A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 3 (4 of 5)

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness · Book 3 (4 of 5)

p. 111Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith, so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith; which Faith both when Justification is first begun, and when it is continued, must be a Working-Faith, i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require. If our Divines affirm, That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works, means in point of merit, (as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose) surely it is, because they know no other Justification by Works, but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious.

Hear one whom I (and so I presume you also) take for a good Divine, viz. Mr. Blake, [This Justification Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 80.(saith he) wrought freely by Grace through Faith, Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent with Justification by Works. And what the Apostle speaks of Election, we may well apply to Justification: the same medium equally proves the truth of both; If by Grace, then it is no more of Works, otherwise Grace were no more Grace: But if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwise Works were no more Works, Rom. 11. 6.]

Calvin also useth this Argument to confute those who would have Works to concur with Faith unto Justification, that then we should have somewhat to boast of, which is not to be admitted. Sed quoniam (inquit) bona Instit. l. 3. c. 11. §. 13.pars hominum justitiam ex fide & operibus compositam imaginatur, praemonstremus id quoque, sic inter se differre fidei operumque justitiam, ut altera stante necessariò altera evertatur. Dicit Apostolus se omnia pro stercoribus reputasse, ut Christum lucrisaceret, &c. (Phil. 3. 8, 9.) Vides & contrariorum esse hîc comparationem, & indicari propriam justitiam oportere pro derelicto p. 112haberi ab eo, qui velit Christi justitiam obtinere.—Id ipsum quoque ostendit, cum negat per Legem excludi gloriationem nostram, sed per fidem. Ʋnde sequitur, quantisper manet quantulacunque operum justitia, manere nobis nonnullam gloriandi materiam. Jam si fides omnem gloriationem excludit, cum justitiá fidei sociari nullo pacto justitia operum potest. In hunc sensum tam clarè loquitur quarto cap. ad Rom. u… nullum cavillis aut tergiversationibus locum relinquar. Si operibus, inquit, justificatus est Abraham, habet gloriam. Subjungit, atque non habet gloriam apud De…m. Consequens …rgo est, non justificatum esse operibus. Ponit deinde alterum argumentum à contrariis. Quum rependitur operibus merces, id fit ex deb…to, non ex gratiâ. Fidei autem tribuitur justitia secundum gratiam. Ergo id non est ex meritis operum. Valeat igitur corum somnium, (N. B.) qui justitiam ex fide & operibus conflatam comminiscuntur.

Who those multitudes of Divines be of whom you speak, I cannot tell, because you name none; but I think that few or none of them will be found of your mind, viz. That Paul doth only exclude Works from Justification in point of merit; as if Justification might be by Works in some other respect, so as that no merit thereby is presupposed. So far as I observe, our Divines note this as one main Argument, whereby the Apostle doth wholly exclude Works from Justification, because otherwise the merit of Works could not be denied, which yet is to be exploded.

Thus the Centurists among many other Arguments, whereby the Apostles (they say) prove Justification to Cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. Col. 257. Arg. 26.be by Faith alone, note this for one; Non est gloriandum in nobis, sed in Domino. Ergo non ex operibus, sed gratis justificamu…, ne quis glorietur, Ephes. 2. 1 Cor. 1.

Ad 5. All good Works (as I have shewed before) and consequently those whereby we perform obedience to the Redeemer, are works of the Law, it being the Rule to which they must be conformed. But it is Faith in the Redeemer, not Obedience to the Redeemer, by which we are justified, though Justifying-Faith must, and will shew it self by Obedience.

Ad 6. All Works that have an agency in Justification, are meritorious, and so make the Reward to be of Debt, p. 113and not of Grace. Now to your Answers to my Arguments in oppositum I reply; And for the firs;t thus; If Abraham's Gospel-Works did justifie him otherwise than by evidencing his Faith, whereby he was justified, if they be made to have a co-interest with Faith in his Justification, then they are set in Competition or Copartnership with Christ… Righteousness.

That no Work of the Gospel doth justifie; Mr. Pemble Of Justif. §. 2. ch. 2. §. 2. See Rivet as cited pag. 145.proveth by this, That every Work of the Gospel, is a Work of the Law also; and therefore the Apostle denying that a Man is justified by the Works of the Law, doth consequently deny that he is justified by the Works of the Gospel. That Works do justifie as Conditions under Christ, is repugnant to what your self hold in respect of Justification as begun: and I see not, that the Scripture shews us any other Condition of Justification afterward than at first.

2. My Conclusion; That Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith, is not against Jam. 2. 21. no more than Paul's Doctrine Rom. 3. & 4. is. For I mean, as Paul doth, That Abraham's Works did not concur with his Faith to his Justification: but James meant only, That Abraham's Faith was not such as some presume of a dead idle Faith, but a living working Faith; and that his Works did manifest his Faith to be such as whereby he was justified.

Cum obtulisset (inquit Bucanus) Abraham Isaac Loc. Co…. Loc. 31. ad quaest. 39.filium suum super altare, ex operibus justificatus est, hoc est, compertus est fuisse justificatus per fidem, idque ex operibus tanquam testimoniis Justificationis. Et sic homo operibus justificatur, id est, comprobatur esse illa persona, quae Christi obedientiâ justificatur, ex vitae sanctificatione quae tanquam effectus illam sequitur, & de illà testatur. Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsonum operibus. Nam sunt duo principia, unum existentiae, alterum cognitionis. Ita fides principium existentiae facit, ut simus justs. Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt, ut cognoscamur justi. Ideo Dominus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fide, quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum, Mat. 25. Venite benedicti, &c.

p. 114For the second; 1. The Apostle Rom. 4. 4. speaketh without any distinction, To him that worketh, &c. Now (as you know) non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit.

2. If Works justifie, then they must be meritorious. The Apostle doth not simply deny a Reward to belong of Grace to him that worketh, but to him tha… …orketh so as to be justified by his Works. Such an one having no need of remission of sins, because his Works do justifie him, (which they cannot do if they be imperfect, and so he need pardon) he is said to receive the Reward, not of Grace, but of Debt.

3. Faith as a **Fides non justificat quat…nus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi. Rivet. Disput. de Fide Justif. Sect. 19.Work is excluded from Justification, only it justifieth as an Instrument or Hand receiving Christ and his Righteousness. Or (which is to the same effect) Faith doth not justifie, a… it is a Duty, which if we perform not we sin; but as a Condition upon which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for our Justification. You are not to be blamed for making use of Bellarmine's Argument, (for so indeed it is, not his Answer) but for not taking notice how our Divine… do answer it. See Ames. contra. Bellar. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. ad 6. Love, Hope, and Obedience are not Instruments Fi…s sola justificat, qu… ipsa …nicum instrumentum, & unica sacultas in nobis, quâ recipimus justitiam Christs. Bucan. Loc. 31. ad quaest. 37.of receiving Christ, as Faith is; neither doth the Scripture make them Conditions of Justification, as it doth Faith.

For the Third; 1. Neither doth James speak of any other Justification.

2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are justified by i… a Work or Duty, but only as apprehending Christ a…d his Righteousness; See Calv. Instit. lib. 3… cap. 11. §. 7. And Pemble of Justif. Sect. 2. chap. 2… pag. 38.

3. No more do the greatest Transgressors need pardo… for that wherein they do not transgress.

p. 1154. Works as Works either justifie by way of merit, or not at all: But Faith doth not justifie as a Work or Duty required of us, but as an Instrument receiving Christ, or (if you will) a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified; See Pemble of Justif. §. 2. chap. 1. pag. 24.

The Exclusion (viz. of VVorks from being concurrent 64with Faith unto Justification) is not only Mr. Pemble's, but generally all Protestants, and indeed Paul's and the Scriptures: and to take in VVorks (in that sense) is as Mr. Blake before cited truly saith, against the whole current of the Gospel.

1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it, is Ibid. & 65.not to deny it to mean as it speaketh. Whether the Reasons which I alledged against your interpretation of St. James be forced, let others judg.

2. It avails your cause nothing to prove, That James by working doth mean VVorks indeed. I presume Mr. Pemble would not deny that, but his meaning (I conceive) was, That VVorks are only spoken of as Fruits of Justifying Faith, and are only said to justifie, because they are (as Dr. Jackson speaketh) a passive qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified.

