conditione Justificationis loquar, a…qui istiusmodi p. 182quidem Conditione, quâ justificari dicimur, tu autem oppo…is mihi authorem de operibus 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 our 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 De Justit. Act. cap. 32.Justificationem, & praecedum 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 foreign 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: Thi… 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. foreign; 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 …ai…h an I…s…r…ment of Justification, deny this any more than you, who mak… both …aith and VVorks Conditions of it?

p. 183Yea, 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 Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, cap. 4. p. 140.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 Ins…rument 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 sound and good, I do not love.

Ibid. & 88. 1. That Faith doth justifie, as it apprehendeth Christ, appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum; I have given you enough to this purpose before. No… to your Reasons why this is to set up foreign 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 foreign 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 fides 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. …he full enjoyment of it, viz. Glorification. I have frequently expressed my self to this effect, I hat 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.

p. 184In hoc Faedere (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 aeteraam 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 qua 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 …herefore in that respect hath been pleased to make choice of i… 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.