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

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

p. 742. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ, I see not how any can make the Act of Faith, but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ. And if any of our Divines say, That it is not the Habit of Faith, but the Act that doth justifie; I think they mean, that Faith doth justifie as acting, i. e. receiving Christ. So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justifie, yea, they make it the instrumental cause of Justification; only they p. 75make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification. The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose, though they differ as you say. No Similitude is to be set on the Rack: if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used, it is sufficient. But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul, I see not how Faith is the perfection of it. For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith, or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove, that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument, I think you trouble your self to no purpose, though (I know) you have some end in it. But what if it be not an Instrument properly, if yet it may not unfitly be so termed? And for any thing I see, it may, even as generally Divines do so term it.

Fides (saith Rivet) est velut organum; & manus Disp. de Fide Just. §. 17, 18.animae, quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur. And again, Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens—Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum, &c.

So Trelcatius Jun. Ex parte hominis, Justificationis Instit. lib. 2. de Justif.passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductivè, tota est Instrumentalis, & Fides est, &c.

Thus also Calvin, Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7.

And Wotton, Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua De Recon. p. 1. l. 2. c. 18 Ibid. p. 2. l. 2. c. 6.est Fides, quam Instruments locum obtinere diximus. And again, Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti, quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scripturis (Fides) insigniatur. Nam nec Causa esse dicitur, cujus tamen rationem obtinere, Theologi omnes confitent…r.

And Bellarmine saying, that Luther makes Faith Formalem De Just. Habit. cap. 22.causam Justificationis; Davenant answers, Instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem, &c.

Pemble saith, [Faith doth justifie Relatively and Instrumentally]. Of Justif. §. 2 chap. 1. p. 27.

So Mr. Ball of Faith, chap. 10. pag. 135. [It is a cause only Instrumental, &c.]

And of the Covenant, chap. 3. p. 19. [Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification, &c. If See Hemingius as here cited, p. 95.it be demanded whose Instrument it is? It is the Instrument of the Soul, &c.]

p. 76Mr. Blake's words (I think) do more nearly concern Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 80.you. [And these things considered, I am truly sorry, that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification; nay, scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us, &c.] And having cited Acts 18. 26. Ibid. pag. 81.Ephes. 3. 17. & Gal. 3. 14. he saith, [These Scriptures speak of Faith as the Souls Instrument to receive Christ Jesus, &c.] See there much more to this purpose.

I will add to these one more, viz. J. Goodwin, who Of Justif. c. 7. p. 90.though in divers things he be cross and contrary to our Divines, yet in this, at least in words, he doth comply with them, professing to hold, That Faith doth justifie instrumentally.

If the propriety of Words must always be strictly examined, we shall scarce know how to speak: It is well if we can find words, whereby to express our selves so as that others may understand (if they please) what we mean. All that our Divines mean, when they speak of Faith justifying Instrumentally, or as an Instrument, I suppose, is this, and so much also they usually express, That Faith doth not justifie absolutely, or in respect of it self, but Relatively in respect of its Object, Christ and his Righteousness laid hold on and received by Faith. Neither should you (me-thinks) strive about the word [Receiving] how it should be the Act of Faith. It sufficeth, That the Scripture makes Believing in Christ, and Receiving of Christ, one and the same, John 1. 12. That which you say of our most famous Writers ordinarily laying the main stress of the Reformed Cause and Doctrine on a plain Error, did deserve to have been either further manifested, or quite concealed; to me it seems very injurious both to our most famous Writers, and also to the Reformed Cause and Doctrine.

My meaning is, That Faith justifieth, as it apprehendeth 52and receiveth Christ, whom the Gospel doth give for Righteousness to such as receive him, i. e. believe in him. And thus our Divines frequently express themselves.

Luther, Fides justificat, quia apprehendit, & possidet illum the saurum, scil. Christum presentem. Loc. Com. Class. 2. loc. 19. ex tom. 4. And again, Fides non tanquam opus justificat, sed ideò justificat, quia apprehendit p. 77misericordiam in Christo exhibitam. Ibid. ex tom. 1. in Gen.

So Calvin, Quod objicit (nempe Osiander) vim justificandi Inst. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7non inesse fidei ex seipsâ, sed quatenus Christum recipit, libenter admitto.—Fides instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae.

Thus also Hemingius, Justificamur autem fide, non De Justif. pag. mihi 141.quod fides ea res sit, quâ justi sumus, sed quia est Instrumentum, quo Christum apprehendimus, & complectimur.

Davenant, Hoc necessario intelligendum est, quatenus suum objectum apprehendit, & credenti applicat, nempe De Just. Hab. cap. 28. Arg. & Ibid.Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitià. And again, Quî igitur Fides apprehendit, & applicat nobis Christi justitiam? id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.

Ames. Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa Contra Bell. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 4 §. 5. Ibid. §. 11.justificans, quia non habe… (N. B.) vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi. And again, Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam, non est simpliciter per modum objecti, sed per modum objecti (N. B.) nobis donati. Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum, & omnia cum eo, Scriptura disertis verbis testatur, Rom. 8. 32. Hic tamen observandum est, accuratè loquendo, apprehensionem Christi & justitiae ejus, esse fidem justificantem, quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi, & apprehensio justificationis, ut possessionis nostrae prasentis, fructus est, & effectum apprehensionis prioris.

Pemble, [We deny that Faith justifies us as it is a Work, Of Justis. §. 2. ch. 3. pag 61.&c. It justifies us only as the Condition required of us, and an Instrument of embracing Christ's Righteousness; nor can the contrary be proved].

Mr. Ball, [When Justification and Life is said to be Of the Coven. chap. 3. pag. 19.by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].

Mr. Blake, [Faith as an Instrument receives Righteousness unto Justification]. Of the Coven. chap. 12. pag. 82.

If you agree with me (as you say) in this particular, you will agree also with these whom I have cited, for I agree with them; their meaning and mine (so far as I p. 78can discern) is the same. See also Mr. Ball of Faith, Part 1. chap. 10. pag. 135.

For the Twofold Righteousness, which you make necessary Ibid.unto Justification, I think also I have said enough before. But seeing that in the place, on which I made the Animadversion, you mention it as a Reason why Faith must justifie in a proper sense, and not Christ's Righteousness only, I cannot but observe how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contrary way, viz. That Faith doth not justifie, as taken properly, Of Justif. §. 2. cap. 2. pag. 39.because then we should be justified by a Two-fold Righteousness. [We are not justified (saith he) by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects; But if we be justified by the Work of Faith, we shall be justified partly by that Righteousness which is in us, viz. of Faith, and partly by the Righteousness of Christ without us]. And again, [We cannot be properly justified by Ibid. pag. 40.both, for our own Faith, and Christ's obedience too. For if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith, what needs the imputation of Christ's Obedience to make us just? If for Christ's Righteousness we be perfectly justified, How can God account us perfectly just for our Faith?]

1. If you do not oppose the Literal sense of Scripture Ibid. & 53.to Figurative, I do not oppose you, but grant that Faith doth justifie figuratively, viz. as apprehending Christ by whom we are justified.

[In these places (saith Pemble) where it is said, Faith is imputed for Righteousness, the Phrase is to be Ʋbi supra.expounded Metonymice, i. e. Christ's Righteousness believed on by Faith, is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness].

