A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

Animadversion.

Mr. Pink 's Interpretation (as I remember, for I have not his Book by me now, though I have read it long ago) is this, that when it is said, Luke 7. 47. Her sins which are many are forgiven, for she loved much: The particle for imports as much as therefore. His meaning is, that her loving much was not the cause why many sins were forgiven her; but this, that many sins were forgiven her, was the cause that she loved much. And that this is the true and genuine meaning of the words (though there be no necessity of expounding for by therefore) appears by those which follow immediately after; But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little, viz. in comparison of him to whom much is forgiven. So also the Parable propounded by our Savior, v. 41. &c. doth clearly show the import of those words objected. Mr. Pink 's Interpretation therefore for the substance of it, is right and good, and in effect the same with Calvin 's, Caeterum hic dilectio non dicitur esse veniae causa, sed posterius signum, ut prius admonu • , saith he upon the place. And at v. 41. Mirum est pleros{que} interpretes tam crass hallucinatos esse, quasi haec multer ventam lachrimis, unctione, & osculis pedumpro merita sit. Nam argumentum quo ut • tur Christus, non à causa, sed ab effectu sumptum est: quia & prius ordine est beneficium accipere, quam habere gratiam; & causa mutus amor • s hic not atur gratuua remissio. Vid. etiam Bezam ad locum. Et Ames. in Bellarm. Enerv. §. 1. c. 4. ad 4.

Reply.

I mentioned that Text among many more, not relying on that only or chiefly; and therefore added those words, not meaning thereby to deny Mr. Pink 's Interpretation: But q. d. yet I know Mr. Pink hath otherwise interpreted this, and much may be said for each sense. It is hard to be certain of the mind of the Holy Ghost, where the words will bear both senses. I remembered his Arguments, as well as his words; and I remember much that may be said against them. For my part, I determine it not: Let everyone abound in his own sense, I see no reason to stand to dispute it.

Animadversion.

1. I know not why this should seem strange, if it be rightly understood. You say a little after, [Affiance, and sincere Obedience, and works of Love, are the necessary, immediate, inseparable products of Faith:] So the Apostle saith, That saith worketh through love, Gal. 5. 6.

2. Indeed I do not see how sincere Obedience, and works of Love, are the immediate products of Faith, as Affiance is. But, to let that pass; that they are the products of Faith, who will deny?

3. Yet are we not therefore justified by them, as well as by Faith, as it apprehendeth Christ and his Righteousness, as you seem to intend.

Reply.

1. If you knew how sharply I am dealt with for that passage, you would think my prognostic failed not, though you know not why any should think it strange.

2. As Affiance directly follows the Acceptance of Christ, as one to be trusted in; so internal Obedience directly followeth accepting of Christ, as King to rule us.

3. I there meddle not with your induced Consequence of Justification. But this follows: If it be a sufficient reason to exclude internal Obedience or Love to Christ, from being any of the Condition of Justification (as continued and sentential) because they are but fruits of the principal justifying Faith, then it would be a good reason to exclude Affiance. But it is confessed to be no good reason to exclude Affiance; therefore, &c. Again, if Affiance be but a fruit of the principal act of justifying Faith, and yet justify itself, then it is not any one act only that justifieth: But, &c. therefore, &c.

Animadversion.

They are all implied or included as accompanying Faith, or proceeding from Faith, but not as concurring with Faith to Justification. Bellarmine confesseth ••• t Calvin hath these words: S • la sides est quae Justificat se • sides tantum qua Justificat non est sola: sicut calor solis s 〈…〉 est qui calefacit, ipse tamen non est solus, sed cum sp • ndore. And the same also he saith is taught by Melanchthon, Bren • ius, Chemnitz, &c. Bell. de Just. l. 1. c. 14.

Reply.

1. They are implied as Conditional to the Continuation and Consummation of that Justification, which is begun upon sole believing. As Marriage-fidelity is implied as conditional of the Continuance of that Woman's interest in her Husband, and his riches and honors, which she first received upon mere accepting him or Marriage. For Marriage contains the promise of that after-fidelity: And sure the promise implieth the performance as necessary to follow. So is our Faith and accepting of Christ for Savior and Lord, which containeth our Covenant to trust and obey him.

2. And some of them are implied as part of the first Condition, as Repentance, knowledge of Christ, love to Christ, desire after Christ, highly esteeming him, &c. My Reasons for this, and how far Faith is, or is not alone in justifying, follow after.

Animadversion.

The Nature of Faith, I think is fully set forth, Heb. 11. 13. in these words, These all died in saith, having not received the Promises (i. e. the things promised) but saw them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them. These words show, that three things concur to make up Faith: 1. Knowledge; They saw the Promises, though afar off. 2. Assent; They were persuaded of them. 3. Application; They embraced them.

Reply.

This is the same that I constantly affirm: Only by [Application,] I doubt not you mean the act of the Will, Consent, Acceptance, Election, the same that Embracement in the Text is, and not that which some old great Divines call Application, viz. A believing that our own sins are pardoned. I am glad you see the inconvenience of making one single act only to justify, or the act of one faculty only.

Animadversion.

I confess I know not well what to make of this. Are no Promises the proper Object of justifying Faith? What hath Faith to lay h • ld on without a Promise? We cannot believe in Christ, but as he is promised and held our in the Gospel. First they saw the Promises, and then were persuaded of them, and embraced them, Heb. 11. 13. By the Promises (as I said) are meant the things promised; but neither a Promise without a thing promised, nor a thing promised without a Promise, is imaginable. Perhaps you will say, The Promises are the ground of Faith, not the object of it. Indeed, if we distinguish betwixt a Promise, and a thing promised, yet the Promise itself must be believed: And indeed, neither can we believe a Promise, but we must believe the thing promised; nor can we believe a thing promised, but we must believe the Promise.

Reply.

I spake as other men, that make one object, even Christ himself to be the direct or proper object: But I repent of the narrow use of the word [Proper Object;] for indeed, God, Heaven, the Promise, the Benefits, may be called Objects of it too. Yet,

1. It is plainly expressed, and I doubt not but you have many a time read the like before in the Learnedst Divines; viz. That the object of that Faith which justifies, is not axioma aliquod, but an incomplex term, viz. Christ himself, Ames. Medull. l. 1. c. 3. §. 9. In Scriptures vel promissionibus, enunciationes continent & exhibent objectum fidei, vocantur{que} objectum fidei per metonymiam adjuncti. Bonum quod proponitur assequendum qua tale, est finis & effectum fidei, non proprie objectum ipsum: Illud vero cujus vi nitimur, in assecutione boni illius est proprium objectum fidei, 1 Cor. 1. 23. Praedicamus Christum, & 2. 2. non statui quicquam sici inter vos nisi Jesum Christum, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Deus in Christo. So also cap. 27. §. 15, 17. Fides igitur illa proprie dicitur Justificans qua incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem peccatorum & salutem. Christus enim est adaequatum objectum fidei, quatenus fides Justificat. Fides enim non alia ration Justificat nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam propter quam Justificamur: Illa autem justitia non est in veritate alicujus axi • matis, cui assensum praebemus, sed in Christo solo, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Hinc toties illae in N. T. repetitae conciones quae Justificationem in persona sola Christi quaerendam ostendunt, Joh. 1. 12. & 3. 15, 16. & 6. 40, 47. & 14. 1, 54. Rom. 4. 5. & 3. 26. Acts 10. 43. & 25. 18. Gal. 3. 26. So also in Dispute. de Fid. divin. verit. And I have shown you, Append. p. 111, 112, &c. that Dr. Preston and others most frequently have the same.

2. I fully enough (I thought) opened my meaning to you to this effect. Justifying Faith is the motion of the whole Soul to Christ. It containeth therefore the action of both Faculties. In the intellect Assent is its act, and the Word or Promise is its nearest object, though not its chief (as I opened my meaning, p. 260.) For as Ames. Medul. l. 2. c. 5. §. 23, 24. Hoc objectum est immediate semper aliquod axioma vel enunciatio sub ration veri, sed illud in quo principaliter terminatur fides, de quo & propter quod assensus praebetur illi axiomati per fidem, est ens incomplexum sub ration 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 praecipue spectatur. But as the act of the Understanding is but preparatory, introductory and subservient to that of the Will, whereby the Soul cleaveth to God as good, being but the means to it, or the imperfect Rudiments of it: So Assent to the truth of the Promise, is but such an initial or introductory act, as to Consent, or the Wills Acceptance of the good offered. These acts of the intellect (in affectionate or practical matters) are but imperfect acts of the Soul, and so but imperfecte humani vel morales: And therefore we commonly distinguish intellectual Acts and Virtues from moral. Not that I think they are not truly humani & morales, but it is in a more imperfect kind; as the digestion in the stomach, before Sanguification: Nor do I agree to Ames, who placeth justifying Faith only in the Will (no more than to Cameron, who placeth it only in the Intellect:) But till it come to the Will, it is not perfect, nor so fully to be ascribed to the whole man. And therefore saith Gibieuf de Libert. Finis intellectus est veri notitia, sed finis hominis intelligentis est amor Dei. As the sense is for the Intellect, so the Intellect is for the Will here. And therefore it is the act of the Will that is the complete and principal act of justifying Faith, and the object of that act is the proper principal object of justifying Faith.