[Hence (saith he also) is the seeming inconvenience Of Justifying Faith; §. 2. ch. 17. §. 7.of St. James his Causal form of Speech (foreign) easily answered. For the immediate and principal cause proposed, it is usual to attribute a kind of causality to the qualification of the Subject, though only requisite as a mere passive disposition, without which the principal or sole Agent shall want his efficacy].

All that St. James intended is this, That Justifying Faith is of a VVorking-Nature, and not such a Faith as some rely on, viz. barren and without VVorks. Now for your Reasons, I answer, Ad 1. You speak of the unprofitableness of bare Faith, i. e. (say you) Assent. But quorsum hoc? You know that Protestants make Faith to justifie, not as it is a bare Assent, but as it is a Receiving of Christ, and a Recumbency on him.

Fides haec justificans (saith Ames.) non est illa generalis, Medull. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 15, 16.quâ in intellectu assensum praebemus veritati in Sacris literis revelatae, &c. Fides igitur illa propriè dicitur justificans, quá incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem p. 116peccatorum, & salutem. And this Faith they hold is not barren, but fruitful in good VVorks; though not VVorks, but Faith it self (apprehending and applying Christ) be it, whereby we are justified.

Id fidei exclusivè tribuendum ex eo constat, quod sola Disp. de Fide Just. §. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.est fides, quae Deo promittenti credit, quae sola acquiescit in gratuitâ promissione Dei in Christo, & remissionem peccatorum apprehendi…, &c. Ʋnde etiam sequitur, Fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi, &c. Nec Jacobus dissentit à Paulo, quamvis alio modo loquendi utatur, ut redarguat eos, qui seipsos fallebant inani fidei justificationem tribuentes, quam probat non esse veram ab exemplo Charitatis, quae nullam vim habet, si tota sit in verbis, c. 2. 16. Operibus autem justificari apud Jacobum, idem est, quod apud Paulum, 1 Tim. 3. 16. justificari spiritu, i. e. Vi spiritus dare sui experimentum, quomodo experimentum dedit Abraham fidei suae, offerendo filium suum: & homo probatus fit, foreign, tentatione, Jac. 1. 12. quae probatio non facit ut res sit, sed per experientiam docet rem esse. Ʋnde etiam fides dicitur perfici per opera, quia per ea se prodit. Ergo cum Paulo vult Jacobus, hominem justificari fide, sed uterque eâ, quae sui experimentum dat per opera: etsi neuter vult opera esse justificationis causas, aut ad justitiam coram Deo acceptari, quorum primum volunt Pontificii, alterum Socimant & Remonstrantes. Concludimus cum Apostolo, & colligimus, fide justificari hominem absque operibus Legis, Rom. 3. 28. sub quibus comprehendimus quaelibet opera, quae secundum Legem fiunt, etiam à sanctis & fidelibus. Cum enim inter Legem factorum sive operum, & Legem fidei distinguat Apostolus, ibid. v. 27. si ex operibus justificemur, Legis operum & fidei distinctio erit vana, & Argumentum ex eà deductum pro fidei justificatione nutabit; quod absurdum ut vitemus, scientes non justificari hominem ex operibus Legis, sed tantùm per fidem Jesu Christi; etiam nos in Jesum Christum credimus, ut justificemur ex fide Jesu Christi, non ex operibus Legis, Gal. 2. 22. Sed cum eodem Apostolo fidum esse hunc sermonem affirmamus studendum esse …is, qui crediderunt Deo, ut bona opera tueantur, Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omni inquinamento, &c. 2 Cor. 7. 1. quod cum fiat de die in diem, 2 Cor. 4. 16. quamdiù p. 117caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum, &c. Gal. 5. 17. in eo non possumus coram Deo justificari. Nam in justificando partialem justitiam Deus non respicit, sed perfect…m & plenam, quia Lex maledicit omnibus, qui non permanebunt in omnibus quae praecipit, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10.

I have been the larger in citing this Author, both because he is eminent, and also doth speak so fully to the Point, and doth meet with many of your Opinions.

But to proceed, It is Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, which St. James opposeth one to the other, viz. Faith which is a bare Assent, and without Works, such a Faith as the Devils have, and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Christ, and the mercy of God in Christ, and is attended with VVorks as the Fruits and Effects of it, as the Faith of Abraham and Rahab was. Though therefore he concludes, That Faith cannot save him that hath not VVorks, yet i… follows not that VVorks concur with Faith unto Justification, but only that a Justifying Faith will shew it self by VVorks.

Ad 2. It is granted, That Faith which is no more than a bare Assent, is neither Justifying nor Saving: But what of this? Is there no other Faith than Assent? Do not you your self make Acceptance, which is more than Assent, the compleating Act of Justifying Faith? And how can you say, That there is the same force ascribed to VVorks as to Faith, when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without VVorks? Indeed VVorks are requisite in their place, but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification, (shew any Orthodox VVriter that doth hold so) though as necessary Fruits of that Faith, by which we are justified. Say not that you speak of Justification as continued, for VVorks, as St. James doth speak of them, are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward, viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good VVorks: if this be wanting, it is no Justifying Faith, but (as St. James calls it) a dead Faith, altogether vain and unprofitable.

Ad 3. That Faith without VVorks is a hardening of Unbelievers, I grant: sed quid tum postea? Do therefore VVorks justifie as well as Faith? But I do not think that St. James brings in (chap. 2. 18.) an Unbeliever so speaking. For how should an Unbeliever (a professed p. 118Unbeliever, we mean; for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite) speak of his Faith, saying, [And I will shew thee my Faith?]

Calvin doth far better interpret it, saying, Jacobus In Loc.dicit, promptum fore piis sanctè viventibus, excute…e hypocritis talem jactantiam, qua inflati sunt.

Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief, i. e. a true Assent; but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith, even that Faith whereby we are justified at first, as your self do hold. And you confess also that Faith doth justifie at first without VVorks; yet (say I) not except it be of a VVorking-Nature, i. e. ready to VVork, when VVorks are required: and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith VVorks do not justifie neither at first nor afterward.

Ad 5. Faith without VVorks is dead, as to the effect of Justification, even altogether unprofitable, i. e. Faith renuens operari, or which is not parata operari, as Cajetan doth well well express it. But this is nothing to prove … In Jac. 2.Jas 2Co-interest of VVorks with Faith in point of Justification; it only proves, That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature. VVhereas you add, [Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works, and on the other si…e Faith without Works]; this doth nothing hinder, but that the opposition is (as I said) betwixt Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, whereof the one is accompanied with VVorks, and the other not; the one is operative and fruitful, the other idle & barren. That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work, but also by VVorks, is more than St. James doth say, and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith. Indeed it is more than you can say, without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued; which distinction St. James never thought of. For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith, as he affirms that to be, which is without VVorks. That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by VVorks is made perfect, as accomplishing its ends, but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect. The end of Faith is to justifie; and your self say, That Faith at first doth justifie without Works: so that in your Opinion Faith without VVorks is perfect, accomplishing its end in justifying at first. But in St. James his sense Faith doth not, cannot p. 119at all justifie without VVorks, i. e. if it be not ready to work: and in that respect VVorks do perfect Faith, i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear: but of that enough before.

Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already. That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation; but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation, Continuation, and Consummation of Justification, you often say, but never prove. Sure I am James doth exclude Faith, which is without VVorks, viz. when God doth call for them, from the very Initiation of Justification. For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils, who surely are so far from Justification, that they have not so much as the initiation of it.

Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a VVorking Faith, or by a Faith which produceth VVorks, and so by his VVorks appears to be justified. The words if taken without any qualification, are against your self, who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without VVorks. If you will distinguish of Justification as at first, and as afterward, to make the Apostle agree with your meaning, though indeed it will not serve: Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so, as to make him agree not only with them, but also with himself; and the whole current of the Gospel? The word foreign there imports no more than if it had been foreign, as appears by the whole series of the Discourse, and more particularly by v. 17. where foreign is as much as foreign, [by it self] i. e. alone without the concomitancy of VVorks, as the Fruits of it. Beza renders it per se; Tremollius out of the Syriack Sola: the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa, which Cajetan corrects, saying, pro per se, and that he expounds, hoc est sola. VVherein I suppose he followed Erasmus, whose Annotation on the place is, foreign, i. e. per se, hoc est, sola.