A figurative sense may be a plain sense, yet it is not a proper sense; for surely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other.

Distinguendum est (inquit Rivetus) inter has phrases, In Gen. Exer. 73.quae et si in unum sensum conveniunt, differunt nihil ominùs in eo, quòd una est figurata, altera prop ia. Figurata est, Fides imputatur ad justitiam. Propria est, Justitia imputatur credenti. Tum enim justitiae nomen ponitur directè pro eà justitiâ, cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus est, & pro justis habet. In primo autem Fidei tribuitur, quod ejus non est propriè sumptae. Nec p. 79enim est justitia, nec justitiae loco habetur, sed objectum ejus est justitia vera, quae per fidem nobis imputatur, ut pro nostra habeatur, quam credendo amplexi sumus. Haec si capere nolint aut veteratores Romani, aut Novatores Sociniani, sufficiat nobis Apostolos autores habere, qui operibus nostris, ergò fidei quâ opus, omnem justitiae laudem detrahunt, eamque in justitiâ, quae sine operibus nobis imputatur, constituunt. That the sense by me and others put on Scripture is forced, you affirm, but prove not.

2. I acknowledg but one Righteousness by which we are justified, viz. the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed unto us; see Rom. 5. 18. Your Similitude makes against you. For our Hands and Teeth are but Instruments whereby we are fed: so our Faith is but an Instrument whereby we are justified. And mark here, how you can use the Comparison your self, which yet you dislike when others use it. But doth the Scripture no where say, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? Doth not the Scripture call Christ our Righteousness? Jer. 23. 6. Doth it not say, That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth? Rom. 10. 4. Is not this as much as if it were said, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? See also Rom. 5. 18, 19. and 2 Cor. 5. ult.

What Mr. Gataker saith concerning this Point, not having the Book which I suppose you mean, (his Defence of Wotton) I cannot tell: What Wotton and J. Goodwin say, I see, but am not satisfied with it. Maccovius de Justif. in divers Disputations doth professedly oppose Wotton, and answers his Objections. If you had urged any of his, or the others Arguments, I should have taken them into consideration; but seeing you do not, it is enough (I think) to oppose their authority, with the Authority of others no way inferiour unto them.

Davenant, Scripturae, quae asserunt ipsam fidem nobis De Just. Habit. cap. 28. Arg. 8.imputari ad justitam, aportè indicant Christi justitiam credentibus imputari. Nam fides, qualitas in se considerata, non potest magis imputari ad justitiam, quàm al…ae qualitates ab eodem Spiritu in…usae: sed hoc necessa…o intelligendum est, quatenus suum objectum apprehen…t, & credenti applicat, nempe Christum cum salutiferâ p. 80ejus justitiâ. Among other Scriptures which he cites to this purpose, that is one, which you stand so much upon, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]. Ex hisce (inquit) nos colligimus, imputari credentibus Christi justitiam, quando illam verâ fide apprehendunt.

And Bellarmine objecting, Ipsa fides imputatur ad justitiam: fi…es autem non est imputata Christi justitia, sed qualitas in nobis inhaerens. He answers, Frivola est Objectio: nam nihil usitatius, quàm causae applicanti illud triburre, quod propriè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit & applicat nobis justitiam …hristi; id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.

So Ames. answering the very same words of Bellarmine, Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. Lib. 6. cap. 1.saith, Fides imputatur ad justitiam, Rom. 4. 5. idem est cum co quod dicitur, v. 6. Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus; & remittit peccata, v. 7. Fides autem ipsa absolutè considerata, neque est justitia sine opere, neque remissio peccatorum: necesse est igitur, ut fides imputata relativè involvat suum objectum, id est, Christum fide apprehensum.

Bucan. Quomode igitur fides dicitur in justitiam imput…t…? Loc. com. de Justis. Loc. 31. Quaest. 35.Non absolutè, sed relativè, &c. And having cited Rom. 3. 22, 25. he saith, Quibus locis Fidei voce (metonymia continentis pro re contentâ) Christus crucifixus intelligitur, sed fide apprehensus. Hoc sensu fides Abrahae imputata est ei ad justitiam, seu pro justitià, Rom. 4. 9. Et fides cuilibet credenti imputatur ad justitiam, i. e. Christus cruc…fixus apprehensus fide censetur nostra justit…a; censetur, inquam, à Deo è tribunah suo sententiam justitiae pronunciante. Quemadmodum igitur manus, quae recipit thesaurum donatum, non ditat, se… th…saurus: sic nec fides opus, vel actio nos justificat, s…d ipse …hristus, quem fide apprehendimus. Et hoc est, quo… Theologi Orthodoxi dicunt, nos justificari fide correlativè, & ratione Objecti fidem imputari in justitiam. Quae assertio inde mamfesta est, quod apud Paulum, Rom. 3. 27, 28. opponitur haec enuntiatio, Fide sumu… justi, propositioni huic, Justificamur ex ope…ibus, tanquam contradictoriae. Qua…è ex natura contradictionis perspicuum est, non justificart quemquam Fide in quantum p. 81est opus sive nostrum, sive Dei in nobis, sed in quantum Christi meritum includit.

Rivet; Fides excludit seipsam, quà opus est. Ʋnum In Gen. Exer. 73.enim opus non justificat, nec quidem potest justificare. Redeundum ergo ad Controversiae statum, quo Fides statuitur justificare, non quatenus est opus, sive per se, sed relativè, quatenus significat applicationem justitiae Christi, i. e. non nostrae, sed alienae. The same Author also Disput. De Fide Justif. §. 19.saith thus, Apostolus non distinguit inter Opera Legis, & Opera Fidei, sed in hoc negotio Fidem semper quibuslibet operibus opponit. Ʋnde etiam sequitur fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi.

That we are justified by Faith, is without controversie, the Scripture being express for it: but when you say, That Faith properly taken doth justifie, which the Scripture saith not, in this I dissent from you. And also because you make Faith one Righteousness, by which we are justified, as indeed you must, if properly we be justified by it.

Davenant urgeth from Rom. 5. 18. That there is Ʋbi supra Arg. 11.unum tantùm foreign, quod ad justificationem vitae potest valere, nempe unius Christi obedientia. Whence he infers, Justificatio igitur vitae non redundat in nos ab ullà qualitate in nobismet ipsis inherente, sed ab hâc justitiâ completà Mediatoris nobis donatâ & imputatâ. Nostra justitia inherens non habet in se foreign, hoc est, perfectionem justitiae completam, & absolutam. Ergo non potest producere in nobis foreign, &c.

You mistake my Argument, and do not mind the Text which I alledged, viz. Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified, &c. Therefore not only all that believe in Christ are justified, but it is by him that they are justified, i. e. by his Obedience, as it is expressed Rom. 5. 19. So that Christ's Obedience is that which is properly imputed for Righteousness, though it be so imputed only to those that believe; Faith to apprehend it, is required of us, that it may be imputed to us; and in that respect Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness.

1. The first Note seems to shew thus much, That some may make Faith an Instrument of Justification, and yet deny that we are properly justified by it as by an Instrument: p. 82Though if this be granted, I see not what you gain by it. For (as I said in the Animadversion) they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification, when they deny that we are properly justified by Faith; they mean, That Faith is not the **Non est justitia, nec justitia loco habetur, &c. Rivet before cited.Righteousness by which we are justified; and that we are therefore only said to be justified by Faith, because by Faith we receive the Righteousness of Christ, by which Righteousness properly we are justified. That this is the meaning of our Divines, appears by that which I have before alledged.