Now this complete principal act of Faith; (viz. The Will's Acceptance, Election or Consent, velle bonum oblatum) hath not the Word or Promise for its proper material object; but Christ himself, as in his Office, and to the ends and uses of that Office; and so the benefits are final or remoter objects indeed, and still implied. The accepting of the Word, or the accepting of Justification, are neither of them this complete special act of justifying Faith; but the accepting of Christ. As the act wherein the essence of Marriage doth principally consist, is not believing each others words (which is pre-requisite) nor yet accepting the riches or honors of each other: But accepting each other in the Conjugal Relations; or the Wills consent (and its expression, if we speak of it quoad forum exterius.) And the Condition of a woman's enjoying her Husband's honor and estate, is not principally her believing him, nor yet her accepting his honor and estate; but her accepting himself in Marriage. So I think it is here. Yet the truth of God or his Word, is the object of that introductory initial act of justifying Faith, called Assent. Methinks this is so plain, that you may well know what to make of it. Ne{que} nobis absurdum videtur, sed valde consentaneum, actum illum quo tota anima Purificatur & Justificatur ad totam animam pertinere: ita ut in nudo intellectu habeat mitium, in voluntate complementum. Davenant. Deter. Q. 37. p. 166.

Animadversion.

1. The Arguments which you use, prove only thus much, that Christ must be received as well in respect of his Kingly, as in respect of his Priestly Office; But not that we are justified by the one, as well as by the other. Still we must distinguish inter fidem quae Justificat, & fidem quâ Justificat. Observandum est (saith Ames) nos non restringere fidem illam quae Justificat, sed tantum qua Justificat, ad permissionem misericordiae. Ames. in Bellar. Ener. l. 5. c. 1.

2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness whereby we are justified, and Christ as Priest satisfied for us; then by receiving him as Priest, we are justified: Though it's true, none can indeed receive him as Priest, except they receive him as King also.

Reply.

1. I think the Arguments used, if rightly taken, prove more than you say. But because I come newly from manifesting their forms and vigor, to two or or three other Learned Animadverters, I shall not attempt it again on this short invitation.

2. You confess I have proved the receiving Christ as King, to be the fides quae Justificat: And then it belongs to you to prove the exclusion of it in this Consideration: Scripture saith, We are justified by faith: You confess, it is by this faith, or this act: If therefore you say moreover, It is by this, but not as such, you must prove the exclusion of that respect; for ubi Lex nec distinguit nec limitat, non est distinguendum vel limitandum. He therefore that affirms the Distinction or Limitation, must prove it. Which I despair of seeing well done here.

3. I reverence those Learned Divines, that use to distinguish of the fides quae, and the fides quâ: But indeed, I am past doubt, that it is here a useless distinction, and only built on a begging of the Question. The word [qua] respecteth either [Justificat,] or, [fides.] Fides quâ Justificat, tantum Justificat: Ita enim loquimur non quid sit, sed quid producit. If you refer [qua] to [fides,] so as to mean, Fides quâ Christi sacerdotis apprehensio Justificat, & tantum quâ talis: Then, 1. This is inconveniently expressed, to say [qua Justificat,] instead of [quâ Christum apprehendit.] 2. And it is a begging of the Question. It supposeth, that [haec fides, vel hic fidei actus qua talis, & non qua conditio formaliter Justificat,] which I deny: Yea, and it supposeth that solus hic actus Justificat, which is also denied.

4. I would you would show me, in what sense or respect it is, that the receiving of Christ as King doth justify. You say, it is the fides quae Justificat: And then it is certainly a justifying act: Now if it do justify, and yet not qua talis, as such as it is, then as what? It is not the same act most say, as the receiving Christ as Priest: Will you say, [The receiving Christ as King] doth justify, as it is the receiving him as Priest? that were to say, [by doing that which it doth not,] according to the common judgment. But if you mean, that it is the same Habit, which performeth both Acts, and only one of the Acts justify: I say, you should then call the Habit only, and that one Act, the fides quae; and not that act which is not the fides quae (in your esteem.)

5. The [quâ] should signify the formal Reason of its interest in the work of Justifying. But that (I think I have proved, and shall do) is not its nature, as it is this Act or that (that is but its Aptitude to this Office) but its being the Condition of Justification, which God hath instituted, and man performed. If therefore it justify not qua fides, vel quâ hic actus, but quâ conditio praestita, then every Act must justify, which is such a Condition: For à quatenus ad omne valet argumentum.

6. Your own Argument I grant wholly [If Christ as Priest satisfied. &c.] But all you conclude is, that [therefore by receiving him as Priest we are justified.] But who denieth it? You left out lie [only:] Which had you put in, I had denied the Consequence with that addition. It is such another Argument as this: If a man only as rich, do enrich his wife; and only as honorable, do honor her; and only as merciful and potent, doth deliver her from danger: then the Act on her part which enricheth her, is only the receiving him as a rich man; and not as an honorable man, nor as a husband only: And the Act which dignifieth her, is only the receiving him as honorable. No such matter! But the receiving him as a Husband (though she never look to his riches or honor) is that Act on her part, which giveth right to his riches, honor and all: And then these benefits are but consequential thereto.

7. Let me therefore here once for all (that you may understand my meaning) tell you, That when we say [Faith justifies in this respect, and not in that,] distinguendum est: Either we speak ex parte objecti only, in what respect the Object received doth justify; or else ex parte actus nostri, in what respect our Act of Faith justifieth: And so I affirm ex parte objecti (I speak not de objecto formaliter, sed materialiter in se) that Christ received, doth not justify (satisfactorily and meritoriously) as King, but as Priest: (Though yet sententialiter & ut efficiens principalis, he justifies as King.) But if the Question be, Ex parte actus nostri? I say, it is not our receiving Christ as Priest only, nor as King, but as the Mediator-God-man, to be our Head, Husband, Lord and Savior that justifieth, as being the Condition on which Justification is given us: And so receiving him as King, hath as near a hand in it, as receiving him as Priest; (for this is that part of the Condition which the World most sticks at.) As in the forementioned similitude ex parte objecti, the husbands dignity doth not enrich the wife, nor his riches ennoble her: But ex parte actus, as to the Condition on her part, it is undivided as to the essential Matrimonial respects, viz. [That she take the man to be her husband, to be loved, obeyed, and faithfully cleave to him only:] But the respect to his riches and honor in marrying him, is not that which gives her title to them; (that is, but collaterally requisite, if at all,) but her first having right in him, whose they are.

Animadversion.

I presume Mr. Cotton by [Promise,] meant the [Promise at containing Christ in it,] and that he spake of Faith as justifying. Quamvis multa sint exercitia & objecta fidei, non tamen Justificans est, nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christ. Ames. Bell. Enerv. l. 5. c. 2. ad 8.

Reply.

I like your fair Exposition; whereby you leave the Error, as being in his language, and not in his sense. For as Christ is, saith Ames. Objectum adaequatum fidei Justificantis, so [nothing else but] is too palpable an exclusion in all appearance: And no exact man in defining, should either exclude, or but imply the adequate object of that Act which he defineth. But I truly love charitable Interpretation, and only endeavor to keep the ill sense out of credit, and not so Reverend a man.

Animadversion.

I think it is properly a fruit of justifying Faith. We love him, because he loved us first, 1 John 4. 19. His love apprehended by us, which is by Faith, doth work in us love towards him again. For otherwise, though God love us never so much, yet if we do not apprehend it, we shall not therefore love him. B. Davenant de Just. act. c. 30. p. 387. reckons amare Deum, inter effecta à side Justificante necessario manantia.

Reply.

To your Argument I answer:

1. The Text may argue, not à ration objectivâ; but à ration efficiente; q. d. Because he first loved us, therefore hath he prevented us by his Grace, and given us hearts to love him again.

2. If you were sure it argued à ration objectivà, yet you endeavor to prove no more, but that the assenting act of Faith goes before love; which I affirm as much as you, while I say, it goes before Consent, Acceptance, Election.

3. Your Argument, as you urge it, tends to prove that Love, even in time follows Faith: Yet you never yet denied that Acceptance and Election is a justifying act: And can you think, that Acceptatio vel Electio boni, hath no love in it, but is wholly antecedent? or that the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , embracing, Heb. 11. 13. which you cited, containeth no love in it? Your Friend and mine Mr. Leigh thought it did. See what he citeth, Crit. Sacr. out of Davenant, and Beza, and Pareus, Est amanter amplecti, & salutare & osculari.

4. The first orderly love to God in the Soul ariseth not from our belief or assurance, that he loves us in particular more than others of the World, but from the apprehension of his natural excellency, goodness, and common love to mankind in giving Christ for them, and in him offering to be freely reconciled to them, and tendering Christ, and Pardon, and Salvation to them; upon the belief of which, they lovingly accept Christ offered, which is the complete act of justifying Faith, being the Marriage between Christ and the Soul. And so as you may say, the complete act of Faith, is a fruit of the incomplete act: So you may say, that this love is a fruit of this belief.

5. And I need not again tell you, that I neither speak of any other love here, but love to the accepted Redeemer, or Head and Husband Christ (whom we do not accept or marry first, and only after love him, but do lovingly accept) nor of the following acts of love in our lives, which may be called the fruits of our first loving acceptance. Chamier. Panstrat. de Fide, l. 12. c. 4. (mihi) p. 375. Omnis amor est actus voluntatis: At fides est amor: ergo, &c. minor probatur. Vera fides est ea quae credit in Deum: At credere in Deum est amare Deum, &c.