Ad 8. Rahab was justified by VVorks so as Abraham was, and all must be, even when they are first justified, viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require.

Ad 9 Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief, i. e. Assent; and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19. such a Faith may be p. 120without VVorks, and so is dead, i. e. unprofitable: but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of, (as I have shewed before) who hold that Faith alone doth justifie without VVorks, though withal they hold that Faith which doth justifie is not alone without VVorks, viz. when God doth call for them; and this is all that St. James urgeth. Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this, save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text, and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification, quite besides, yea and against St. James his meaning, as (I think) I have sufficiently demonstrated.

Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James, and reconcile him with St. Paul, after the same manner In Jac. 2.Jas 2as I and others do; foreign (saith he) foreign. Sometimes (he saith) Faith is taken for a bare Assent, foreign, and so the Devils believe: Sometimes it notes also a disposition joyned with assent, foreign. St. James (he saith) considereth Faith in the former sense, St. Paul in the latter. foreign, &c. foreign.

To conclude, It is not Faith as working that doth justifie, but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness: Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness, and so doth justifie, is a Working Faith. Your self grant that VVorks are not necessary quoad praesentiam, in respect of Justification as begun: and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis, in respect of Justification as continued, is more (I presume) than ever will be proved.

1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin, 65, &c.because I see nothing but bare words. As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the rest, who for 1000 years after Paul (you say) give as much to Works as you ever did, or more, and make Faith to justifie as a Condition, and **To make Faith to be a Condition, is not to deny it to be an Instrument: Our Divines sometimes term it the one way, sometimes the othe…, as I have before shewed.not as an Instrument, what-ever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against p. 121the full scope of the whole Page or Book; I wish you had cited some Books, or Pages, or but Scraps, as you call them, whereby to make good what you say, I am not of such Reading, much less of such Memory, as to give an account of so many Authors. Some of them either wholly or in part I have read, but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification, and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it.

But for the Opinion of the Ancient VVriters in this Point, I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in them than I am, viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit. Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmines Allegations, and cap. 29. where he produceth his own.

And Eckhard Compend. Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who alledgeth Chrysostome, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril, Austine and Bernard, as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed unto us for our Justification. And he alledgeth Ambrose, Hierome, Athanasius, Clemens Alex. Origen, Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Basil, Theodoret, Hesychius, Primasius, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, Sedulius, Maxentius, Theodulus, Fortunatus, Victor Mar. and Bernard, as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without VVorks; and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetustâ antiquitate testimonta, quod ad hanc rem spectat, delibare.

Beda, omitted by Eckhard, is cited by B. Ʋsher as De Statu & Success. &c. cap. 2. pag. 46. Contra Bell. tom. 4 lib. 5. c. 2. §. 22.writing on Psal. 77. thus, Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabitur, sed per solam justitiam fidei.

To your other Query concerning Calvin, P. Martyr, &c. I answer in the words of Amesius, Fides specialis misericordiae duplici ratione sic vocatur. 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit, vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam. 2. Quâ misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit: priore sensu justificationem antecedit, posteriore sensu sequitur justificationem. Sed quia una & eadem est fides, quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprhendendo, & applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit, & perfectio vel consolatio ejus in hâc certitudine apparet, quam etiam hostes gratiae precipuè impugnant, idcircò per istam certitudinem (quae tamen quoad sensum à p. 122side potest ad tempus separari) fides justificans solet à multis describi.

And again, Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit, Medul. l. 1. c. 27. §. 19.atquc adeò conjunctam secum habet specîalem ac certam persuasionem de grat…â ac misericordiâ Dei in Christo. Ʋnde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non malè soepè describitur ab Orthodoxis, presertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem, cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii. Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest.—2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis, &c.

2. By Apprehending, I do not mean bare Assent, but Embracing, or Receiving, or Applying.

Amesius cites and approves these words of Contarenus; Contra Bellar. loco proximè citato.Accipimus justificationem per fidem. Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellat applicationem, inquiens passionem Christi esse …eluti Medicinam communem, quam quisque sibi appitcat per fidem & Sacramenta. Protestantes appellant apprehensionem, non eâ significatione, quae pertinet a… cognitionem intellectus, sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere, quo pervenimus, & quod post motum nostrum attingimus.

I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ intirely, yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness by which we are justified. There is no danger in this Doctrine, so long as People are taught withal, that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them, except they also have him as a King reigning over them. Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit, That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction, or of Christ as satisfying for us, is that act of Faith whereby we are justified. Your Similitude doth not suit; because a Husband cannot be offered to a VVoman in several respects, as Christ may be unto a Sinner. I do not conceive Faith to justifie modo physico, or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness: If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel, this Act of Faith would not avail. As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, yet should they not be justified, because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them. Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical p. 123Act of Faith, and withal made the Condition of Justification, in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness; I see not but I may well say, That Faith doth justifie us, apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification. Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification, it is all one to say, Faith do…h justifie as apprehending Christ, and Faith doth justifie as the Condition required unto Justification. Whereas therefore you prove, That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in it self doth not justifie; it is nothing to me, who do not ascribe any thing to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in it self, but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us, to that end that we may be justified. And thus (I think) do others mean, when they say, That Faith doth justifie as apprehending Chris…, and his Righteousness: they do not (I suppose) e…clude, but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Jus…ification.

Pemble having said, [We are justified by Faith, i. e. by the Righteousness of Christ, the benefit whereof unto Of Justif. §. 2. c. 1. p. 27.our justification we are made partakers of by Faith, as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise, and gives us ass…rance of the Performance]. He adds a little after, [He that looked on Christ believing in him, may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith, not for the worth, and by the efficacy of that Act of his, but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace, that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us; upon our obed…ence whereunto, God is pleased of his free Grace to justifie us].

But still notwithstanding all you say, my Argument remains good; [Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ, therefore they concur not with it in justifying]. The Consequence is good, because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification. For this is that which Believing in, or on Christ, doth import, which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ, Joh. 1. 12. That Repentanc… and Obedience do concur with Fai…h in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification, you only affirm, but do not prove. Indeed Repentance as taken for an p. 124acknowledgment of, and sorrow for sin, is requisite unto Justification at first. For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins, except we be sensible of them, and humbled for them. Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ, which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification, as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified. It is neither Repentance, nor Obedience, though Repentance (in the sence before-mentioned) must go before this Justifying-Faith, and so before Justification; and obedience must follow after.

Penitentia (saith Ames.) quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem, ut dispositio ex Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 4. §. 5.ordine praerequisita, sed non ut causa. Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam, cujus primaria pars est fides, ut Act. 11. & Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis, atque adeo i…sius justificationis effectum, qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem, 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quocunque modo accipiatur, dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, quia (N. B.) non habet vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi. Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali. Resipisientiae & fidei differentia haec indigitatur, Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum, & fides in Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum. See also Mr. Ball of the Coren. c. 3. p. 18, 19.

1. You need not trouble your self to prove, That by 69, &c.VVorks are meant VVorks. For surely a working Faith, or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of VVorks, doth imply VVorks. But the Question is, VVhether VVorks concur with Faith in justifying, or only are inseparable Attendants, and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth. You hold the former, yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification: I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun, continued, and consummate. VVhether of us hath more ground from Scripture, let it be judged by what hath been said about it.

But 1. whereas you say, That VVorks are still opposed to Faith without VVorks, or Faith alone, and not to this or that sort of Faith: I have shewed before from Oecumenius (not to speak of our late VVriters) that there is one sort of Faith that is with VVorks, or of a working Disposition, and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ: p. 125and another sort of Faith, that is without VVorks, viz. a bare Assent: and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other, teaching that we are justified by the former, not by the latter.

2. You say, [It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition, but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity]; yet your self deny not only the efficacy, but even the presence of VVorks to be requisite, when we are at first justified: and St. James denies Faith alone (so as he doth speak of it) to have any force at all to justifie, as being dead and unprofitable. Therefore you must needs grant, That it is Faith alone, without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh. Besides, if there be a working Disposition, there will be VVorks themselves when there is opportunity. But all this doth only prove, That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition, and produceth VVorks themselves when opportunity is offered: That VVorks do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification, it no way proveth.