2. Therefore who those be, of whom you speak, I do not know: However, I do not see that your Objections are of force. For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text, though it be so interpreted, as that by [Faith impured] is meant Christ and his Righteousness, viz. **See Bucan before cited.as apprehended by Faith; and I presume that they whom you tax, did so understand it. And this doth not exclude Faith, but include it. Your Question therefore seems captious, [If by Faith be meant Christ's Righteousness, then what word doth signifie Faith?] For by Faith is not simply meant Christ's Righteousness, but as it is apprehended by Faith.

3. Davenant's words, which I cited, are clearly to the purpose to which I cited them; neither do I see any thing in them, which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of. Whereas you add, [It seems he discerned the mistake of them, that affirm Christ's Active Righteousness as such to be our Righteousness]. I think your Scribe did mistake, and it should be, [he discerned not]. For therein indeed, in that Chapter, but not in the words which I cited, he differs both from you and me: But I was willing to let that pass, both because it is nothing to our present purpose; and also I like not to shew my dissent from any eminent Writer, except I be forced to it.

4. What you say you will alledge out of Davenant against me, is to be considered when it is alledged. But here you profess your self far from approving what he saith, viz. That Christ's Righteousness est formalis causa justificationis ex communi nostrorum sententi…; You should say, Christ's Righteousness imputed to us: for so Davenant hath it in the words which I cited. And you should also consider how immediately before thes… p. 83words he explained himself about the formalis causa justificationis.

For Bellarmine objecting, That though Christi obedientia sit meritoria causa justificationis nostrae, propter quam Deus nos justificat, yet Justitia inherens potest esse formalis, per quam justificati constituimur; and taxing Chemnitius for stating the question thus, Quid sit id, propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat, &c. He answers, Sed immemorem se hîc praebet De Just. Habit. cap. 22.Jesuita, qui eodem modo & ipse loquitur de Just. lib. 2. cap. 1. [De Causâ formali, propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo, differendum est]. Atque reverà in Justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est, quae simul & meritoria esse possit. Nisi enim illam contineat dignitatem in se, propter quam homo ritè justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis causa, per quam justificatus exist at in conspectu Dei.

And again, Ʋt itaque seponamus Philosophicas Speculationes Ibid.de natura causae formalis, quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostrae, quaerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod immediatè Deo gratus, & ad vitam aeternam acceptus stat, cujus beneficio damnatoriam Legis sententiam evadere, denique quo inti possit, & debeat ad coelestis Judicis favorem & approbationem consequendam.

And again, Quod igitur dicit Bellarminus, impossibile Ibid. cap. 24: ad 5.esse, ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus, si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter, nugas agit, &c. Si autem per formalem causam intelligat il…ud ipsum, quod Deus intuetur quando quemvis peccatorem justificat, &c. dico hoc non esse inhaerentem ullam qualitatem, sed Christi obedientiam & justitiam credentibus gratuitâ Dei miseriocordià donatam atque imputatam. Impossible quidem est, ut haec justitia, quae in Christo inhaeret, sit etiam nostra per modum inhaesionis; sed quando tanquam membra unimur Christo capiti, non est impossible, ut nostra fiat per modum donationis, & salutiferae participationis: atque hic modus sufficit, ut in Justificatione formalis causae rationem, efficaciam, & similitudinem obtineat.

Me-thinks all this should suffice to satisfie any ingenuous Man, and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling about p. 84the term, when there is so full and frequent explication of the meaning of it.

So also Amesius having out of Contarenus distinguished of Righteousness, and stated the Question about the Contra Bellar. tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. §. 1.formal cause of Justification, he saith, Hoc sensu nos negamus formalem causam absolutae (N. B.) nostrae justificationis esse justitiam in nobis inhaerentem.

And again, Non aliâ ratione formaliter nos justos nominari, & esse dicimus imputata Christi justitià, quam Ibid. §. 22.quà…s cujus debitum ab altero solvitur nominatur & est abillo debito liber & immunis; & qua is cui procuratus est alterius favor aut gratia, nominatur & est alteri gratus. For that which you cite out of his Med. l. 1. c. 27. §. 12. I find there only these words, Christi igitur justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur, Phil. 3. 9. Those which you add are not in my Edition, viz. Quatenus Edit. 3. per Rob. Allotum Londini, 1629.ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur.

However they are not repugnant to what I have cited, both from him and Davenant, because (as Davenant expresly notes) Causa formalis hîc etians est meritoria. Alsted's words, as you cite them, [Christus est justitia nostra in sensu causals, non in sensu formali] carry no good sense, at least are not so accurate. For surely it Formalis Causa, then Sensus Formalis is also Sensus Causalis.

You add, [So Rivet Disp. de Fide.] but you should also have noted the Section. Indeed §. 13. he saith, That Bellarmine doth affingere nobis sententiam de justitia Christs, tanquam causâ formali. And elsewhere Colledg. Controvers Disp. 34.he saith, Forma justificationis consistit in justitiae Christi imputatione, propter quam nobis remittuntur peccata.

So Treloatius, Forma justificationis, Activè sumptae, Instit. lib. 2.est Actualis Justitiae Christi gratuita imputatio, quâ meritum & obedientia Christi nobis applicantur, vt communionis arc…issimae, qua ille in nobis, & nos in illo.

Dr. Jackson saith, That to demand what is the formal Of Jus…ifying Faith Sect. 2. chap. 18.cause of Justification, is as if one should ask what is the Latin for Manus: and that it is the folly or knavery of our Adversaries to demand a formal Cause of their Justification, who deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God. [He alone (saith he) is formally just, who hath that form inherent in himself, by which p. 85he is denominated just, and so accepted of God: as Philosophers deny the Sun to be formally hot, because it hath no form of heat inherent in it, but only produceth heat in other Bodies].

Thus there is difference among our Divines about the term, but they agree in the thing. Some would have no formal Cause of Justification at all; some would have such a Cause, but would not have Christ's Righteousness imputed, but the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to be it: yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Cause of Justification, in that sense as Davenant and Ames do explain it.

1. As Faith alone is the Condition of our Justification, 54so also Faith alone as continued (though it is not continued alone) is he Condition of our Continued Justification.

Neque etiam (saith Calvin) sic putemus commendari Instit. lib. 3. cap. 17. § 9.post gratuitam justificationem opera, ut & ipsa in locum justificands hominis posteà succedant, aut ejusmodi officium cum Fide (N. B.) partiantur. Nisi enim perpetuò maneat solida Fidei justificatio, illorum immundities detegetur. Nihil autem absonum est, sic Fide hominem justificari, ut non ipsc mo…o justus sit sed opera quoque ejus supra dignitatem justa censeantur.

So Mr. Ball, [Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, Of Faith, Part 2. Chap. 4. p. 252, 253and then leave it to works, that we might attain the accomplishment by them, but it doth ever rest upon the Promise until we come to enjoy it].

2. I know no accusation but of the Law of Works, though in case of unbelief and impenitency that Accusation be aggravated by the Law of Grace.