6. Aquinas, and others ordinarily say, That Love, as it is in the rational part, is nothing but Velle, 1, 2. q. 22. a. 3. 3. & 1. q. 20. a. 1. so Zanchius very oft. So Tolet. de Anima. in l. 3. c. 9. q. 27, 28. Circa bonum prima passio est amor. Amor est omnium prima & ipsarum parens, &c. Amor est, 1. Concupiscentiae. 2. Benevolentiae vel amicitiae. Ille est velle bonum ad se ordinando, &c. Alter est velle bonum propter seipsum, &c. Vid. ultra. So Gerson part. 4. fol. 27. de Passionibus animae, Ames. contr. Grevinchov. pag. 16. Abundance more I could cite, specially Philosophers, to the same purpose, but that I will not so trouble you and myself in vain. Now certainly Acceptance is velle bonum; and certainly before velle there is no act of the Will to good.

7. I deny not amare Deum to be an effect, in the sense oft explained already.

Animadversion.

You speak of a thing present and enjoyed; and so distinguish justifying Faith from Desire and Hope: [Desire and Hope (say you, p. 267.) as such, do properly consider their Object as absent, which this justifying Faith doth not.] Now Christ must be received by Faith, that so he may be present and enjoyed, and consequently, that he may be loved as such. And therefore Love in this sense is rather a fruit of Faith, than a part of it, as you endeavor to prove.

Reply.

1. As Desire and Hope consider their Object as Absent, so they are only, quoad accidentalem hunc respectum, different from love, and not from any real essential objective difference.

2. Faith and Love here do consider their Object as alike present. There is no need of Faith to make it present before it can be accepted and loved; it is God's offer that makes it present: And he offers it me to be at once lovingly accepted, and not to be first accepted, and then loved only.

3. We look not at Christ as [enjoyed] when we first love him; but as bonum conveniens offered to be enjoyed.

4. If by [receiving by Faith,] you mean, [Assent to the truth of the Word,] then it is true, that this must go before Love: But it is as true, that it must go before Acceptance.

Animadversion.

Love, as you take it, considereth its Object as present and enjoyed; therefore it differs from Consent, Election and Acceptance, which go before Enjoyment: So much yourself confesses immediately, saying, [Acceptance considereth its Object as offered; Election considereth it as propounded with some other Competitor; Consent considereth it as we are persuaded and invited to it.]

Reply.

Neither so, nor so.

1. I never thought that all Love considereth its Object as present, much less as enjoyed; but only amor complacentiae. I only said, that Love considereth it not as absent (as Desire and Hope do;) that is, It is not necessary to the denomination of Love, that we consider the Object as absent: I spoke negatively, not that I ever thought it necessary, that therefore it must consider it as present and enjoyed: Love considereth it more simply than other Passions do, that is, as bonum conveniens: It is accidental to it, to consider it as absent, or as present. Therefore Desire and Hope are Love with such an accidental variation.

2. As the said accidental differences of the Object in mere extrinsic respects, do not make the Object to be divers: (It is not one good that is offered, and another that is deliberated on, and another that we are fore-invited to;) so they make not Acceptance, Election, Consent, to be several acts, much less one to follow another as their fruit: No more doth it make Love to differ from them. All is but velle bonum, viz. Christum oblatum. Cannot mine eye see at once this wall as it is white, as it is quantum, as it is unum, as it is thus or thus scituate, standing East or West, facing that other Wall, near to this Wall, and like to it, &c. Must all these be several acts in the substance, and one the fruit of another?

Animadversion.

But that is not enough to make them and Love all one. For so Desire and Hope consider their Object as good, yet are not therefore the same with Consent, Election, Acceptance, nor yet with Love, as the Object of it, is Good-enjoyed: For the Object of Desire and Hope, is Good-absent.

Reply.

It is not enough to give Love the name of Acceptance or Consent, &c. But it is enough to prove Acceptance and Consent to be Love. Love is the substance of the Act; the other are the same Act, as respecting the same Object, but not simply as good, but with the addition of some respects extrinsical. The Genus is truly in the Species, though the Species is not the Genus, nor the Genus to be called by the name of the Species. Amare & velle bonum, is all one. Acceptance, Election, Consent are all velle; but not velle bonum simpliciter, sed cum hoc vel illo respectu superaddito: And therefore omne velle non est acceptare, sed omne acceptare est velle. Et ita dicendum de Amore.

Animadversion.

So Love must needs be taken for Desire, not for that Love which is carried out towards a thing enjoyed, which is Amor complacentiae. But I do not conceive that to be the Apostle's meaning, Gal. 5. 6. Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet, Paulus nequaquam disputat, an charitas ad justificandum co-operatur fidei, sed tantum indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia, &c. ergo cum versaris in causa Justificationis cave ullam charitatis vel operum mentionem admittas, sed mordicus retine particulam exclusivam. Calv. ad loc.

Reply.

1. Amor desiderii, vel concupiscentiae, is as common a phrase as Amor complacentiae.

2. It is as proper to say, Desire is Love, or Complacency is Love; as to say, Amor concupiscentiae, & Amor complacentiae. Both phrases express that there is Love, with an additional respect.

3. I love to interpret Scripture in the most comprehensive sense: To say the Apostle excluded this operation, may be sooner done, than to prove it: But of that, judge as you see meet.

4. James took not Calvin 's counsel in his phrase of Speech.

Animadversion.

Love, and all obedience, are propounded as necessary, but not as necessary to Justification. They flow from justifying Faith, but are not properly parts of it.

Reply.

(1.) John 16. 27. & 14. 21. Makes Love the antecedent Condition of God's Love and Christ's Love to the person. And that goeth with Remission, and is a Love of Reconciliation: And Reconciliation comprehendeth Remission. At least, you will never show out of Scripture, that the procuring God's Love, and the procuring Remission and Reconciliation, have not the same Conditions.

(2.) Love is confessed a Condition of our Glorification, Jam. 1. 12. & 2. 5. John 14. 21, &c. And it is to me past doubt, that Glorification, and sentential Justification at judgment, have the same Conditions.

3. I easily acknowledge, that Obedience is a fruit of Faith, and not a part of it, properly taken: And so is other Love.

Animadversion.

This which you say is doubtless, is generally not doubted, but denied by our Divines. Love, as distinguished from Desire, presupposeth Christ already apprehended, and so Justification already obtained; and therefore it doth not concur with • aith in apprehending Christ, nor is it necessary to Justification.

Reply.

1. Either you or I mistake the common judgment of Divines. How many have answered me (besides all that I have read) that Love is necessary quoad praesentiam, sed non quoad Instrumentalitatem, vel Causalitatem. Nay how many have told me of Works themselves (much more of Love) that they are indeed Conditions of our Justification, but not Instruments: (so Mr. Ball of the Covenant;) and chiefly blame me, that I bring them so near together, by not giving more to Faith, than merely to be a Condition; which (say they) Works are as well as Faith. Nay, how commonly do ours on James 2. and against the Papists say, that Fides solum justificat, sed non sola: Faith without Works in Causality, but not in Concomitancy. And if it be not sola without Works, sure not without Love. Though for my part I affirm, that as to Works of external Obedience, it is solum & sola in our first Justification.

2. You intimate a Concession, that Amor concupiscentiae is pre-requisite. And I speak not of Amor complacentiae, as respecting the Object enjoyed: But indeed of Amor acceptationis vel electionis, as properly so called as either of the other.

3. Acceptance presupposeth the Promise to be believed as true, and Christ to be known to be good; and yet Justification is not attained before that Acceptance or Love. But all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance, Consent, Election or Affiance, no more than velle presupposeth them. The names plainly evince this.

Animadversion.

(1.) This accepting of Christ for Lord, is as essential a part of justifying Faith, as the accepting him for Savior; but not of Faith as justifying. Christ is our Savior in satisfying for us, and in that respect doth Faith apprehend Christ, as it justifieth.

(2.) For Faith justifieth, as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction, which is that Righteousness whereby we are justified.

Reply.

(1.) I have already answered this of fides quae & qua. I take your Concession for the quae, and stay till you either prove the quâ as contradistinct, or this distinction to have tolerable sense, when well scan'd.

(2.) I mainly differ with you in the last point, which is your ground-work in other differences. Faith justifieth not directly, as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction (you should say, Righteousness which was merited by it: For the Satisfaction itself was never offered to us, but given to God for us; unless by apprehending, you mean only assenting to the truth of it:) But Faith justifieth directly or formally, as the Condition of the Gift; and materially or aptitudinally, as the receiving of Christ himself: And then his Righteousness is to follow our Union or Marriage to him. Doth not Union go before Justification? Remember I distinguished before ex parte actus & ex parte objecti.

Animadversion.

Accepting is properly the receiving of a thing offered: And so our Accepting, presupposeth God's offer; our receiving, supposeth his Donation: And I should rather think that it is not God's offer and Donation, but our accepting and receiving, which doth immediately make Christ ours. The Gospel-Covenant is held out to many, who yet have no interest in Christ, because they have not faith to accept and receive him, John 1. 11, 12. Acts 13. 38, 39, 40. 41.

Reply.