3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry, is accepted of God, when there is no opportunity to do the thing it self. And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp, though VVorks themselves be requisite when there is opportunity: and still I must put you in mind, that your self requires no more than a disposition to work, when we are first justified.

4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see. He that expects mercy from God, must shew mercy to his Neighbour. Doth it therefore follow, that VVorks of Mercy justifie as well as Faith? No, but that Justifying Faith must and will shew it self by VVorks of Mercy.

5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent, as in the Devils, cannot justifie or save. Who opposeth this? Or whom doth it oppose? So, that the same Faith is justifying and saving, I think all will yeeld: yet is there more required unto Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment of it, than unto Justification.

6. VVho makes James v. 18. to speak such non-sence as you tell of? Do they, who say his meaning is, That Faith is pretended in vain, if it do not shew it self by VVorks, as occasion doth require? And what more can any gather from v. 20, 22, 24, 26? You might save your p. 126labour of proving, That by VVorks are meant VVorks you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith, and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying, and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. This is that which they mean, who say that James doth speak of a working Faith, i. e. a Faith ready to work, and so actually working, when God doth require it, not as if instead of [Works] it were good sense always to put [a working Faith]. Such sophistry doth not become us.

7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works, as fruits of Justifying Faith, is ever granted: that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification, is never proved. Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification.

Against this first you say, James doth make VVorks or Working necessary to justifie; I say, he doth not, but only drives at this, That none must think to be justified by Faith, except it be a working Faith, as Abraham's and Rahab's was. You say, [The Soul doth not truly signifie the Body to be alive]. But the word Jam. 2. 26. is foreign, Breath, which is but an effect of Life, and not a cause of it.

[Thus (saith Pemble) the comparison is exact; As Of Grace and Faith, pag. 240. Appendix to the Doctrine of the Certainty of Salvation.the Body without Breath is dead, so is Faith without Works].

So Downam; [Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul, but to the Breath, as the word foreign (derived of foreign to Breath) doth properly signifie, &c. So that the meaning of St. James is, As the Body without Breath is dead, even so Faith without Works (which are as it were the breathing of a lively Faith) is dead].

But if by foreign there be meant the Soul, as 1 Cor. 6. ult. I hope you will not so understand it, as to compare Faith to the Body, and Works to the Soul, as if Works were the Soul of Faith, and so did give Life unto it: whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works, and Works do but evidence Faith, and the lively power of it.

[The Apostle (saith Fulk) in this Similitude doth not On Jam. …. ult.make Faith the Body, and Works the Soul; but Works the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith, which is trust in God, &c.]

p. 1272. God (you say) needs no Signs. Well, but God (say I) requiring such a Faith, whereof Works are Signs, as Fruits and Effects of it, we must look to the signs of our Faith, to find it such as God requires of us to our Justification. Maccovius (it seems) met with the Objection; At Deo non est opus experimento. Resp. Hoc De Justis. Disp. 10. ubi plura in hanc rem videre licet.sane verum est: at non proinde sequitur homines non praebere sui experimentum Deo.

3. Faith may be real, and yet not justifying. A real Assent, yea and Consent, if limited, so as to exclude Christ's dominion over us, is not that Faith which your Opposers plead for.

4. The New Testament doth make a working Faith, yet not Faith as working the Condition of Justification. I wonder how you can stumble at this, when as you constantly hold, That we are justified at first by Faith without Works: yet surely that Faith whereby we are justified at first, is a working Faith, i. e. of a working Nature, and will, when there is opportunity, shew it self by Works. That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification, is more than your own Principles will admit, without that distinction of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued, of which though you make much use, yet I see little ground for it. Now for Dr. Preston's words, which I cited, I think they are clear enough against you.

For first he saith, That Faith alone justifieth and maketh Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. You limit it to Justification as begun, but he speaks of Justification simply considered, and not as begun only.

2. He speaks indeed of a double Justification, but not as you do, not to that intent to bring in a double Righteousness as requisite unto Justification. All that he intends is this, That we are justified only by Faith, according to Paul's Doctrine; yet (as James teacheth) our Faith must appeat to be a true Justifying Faith by VVorks, otherwise it is but a false and feigned Faith, as it pretendeth to be Justifying, and he that pretendeth it, is a Hypocrite. His words without doing violence unto them, can have no other sense put upon them. VVhen any one is accused of being but a seeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obedience, take Believing merely as it p. 128is the Condition of Justification by the Covenant, it is but (as I have often said) the making good this Accusation, That he is a Transgressor of the Law, and to be condemned by the Law for the transgression of it, and so much the more in that he neglected the benefit offered in the New Covenant. So that in this case to justifie a Man by his Faith and VVorks, is but indeed to plead that he is justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him through Faith, which Faith is proved to be sound and good by his VVorks.

1. I see you are very tenacious of your Opinion: but if you will not forsake your Opinion till you see better Arguments to draw you from it, marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they see better Arguments to draw them to it. But to the Matter; Me-thinks you might easily see the meaning of this, that Abraham's first Justification could not be by Faith, which was without VVorks, i. e. by Faith, which was not of a working Nature.

Thus in that very page (52.) I explained my self, saying, [Faith if it be alone without VVorks, i. e. renuens operari, &c. cannot justifie].

2. Do not you see that your Answer is to no purpose in limiting the words of the Apostle to Continued and Consummate Justification, whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith, which is without VVorks, or which is not of a working Disposition, from being able to justifie, as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable?

That which you so slight, as if it were indignus vindice nodus, Calvin (a Man as likely to see into the Apostle's In Jac. 2. 23.Jas 2:23meaning as another) calls nodum insolubilem, as I have before noted. That more Conditions are required unto Justification afterward than at first, is more than I can find, and more (I am perswaded) than will ever be proved. Did Paul when he speaketh so much of Justification by Faith without VVorks, viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification, mean that we are so justified indeed to day, but not so to morrow, or some time after? All his Arguments shew the contrary. Yea, doth he not prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was justified only by Believing, when as yet that was not the beginning of his Justification? So when James saith, That we are not justified by Faith, which is without VVorks, such a Faith p. 129being dead, and no better than the Faith of Devils; was his meaning this, That hereafter indeed we cannot be so justified, but yet at present we may? If you be of this mind, Non equidem invideo, miror magis.

3. Of the sense of James his Discourse enough before. And for v. 17. I think it might easily let you see that he speaketh not (as you suppose) only of Continued and Consummate Justification, but of Inchoated also, and consequently that he cannot be interpreted otherwise than thus, That Faith which doth not shew it self by VVorks, is dead, ineffectual, and of no force to justifie, either at first or afterward, as not being that Faith which is required unto Justification, viz. a working Faith, or Faith which is of a working Nature. I have noted before what Oecumenius (one that was long before either Calvin or Luther) saith upon that very Verse, as also how in the judgment of the Syriack Interpreter, and other Learned Men foreign there is to be understood.

1. Though Faith may be true and real without Works, Ibid.yet a living Faith it is not; for a living Faith is operative, so that, a working Faith, and a non-working Faith are of different Natures, this being but a bare and naked Assent, but the other an apprehending of Christ, and a receiving of him. I little doubt but the Faith of Devils, and the Faith of Men who are justified (even at first, when you say VVorks are not requisite in respect of their presence with Faith, though that Faith (say I) is of a working Disposition), differ much in their very Nature.

2. If you will be true to your own Principles, you cannot say, That VVorks make Faith alive, or that Faith is not alive without VVorks as actually present, though you consider Faith meerly as a Condition of Justification, seeing you hold Faith to be alive in that respect, when we are first justified, though there be no VVorks present with it. And though, as there must be a promptitude to VVorks at first, so there must be VVorks themselves in due season; yet that VVorks do afterward concur with Faith unto Justification, is more than yet I see, or (I presume) ever shall see proved.

3. Therefore my Argument stands good against you, until you can make it appear, That Faith alone without the Copartnership of VVorks, is the Condition of Justification p. 130at first, but Faith and VVorks together of Justification afterward. I have shewed some Reasons against it, but I can see none for it. Your Similitude of a Fine, &c. is no proof. Similitudes may illustrate something, but they prove nothing.