Though Calvin thinks not that Joh. 5. 45. [Do not Calvin in Joh. 5. 45.John 5:45think that I will accuse you to my Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, &c.] to be to this purpose, as some do; yet he grants, That it is Legis proprièreos peragere infideles.

To question whether he spake of the Law of Works, were to question whether the Sun shineth at noon-day. When any is acccused to be an Infidel, or finally impenitent, or a sinner against the Holy Ghost, as it is a sin that he is accused of, so the Accusation is from the Law: but as Unbelief or Impenitency (for why you bring in the sin against the Holy Ghost, I do not know) doth import p. 86a want of the Condition required in the Gospel, so (as I have said before) it is no new accusation, but only a re-inforcing of a former accusation; and so the refelling of this Accusation, by shewing the fruits of Faith and Repentance, is not properly a justifying of our selves by any thing in our selves, but only a proving and manifesting that we are indeed justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us.

3. The imperfection of our Faith and Obedience doth prove that it is no Righteousness by which we can be justified; consider always, that I speak of absolute and universal Justification.

Si per se (saith Calvin) vel intrinsecâ, ut loquuntur, Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. §. 7.virtute justificaret fides, ut est semper debilis & imperfecta, non efficeret hoc nisi ex parte; sic manca esset justitia, quae frustulum salutis nobis conferret.

So Davenant, Ad justificationem efficiendam non De Instit. Habit. cap. 26. Arg. 3. Ibid. Arg. 4. De Justif. Disp. 11.sufficit justitia suo quodam modo perfecta, & aliquo modo imperfecta; sed necesse est eam esse legali modo perfectam, & omnibus suis numeris absolutam. And again, Nulla justitia coram Deo justificat, sed quae ad amussim Legis perfecta est: Sed nostra inharens non est talis, &c.

Thus also Maccovius, Quod nobis imputatur ad justitiam, (nempe propriè & per se, seu respectu sui) id debet esse perfectissimum, ut consistere possit cum judicio Dei, Rom. 2. 2. At Fides non est perfectissima, 1 Cor. 13. 9.

To me it seems not hard to be certain of the meaning Ibid.of that place, Luke 7. 47. [Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much]. It appears (as I noted) plainly enough by the Context, what the meaning is, viz. not that her love was the cause of the forgiveness of her sins, but the forgiveness of her sins the cause of her love: And you see how sharply Calvin (whose words I cited) censures those that interpret it othérwise.

The Parable going before those words are so clear, In Luc. 7. 42.Luke 7:42That Maldonate is forced to say, Videtur ex hâc parabolà non fuisse colligendum, quod Christus colligit, multa peccata illi multeri remitti, quia multum dilexisset, sed contrà proptereà eam multum dilexisse, quòd multa illi peccata remissa essent.—Quae res speciosam Calvino, & caeteris haereticis, errandi occasionem praebuit, negantibus huìc multeri propter praecedentia charitatis opera remissa p. 87peccata; illa verò verba, quoniam dilexit multum, sic interpretantibus, ut dictio illa quoniam, non causam, sed effectum, & consequentiam significet: quod utinam nemo Catholicorum secutus esset.

And see how poorly and pittifully he comes off, viz. either thus, Ʋt Christum inversà parabolâ usum fuisse deceremus. q. d. Sicut ille dilexit multum, quia multum illi remissum fuerat; ita huic mulieriè contrario, quia dilexit multum, remissa sunt peccata multa. Or, which he rather inclines unto, thus, Quod Christus hoc loco rogat, Quis ergo eum plus diliget etsi futurum tempus est, tamen ex consuetudine loquendi vim praeteriti habere puto. q. d. Quem tu judicas, ex effectu conjecturam faciens, plus antè Dominum suum delexisse? Ʋtrùm illi magis amicum fuisse, cum amicitiae causa faenerator debitum utrique remiserit? What straits was this acute Man driven to, because he was resolved to hold the Conclusion, and yet saw how ill it did suit with the Premises?

1. What others, of whom you speak do, I know not; Ibid.they may answer for themselves.

2. I take affiance (which is a Believing in, or Relying on) to be an Act of Faith it self, the Act of Faith being as well Credere in, as simpliciter Credere. But internal Obedience or Love, (for these you make both one, though indeed Believing it self is inward Obedience as well as Love, the one being commanded as well as the other) is not the Act of Faith, though caused by Faith; not actus dicitus, though actus imperatus: therefore this is not so immediate a product of Faith as the other.

3. I conceive Affiance to be a part of Justifying-Faith, and not only a Fruit of it. To believe in Christ, which is as much as to rely on him, and to have affiance in him, is requisite unto Justification. He that believeth on him is not condemned, John 3. 18.

1. As Justification is begun upon sole Believing, so is Ibid.it also continued and consummated. The Scripture (so far as I see) makes Justification simply and absolutely to depend on Faith, and not only in respect of the beginning of it: yet (it is true) Justification is neither begun, nor continued, nor consummated upon such a Believing as is not attended with other Duties. That this is the Uniform Doctrine of the prime Protestants, I p. 88shewed by the confession of our greatest Adversary, to which you oppose nothing.

2. Though some other things besides Faith must go before Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant Ames. contra Bellar. tom. 4. l. 5. cap. 1. §. 1. De Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. c. 18.Justification, yet do they not therefore justifie as well as Faith, it being only Faith that doth apprehend Christ, by whom so apprehended we are justified.

Neque tamen haec fides (saith Wotton) spem, dilectionem, timorem, paenitentiam excludere censenda est, quasi ad eum, qui justificatus est, non pertinerent; sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi (N. B.) significantur penitùs excludi. Atque hoc quidem justificandi munus soli Fidei convenire, his rationibus ostendo. Quia solâ Fide rectà in Christum tendimus, ut per eum justificemur, & promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur. 2. Ʋbicunque Spiritus Sanctus disertis verbis loquitur de justificatione impii, ejusque causas ex hominis parte assignat, nullam ejusmodi causam assignat nisi fidem.

But hear also Luther, who doth both thunder and Loc. Com. Class. 2. Loc. 19. de Justis. ex Tom. 2. in Gen.lighten in this particular: Cur insane Sophista, asseris dilectionem, spem, & alias virtutes? Scio has esse insignia Dei dona, divinitùs mandata, per Spiritum Sanctum in nostris cordibus excitari & ali. Scio fidem sine his donis non existere; sed nunc nobis quaestio est, quid cujusque proprium sit. Tenes manis varia semina, non autem quaero ego, quae cum quibus conjuncta sint, sed quae cujusque propria virtus. Hic apertè dic quid faciat Sola Fides, non cum quibus virtutibus conjuncta sit. Sola autem Fides apprehendit promissionem, credit promittenti Deo, Deo porrigenti aliquid admovet manum, & id accipit. Hoc proprium solius Fidei est; Charitas, Spes, Patientia habent alias materias, circa quas versantur; habent alios limites, intra quos consistunt. Non enim amplectuntur promissionem, sed mandata exequuntur; audiunt Deum mandantem, non audiunt Deum promittentem, ut Fides facit.

In the next Section we are agreed.