This is a point of greater moment than to all appears: But as to your Objection, it is of most facile solution. There are two acts of God's Donation to be distinguished, which you confound: 1. One is his making the conditional Covenant or. Gift: This was a natural act past long ago, and our Acceptance supposeth it past. 2. The second is the moral act of this Covenant, Deed of Gift, or Law once made. This moral action is considerable, 1. As before our performance of the Condition; and that is imperfect, and properly no action, as to giving: For it is essential to a Condition, to suspend the act of the Law, Grant, or other instrumental Donation. 2. But when the Condition is performed, then the Law or Covenant doth truly agere or significare, and give Christ and Righteousness. For though the Instrument were in being before, yet it did not agere vel efficere, till the Condition was performed. And this is common in moral Action▪ or Efficiency, to delay so long, and begin on such terms: And the reason is, because all its force for Action is from the Will of the Law-giver or Donor: For it worketh but as signum voluntatis ejus. Now it is his Will that a conditional Grant shall not act, or be effectual till the Condition be performed, and therefore it cannot before. If a man make a Testament, giving so much to such a Son when he marrieth, and so much to another on such a Condition (as if it were but thankful Acceptance) this Testament will not give them any actual right, till the Condition be performed. So I answer you; Our Acceptance supposeth God's Grant, as made in the Instrument, and supposeth it conditionally to be ours; but as truly supposeth, that actually it is not ours till Acceptance; the Law till then suspending its act. Indeed if it had been an absolute Grant, it had been otherwise: For then the receiving would have been necessary only in natural, and not moral respect; and only ad possessionem & non ad jus. And yet some Grants use to be made in phrase of absolute ones, which yet imply Consent or Receiving to be conditional, because it is seldom convenient to make over any gift upon other terms: (Yet sometimes it is.) Can you think indeed (as you seem to intend) that all God's Agency is past before we believe, and that he doth nothing after? Why then he justifieth men before Faith ex parte sui, as fully as after; and the Reprobate as fully as the Elect: But both these are false. Indeed God doth no natural action after (it is ex vi Legislationis, that the Law doth still afterward act) but the moral act of his Law, which is debitum constituere, jus confer, is after our Faith immediately: and this is the act that we are chiefly to look at. You say, the Gospel-Covenant is held out to Unbelievers, and what of that? Doth it therefore give right in Christ to Unbelievers? Or doth Faith itself give that right? Or did God before give it absolutely, and they only lose the possession for want of a Reception merely natural? No, none of all this.

Animadversion.

It doth not follow, because the Covenant extends to more than Justification; and Justification itself requires that Christ be received as King, yet not that Justification may be obtained, but because it is obtained.

Reply.

1. You might easily discern from what went before, that I spoke of the Condition of Justification.

2. I perceive now that you think the receiving Christ as Priest, and as King, are two distinct acts; and that the former alone justifieth us, not only without the other, as a Condition, but even without its presence, which is but to follow because we are justified. Contrary, He that receives not Christ as Christ, (that is, in all the essentials of his Mediatory Office) doth not receive him, so as to be justified by him. But he that receives him only as Priest, and not as King, doth not receive him as Christ; therefore, &c. The Scripture calleth him Christ, the Anointed, more fully and frequently, in respect to the Kingly part of his Office than any. A false Faith doth not justify: But to receive Christ only as a Priest, and not as King, is a false Faith; therefore, &c. Again, He that knows not Christ to be the King of the Church by Office, and de jure the Ruler of his Soul, knows him not with a true knowledge (no more than he that knows not that a man hath a head, but only a heart, hath a true knowledge of man;) therefore so to receive him is no true receiving. And if he know him to be King, and yet receive him not as such, then it is worst of all. Lastly, To receive Christ so as he was never offered, is no true receiving: But to receive him as Priest only, is so to receive him as he was never offered; therefore, &c. And therefore this receiving which you speak of doth not justify.

Animadversion.

I cannot examine those Arguments, not having the Book wherein they are contained. But Affiance being taken for a Recumbency on Christ, it seems to be a principal part of justifying Faith, as being that which the phrase of Believing in Christ, so frequent in Scripture doth import, and which is meant by embracing, Heb. 11. 13.

Reply.

I am of your mind in all this: But withal, as Acceptance is the most principal act, and yet is a fruit of Assent: So Affiance may be a principal act, and yet be but a fruit of Acceptance or Election. And though [believing in Christ] imply Affiance, yet first it implieth Assent (of which Downam is large:) And though [embracing] may include Affiance, yet first, and principally Acceptance, as is evident.

Animadversion.

That may argue the sincerity of your desire, but not the success of your endeavors.

Reply.

Concedo totum. You need not deny a Conclusion that was never infer'd. Whether I have any better Argument for my success, I leave you to conclude upon perusal.

Animadversion.

But I think it neither hath been, no • can be proved, that either Faith doth justify, as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole New-Covenant, which doth comprehend more in it than Justification; or that Obedience is part of the Condition of the New-Covenant, so far as it concerns Justification, I mean for the obtaining of it. Obedience is required indeed in the New-Covenant; but not that thereby we may be justified, but as a fruit of that Faith whereby we are justified.

Reply.

The first is yielded. You might easily know, that I spoke of the Condition of Justification: For the second, it is also granted of Justification begun: But as for Justification continued, and consummate by Sentence at Judgment, let it rest on the proofs themselves.

Animadversion.

It cannot indeed be doubted, but that St. James doth say so: But the Question is not of his words, but of his meaning. And it may seem strange, that you should so censure that Interpretation, which is generally received by Protestants, as to make it contradictory to the Text. The Papists say as much about those words, [This is my Body;] and they have as much reason for what they say as you have, for anything I can see. For the meaning of St. James, whom you think to be so clear and full for you, it's needless to show what our Divines do say, even Cajetan himself upon the place saith, Jacobus docet quod non side sterili, sed fide soecunda operibus Justificantur. And this indeed seems to be S. Jame 's meaning by his whole Discourse, from ver. 14. to the end of the Chapter, where he bends himself against such as presume of Faith, though it be without Works, which Faith Protestants generally deny to be which justifieth. More especially consider, that St. James saith, That Abraham was justified by works, when he had offered up his son upon the altar: And that the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness, v. 21, & 23. This clearly shows (methinks) that Abraham was only so justified by Works, and not by Faith only, as that he was justified, not by a barren and idle, but by a fruitful and working Faith, his Works shown his Faith to be true justifying Faith indeed. For that [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness,] was said of him long before that he offered up Isaac, as the story in Genesis doth show: and by those very words doth S. Paul prove that Justification is by Faith, and not by Works, Rom. 4. 3. Therefore when S. James saith, that by Abraham 's offering up of Isaac, that Scripture was fulfilled, I know nor how it can be otherwise understood, than that thereby it did appear, that it was truly said of Abraham, That he believed God, &c. His willingness to obey God in so great a work, shown that he believed indeed, and that his Faith was such, as whereby he was justified. So when St. James saith, That by Works Abraham 's Faith was made perfect; the meaning is, that his Works shown his Faith to be perfect, that is, a true justifying Faith; even as God's strength is said to be made perfect in our weakness, 2 Cor. 11. 9. i. e the greatness of his power is seen in our weakness: For it is certain, that our weakness can add nothing to God's power, though it may be 〈…〉 occasion to draw it out, and to make it manifest.

Reply.

1. I believe when the Holy Ghost speaks plainly, he means as he speaks.

2. I would you had told me what Interpretation is so generally received. Surely I have read of divers Interpretations by Protestants, one contradicting what others maintain; and therefore they do not so generally hold to one. Some say, It speaks of Justification coram Deo; some say, only coram hominibus; some, that it speaks of the Justification of the person; others, only of the Justification of his Faith, &c.

3. To your Hoc est Corpus meum, I answered before. It were an odd thing, if when we bring the express words of Scripture for any proof, it should be put off by Hoc est Corpus meum; or, Ego sum Vitis.

4. The words you cite, verse. 21, 23. will not prove what you intend. For if it be meant of [Justification immediately on our first believing,] or our Justification as begun (which you still insist on) then how can James prove by Works many years after, that the Faith was fruitful, when he was first justified by it.

5. Indeed the words you cite, undeniably prove that James and you speak not of one and the same Justification, or of Justification in the same sense. For you speak of it as begun, and James speaks of it only as continued (Legal Justification I mean) upon the performance of that Obedience which is the secondary part of the Condition; and so he includeth also the Evangelical Justification, which I before described, as being the necessary medium for confirmation and continuation of the Legal. It is beyond doubt that Abraham was justified long before he offered up his Son. And this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was past; and therefore James speaks not of that. And indeed how else could James 's Doctrine be reconciled with Paul's, or the truth, if it spoke of the first, or begun Justification? For that is before and without the very presence of all external Works: (you think, before love to Christ; and say, All our Divines so hold: and yet here you say, that Protestants generally deny that Faith which is without Works to justify: But so do not I; therefore I give less to Works than you think Protestants do.) Except you will say (as Grotius doth, and I think in this truly) that James by Works means, a disposition and resolution to obey, as still necessary (implied in the taking Christ for King,) and actual obedience when we are called to it. For Abraham did not offer his son in Sacrifice, but by attempting it, and cheerfully addressing himself to it, shown his resolution to obey.