1. You said, [The Apostle saith, That Faith did Ibid.Work in and with his Works]; whereas the Apostle using the word foreign did not speak of working in, but only of working with.

2. Of what validity that distinction is (of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued and Consummate) you have not yet shewed.

3. VVhat Calvin's Opinion otherwise was, is not to the purpose. I only alledged his Exposition of those words, Fides cooperata est operibus suis; and I think his Exposition is genuine.

So also Mr. Manton; [That sense which I prefer, On Jam. 2. 22.Jas 2:22(saith he) is, That his Faith rested not in a naked bare Profession, but was operative, it had its efficacy and influence upon his Works, co-working with all other Graces: it doth not only exert, and put forth it self in acts of Believing, but also in working].

Beza renders it, Administra fuit operum ejus, and expounds it, Essicax & foecunda bonorum operum.

1. I shewed before how not only Piscator and Pemble, but many others both before and after them, interpret Ibid. & 73.those words, [By Works his Faith was made perfect]; i. e. By VVorks his Faith did appear perfect, i. e. sound and good. This Exposition is such that as yet I see no reason to dislike it.

2. I grant that Faith without VVorks (viz. when God doth require them) is dead as to the effect of Justifying; Yea, and it is also dead in it self, being but a dead Assent, having no life, no operative vertue in it.

3. Abraham's Faith was, is, and shall be manifested to be perfect, i. e. sincere by his VVorks, to all that were, are, and shall be able to discern the true nature of Justifying Faith. Although there were none then that could discern this, (which yet is not to be supposed, Isaac was then of age to discern it, and so others of Abraham's Family to whom the thing was known) yet to after-Ages the perfection of Abraham's Faith is made manifest by his VVorks, especially his offering his Son upon the Altar. p. 131And if God did say, [Now I know that thou fearest me, &c.] why may it not be said, speaking of God, foreign, that thereby Abraham's Faith and its Perfection appeared to God himself? Certain it is, that the VVork spoken of did proceed from Faith, Heb. 11. 7. And therefore as the Effect doth shew the Cause to be perfect, so did Abraham's VVorks (especially that of offering up Isaac) shew his Faith to be perfect. To the Second:

1. Though Justifying Faith include in it three Acts, mentioned Heb. 11. 13. yet there are but two of them properly and peculiarly Acts of Faith. For Seeing, or Knowing, the first there mentioned, is but presupposed unto Faith.

Bellarmine in this saith truly, (though it was little to De Justis. lib. 1. c. 16.his purpose); Cognitio apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem, sed non est ipsa propriè fides.

The other two Acts, viz. Perswasion and Embracing, though distinct, yet are both comprehended in Believing.

2. I see no cloudiness in this, [Believing justifieth, not as it is our Act, but in respect of its Object]; neither is this to speak darkness, except to a dark Understanding, which (I know) yours is not. But you know what is said of some, Faciunt nimium intelligendo, ut nihil intelligant. VVhat is more vulgar with Divines (and those no vulgar ones neither) than to say, That Faith doth not justifie as it is a VVork of ours, but in respect of its Object, Christ, whom it apprehendeth, and by whom so apprehended, we are justified?

Hujus satisfactionis âpprehendendae medium (saith Vigner. de Satisfact. Christi inter opera Rivet. Disp. 13.one whom Rivet much commends) fides est. Deo sic ordinante, ut non alii illius participes sint, quàm qui …am sincerâ fide amplectuntur, non ita tamen ut ipsa fides ratione sui nos Deo gratos faciat & acceptos, sed ratione objecti, quod apprehendit, & cujus meritum nobis applicat, & perfectam obedientiam.

So Rivet himself saith; Fides non justificat, quatenus De Fide Justif. Disp. 10.est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi.

Divers others to this purpose have been cited before. Your Question [Why doth not the Object justifie without the Act?] is soon answered; Because the Act (Believing) p. 132is required on our part, Deo sic ordinante, (as the Author before-cited saith) That so the Object (Christ's Righteousness) may become ours unto Justification: yet still it is in respect of the Object (Christ's Righteousness) that the Act (Believing) doth justifie. You darken my words, when you transform them thus, [It justifieth in respect to its Object]; I say, [in respect of its Object], and so you first cited it. My meaning is this, It is the Object of Faith, viz. Christ's Righteousness, though as apprehended by Faith, whereby we are justified.

Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum (saith Amesius) non absolute consideratum, quo sensu Christus Medul. l. 1. c. 27. §. 14.etiam est causa ipsius vocationis, sed propter Christum fide apprehensum.

This is clear by that Acts 13. 39. [By him all that believe are justified].

I will add Mr. Ball's words, which in sense are the same with mine, and there is little difference (as to clearness or cloudiness) in the Expression; [The Third Exposition Of the Coven. c. 6. p. 65.is, That when Faith is imputed for Righteousness, it is not understood materially, as though the Dignity, Worth, and Perfection of Faith made us just; but relatively and in respect of its Object: that is, to us believing, Righteousness, sc. of Christ, is freely imputed, and by Faith we freely receive Righteousness, and remission of sins freely given of God. And therefore to say, Faith justifieth, and Faith is imputed for Righteousness, are phrases equivalent. For Faith justifieth not by its merit or dignity, but as an Instrument, and correlatively, that is, the merit of Christ apprehended and received by Faith, justifieth, not Faith, whereby it is apprehended and received, unless it be by an improper speech, whereby the Act of the Object, by reason of the near and strict connexion betwixt them, is given to the Instrument].

3. What you have said before about Works perfecting Faith, hath been considered. Though Faith may save without manifestation, yet not except it be of that nature, as to manifest it self by Works, when God doth call for them.

You say, [Works do perfect Faith, ut Medium & Conditio]; you mean of Justification: but that Works are Medium & Conditio Justificationis, you do not prove. p. 133The Tree and its Fruit are considered as distinct; ut Causa & Effectum, non ut Totum & Pars; and so the perfection of the Tree is only manifested by its Fruit. It is not therefore a good Tree, because it beareth good Fruit; but it therefore beareth good Fruit, because it is a good Tree.

For the Third: If Procreation (as you grant) do not perfect Marriage in its Essence, then it adds only an accidental perfection unto it.

4. Your Explication is indeed now more full, so that I can better see your meaning, yet still I am unsatisfied. For I do not conceive that Faith properly is our Covenant, but that whereby we embrace God's Covenant. Though a Covenant differ from a Promise, yet it doth include a Promise. Now a Promise is de futuro; so that our reciprocal Promise, both of Faith and Obedience, I take to be our Covenant. Faith is in part the matter of the Covenant, but not properly the Covenant it self, and perhaps when you call it our Covenant, you only mean, that it is the matter of our Covenant.

I being there the Respondent, it was sufficient for me 73to deny, the proof did lie upon you. Yet nevertheless the Assertion (viz. Faith alone is the Condition of the Covenant, for so much as concerns Justification) is sufficiently proved by those places, where we are said to be justified by Faith, and that without Works, viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification. And for the reason of the Assertion, (viz. because Faith alone doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness) much hath been said of it before. What do our Divines more inculcate than this?

Wotton saith, that only Faith doth justifie; Quia solâ side rectà in Christum tendimus, & promi…siones Dei de justificatione amplectimur. De Reconcil. Part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18.

Amesius saith; Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, quia non habet vim a…plicandi nobis justitiam Christi. Contra Bellar. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. Sect. 5.

So Bucanus; Fides (inquit) sol… justificat, quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum, & unica facu…tas in n…is, qua recipimus justitiam Chr…sti. L c. 31. ad Q…est. 37.

p. 134Thus also Mr. Ball; [By Repentance we know our Of the Coven. chap. 3. p. 18, 19.selves, we feel our selves, we hunger and thirst after Grace; but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it, is Faith alone, &c.] And a little after; [When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].

You your self do sometimes say, That Faith hath in it an aptitude to justifie in this respect; only you deny, that this aptitude of Faith is sufficient, and say that therefore it doth justifie, because God in his Covenant hath made it the Condition of Justification. Now I also grant, That if Faith were not ordained to that end of God, its bare aptitude, or its being that whereby we apprehend Christ, would not justifie. Yet (I say) it appears by Scripture, That because Faith alone hath this aptitude to justifie, viz. by apprehending Christ, therefore God hath made it alone the Condition of Justification. This appears in that we are said to be justified by Believing in, or on Christ, which imports an apprehending and receiving of him, Joh. 1. 12.