To this long Section I need not say much. For now Ibid.that you explain your self, there seems to be but little differente betwixt us. All that I aim at, is this, That Christ simply considered, is not the Object of Justifying Faith, but Christ as promised in the Gospel: so that to believe in Christ, doth imply a believing of the Promise, and that not only so as to assent unto it, but so also as to p. 89apply it. And therefore we often find in Scripture, That the Axiome or Proposition concerning Christ, is made the Object of Justifying and Saving Faith, see Rom. 10. 9. 1 Joh. 5. 1. Acts 8. 37. Joh. 6. 69. And thus our Divines often speak of Faith justifying as apprehending the Promises.

Sola Fides (saith Luther) apprehendit Promissionem.Locis paulò ante citatis.

So Wotton; Solá Fide Promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur.

And Mr. Ball, [For Faith only doth behold and receive Of the Coven. ch. 3. p. 19.the Promises of Life and Mercy, &c. 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].

But I willingly grant, That the Axiome, Proposition or Promise doth but serve to convey Christ unto us, and the apprehending and receiving of him, is the Faith by which we are justified. Only I say, it is Christ in the Promise, or Christ promised, who must be apprehended and received unto Justification.

Fidei objectum quod (saith Ames.) vel materiale; Medul. l. 2. c. 5. §. 21. Ibid. §. 23, 24.est quicquid à Deo revelatur ac proponitur credendum, &c.—Hoc objectum est immediatè semper aliquod axioma vel enuntiatio sub ratione veri; sed illud, in quo principaliter terminatur Fides, de quo, & propter quod assensus praebetur illi axiomati per fidem, est Ens incomplexum sub ratione boni, Rom. 4. 21. Heb. 11. 13. Actus enim credentis non terminatur ad axioma, sed ad rem, fatentibus Scholasticorum clarissimis. Ratio est, quia non formamus axiomata, nisi ut per ea de rebus cognitionem habeamus. Principalis igitur terminus, in quem tendit actus credentis, est res ipsa, quae in axiomate praecipuè spectatur.

All this I like well enough, save that he seems to make the Act of Faith exercised about an Axiome or Enunciation to be only Assent, as to that which is true; whereas somtimes it is also Apprehension and Receiving as of that which is good, though (it's true) this Act of Faith is principally terminated in the thing, which the Axiome or Enunciation doth contain in it.

1. I do not say, That the receiving of Christ as King 56, & 57.is Fides quae justificat, though I grant it is Actus fidei quae justificat.

p. 902. I refer [quà] to [Justificât] q. d. [Faith which justifieth, doth receive Christ as King; yet this is not the Act of Faith, whereby it justifieth]. Or if you will, thus; Christ as King is the object of Faith, which justifieth, but not of Faith as it justifieth. Indeed Faith, which justifieth hath respect to the whole Word of God, yet only to the Word of Promise concerning Christ, and the Mercy of God in Christ, as it justifieth.

Non tam quaeritur (inquit Ames.) quae aut quid sit Contrae Bellar. Tom. 4. Lib. 5. c. 1. §. 1, 2. Ibid. cap. 2. §. 1. Ibid. §. 8.Fides, quae justificat, quàm quae sit ratio quâ proprè dicitur justificare. And presently after follow the words, which I cited in the Animadversions. Again, Ʋna & eadem (inquit) Fides est, quâ placemus Deo ad reconciliationem, & jam reconciliati dirigimur & sustentamur ad placendum ipsi in Obedienti… novâ. And again, Fidem illaem, quae justificat, praesupponere, involvere, & inferre concedimus fidem Historiae, atque etiam (in quibusdam olim) miraculorum; sed historiae ac miraculorum fidem saepè à justificatione separari palam est; Quamvis multae sint exercitia & objecta Fidei, non tamen justificans est, nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christo. Hinc omnes illi, quorum fides in eo capite (Heb. 11.) laudatur, collimabant ad promissionem illam miserecordiae in Christo.

3. Where do I say, That the receiving of Christ as King doth justifie, that you ask me in what sense it doth so? I say, Justifying Faith doth receive Christ as King, but not as justifying; or that Faith in that respect doth not justifie.

4. Faith as the Condition of Justification is the receiving of Christ as satisfying for us.

5. If Christ's Satisfaction only be our Righteousness, by which we are justified; and Christ as Priest only made Satisfaction for us, then by receiving Christ as Priest only we are justified. This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument, though I left out the word [only].

And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me, as (I think) in every point, wherein we differ, if he have occasion to treat of it. [It is true (saith he) that Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 79.Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour: but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour, not as Lord, that justifies. Christ rules his People as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes atonement for them as a p. 91Priest, by giving himself in Sacrifice, his Blood for remission of Sins. These must be distinguished, but not divided: Faith hath an eye at all, the Blood of Christ, the Command of Christ, the Doctrine of Christ: but as it ties and fasteus on his Blood, so it justifies. He is set out a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3. 24. not through Faith in his Command. It is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin, and not the Sovereignty of Christ. These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship, and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered. Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work. Sovereignty doth not cleanse, nor Blood command us: Faith in his Blood, not Faith yeelding to his Sovereignty, doth justifie us. There are several acts of Justifying-Faith, Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification. It is not Abraham's Obedience, Moses Self-denyal, Gideon or Sampson's Valour, that was their Justification, but his Blood, who did enable them in these things by his Spirit].

Your Similitude is not suitable; for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband, may be enriched or dignified by him, though she never look at him as rich or honourable, but only as her Husband. But we must look at Christ as a Priest, and as making Satisfaction for us, that so we may be justified by him. For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification; see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult. Rom. 8. 34. where those words [It is Christ that died] shew how Christ doth justifie us, and free us from condemnation, viz. by dying, and so satisfying for our sins. That which follows of Christ's Resurrection, &c. seems (as to our Justification) but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death, and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction, which he made for us by his Death, that so we may be justified by him.

6. You grant, that Christ, not as King, but as Priest, doth justifie us meritoriously and satisfactorily; and that is it which I urge, That Christ's Satisfaction, which as Priest he made for us, is that whereby, or for which we are justified. Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification, therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us, and so receive him as to that purpose, viz. p. 92our Justification; though (I grant) whole Christ, or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received; neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfie for us, except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us, and as a King to govern us. So I usually Preach and Teach.

1. When you say, That I leave the Errour in his Language, 57but not in his Sense, your words are ambiguous. (p. 69.)For they may import, That I leave, i. e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way, but not the other. Or that I leave, i. e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language, but not in his Sense. This I take to be your meaning, for else you could not say (except ironically, which I do not suspect) that it is a fair Exposition, and that you like it. I have no reason to strive about another's words, especially not knowing how they are brought in: but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear: neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous, may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them.

2. Where Ames. hath those words, you do not shew: But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali. For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth, nor with himself in saying, Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis. The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith, though not of Faith as Justifying; and so much is acknowledged by Amesius, as appears by his words before cited. Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects, but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration.

Besides, I find Amesius to have such words as you mention, but withall to add such, as plainly to express what I say. Christus (inquit) est adaequatum objectum Medul. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 17.Fidei, quatenus (N. B.) Fides Justificat. Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat, nisi quatenus apprehendit …lam justitiam, (N. B.) propter quam justificamur.

1. The Text (1 John 4. 19.) cannot (I think) be Ibid. & 58.rightly understood but as I interpreted it. For v. 10, 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us, in giving his Son for us. And v. 19. he shews whence it is that we love God, viz. from hence, that God loved (p. 70.)us first, i. e. we apprehending the Love of God to p. 93us, answer his love with love again. Amat non immeritò, qui amatus sine merito, as Bernard speaketh. Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us, before we can love him for what he hath done for us.