6. As for Vers. 23. which you urge, there is no necessity of your sense, nor is it much against what I say, if it be yielded. Either you think James by [Fulfilled] means, quoad sensum verborum ut primo sunt enunciata: (But that cannot be, because they were Historical, and therefore fulfilled as soon as spoken; and not Prophetical, to be fulfilled afterward:) Or else he useth the word Fulfilled less strictly, as referring to the Doctrine which that Historical Enunciation did contain, viz. [That it was by believing God that Abraham was justified;] which (as Grotius truly notes) is ordinarily in the New-Testament the meaning of that word, [That the Scripture may be fulfilled.] And this must be the meaning here (for the Reason forementioned.) And then the sense may be, 1. Either by way of Interpretation; q. d. [In this sense is this Scripture-Doctrine fulfilled, Abraham believed God, that is, He believed and obeyed also:] Or it may be by way of Concession; q. d. [Yet the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed, &c. For Faith did justify him, but not only Faith.]

7. For your Interpretation of Vers. 22. it is only your Affirmation, and is as easily denied. Sure I am, that my Interpretation is true quoad Doctrine • m, viz. That Faith is not only manifested perfect by Obedience, but that it is really perfected, 1. As the Tree is by bearing fruit. 2. As a Covenant or Promise is by performance (as a man's Bargain is perfected, when he hath done that which he thereby bound himself to do.) 3. As it hath naturam medii, viz. Conditionis, to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification. 4. As it is part of that necessary matter (not necessary at the first moment of believing, but necessary afterward, when he is called to it) whereby he is to be justified against the Charge of non performance of the New-Covenants Condition; even against the Accusation of being an Unbeliever or Hypocrite. It cannot be denied, but thus far following-Obedience perfecteth Faith: And if this be true doctrinally, I see yet no reason, why I should exclude all these from the meaning of the Apostle in that Text, or any of them; when the old Rule is, to expound Scripture in the most comprehensive sense it will bear, and not to limit or restrain it without necessity.

8. Your own Interpretation and Mr. Pembles, granteth as much as I plead for, I think, if you contradict not yourself again: If by [Works,] you understand [a working-Faith,] it shall suffice me, if you apply it as James doth; that is, not to a mere necessitas praesentiae of Works, but to that Conducibility to the effect, which James gives to both: Or (to speak as others) not only to Faith in itself, but to Faith as working. If [a working Faith] be made by God the Condition of Justification, then the modus or adjunct, [Working,] is a true, necessary, secondary part of the Condition, as the Faith itself is the substance or principal part. As when God makes [sincere Faith] the Condition, Sincerity is thereby made the modus, and so far a true part of the Condition. If you bargain to give me [a sound, swift, travelling Horse] on such a price: You receive your money for him as really quatenus sound, swift, &c. as quatenus a Horse. If a Woman in Marriage covenant to be [a faithful Wife,] (and not adulterous) she receives her interest in the Man and his Estate primarily quatenus a Wife, but also quatenus faithful; for want of which she may be divorced after. In this sense therefore I will not contend against you, if you yield, that Faith is the Condition of continued and consummate Justification; not only considered in se as Faith, but also as working. But still I say, I had rather stick to the Scripture-words, when I see no necessity to change them.

But now if Mr. Pemble, or you, or any, will say, [Works justify not the Person, but the Faith,] you say and unsay. It is a contradiction: For if it be true in all particular causes, that Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae (as Bradshaw tells you more fully, de Justif. Edit. Lat. c. 3. §. 9, 10. p. 30.) much more in such a Justification as this, which Everlasting Life dependeth on. If you be accused to be a final non- performer of the Conditions of the New-Covenant, he that justifieth your performance, justifieth you against that Accusation, and hath no other way to justify you. This Accusation is, 1. Either that you are an open Infidel: Against this you must be justified, by producing your Faith itself. 2. Or that you are a Hypocrite; that is, a close Unbeliever: And so you must be justified coram Deo, by pleading the sincerity of your Faith, and coram hominibus conjecturaliter, by producing Works as the fruits. 3. Or that you are but a half-Believer, or half-Performer of the Conditions; viz. One that took Christ for your own ends to save you, but not to rule you, (Luke 19. 27.) or that believed (in James 's sense) but did not obey: Against this you must be justified by producing your consent to Christ's Rule, and your Obedience. (And to this James had respect.) Or, 4. You are accused to be an Apostate: And against this you must be justified, by producing your Perseverance. So that whatever part of the Condition you are accused to have violated, you must be justified, by proving the performance of that part. And this is Justificatio personae & non tantum causae. Nay, when you say, [Works justify our Faith,] you plainly grant also, that they justify our Person, when the case is, [Whether we are true Believers or not?] There is no way in this case (which will be the great case at the day of Judgment) to justify the Person, but by justifying his Faith. And therefore I said, that I disliked not Mr. Pembles sense as to what he affirmed, [That we are justified by a working Faith:] But as to the denial or recalling of the same again, in saying, [We are not justified by Works;] or, [They justify not the Person, but his Faith:] For if Faith justify not, onl • considered as Faith, but also as working, that is plainly as much as to say, Secondarily we are justified by Works, or Working, as primarily by Believing; And that Works justify us, by the justifying of our Faith. For the Apostle saying, [We are justified by Works, and not by Faith only,] doth as plainly as can be spoken, give Works more than a compresentiality, even a co-interest in the effect: For it cannot be said, [We are justified by Works,] because they are present only.

Animadversion.

1. All Works, if they be Good-works, are Works of the Law, i. e. Works which the Law requireth; the Law (I mean the Moral Law) being as to Works the eternal Rule of Righteousness, there being no sin, but that which is forbidden by the Law, and which is a transgression of it, 1 John 3. 4. And therefore that in the Ephes. 5. 15. See that ye walk circumspectly, or exactly, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Beza doth well expound, quam proxime ad Legis Dei praecepta.

2. The Apostle doth simply and absolutely exclude Works from Justification: For, 1. He showeth that Abraham was justified by Faith, and not by Works: Now Abraham did the Works of the Gospel, as well as of the Law, yet was he not justified by Works, but by Faith only. 2. He showeth, that if a man be justified by Works, of what kind soever, his Justification is not of Grace, but of D • bt. 3. To prove that a man is justifiedly Faith, and not by Works, he alledgeth the word, of David, Blessed is the man wh • se iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Now that must be understood of Work▪ simply considered: For who doth any Works so, but that he hath need to have his iniquities forgiven, his sins covered, and not imputed to him? Fraeclare Calvinus, (saith B. Dav. de Just. Act. c. 30. p. 394) seligat ex totà suâ sanctus D • i s • rvus, quod in • jus cursu maxim eximium s • putabit edidisse, deprehendit alicu • i quod carnis putredinem sapiat.

Reply.

1. All Works are Works of a Law, but not [the Law] which the Apostle speaks of. The Moral Law distinct from the Sanction really, that is, as part of neither the Old Covenant or New, is a non ens, a Chymaera.

2. To your Reasons, that the Apostle excludes all Works simply and absolutely: I answer particularly, 1. He speaks only of Justification coram De • Legislatore veteris Legis; and not of Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief. 2. He speaks of Justification against a true Charge, which is the same with Remission of sin; and not of Justification against a false Accusation. 3. He speaks of Works, as Competitors with Christ; and not as subordinate to him. (James contrarily.) For the Question that Paul debates is, Whether we are justined by the Works of the Law, or by the Righteousness of Christ received by Faith? Where he principally in his Question opposeth Works and Christ as in point of Merit; and Faith is but collaterally put in the opposition. 4. He speaks against Works justifying meritoriously, and not as Conditions of the continuance of a free-given Righteousness. This I could bring multitudes of our Divines that affirm, that the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works, means in point of Merit; and that this is the Controversy between us and the Papists. 5. He doth so usually add, [The Works of the Law] as if he had foreseen this Controversy, and of purpose let them know, that it is not Obedience to the Redeemer that he excludes from justifying as a Condition, in subordination to Christ; but Works done in Opposition, Competition or Co-ordination with Christ. 6. He expressly speaketh only of those Works which make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace, and of no other. So much in general to be premised.

Now particularly to your first Argument, I say, 1. Abraham 's Gospel-works cannot be set in competition with Christ's Righteousness, that is against their nature; and therefore could not so justify: Which is all Paul says. But yet they might justify as Conditions under Christ. 2. Your Conclusion unlimited, is expressly against the words of Scripture, James 2. 24.

To your second I answer, 1. There is no such words as yours, [of what kind soever,] either expressed or intimated by Paul. To him that worketh, in the sense Paul speaks of (that is, ut operarius, to have the wages for the worth of the work) the Reward is not of Grace, but of Debt. 2. Else you fully do feign it, to contradict the whole scope of the Scripture, that promiseth the Reward to the Obedient. For the Apostle there speaketh of [Working,] and not only trusting in them; and he speaketh of the [Reward] and not only of Justification only. And do you think, that every man that obeyeth Christ, yea that obeyeth praemii gratia, doth make the Reward to be not of Grace? Then fair fall Antinomians and Rebels. 3. Faith is as truly a Work, as Love or Hope, &c. Yet it is not by Paul excluded; therefore not all Works.