2. Repentance doth avail with Faith, yet are we justified only by Faith, and not by Repentance, and that for the reason even now alledged, viz. because not Repentance, but Faith is the Hand by which Christ is received.

3. Though Remission of Sins be ordinarily ascribed to Repentance, yet it is no where said, That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness, as it is said of Faith. Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification, Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance; yet Faith and not Repentance is made the Condition and Instrument of Justification, as being that which doth apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified.

4. That though Faith only be the Condition of Justification at first, yet Obedience also is a Condition afterward, is often said, but never proved. I take Justification both at first and afterward to be by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us; therefore not by Obedience, but by Faith, by which alone we apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, that so it may be ours unto Justification. Certainly that was not the beginning of Abraham's p. 135Justification, which is mentioned Gen. 15. 6. Yet by that doth the Apostle prove that Abraham was, and all must be, justified, not by Obedience, but by Faith only.

1. Faith apt to produce good Works, is necessary to Ib. & 74.procure that first change, which makes us (in God's account) Justos ex Injustis. For if it be not such a Faith, it is dead, and of no force.

2. I hope you will not deny, but that being justified by Believing, every after Act of Faith doth find us justified; for you are against the Amission and Intercision of Justification. Yet I confess, That the continuance of Faith is necessary to the continuance of Justification. So it must needs be, seeing we are justified by Faith; therefore every Act of Faith may be said to justifie, as well as the first Act, because by after-Acts of Faith we continue justified.

Nihil erit absurdi, (inquit Rivetus) si dicamus, in In Gen. 15. Exer. 83.Gen 15quolibet verae fidei actu imputari justitiam credenti. Etsi enim justificatio sit actus momentaneus, cujus nunquam planè amittitur effectus in piis, qui semel justificati sunt, indigent nihilominùs renovatione sensus justificationis suae, qui sensus fit per fidem, & tune dicitur etiam fides imputari ad justitiam. Nam apprehensio illa fidei habet flaxum suum continuum secundùm plus & minus; praesertim cum fidelis, & si justificatus, subinde in peccata incidat, propter quae opus etiam habet remissione peccatorum. Quod continuum beneficirum fide apprehensum, si secundam justificationem appellare velint adversarii, imò tertiam, qua…tam, quintam, & millesimam, non repugnabimus, dummodo constet, nulla alià ratione nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus, quàm eâ, qua semel justificati fuimus à praecedentibus.

Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Justification no more afterward than at first.

3. Your reasons whereby you endeavour to confute this Assertin, [As our Justification is begun, so it is continued, viz. by Faith only, and not by Works as concurrent with Faith unto Justification afterward, though not at first] seem to be of no sorce.

I answer therefore, Ad 1. How do I contradict it by saying, [As it is begun, so it is continued by Faith?] What though there be divers Acts of Faith, yet still it is p. 136Faith, and Faith without the concurrence of Works, by which we are justified as well afterward as at first, which is all that I assert? Because a continued Act of Faith is requisite to the Continuation of Justification, doth it therefore follow that Works have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of Justifying?

Ad 2. Do you think **How Repentance is r…quisite unto Justification, and yet doth not justifie, was shewed before.Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification, and not also to the Inchoa…ion of it?

Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants. God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification; and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons, than is requisite unto Justification.

Your Similitudes are no Proofs; and you still suppose 74that there is one Condition of Justification at first, and another Condition thereof afterwards; that though at first we are justified only by Faith, yet afterward by Faith and Works. But though Works are required of Justified Persons, as Fruits of that Faith whereby they are justified; yet they do not therefore concur with Faith unto Justification, which as it is begun by Faith only, so is it also continued. Your self observe, That Abraham's Believing, mentioned Gen. 15. was not his first Act of Faith. So then he was justified before by Faith, and so was he also afterward, even by Faith only, as the Apostle from that very place doth prove Rom. 4. Therefore by Faith without Works (viz. as having a co-partnership with Faith in Justifying), Abraham was justified both at first and afterward.

1. Do you think that Abraham was justified from the Ibid.guilt of those many sins, which he committed after his first Justification by his Works? Credat Judaeus: for my part I cannot but detest such Doctrine. I know no way whereby he could be justified from those sins, but by Faith in Christ, even as he was at first justified. Besides (as I noted before, and that as acknowledged by your self), Abraham was justified before he produced that Act of Faith spoken of Gen. 15. and in the interim no doubt he committed some sins, yet still by Faith, and not by Works (as Paul sheweth) **Vide Calvin. Instit. l. 3. c. 14. §. 11.he was justified.

2. You do but still affirm, without any proof at all, That Abraham's Justincation could not be continued by p. 137the same means (viz. by Faith alone) works not concurring with it unto Justification) as it was begun.

3. For Sentential Justification at the Last Judgment, I have said enough before.

Bucan having said, that Abraham was Justified operibus, Loc. 31. ad quaest. 39.tanquam testimoniis Justificationis; Adds, Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo ill die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus.

And again; Fides principium existentiae, facit ut simus justi; Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt, ut cognoscamur justi. Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fidei, quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum.

4. I think the Argument is good and sound, [Christ's Righteousness, whereby we are justified, is an everlasting Righteousness; therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification]. This alwayes presupposed, That this Righteousness of Christ be apprehended by Faith; for otherwise there is no being justified at all by it.

1. To be just quoad praestationem Conditionis, is but Ibid. & 75.to be just in some respect; and in some respect just even the most unjust may be. Yet it is true, This praestatio Conditionis will be of force to procure Universal Justification: not that it is it self the Righteousness by which we are justified, but only the Means whereby we are made Partakers of the Righteousness of Christ, and so by his Righteousness are universally justified. And though this performing of the Condition be required unto Justification, yet nevertheless that remains good which I said in the Animadversions, [If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law, we are fully justified]. For can we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law, except we perform the Condition required in the Gospel? And if we be fully freed from the Accusation of the Law, will the Gospel accuse us? It is the Law that worketh Wrath, Rom. 4. 15. The Gospel doth free from Wrath, though not without performing the Condition; for then it suffereth the Law to have its force, and to instict Wrath; and that so much the more, in that so great a benefit was neglected.

2. The performing of a Condition, as the Condition is a Duty, is a Righteousness, but such as cannot Justifie, p. 138as we now speak of Justification. But as the Condition is meerly a Condition, the performing of it is not properly Righteousness, though by it we partake of Righteousness, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified.

3. Therefore this is no contradiction, to grant Faith to be the Condition of Justification, and yet to deny it to be t…e Righteousness by …hich we are justified.

That which you think to be most clear, Vignerius (before De Satisfact. Christi, inter Opera Riveti Disp. 13. §. 61.cited) thought most absurd. An possibile est (inquit) ut sit Fides Instrumentum accipiendae justitia, (seu Conditio ad obtinendam justitiam requisita, si ita loqui libeat) & simul sit ipsa, quam quaerimus, justitia?

Indeed you seem … to strive about words; for here immediately you confess, That it is but a Subordinate Righteousness, meaning (I think) that which all acknowledg, that it is but a means whereby to partake of Christ's Righteousness. And you that charge other… with Self-Contradiction, seem not to agree with your self. For here presently after you say, [This Personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis N. T. must be had, before we can have that which freeth us from the Law]; yet elsewhere your Expressions are such, as if being first justified from the Accusation of the Law, by the Righteousness of Christ, we should after be justified from the Accusation of the Gospel by Personal Righteousness. However (as I have said before) this latter Accusation is but a further prosecution and confirmation of the former, by taking away the Plea that some might make why the Accusation of the Law should not stand good, and be of force to condemn them.

4. Of what force is Satans Accusation against any, if he cannot make good his Accusation, so as to procure his Condemnation? And are not Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ condemned by the Law? Is it not for sin that they are condemned? And is there any sin which is not against the Law? The Gospel indeed may aggravate Sin, and increase Condemnation: and so those words which you cite [The words which I speak shall judg you, &c.] may be understood; as those are more clearly to the purpose Joh. 15. 22. If I had not com… and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, (viz. in so high p. 139degree as it follows) but now they have no cloak for their sin. But still it is by the Law that all sinners are convinced and condemned. As for Righteousness, whereby one is justified from a false Accusation, it is but such as the Devil himself may have, as hath been noted before, though Faith be of force to take off all Satan's Accusations whatsoever. And when Satan do…h accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel, he do…h but only shew that such stand guilty by the Law, and so are to be condemned, as having no benefit of the Gospel, because they have not performed the Condition of it: So that still it is the Law, by which Satan doth accuse and bring to condemnation.

