A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Letter · Section 12
§. XII. But pag. 19. you instance in the difference between Protestants and Papists, about the Necessity of Good works, which is wide in respect of the placing or ranking of them, viz. The one stretching it to the first Justification, the other not, but confining it to its proper rank and province of Inherent Holiness, where it ought to keep].
Answ. Wonderful! Have you that have so loudly called to me to tell how I differ about Justification, brought your own, and as you say, the Protestants difference to this? Will none of your Readers see now, who cometh nearer them, you or I?
1. Is this distinction our proof of your accurateness in Method, and Order, and Expression? What meaneth a distinction between [First-Justification,] and [Inherent Holiness]? Do you difference them Quoad ordinem, as First and Second? But here is no Second mentioned: Is it in the nature of the things [Justification, and Inherent Holiness]? What signifieth the [First] then? But Sir, how many Readers do you expect who know not, 1. That it is not to the First Justification at all, but to that which they call the Second or Increase, that the Church of Rome asserteth the necessity or use of Mans meritorious Works? See what I have fully cited out of them for this, Cath. Theol. Lib. 2. Conf…r. 13. pag. 267. &c. saving that some of them are for such Preparatives as some call Merit of Congruity, and as our English Divines do constantly preach for, and the Synod of Dort at large assert; though they disown the name of Merit, as many of the Papists do. They ordinarily say with Austine, Bona opera sequu…tur Justificatum, non praecedunt Justificandum.
2. But, I hope, the word [First] here overslipt your your Pen, instead of [Second]: But suppose it did so: What's the difference between the Papists first or second Justification, and the Protestants Inherent Holiness? None that ever I heard or read of: Who knoweth not that the Papists take Justification for Inherent Holiness? And is this the great difference between Papists and Protestants, which I am so loudly accused for not acknowledging? viz. The Papists place Good-Works before Justification, that is, Inherent Holiness; and the Protestants more rightly place them before Inherent Holiness? Are you serious, or do you prevaricate?
The Papists and Protestants hold, that there are some Duties and common Grace, usually preparatory to Conversion (or Sanctification); which some Papists (de nomine) call Merit of Congruity, and some will not. The Papists and Protestants say, that Faith is in order of nature, at least, before that Habitual Love, which is called Holiness, and before the Works thereof. The Papists and Protestants say, that Works of Love and Obedience, follow our First Sanctification, and make up but the Second part of it, which consisteth in the Works of Holiness. If you speak not of Works in the same sense in each part of your Assignation, the Equivocation would be too gross, viz. If you should mean [Papists rank the necessity of preparatory Common Works, or the Internal act of Faith, or Love, stretching it to the First Justification; and Protestants rank other Works, viz. The fruits of Faith and Love, with Inherent Holiness. All agree, 1. That Common Works go before Sanctification. 2. That Internal Love, and other Grace, do constitute Sanctification in the First part of it. 3. That Special Works proceeding from Inward Grace, are the effects of the First Part, and the constitutive Causes of the Second Part of Sanctification; as the word extendeth also to Holiness of Life: And whilst Papists take Justification for Sanctification, in all this there is De re no difference. (But your accurate Explications by such terms, as [Stretching, Confirming, Province, &c.] are fitter for Tully, than for Aristotle).
And is this it in the Application that your Zeal will warn Men of, that we must in this take heed of joyning with the Papists? Do you mean [Rank Good-Works with Inherent Holiness, and not with the First Sanctification, and you then do widely differ from the Papists]? Will not your Reader say, 1. What doth Inherent Holiness differ from the First Sanctification? 2. Do you not invite me thus herein to be a Papist, when they rank them no where but, as you say, the Protestants do? 3. Do not you here proclaim, that Papists and Protestants differ not about the necessity of Good-works to Justification? But yet I that would make no Differences wider than they are, can find some greater than you have mentioned.
Truly Sir, I am grieved and ashamed, to foresee how Learned Papists will make merry with such Passages; and say, See here how we differ from the Protestants! See what it is for, that the Protestant Doctors separate from the Church of Rome! viz. Because we make Good-Works necessary to the First Justification, which unless equivocally spoken, is false; and because the Protestants rank them with Inherent Holiness, as we do]. What greater advantage will they desire against us, than to choose us such Advocates? And to shew the World that even where their keenest Adversaries condemn them, and draw Men from them, they do but justifie them? who knoweth what a Temptation they may make of such passages to draw any to Popery? It is my assurance, that such Over-doing, is Ʋndoing; and that mistaken Accusations of the Papists greatly advantage them against us, which maketh me the more against such Dealing; besides the sinfulness, of pretending that any differences among Christians, are greater than indeed they are.
But may not I think that you take the word [Justification] here in the Protestant Sense, and not in the Papists, when you say that they rank Good-work's-necessity as stretcht to the First Justification? No sure: For, 1. Protestants use not to distinguish of a First and Second Justification, which Papists do, but of Justification as Begun, Continued, and Consummate. 2. If it were so, it were not true: For the First Justification in the Protestant Sense, is our first right to Impunity and Life Eternal, freely given to Believers, for the Merits of Christs perfect Righteousness and Satisfaction. And Papists do not make Good-works (unless Equivocally so called) necessary to this; but as a Fruit to follow it.
As for Remission of Sin, I have else-where proved, 1. That most commonly by that word the Papists mean nothing, but that which we call Mortification, or Putting away, or destroying the Sin it self, as to the habit and ceasing the Act. 2. That most of them are not resolved, where the Remission of the Punishment (which Protestants call Remission of Sin, or Forgiveness) shall be placed: They differ not much as to its Time, but whether it be to be called any part of Justification: Some say, yea; some make it a distinct thing. Most describe Justification by it self, as consisting in our Remission of, or Deliverance from Sin it self, and the infused habit of Love or Righteousness (all which we call Sanctification), and the forgiveness of the Penalty by it self, not medling with the Question, whether the latter be any part of the former; so much are they at a loss in the Notional part among themselves. But they (and we) distinguish of Forgiveness, as we distinguish of Penalties: We have a right to Impunity as to everlasting Damnation, upon our first being Justified; but our Right becometh afterward more full, and many other Penalties are after to be remitted.