2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love, of which I speak.

3. Embracing, which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the compleating Act of Justifying-Faith, doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii; we can never sincerely embrace Christ, if we do not desire him: but amor delectationis, or complacentiae doth follow after embracing, viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed. All that you add, holds only in respect of the former kind, not in respect of the latter.

1. There are divers kinds of Love, but I speak of that 58Love which differs from Desire; and so did you seem to understand it, as I noted from your words, Aphorism, p. 267.

2. Whereas you say, [There is no need of Faith to make it present, before it can be accepted and loved]; you cannot by Faith mean Assent, for that, you grant, doth go before Love and Acceptance. And if by Faith you mean Acceptance, surely there must be Acceptance, before a thing can be accepted, though in time these go together. But perhaps you only mean, That though Faith as an Assent, must go before in time, and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature, yet not so as to make a thing present. For you add, That God's Offer doth make it present. But though the Offer be present, yet the thing offered is not present, so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must be: for it must be present by way of Enjoyment, but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for; so that the thing, though it be offered, yet until it be accepted, it is absent, because it is not enjoyed. The thing offered must be desirously, and in that respect lovingly accepted; but it must first be accepted, and then loved, so as to joy and delight in it.

3. We look at Christ as enjoyed, when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight, of which Love I speak.

p. 94Gaudium oritur ex hoc, (saith Raimundus de Sebunda) quòd aliqua rès scit se habere id, quod habet, & non ex Theolog. Natur. Tit. 95.hoc dunt axat, quod habet.

There must both be the Having of a thing, and also the Knowing that we have it, that we may rejoyce in it.

4. As Assent must go before Acceptance, so must Acceptance go before that Love, of which I speak.

1. I did not say, or think, that you thought so of all Ibid.Love, viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed; for there is no distinguishing here of these, as I have shewed before; the Object is not present, except it be enjoyed. You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object; and I thought you had meant that kind of Love, because you did distinguish Love from Desire. Therefore I said, [Love as you take it, considereth its Object as present and enjoyed] viz. Love as distinguished from Desire. I know not (I confess) what to make of Love, but either a Desire, if the Object be abs…nt, or a Delight, if the Object be present.

2. That which you say concerning Acceptance, Election, and Consent, is nothing to me, who do not enquire whether they be divers acts or no, but only shew that they go before Enjoyment, and so differ from Love, as I take it, viz. Love of Complacency, which doth follow Enjoyment.

I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance, and the Love of Complacency to follow after it. Although 59Amare & velle bonum be one and the same, yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio, si objectum absit, vel cum Complacentiâ, si adsit.

Aquina… doth not satisfie me, when he saith, Nullus Part 1. Quaest. 20. Art. 1.desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato; if he mean, that a thing is amatum prius **Nempe prius tempore, non naturà.quàm desideratum. The very Desiderare (I think) is Amare, and so is Gaudere also; but the one is Amare quod abest, the other Amare quod adest. So you in the next Section say, [Desire is Love, and Complacency is Love].

1. I did not doubt, much less deny that there is Amor Ibid.Desiderii, as well as Amor Complacentiae; only I shewed, that your words there must be meant of the former, in which sense I did not oppose you, but as it is taken in the p. 95other sense; and so you seemed to take it before, because you did expresly distinguish it from Desire.

Neither is your second any thing against me.

3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense, as according to the most proper sense, viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture.

Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was.

1. The places, which you alledg (John 16. 27. and Ibid.14. 21.) do not prove, that Love, viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love, and Christ's Love to us, so that we must first love God and Christ, before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ. For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ, therefore we love God and Christ, 1 John 4. 19▪ The meaning of those other places (as Calvin notes) is this, That they that love God, insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris testimonium: To which may be added, That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more.

2. Not only Love, but Obedience also must go before Glorification; but it doth not therefore follow, That they must go before Justification, as your self hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified. That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first, is more than I can find in Scripture.

1. What some have answered, and what you have read Ibid.in others I know not; you cite none whose Works are extant, but only Mr. Ball, and him at large, [On the Covenant] but where in that Book you do not shew. I find there that he doth use the words [Instrument] and [Condition] promiscuously.

[The Covenant of Grace (saith he) exacteth no other Of the Coven. p. 65.thing inherent in us, as a Cause (viz. instrumental) of Justification, or a Condition (N. B.) in respect of which we are justified, but Faith alone]. This is point-blank against that which you say of him. And again, [It is Ibid.(saith he) the sole Instrumental or Conditional (N. B.) Cause required on our part to Justification].

As I shewed before in the Animadversions, ad pag. 243. our Divines say, Fides sola justificat, sed Fides quae justificat, non est sola: but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith.

p. 96Thus Staplet…n somewhere (I cannot now cite the place) testifyeth of them, saying, Omnes ad unum Protestantes docent Fidem justificantem esse vivam, & operantem per charitatem, at que alia bona opera.

2. I grant, That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite; if you will call it so, as I see not but you may, though Amor Concupiscentiae is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae, and so you speak of it, p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae, then neither do I speak against you. For of that do I speak, and had reason (I think) to understand you as speaking of it, because you spake of Love as distinct from Desire. Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature, abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency, which are the Species of it: but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love, that Love which is not the one of these, must needs be the other. We accept or chuse a thing, because we first Love, i. e. desire it, or (as we use to say) have a mind to it: and having accepted and chosen it, we further love it, so as to delight in it, except our Love turn into Hatred, as Ammon's unchast Love did: but the very Accepting of Chusing of a thing is not (that I see) properly a Loving of it.

3. I grant, that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance, Consent, &c. the Love of Desire doth not; but the Love of Complacency doth. This is all that I have desired, and so much you have yeelded.

1. The distinction of Fides quae, and Fides quà, as it Ibid.is frequently used by our Learned Writers, so it doth hold good notwithstanding any thing you have said, or (I suppose) can say against it.

Quamvis hanc controversiam elevent, (saith Rivet, Disp. de Fide Just. §. 16.speaking of the Remonstrants) nec ciccum (ut loquuntur) interdiunt, an Fides quae est viva, an Fides quà est viva, ad justificationem requiratur, & Logicam tantùm pugnam esse velint, Logica tamen haec pugna realem continet magni momenti. Siquis enim dicat, Christus qui homo est infinitus, & Christus quà homo est infinitus, nemo sanus existimabit nihil differre has enuntiationes.

I grant you more than you require, That not only Christ as Lord, but even the whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying Faith; but not therefore of Faith as Justifying. The Hand may receive both Meat and Mony, p. 97yet it doth not enrich, as it receiveth Meat, nor feed as it receiveth Mony.

2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness, (which I think you have ever affirmed, though you would also have another Righteousness of our own, and that unto Justification;) then I see not but that I may speak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending Christ's Satisfaction. For though the Satisfaction was made unto God, yet it was made for us; and in that respect we are to lay hold on it, and receive it, and not only to assent to the truth of it.

You somewhere cite Bellarmine yeelding unto us thus much, Imputari nobis Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi.

Which words also Amesius doth cite, and interpret to Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. §. 22.be as much as if he did say, Christi merita sunt nobis à Deo donata, ut possimus ea pro nobis Deo offerre tanquam Satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris.