But by the way I observe, That in this place of your Aphor. (p. 368.) you say, That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2, 3, 14, 15, 16. Paul concludeth, that neith…r Faith, nor Works, is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law, but the Righteousness which is by Faith, i. e. Christ's Righteousness: Yet before in this Writing you stand upon the very Letter of the Text, and will have it to prove, That Faith it self properly taken is our Righteousness. If you say that you mean our Evangelical Righteousness, yet so you agree not with your self in your Aphorisms, where you make Paul in those Texts to speak of our Legal Righteousness.

1. They against whom James disputed, relied on Faith 75as the Condition of the New Covenant; but it was not such a Faith as the New Covenant doth require, it was a Faith renuens operari; upon that account James confuted them, not as if Faith alone without Works (though yet a Faith ready to shew it self by Works) were not the Condition of Justification.

2. I am sorry that Beza's words, which I cited, and which to me seem very excellent, should be so censured by you, as if there were I know not how many mistakes in them; but truly I think the mistakes will be found to be in your censure.

To your Exceptions I answer; 1. Quis vel ex nostris, vel ex Transmarinis Theologis, Fidem pro Causa (nempe Instrumentali) Justificationis non habet?

2. Beza ait, tu negas; Ʋtri potius assentiendum? Quid dico Be…a? Quis enim istud non dicit? Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere, rationes antè allatae expendantur.

p. 1403. Affirmas tantùm, non probas, Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones & Media. Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam, nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur; neque enim ad justificationem procurandam, sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam, tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus, Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur, ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est.

4. Nec Beza, nec alius quisquam (quòd sci…m) distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ, & Justificatione Continuatâ, quasi sc. alia hujus, alia illius esset conditio, perspectam habuit. Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo.

1. Certain it is, All Works are not the fulfilling of Ibid.the Old Law's Condition▪ but all Works whereby we are justified, are the fulfilling of it; and therefore (as I said in the Animadversions) to be justified by Works, and to be justified by the Law, are with Paul one and the same; See Rivet, Disp de Fide Justif. §. 21. the words are before cited.

2. We are justified by the New Law, against the Accusation of the Old Law. Certainly if we be accused of Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ, we are accused of being Sinners. For are Unbelief and Rebellion against Christ no sius?

3. Who doth not so distinguish of foreign Credere, except some few whom I have no mind to follow? But how will this Distinction, inter quod opus, & quà opus, serve to keep in Obedience, as having a joint interest with Faith in Justification? What dark Equivocal (I pray) is this, That Faith doth justifie as that whereby we are made Partakers of Christ's Righteousness? Your self acknowledges an aptitude in Faith to justifie in this respect; and in this respect (I say) Faith is appointed to be the Condition of Justification.

I take what you grant, viz. That Paul doth not imply Ibid.Obedience as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification: that he doth imply it as concurrent in our Justification afterward, you should prove, and not content your self with the bare affirming of it. Doth not Paul by that Gen. 15. [Abraham believed God, &c.] prove that Abraham was justified by Faith without the concurrence of Obedience? Yet that was not the first time p. 141that Abraham either believed, or was justified. The truth therefore is, Paul implieth Obedience as the Fruit of that Faith which justifieth both at first and last, but not as concurring with Faith unto Justification either at first or last.

1. There is a necessity of Faith shewing it self by Ibid. & 76.Works, that so it may appear to be such a Faith whereby Christ is truly apprehended and received. But are Works therefore Copartners with Faith in justifying, because only such a Faith doth justifie as doth also produce Works? You exclude Works from having any thing to do in our Justification at first, yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified.

2. For the Texts alledged, that Mat. 12. 37. [By thy words thou shalt be justified, &c.] is as plain you say as [We are justified by Faith]. But if it be so plain, it may seem wonderful, that Bellarmine should never make use of it, when he labours to prove, That Faith alone doth not justifie; which (so far as I observe) he doth not. Nor do the Rhemists on the place take any notice of those words, who yet are ready to catch at every thing that may but seem to make for them. Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words.

But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it; Quod Ad Mat. 12. 37.Matt 12:37autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent, puerile est.

Certainly all good that we do, may justifie quadantemus, so far as it is good: But can we therefore be simply and absolutely, or (if you like those terms better) fully and perfectly justified, either by our Words or Works? Those places that require forgiving of others, that so God may forgive us, shew indeed, that it is no true Justifying Faith which doth not, as occasion requires, manifest it self in that kind: but we are not therefore justified as well by forgiving others, as by believing; nor doth the forgiving of others concur with Faith unto Justification. That in 1 John 1. 9. and Acts 3. 19. shews that Repentance must go before Justification, and is required unto Justification, but not so as Faith is required.

p. 142Repentance is required, that we may be justified, but Multa requirūtur? ad Justificationem quae non justificant Ames. loco ante citato.not that we may be justified by it, as we are by Faith, though Instrumentally and Relatively, as it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified. For Prayer, it is a Fruit of Faith, and therefore called, The Prayer of Faith, Jam. 5. 15.

[Repentance (saith Mr. Ball Of the Coven. c. 3. p. 18.) is the Condition of Faith, and the Qualification of a Person capable of Salvation: but Faith alone is the Cause of Justification and Salvation on our part required].

And immediately after he adds; [It is a penitent and petitioning Faith, whereby we receive the promises of Mercy; but we are not justified, partly by Prayer, partly by Repentance, but by that Faith which stirreth up Godly sorrow for sin, and inforceth us to pray for Pardon and Salvation].

And again; [Prayer is nothing else but the Stream or River of Faith, and an issue of the desire of that which joyfully we believe]. Of Faith, Part 1. Chap. 8. pag. 105.

For that place, Acts 22. 16. the Exposition which I gave of it in the Animadversions, is confirmed by this, That the nature of a Sacrament is to signifie and seal, as the Apostle shews, Rom. 4. 11.

Quatenus ergò fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus, (inquit Calvinus) ut remissionem peccatorum percipiat ex solo Christi sanguine, Lavacrum animae vocatur. Ita ablutio, cujus meminit Lucas, non causam designat; sed ad sensum Pauli refertur, qui symbolo accepto, peccata sua esse expiata (N. B.) melius cognovit.—Cum testimonium haberet Paulus gratiae Dei, jam illi remissa erant peccata. Nor igitur Baptismo demum ablutu… est, sed novam gratiae, quam adeptus erat, confirmationem accepit.

That Paul's sins were but incompleatly washed away by Faith until he was baptized, your Similitudes (which are too often your only proofs) do not prove. Yea, a Kings Coronation, (of which you speak) when the Kingdom is hereditary, is (I think) but a confirmation of what was done before.

The purifying of the Heart spoken of, 1 Pet. 1. 22. is (I conceive) to be understood as Jam. 4. 8. & Jer. 4. 14. p. 143viz. of purifying from the filth of sin by Sanctification. And for 1 Pet. 4. 18. who denies the diligence of the Righteous to be a means of their Salvation! But what is that to prove Works to concur with Faith unto Justification?

1. I take what you grant, That at first believing a 76, & 77.Man is justified so fully, as that he is acquitted from the guilt of all Sin, and from all Condemnation. And surely at the last one can have no fuller Justification than this is. That afterwards he is acquitted from the guilt of more sins, is not to the purpose, seeing he is acquitted from all at first, and but from all at last, though this [all] be more at last than at first. Otherwise the Justification of one who hath fewer sins, should not be so full as the Justification of him, whose sins are more in number.

2. That there is a further Condition of Justification afterward than at first, hath been said often, but was never yet proved.

3. That which you call Sentential Justification, (viz. at the Last Judgment) I hold to be only the manifestation of that Justification which was before. That because Obedience is a Condition of Salvation, heretofore it is also a Condition of Justification, I deny (as you see) all along in the Animadversions, and therefore I thought it enough here to touch that, which you say of full Justification, especially seeing your self hold Obedience to be no Condition of Justification at first. You lay the weight of your 78th Thesis upon the word [full] which therefore was enough for me to take hold of.