I have followed this so far with another Reverend Brother, that I will say the less of it now. The two too common Answers are, 1. That this is Bellarmine's Answer; which I think not worthy a Reply. 2. That Faith justifies not as a Work, but as an Instrument. And so I say (more truly) Love, Hope, sincere Obedience, justify not as Works, but as the Conditions on which God hath given the Confirmation, Continuation and Consummation of Justification. There is a third Answer of a Learned man, that credere is not agere, but Pati: But I think I have confuted that sufficiently.

3. To your third I say, 1. That plainly shows that Paul speaks only of the Justification I first mentioned. 2. We have need of pardon for the imperfection of Faith, Love, and every Work; therefore we have need to be justified coram Deo Legislatore Legis operum, by Remission of sins through the Sacrifice of Christ: This is all your words will conclude, or Paul intends; and this is easily granted, and I hope should be faithfully maintained against any Adversary, if there were occasion. But, 4. We need not pardon for performing the Conditions of the New-Covenant; not for being Believers, loving Christ, obeying, &c. but only for doing it no better. 5. If this be your Argument, [Whatsoever Work is imperfect, and needeth pardon, cannot justify, &c.] I answer, By way of Merit it cannot: But as a Condition of free-given Pardon, an imperfect work may justify; or else Faith could not. To Calvin 's words and Davenants, I willingly subscribe.

Animadversion.

1. All this is no more than the Papists object against the Exposition of those words, This is my Body.

2. That all this, or any part of it, doth follow on the admitting of Mr. Pemble 's Exposition (which as I have shown, is no other than that which Cajetan doth embrace) is only supposed, but not proved. We do not teach the Holy Ghost to speak, nor force Scripture, nor raise an Exposition far from the importance of the words, when we interpret Scripture by Scripture, and show the meaning of one place by another, yea the meaning of a place by the very circumstances of it.

Reply.

It is not Mr. Pemble 's inclusion, but exclusion, that, as I shown you, I speak of. And it is an ill way to interpret Scripture, by denying it: When you prove your Interpretation (in the point opposed) indeed by any other Scripture, or the circumstances of this, you will do more, I think, than I have yet seen done. But it is very easy to feign or suppose an Analysis according to our own conceit, and thence to force a sense on each particular Verse.

Animadversion.

Still you suppose much, but prove nothing. I have shown before, that the scope of the Chapter is not against Mr. Pemble 's Interpretation, but for i • : And that to interpret as you do, is repugnant both • o some passages in that Chapter, and also to other places of Scripture.

Reply.

1. Let your proofs prevail according to their strength: I leave it to the trial. 2. For my proofs, I know not well what to offer as such: For if I bring plain Scripture, it is easy to say, It means not as it speaks, and to feign an Analytical Reason of it. But I prove, that by [Works] James means [Works] indeed.

1. The unprofitableness of bare Faith, (that is, Assent) without Works (Works in a proper sense) is made the subject of his Discourse, Vers. 14. It is not Faith and Faith that are opposed, but Faith alone, and Faith and Works: Insomuch that he concludes, Faith cannot save him that hath not Works: Which plainly intimates a necessity of more in Works than their bare presence.

2. His first Argument ab inefficacia similis, is, Good words, without good deeds cannot feed or clothe m • n: So b • li •• without a good life, cannot please G •• and s • ve the person, but as to this use is dead, b • ing alon • . Here again, the opposition is not merely between Faith and Faith, but between single Faith of Assent, and Faith and Works together. And still the same kind of force (I am loath to call it officacy) is ascribed to Works, in their place, as to Faith.

3. His second Argument is, That to have Faith without Works is a hardening of those that are Unbelievers, and causeth them to think ill of the Christian Faith, and insult over it, verse. 18. q. d. A man (that is, an Unbeliever) may say, Thou hast Faith, (i. e. You say none are of the true Religion but you; your Faith only is right, and we are all wrong; but show me thy Faith by thy Works; (i. e. If your belief be so good, why have you no better lives? it appears by your Works, what your Belief is:) And I will show thee my Faith by my Works; i. e. Let our Works show which of us hath the best Belief.

4. His third Argument is, that the Devils have a true Belief without Works; therefore that will not save, verse. 19. q. d. Thou hast no more than Devils have, if this be all.

5. His fourth Argument is verse. 21. and the Conclusion premised, verse. 20. viz. Faith without Works is dead, viz. As to the effect of justifying and saving (mortuum & inutile in Lege aequiparantur:) Still here the opposite part on one side, is [Faith and Works;] and on the other [Faith without Works.] The Argument, verse. 21. is Abraham himself (that is said to be justified by Faith) was yet justified by Works (not only by that Faith which did work, but by Works) and the Work is expressed [when he offered his son on the Altar.]

In Vers. 22. he urgeth the Application, Seest thou not how Faith wrought with his Works; i. e. He both believed and obeyed, his Faith and Obedience did co-work; or (if you will, that his Faith produced Works) and [by Works was Faith made perfect;] (i. e. by those Works which it produced, or he added, Faith was made perfect for the accomplishing of its ends, to which else it was dead, as is oft said before: Perfect and Dead are opposed; Dead is insufficient to the ends.)

6. In verse. 23. he for preventing an Objection, [Was not Abraham justified by Faith?] interpreteth that saying, [The Scripture was fulfilled which saith, &c. (q. d. He was indeed justified by Faith, the Scripture is fulfilled in that: But when he was called to Works, it was not then by Faith alone, but by Faith and Works added (for though Faith be the Condition of Initiation, yet Faith and Obedience, of the Confirmation, Continuation and Consummation of Righteousness.)

7. In Vers. 24. He very solemnly calls them to observe the Question concluded from this Argument, [You see then how that by Works a man is justified, and not by Faith only:] Not by that Faith only which did work; but by Works (as he had oft said before) not Works necessary as signs, or as idle Concomitants, but [by Works he was justified:] And lest we should doubt whether he only require their presence, and not their conditional interest, he shows their interest to be of the same nature, though not of the same order and degree as Faith's interest is, by applying the word [By] to the several members [By Works, and not only by Faith:] And puts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 solum, lest if he had put it adjectively, it might occasion the contrary Interpretation. And he saith not, [Faith is justified,] but [a man is justified.] So that they that say he speaks of the Justification of Faith, must make it run thus, [You see that by Works a man's Faith is justified, and not by Faith only.]

8. His fifth Argument he urgeth from the example of Rahab. Rahab was justified by Works (still retaining and inculcating the same words of being justified by Works, and not only by the Faith which produceth them; lest if he speak it but once, we might think it were not his proper meaning: And so expresseth the particular Work by which the Scripture commendeth Rahab, as being one of those Works that justify her.

9. And so he concludeth again, Vers. 26. That as the Body without the Spirit, so Faith (i. e. A sound Orthodox Belief: For so our Divines against the Papists and Commentators usually interpret it) without works (to second it, and join with it, as part of the Condition of continued Justification and Salvation) is dead also (i. e. is unprofitable.)

I have laid by all Authors, and the remembrance of their judgments, as much as I could, and looked only on the words of the Text, and charged my Conscience to speak what seemed the true unforced Analysis: And this is it that seems to me to be the naked sense. But when I had done, and reviewed the sense of Expositors, I see no reason to change it.

Now if (as I have said) Piscator, Pemble, &c. by [working Faith,] mean not only [Faith itself as Faith,] but [Faith as working,] i. e. first as Faith, and secondarily as Working, they say as much as I (but yet I will not accuse or refuse this oft repeated Scripture-phrase: But if they mean by [working Faith,] only [that Faith which hath Works as only quoad praesentiam necessary, and not at all ad effectum Justificationis,] I think they utterly forsake plain Scripture-words and sense.

Animadversion.

1. Do you think that neither Mr. Pemble, nor Calvin, nor any of all those eminent Divines whom you oppose, did unstand the nature and use of Faith in the point of Justification?

2. Let Faith be either an Instrument, as many term it (and I have before noted the reason, as I conceive it:) or a Condition, as you will have it (and I am not against it) yet Faith doth justify as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction; by which indeed so apprehended, we are justified. Works do not concur with Faith in this act of apprehending Christ's Satisfaction; and therefore neither are they concurrent unto Justification.

Reply.

1. I confess you have me now at a disadvantage. I shall not easily rid my hands of this Platonic Argument, though the Logic of it may be well enough dealt with. If I say that Calvin, &c. knew not so much as I, it will seem Arrogancy: If I say they did know more in this, I seem to confess myself to err. But what if I speak freely what I think without dissembling, let it seem what it will? I think for the service Calvin and such others did the Church, and for the progress that Truth made by their endeavors, it was such, that I deserve not to be named the same day with them: I think also that Calvin brought in more New-Doctrines (new to those times) than I have done incomparably: I think also that he writes so moderately oft of this very point, that I think his judgment was in sense, in the main, the same with mine. Yet I think his apprehensions of the Doctrines now in dispute, and his expressions of them, were not so clear, distinct and orderly, but that some that come after may see further, and redress those oversights, which have occasioned quarrels since (when, as Dr. Stoughton saith, We differ but in words about Justification by Faith, not understanding each others meaning. Form of wholesome words.) And I will not be so ungrateful to God, for fear of seeming arrogant, as not to speak plainly, that I hope God hath shown me somewhat further in this point, and some others, than Calvin hath taught or discovered. (And yet I think few of his nearer followers saw so much as he; but most depraved his Doctrine by out-going him, while they thought they did but imitate or vindicate him.) I hope when the Master-workman hath built the House, his Boy may say, without the imputation of Arrogancy, I have driven two or three pins which my Master oversaw.