It is Satisfactio Christi, though by Faith it becomes Nostra, which we must offerre Deo: but first we must by (p. 72.)Faith receive it, before we can have any interest in it, to make such use of it. Faith justifieth (I grant) as a Condition, because it is required of us, that we may be partakers of Christ's Right…ousness; but it is not Faith properly, but the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified.

Recte Contarenus (saith Ames.) in Tract. de Justif. Ʋbi supra lib. 5. c. 4. §. 12.Fide justificamur, non formaliter, sicut Albedo efficit parietem album, aut Sanitas hominem sanum; sed efficienter, sicut Linitio efficit parientem album, & Medicatio efficit sanum: sic, vel non dissimili ratione, Fides efficit hominem justum, & justificat.

I like your Explication which you now make, and I Ibid. & 60.think my labour well bestowed, as being the occasion of it. I perceive all that you mean is this, That the Covenant wherein God doth give Christ, is not of force to make Christ ours until we believe. This who can question, Christ being given to be ours only upon condition of believing? Yet Christ being so conditionally given in the Covenant, upon our believing he is made ours by vertue (p. 73.)of the Covenant: so that still I see not but that our believing p. 98doth immediately make Christ ours, there being nothing more to that end required of us, but to beliere. But how will it follow, that God doth justifie Men before they believe, when by his Covenant he doth not justifie but upon condition of Believing? The Grant of a thing being Condi…ienal, it cannot be actually obtained until the Condition be performed, though upon the performance of the Condition by vertue of the Grant there be actual enjoyment.

Whether the receiving of Christ as Priest, and the receiving 6of him as King be two distinct acts, doth little concern our purpose; yet I think the Acts may be distinet, though I deny not but Christ may be received at once in (p. 73.)both respects: yet if he be, it is the receiving of him as Priest, not as King, that doth justifie. I grant that the receiving of Christ in respect of any one Office doth viltually include the receiving of him in respect of all his Offices: and he that doth not so receive Christ in respect of his Priestly Office, as to be ready to receive him also in respect of his Kingly Office, when Christ shall so be set forth unto him, doth not at all receive him: such a Faith is a false Faith, and cannot justifie. Yet may there be a receiving of Christ as Priest without an express and direct receiving of him as King, though implicitly and by consequence he be received as such. Neither is it a false Knowledg, though it be an imperfect Knowledg to know Christ as a Priest, and not to know him as a King. And that Christ is sometimes propounded only as a Priest, i. e. with express mention only of his Priestly Office, seem… clear and undeniable by divers places of Scripture; see John 1. 29, 36. and 3. 14, 15. and so other places which speak of Christ as suffering for us, not mentioning his Sovereignty over us, though that is there implied and expressed in other places. And though he be (as sometimes he is) expresly set forth at once both as Priest and King, and so must expresly be received at once in both respects; yet it hinders not, but that the receiving of Christ as Priest, and not the receiving of him as King, is that which justifieth. One may at once receive divers things, and yet those things not all serve for one and the same use, but one thing may serve for one use, and another thing for another use, all being, though in several respects, useful and necessary to be received.

p. 99You say that you are of my mind in all this, yet you Ibid.seem to differ from me, in that you make Affiance a Fruit of Acceptance, which you make the very Act of Faith by (74.)which we are justified; whereas I taking Affiance for Recumbency, and for that which is meant by Believing in Christ, and Embracing him, make it to be the very Justifying Act of Faith. That Believing in Christ doth principally import Assent I cannot see: to Believe indeed doth seem principally to import Assent; but to Believe in, seems principally to import Assiance.

Credere in Christum (as Ferus saith well) est certâ, In Joh. 6. 29.John 6:29firmâ, & stabili fiduciâ Christum, omniaque ejus bona complecti, eisque toto corde, tot… animâ, totisque viribus inhaerere.

So Wotton; Quid est in Christum credere? An id solummodo; De Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. c. 14.credere vera esse, quae Christus loquitur? At quid opus erat Spiritui Sancto tam novum & insolens verbum usurpare, presertim obscurum etiam, & à vulgi intelligentia remotum? Quod rectè & clarè dici potuit, foreign, id Spiritus Sanctus novo more dicendi, foreign, voluit obscurare? Nam hic certè loquendi modus, foreign, totus est à Spiritu Sancto illi proprius, nec ullum è Graeci… autorem agnoscit, ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes, qui Hebraea Bibliae Graece reddiderunt, à quibus Apostoli & Evangelistae multa in Scriptis suis, quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet, crebrò mutuentur. Quamobrem plus quàm verisimile videtur SpiritumSanctum quum novo loquendi more utatur, quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est, aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse.

I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Phrase, Huno In Ludo de morte Claudii Caesaris.(inquit) Deum quis colet? quis credet in eum? Where [Gredet in eum] is as much as [fiduciam in eo collocabit]. 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 61your desire. But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on (74.)your Knees, I know not to what purpose you did speak p. 100of 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 Ibid.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, nor is there need here to say any more of it.

1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks: But Ibid.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 Of the Coven. p. 64.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 whereby 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 foreign, but also foreign is to be considered.

4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done p. 101many 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 In 2 Cor. 1 Hom. 3.2 Cor 1erat cateris omnibus, ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esse viderentur.

What your Parenthesis doth mean (Legal Justification 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 p. 102brought forth in time convenient: and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense.

[Every observant Reader (saith Dr. Jackson) may Of Justifying Faith, §. 2. chap. 17.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 Ibid.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 Ibid.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 consider… not Faith as it is a part of our qualification inherent, or the foundation of other Graces, but as it includes t…e Correlative Term, or Immediate Cause of Justification, whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference, and continual aspect. This is that which in other terms some have delivered, Fides justificat relative, non **Not that Faith hath no efficiency at all in Justifying, but that it is not the Meritorious Cause of Justification.effectivè, aut formaliter, &c.]

Take a few words more from this Author, (Ibid.) [The Apostle levels his whole Discourse to this Point maintained by us, That seeing Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by Faith, and not through Works, none after him should in this l…fe at any time, (N. B.) whether before or after the infusion of Grace, or Inherent Righteousness, presume to seek or hope for like approbation from God otherwise than only by Faith].

p. 103How I exclude Love, I have shewed, even as you do, viz. Love of Complacency, which you grant doth follow Acceptance, that Act of Faith by which we are justified. And when I say that Protestants generally d…ny Faith, which is without Works to justifie, I mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them. You might easily have perceived this to be my meaning by what I said out of Cajetan de fide non sterili, sed facunda operibus. A Tree is not said to be barren, except it doth not bring forth Fruit when the Season doth require.

5. I shewed you what I take to be meant Jam. 2. 23. when it is said, [And the Scripture was fulfilied, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]; viz. That by Abraham's readiness to obey God in offering up Isaac, the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear, it was then most manifest, That Abraham believed God indeed, and that his Faith was a true Justifying-Faith, it being operative, and shewing forth it self so evidently by Works of Obedience, when they were required of him; so that the Scripture did well and truly say of him, That he believed God, and …t was accounted to him for Righteousness.