For your Queries therefore about Sentential Justification at Judgment, I have told you my mind before, and you might sufficiently understand it by the Animadversions.

When you prove, 1. that Justification at Judgment is a Justification distinct from Justification here, and not only a manifestation of it.

2. That Justification at Judgment hath the same Conditions with Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment of it, viz. Glorification.

And, 3. That consequently Obedience is a Condition of Justification at Judgment. When you shall prove (I say) these things, I shall see more than yet I do.

In the mean while, besides what hath been said before, p. 144hear what Bucan saith to this purpose; An perficitur justificatio Loc. 31. quast. 46.nostra in hâc vitâ? In Justificatione quemadmodum judicamur, & re utamur à Deo justi, ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae. Ratione igitur decreti divini, & sententiae ipsius Non impediunt vitii originalis residui maculae illae, quin etiam in hâc vità perfecta sit justificatio. Quae reverâ nec intenditur, nec remittitur, rem ipsam quod attinet. Gataker. contra Gomarum. p. 26, 27.de vitâ aeternâ trolatae à Deo judice; item ratione justitiae, quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis, jam perfecta est just…ficatio nostra in hác vità, nisi quòd in alterâ magis patefacienda (N. B.) sit ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata, & arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda. Ea tamen tota perficitur in hâc vitâ, in quâ potest homo dici plenè perfectéque justificat…s. Filii Dei sumus (ergo justificati) sed nondum patefactum est quia erimas, 1 John 3. 2. At si executionem respicias, & rationem habeas vitae, & gloriae, quae nobis adjudicatur, & quae nobis inhaesura est, quia in nobis non perficitur in hâc vitâ, imperfecta etiam Justificatio in hâc vità censeri potest.

1. I think there is not the like right of Salvation and Justification, but that although we must be saved by Works, though not by the Merit of them, yet we cannot be justified by Works, except it be by the merit of them. My reason is, Because that whereby we are justified, must fully satisfie the Law; for it must fully acquit us from all Condemnation, which otherwise by the Law will fall upon us. This Works cannot do, except they be fully conform to the Law, and so be meritorious, as far forth as the Creature can merit of the Creator. But being justified by Faith, i. e. by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed to us, and so put into a state of Salvation, we must yet shew our Faith by our Works; which though they be imperfect, and so not meritorious, yet make way for the full enjoyment of Salvation. And me-thinks the Scripture is so frequent and clear in distinguishing betwixt Justification and Salvation, as to the full enjoyment of it, that it may seem strange that you should so confound them as you do, and argue as if there were the same reason of the one as of the other.

2. You might easily see, that by [Via Regni] as opposed to [Causa Regnandi]; I meant only to exclude the Merit of Works, not to deny Works to be a Means p. 145and a Condition required of us for the obtaining of compleat Salvation. Salvation is a Chain consisting of many Links, but so is not Justification; it is but one Link of that Chain.

3. If all the World of Divines be against this, That Justification at Judgment is but a Declaration of our Justification here; I have hitherto (it seems) been in some other World. For truly (so far as I observe) both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification, as we here partake of it. As for Justification at Judgment, it is but rarely touched, either in Scripture or in other Writings: Neither (so far as I can see) will it consist with either, to make Justification at Judgment a compleating of our Justification, as if before we were but imperfectly justified: but rather they shew, that our Justification is then fully declared and made manifest, and that then we come to the full enjoyment of that benefit, which we have right unto by our Justification, viz. Glorification. For whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. 8. 30. I have spoken enough of this before; but you do so continually repeat the same things, that I am forced also to repeat things oftner than I would.

1. That Justification by Sentence, viz. at the Last Ibid.Judgment, and Continued Justification, are several kinds of Justification distinct from Justification begun, and have several Conditions, you continually affirm, or suppose, but never prove.

2. My debate with you was about those words, [That which we are justified by, we are saved by]; and [the full possession or enjoyment of Salvation]. What your reply is to the purpose, I cannot see. And besides, you had need to clear those words, [In justifying it is the same thing to give a right to a thing, and to give the thing it self]. For if you mean, That as soon as a right to a thing is given by Justification, the thing it self also is actually given; it appears to me far otherwise. For I think that Justification presently gives a right to Glorification; For what doth debar from that right, but sin? Now the guilt of sin is done away by Justification; therefore there is a present right too to Glorification, yet no present enjoyment of it. How I do yeeld your Assertion, you do not shew.

p. 146Your Repetitions indeed have been troublesome unto Ibid.me. I grant here more than you desire, viz. That not only to morrow there will be Condemnation to him that shall not sincerely obey, but even to day there is condemnation to him; his Faith being not prompt and ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience, is not such as doth justifie him at all. But though Faith, whereby we are justified, must and will shew it self by Works, yet we are not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith. Paul doth exclude Works, as well from Justification afterward as at first, viz. as concurring with Faith unto the Effect of Justifying: for he shews that Ab…aham was justified, not only at first, but also afterward, by Faith and not by Works, Rom. 4. 2, 3. And James doth require Works as well to Justification at first as afterward, viz. as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified. For otherwise he saith it is a dead Faith, ineffectual and unprofitable. Though Works do not presently appear upon our first believing, yet it they do not appear in due season, that Faith doth not justifie: Such a Believer doth not cease to be, but indeed never was in Christ, viz. as a justified Person is in him.

How is Justification at Judgment a declaring of a Righteousness Ibid.in question? The Word of God (the truth whereof is unquestionable) assures us that all true Believers are justified. And that such and such were true Believers, God by his Word and Spirit did evidence unto them before, though then he will make it more fully evident unto all! That Satan shall publickly accuse at the Last Judgment, is more than I see either Scripture o… Reason for. He shall then be judged himself, and that in some sort by the Saints, 1 Cor. 6. 3. He shall then have little courage to accuse the Saints, though now he doth it.

Yet I question also whether Satan do at any time directly put up unto God any Accusations against the Saints. He seems to be called the Accuser of the Brethren, Apoc. 12. 10. because by his Instruments he is ever **See Mr. Mede on the place.traducing and slandering them. He is said to accuse them, foreign, before God, or in the sight of God; not foreign, unto God, as the unjust Steward was accused to his Master, foreign, Luk. 16. 1. That p. 147in Job 1. & 2. seems to be parabolically expressed. Satan knows his Accusations against the Saints to be false: Therefore he knows it is to little purpose to accuse them unto God. Especially at the Last Judgment, by the very separating of the Elect from the Reprobate, he will see that it is in vain to bring any Accusation against the Elect: and therefore how there should then be any such publick Accuser, or any question of the Righteousness of the Saints, I do not see: besides, that excepting those who will be found alive at Christ's coming, all have received their doom before, though not so openly as then they shall. That Obedience is a Condition of Glorification, not of right unto it, but of possession and enjoyment of it, I here and every-where confess.

1. What mean you by those words, [Doth Obedience Ibid. & 78.g… Faith?] Doth any such thing follow, upon that which I say? But you say, [If Obedience only manifest Faith, how then doth it procure Right?]

Answ. It is not said, That Obedience doth procure right, but only thus much is signified, That none can have right without Obedience, as the Fruit of that Faith by which right is procured. As I said before of Works, so I say now of keeping the Commandments, (which doth comprehend in it all good Works) it is spoken of only as a Fruit of Faith, which Faith indeed doth (Instrumentally and Relatively) procure Right.

For the words of James I have said enough before: I have neither list nor leisure to repeat the same things continually upon every occasion. What your multitude of other Texts is, I do not know; but if they be not more forced, than by my Opinion the words of James are, there will be little cause to complain of the forcing of them.

2. That Faith without Obedience doth give right at first, you grant: The same right (I hold) is still continued only by Faith; though Faith, if not of such a Nature as to produce Obedience, can neither give right at first, nor afterward continue it. Though Repentance must go before Justification, yet Faith alone may justifie, and so give right; which though it be not the same with Justifying, yet it is necessarily joined with it.

p. 1483. Jus in re, I take to be such a Right, as from which the Possession it self is not, nor can be separated.