But if this free Answer will not serve, I will answer as I have learned: I also will ask of you a Question or two. And when you have answered me, I will answer you.

1. Do you think that neither Clem. Roman. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexand. Tatianus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Cyril, &c. nor any one Divine for a thousand years after Paul, did understand his Doctrine, or know how Faith justified, or how far Works did concur? And you cannot but know (that are a man of reading) that they give generally as much, and mostly more to Works than ever I did, and that they teach our Justification by Faith to be as by Condition, and not as by an Instrument (whatever forced scraps some may gather out of a line, against the full scope of the whole page or Book.)

2. Do you think that Calvin, Martyr, Chamier, &c. with the stream of great renowned Forreign Divines (specially the first Reformers) did none of them know what justifying Faith was? that which we think our Children should know by their Catechism? which we think is so near the foundation? And yet did these men take justifying Faith to be either Assurance or Perswasion of the pardon of a man's own sins in particular; and say, He that had not this Certainty or Perswasion, had no Faith; and even lay a mighty part of Doctrinal Reformation, and difference between us and the Papists in this? And yet almost all our English Divines (except Antinomians) and most others, do now generally disclaim that Doctrine as erroneous, and place justifying Faith in Affiance, Recumbency, Assent or Acceptance, &c. confessing that Assurance, yea, and that persuasion, to be a separable fruit. Was it the former or the present Divines that knew not what justifying Faith is? Indeed if this way of arguing were good, you might save all your other Arguments through your whole Animadversions, and carry all with this one Question: [Do you think I understand not the nature and use of Faith in Justification?] For I reverence your understanding as much as some of theirs at least.

2. But your next words indeed concern the heart of our Controversy; and if I mistake not, do discover the main part of your mistake, and withal do contradict themselves.

You grant that Faith is a Condition, and (elsewhere) that it justifieth as a Condition; yet you say, it Justifieth, as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction, by which indeed so apprehended, we are justified. But,

1. If by [Apprehending,] you mean [Acceptance,] and not mere Assent to the truth of the Gospel revealing Christ's Satisfaction, I then say, that this is a very great mistake: For it is Christ himself, and not his Satisfaction, that is the adequate Object of the complete act of justifying Faith, that is, the Wills act: It is Christ himself that is offered to us to be our Head, Husband, Lord, Savior, and by accepting him, the Covenant is made, and we are united to him: And this Union is the first effect of this Faith, and then Justification in order of nature follows as a benefit: As the Honors and Dowry go with the person in Marriage. Not that there needs another act of Faith to justify us, after that the first hath united us to Christ. No: It is one act of Faith which is uniting, justifying, adopting, &c. they are several relative effects resulting from the Covenant-grant, upon our first believing (which is the Condition.) It is to God that Christ's Satisfaction is given, and to us Christ himself, and the fruits of it: It is too gross a conceit, that only the apprehension of Satisfaction itself, or Righteousness either, should be the justifying Act: As if you should say, A Woman's apprehension of her Husbands Riches, is it that makes her rich, when it is her Consent to have the man. And a dangerous Doctrine this is to be preached to our sensual people, who are contented to have Christ's Satisfaction (as you speak) or Righteousness, but not himself in the state he is offered: This turns men's thoughts from Christ himself, with whom they must first close in Marriage-Covenant, before they shall have any Righteousness by his Satisfaction.

2. You seem to conceive that Faith justifieth modo Physico, & non Politico vel Morali: That as a man that takes money in his hand, doth thereby physically receive it, so he that takes Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness, doth physically receive it. Which is too gross. For, 1. The Question is of our obtaining Right, and not Possession: And no physical Apprehension as such, gives Right. 2. Recipere est pati, sed credere est agere; ergo credere est tantum reoeptio imputativa. 3. Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness is not an Object capable of our physical Reception. 4. Yet a physical Reception of Righteousness there is, imperfectly called so, even as all Relations are received; and which is nothing but Justificari, Passive Justification: But this follows Faith. Gredere & Justificari non sunt idem: Credimus enim ad Justificationem.

3. The Controversy between us must lie here: Whether the formalis vel proxima ratio of Faith's interest in our Justification, be its Apprehensive Nature, or its Office of Conditionality? The Nature of Faith itself? or that it is the Condition to which the free Donor hath annexed Justification? For Apprehendere Christum I confess to be the Nature of Faith. Now I say (and say more confidently than ever, having tried the strength of many against it) that Apprehendere vel Acceptare Christum being ipsa sidei essentia, is but the matter that hath interest, and not the ratio formalis of Faith's interest in our Justification. It is but the aptitudo ad officium, and the Conditionality (if I may so call it) is the Office itself. That Faith which doth accept Christ, doth justify, and materialiter thereby: But not as it accepteth Christ. The word [As, quatenus] should strictly speak only the formal Reason: And so Faith justifieth only as a Condition, appointed thereto by God. But if any should extend it improperly to the ratio aptitudinalis, then I would yield to them, that Faith justifies as it accepteth Christ. For no other way of Participation was so fitted to the nature of the Recipient and Receptum.

1. The Nature of Faith itself (which is acceptare Christum) goes in order of Nature before its Conditionality: It is therefore apparent, that the act is but the materia apta, and the Conditionality is the superadded formalis ratio.

2. If Faith as Faith, justify, that is, as acceptatio Christi, then omnis acceptatio, & sola, & semper; then the Consequence would proceed directly and necessarily ex se [I have accepted Christ, therefore I am justified:] But that it will not do. For, 1. He is ours, as given directly; that is, the efficient cause of our right to him. Had we taken him, or performed that same act which we call Apprehension without Gift, it had conveyed no right. 2. And (if you say, that, at least, omnis apprehensio Christi dati doth justify qua apprehensio;) I must add, That if Christ had been given by an absolute Promise or Gift, our apprehension of him would not have justified; but we should have been justified before it, or without it. As if a man by Testament give his Lands to his Son that is a thousand miles distant, and knows nothing of it, the right is his before his knowledge or consent, though he may afterward dispossess himself of it when he will. If a King will confer any Honor on a man absent, or an Infant, he may do it, and they partake of the Honor, without their own knowledge or consent. And when they do know and consent, that gives not the Honor or Title which they had before. If God had pleased to say, [I will give my Son and his Righteousness to such Infants, Idiots, Indians, though they never hear of him; or absolutely to say, [I will pardon all their sins,] they had been justified and pardoned thereby without Faith: If the Promise were not conditional (expressly or implicitly) no man's Faith could justify him. As it belongeth to the Legislator per praeceptum constituere Debitum officii, and without Precept (natural or superadded) duty, would be no duty: So it belongs to the Legislator or Donor, as Dominus praemii (and in our case Dominus praemiati) to institute the Conditions on which it shall be obtained; and therefore it is not from the essential nature of the act of Faith itself. The benefit to be received was wholly God's before the giving; therefore it cannot be conveyed any way, but by the mere signification of God's will: What way is then to alienate a Propriety freely, or to confer right to a benefit on another, but by signifying the Donors will? that is, by giving, selling, &c. Now therefore no act of ours can confer to us the right to another's benefits; that were to give them to ourselves before we have them. All that our act can do, is to be the Condition of the Gift; that is, an act which it pleaseth the Donor so to require of us, if we will have his Gift, that he will suspend his Donation thereon; so that when we perform it, we shall have it, and not without it. Seeing therefore that the Will of the Donor as Donor, doth all in Alienation of his own, or in conveying right to his benefits; therefore no act of the Receivers as an act, or such an act directly, can do it: For from his Will must the Receivers act have its most immediate formal interest: Now the Natura fidei apprehensiva, is not from God as Legislator of the New-Law or Testament, and as Donor of Christ and Justification; but from God as Creator or Producer of that Act in the Soul, or by it. But the constituting the Condition is God's act as Donor of that very Benefit, or as Legislator. That which I mainly therefore insist on is this: Call Faith an Instrument, or an Apprehension, or what you will, as long as you mean but the nature of the Act or Habit, it doth not justify proprie & proxime qua talis, that is, but the materia apta; but the formalis ratio of its justifying interest, is quá conditio foederis: And therefore whatsoever is such a Condition of Justification doth justify.

One while the Condition was not the same as now it is, and yet it then justified. The World before Christ was not bound to believe that this Jesus was the Christ, that he was born of a Virgin, crucified, dead, buried, risen, &c. but only that Christ who should come, should do thus (and it may seem that the Disciples before Christ's Resurrection, believed not that neither:) But if we believe not that this Jesus is he, we shall die in our sins. Faith cannot therefore justify proxime & formaliter ex natura actus, when it hath been so changed; and yet whatsoever was the Condition, still justified.

Besides, you contradict this yourself, by acknowledging that Faith justifieth as a Condition of Justification. For then certainly it cannot justify proxime, as it is apprehensio, that is, qua fides. For, 1. The Conditionality cannot be the matter and the nature of the Act, the super-added form, but contrary. For the Conditionality supposeth the nature of the Act, and not, the nature of the Act supposes it to be the Condition. 2. It is not possible that both should be proximae vel formalis rations: It must be but one. 3. It is impossible, if Faith be a Condition, but that it should justify quâ conditio; and it is impossible, if it justify as a Condition, but that should be its nearest Reason. To say, [the Sun is causa efficiens of Light, and yet that it produceth not Light qua causa efficiens, or yet that there is some nearer Reason; were not so absurd as to say, Faith is a Condition, and yet either justifieth not quâ conditio, or yet hath some more formal Reason. But I have by so many Arguments lately to another Brother, confuted this Opinion, [that Faith justifies ex natura actus, viz. ut apprehensio Christi, vel ut fides, & ut conditio naturalis, & non ut conditio moralis] that I must now thus dismiss it.