Cajetan doth explicate it (me-thinks) very well. In Loc.Adverte (saith he) prudens Lector, quòd Jacobus non sentit fidem absque operibus mortuam esse, &c. Sed sentit fidem sine operibus, id est, renuentem operari… esse mortuam, esse vanam, & non justificantem. …t rectè sentit, quontam, quae non est parata operari, mortua est. Suâpte enim naturâ operatar per dilectionem, ut Paulus dicit. Quodergo Jacobus affert verba, Gen. 15. [Credidit Abraham Deo, &c.] ad hoc affert, quod credidit paratus operari. Et proptereà …icit, quod in opere oblationis filit impleta est Scriptura loquens de side Abrahae parata operari. Impleta, inquam, est q…o… execut…nem maximi operis, ad quod parata …rit fides Abrahae.

And though you make light of this interpretation of James, as if it were nothing against you; yet Calvin In Loc.doubted not to say, Nodo insolubili constrictos i…neo, quicunque justitiam Abrahae coram Deo imput at am fingunt, quia immolavit filium Isaac, qui nondum natus erat, quum Spiritus Sanctus pronunciat justum f…isse Abraham. Itaque necessario restat, ut aliquid posterius notari p. 104discamus. Quomodo igitur Jacobus id fuisse im pletum dicit? Nempe ostendere vult, qualis illa futrit fides, quae justificavit Abraham, non otiosa scilicet, aut evanida, sed quae illum Deo reddidit obsequentem; sicut etiam Heb. 11. 8. habetur.

Calvin (it seems) never dreamed of being justified one way at first, **He is express against it. Instit. l. 3. c. 17. §. 9. Of the Coven. c. 12. 79, 80and another way afterwards. I would not have you put him off with a taunt, as you did before. Rarcius ista tamen, &c.

But let Mr. Blake also be heard speak, [James indeed (saith he) saith that Abraham was justified by Works, when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2. 21. But either there we must understand a Working-Faith with Piscator, Pareus, Pemble, &c. and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct Questions, the one, Whether Faith alone justifies without Works? which he concludes in the Affirmative. The other, What Faith justifies, whether a Working-Faith only, and not a Faith that is dead & idle? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who straight infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son; And the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness. How otherwise do these accord? He was justified by Works, and the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, He was justified by Faith? Neither can I reconcile what he saith, if this be denied, with the whole current of the Gospel].

And he adds a little after, [All Works before or after Conversion, are inherent in us, or wrought by us, are excluded from Justification].

Your Interpretations, viz. [Abraham believed, i. e. believed and obeyed]. Or, [Yet the Scripture was fulfilled, &c. For Faith did justifie him, but not only Faith]. are so uncouth and incongruous, that I wonder how you could perswade your self, much more think to perswade others to embrace them. Paul cites those words to prove that Abraham was justified only by Believing, and that Justification is by Faith only: And shall we admit of such an interpretation, [Faith doth justifie, but not only?] Or [Abraham was justified by Believing and Obeying?] What is this else but to make the Scripture a nose of wax, and to wrest it which way we please? Yea; What is it else but to make the Scripture plainly to contradict it p. 105self? And yet (forsooth) you pretend to stand upon the foreign, and the plain words of Scripture. But Paul (you say) speaks of Justification as Begun; and that (you grant) is by Faith only? Well, and for proof of his Doctrine (say I) he alledgeth the words of Moses concerning Abraham. Must not those words then be understood of the same Justification? Will you say with Bellarmine, that Paul speaking of the first Justification, doth fetch a proof from the second? As on the other side, he saith, that James, speaking of the second Justification, doth fetch a proof from the first? This is Coelum Terrae miscere, & Mare Coelo.

6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be so, but also shewed where the same phrase is so used, viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9. And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel those places, and interpret the one by the other.

Thus Camero; Fides (inquit) dicitur perfici operibus, Myroth. ad Jac. 2. 22.Jas 2:22quia Fides, dum producit opera, ostendit quàm sit perfecta: ut 2 Cor. 12. 9. Virtus Christi dicitur perfici in infirmitatibus, quia tum scilicet se maximè exerit, & prodit.

And so Maccovius; Fides fuit perfecta ex operibus, De Justif. Disp. 10.quomodo virtus Christi perficitur in infirmitate, 2 Cor. 12. 9. quia in ea se exerit: consimili ratione Fides perfici per opera dicitur, quia per ea se prodit.

Generally I find the words thus expounded by those that either comment upon them, or have occasion to treat of them.

Dicitur ex operibus (saith Calvin) fuisse perfecta, In Loc.non quòd inde suam perfectionem accipiat, sed quòd vera esse inde comprobetur.

So Beza; Hoc igitur (inquit) ad declarationem In Loc. Perfecta, i. e. perfectius cognita. Tremell. ad Loc. In Loc.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 & exor…ant, rectè dicuntur perfectio Fidei.

p. 106And so Polanus; Fides justificans perficitur ex boni… Symphon. Cathol. Cap. 36. Thesi 2.operibus, non quoad foreign 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 Fides dicitur perfici per opera, quia per ease prodit Rivet. Disp. de Fide Justis. §. 20. Of Faith, Part 1. c. 4. p. 44.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 obedienti… offerendo filium, propter quod dictum fuit sibi … Domino; Nunc cognovi, &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, Animad. pag. 54. Where I also cited Dr Preston thus expounding it, and using this similitude to illustrate it.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, Ʋt si dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas tum fuisse perfecta, quum optimum aliquem frructum edidit. Nam quia de causa judicamus ex effectis, videtur quodammodo causae vis vel minus, vel augert ex effectorum proportione. Sed hoc ex effectis intelligitur quidem, & aestimatur, 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 Ʋbi supra.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 worke…h: As we say the goodn… of a Tree is perfect, when it hath brought forth some excellent good Fruit. Thus Philosophers teach, That the p. 107Form 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 medi…, 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, In Gen. 15 Exercit. 73.Gen 15&c. (saith Rivet) Quod continuum beneficium fide apprehensum, si secundam Justificationem appellare velint adversarii, imò tertiam, quartam, quintam, & millesimam, non repugnamus, dummodo conslet nullà alià ratione (N. B.) nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus, quàm 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 Of Faith, Part 1. c. 4. p. 57. Ib. Part 2. c. 4. p. 253.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 p. 108justified 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 …he …, 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 Fides sola justificat, quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum, & unica facultas, in nobis qua recipimus justitiam, Christi. Bucan. Loc. 31. ad quaest. 37.not the Person, 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 …ondition p. 109(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. 63the 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 Thes. Theolog. Part 1. Disp. 16.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 & Evangelit. Sed si obtineat haec distinctio, tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata, quae committuntur **Nempe Solam, & non etiam in Doctrinam Legis.in Doctrinam Evangelii: Non ergo erit adaequata definitio peccati, quam dat Spiritus Sanctus, 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio.—At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege. Certè; interim Evangelii Doctrina praecipitur Lege. Nam Deus postulat, ut Evangelio credamus, &c.

So Pemble, [Nor yet (saith he) hath this Distinction Of Justif. Sect. 2. Chap. 2. §. 2.(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 p. 110Heart, 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 (foreign accuratè, i. e. quam proximè Ad Loc.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 adeò, (as Bradshaw speaketh) De Justif. c 3. §. 11.aut injustus dari potest, qui falsò accusari, & consequenter etiam eatenus merito justifie art non possit.

Indeed Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief, is by consequence a Justification against all p. 111Accusations, 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.