If you say, that you do not mean, that Faith as Fai • h, or ex natura actus justifieth, but ex natura objecti. I answer, 1. Our Question is not, Whether Christ justify? if that be it, we are agreed: I do not think when you say, Faith is an Apprehension of Christ, or a Condition, that you mean [Christ justifies as an Apprehension of Christ, or a Condition:] The Question is therefore of Faith's interest, and not of Christ's. 2. The Object gives not a justifying force to the act. 3. The root still of all the mistakes lieth, in having thoughts of this moral Conveyance of Right, as if it were a physical Communication of some Substance or Quality. The receiving of fire burns my hand ex naturâ objecti, and my act of Approximation, or taking it into my hand, is conditio naturalis (improprie dicta conditio:) But in conveying Rights (as in Marriage, Testaments, and all Contracts, &c.) the Right must be first conveyed by moral means, before the Object can put forth its power. Christ is not yours, because he is Christ, nor yours because you apprehend him (speaking of the nearest Reason;) but yours, because God hath given him; and yours upon believing, rather than on any other terms, because God hath given him to you, if you believe, rather than on other terms. If God had said, some other act should be the Condition, it should have justified, as truly Faith now doth.

And therefore for your Argument, [Works concur not with Faith in apprehinding; therefore neither in justifying.] I deny your Consequence, having first denied your ground: For, sides non quà fides justificat, sed quà conditio praestita. And I argue contrarily, Repentance and Obedience to the Lord that bought us, do concur with Faith in being Conditions of continued and consummate Justification, therefore they concur in justifying. (Yet I had rather say, [We are justified by Faith,] as signifying only a Conditionality, and being a Scripture-phase; than that [Faith justifieth,] as importing more a Causality, and being no Scripture-phrase.)

Animadversion.

1. All this proves not, that by Works in St. James, is not meant [a working Fai • h.] Or that when he saith, that a man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, his meaning is no • , that a man i • justified by such a Faith, as doth show forth itself by Works, and not by a barren Faith, which hath no Works slowing from it.

2. [Faith alone (saith Dr. Preston) justifieth, but it is effectual and working Faith, and Works follow Faith necessirily. And there is a double Justification: One of the person, which is by Faith only, whereof St. Paul disputes, Rom. 4. the other of the Faith, which by Works must be shown to be lively and effectual, as St. James disputes, chap. 2. Works justified Abraham that he was no Hypocrite (i. e. they shown his Faith to be unfeigned, as the Apostle showeth Faith must be, 1. Tim. 1. 5.) and Faith, that he was not a sinner, because by Faith Righteousness • was imputed to him.] So he.

Reply.

1. No wonder: for it is brought to another end, than to prove that by Works, is meant Works.

2. What will you take for proof? If I should find the most express words for it, I think they may have another sense put on them as fairly as these.

3. I think the proof lieth on your part (which I see not performed:) For if I show you where the Scripture saith, [We are justified by Works, and not by Faith only:] If you say, by Works is not meant Works, you must prove it. Because the plain sense is not to be forsaken without cause; and therefore he that doth it, must show good cause for it.

4. But yet I will tell you what goes with me for proof (that by Works is meant Works, and not only the Faith which doth work) till I hear better proof of the contrary.

1. James calls them by the name of [Works] twelve times in thirteen Verses, and never by the name of [working Faith,] or, [that Faith which worketh:] A repetition not usual in Scripture, specially on such a subject: As if he had purposely done it to make men believe, that he means as he speaks; and therefore I think by [Works] he means [Works.] For obscure figurative speeches are usually but seldom, in comparison of the plain ones, and sufficiently evinced to be such by the more plain.

2. I am yet the more persuaded, that by [Works] is meant [Works,] brcause it is still opposed to [Faith without Works,] or, [Faith alone,] and not to [this or that sort of Faith, viz. that Faith which is not of a quality to Work,] though I doubt not but that is part of the Apostle's sense, in this term [Faith,] yet it is but part: For it is not only [the Faith alone, without a working disposition,] but [Faith alone without Works themselves,] when there is opportunity: The word [Alone] excluding Works themselves, as well as the working disposition. So that if I will wrest the word [Works] twelve times together to a strange sense, I must needs use the same violence with the word [Faith alone] also. Should I again run over each Verse, it is easy to manifest, that the opposition is not only between [a Faith disposed to Work, and a Faith not disposed;] but between [Faith alone,] and [Faith and Works themselves together:] Though yet the conatus is the work, where no more is required, as in Abraham 's case.

3. Particularly the Argument à simili, in v. 15, 16. proves it: For the Argument is, As merciful words do not profit the naked and hungry without clothes and food, so a good Belief will not justify and save you, without Works. Now it is not a disposition to feed and clothe that profiteth the hungry and naked: So neither is it a mere disposition to work, that is meant by Works.

4. The same is manifest in Vers. 13. where the occasion of all this discourse is begun, in the necessity of mercy, such mercy as men partake of from us.

5. I am the more confirmed, when I consider, that the death of Faith without Works here, v. 20, 14, 26, 24. is not merely the hypocrisy or seemingness of it: (He likeneth it to the real Faith of the Devils,) but the inutility of it as to justify and save; (for justifying and saving Faith are all one with James, verse. 14, 21, 24.)

6. And Vers. 18. by [Works] must needs be meant [Works;] else it would run thus, [Thou hast Faith undisposed to Work, and I have a working Faith: Shew me thy non-working Faith without thy working Faith, and I will show thee my working Faith by my working Faith.] I had rather understand James plainly, than take him to speak such non-sense: And if you will take Faith and Works in the plain proper sense in this Verse, why not in the rest?

7. And in Vers. 20. Works must needs mean Works; else it must run thus, [Faith without a working Faith is dead.]

8. And so must it be Vers. 22. else it must run thus, [Faith wrought with his working Faith, and by a working Faith was Faith made perfect,] nay, [a non-working Faith was made perfect.]

9. So Vers. 24. else it must be thus, [By a working Faith a man is justified, and not by a non-working Faith only:] As if a non-working Faith did partly justify. (For I hope you will not turn solum to solam.)

10. So Ver. 26. according to your way it must run, [So a non-working Faith, without a working Faith is dead also.] Let him that can, receive this Exposition, for I cannot.

11. But my chief Argument lieth in the great necessity of Works which the Apostle asserteth, both to Justification and Salvation. Now if I meet with those that confess by Works is meant Works, I would desire to know the reason, Why Works with Faith are so necessary? If they do but by an idle Concomitancy stand by, what means James to say, Can Faith save him? we are justified by Works: What profit, &c. So I would demand of you, concerning the working of Faith. If you understand [working Faith,] so as to make Faith itself the primary part of the Condition, and working the secondary, then you yield all I desire: If you understand it so, as to confine it to [the Faith which worketh,] and exclude [the Working] from justifying and saving (for James joins both together) then will you open this mystery to me, and tell me, whence or what is this necessity that Faith should be working? If you say, Working is necessary to signify Faith to be sincere. I reply, 1. But the Apostle makes it necessary to justify and save, and not only to signify. The Soul doth not only signify the Body to be alive.

2. God needs no signs, and it is he that judgeth. You will say, It is not sincere without working.

Reply. 1. It is a real Faith, such as the Devils have, nay it may be more, they may really consent, that Christ shall justify and save them from Hell.

2. How comes its Sincerity to lie in its working Disposition? The sincerity of Faith as a good Work, lieth in its conformity to the Precept: But that's not the Sincerity in question. The sincerity of Faith, as justifying and saving, lieth in its being really that Faith, to which as a Condition, Justification and Salvation are promised. Now if the New-Testament make not mere Faith, but Faith working, to be the Condition of Justification or Salvation, then Faith as working secondarily, must justify and save. For if in any Covenant there be an Act with its Qualification required, as the Condition, then the Qualification is part of that Condition as well as the Act: For it hath the same essence herein. And to say, that working is part of the Condition of Justification and Salvation, and yet doth not justify and save quà conditio, is a contradiction directly: As much as to say, It is a Condition, and not a Condition; for the form of the Condition, is in its connexive respect to the effect. As if you should say, [Such a thing is a cause efficient, but doth not qu • causa produce the effect.]

If not only fides qua fides, but qua operans, be necessary to Justification and Salvation, then it must be necessary either as a cause (but that we all deny) or as a mere sign; (but that it cannot be, when it is coram Deo: and more is expressed fully in the Text) or else as a Condition (which is the truth, it is past my reach to find any other respect wherein its necessity should lie. Let them show it that assert it.

As for them that say, It is but the Declaration of our Justification before men, that is here spoken of, and not before God; 1. I have said enough to them in that Aphorism. 2. I need not meddle with that to you, who own it not. 3. The same instances of Abraham and Rahab are produced, by which other Scriptures prove Justification by Faith before God. 4. The Justification here meant, is an Imputation of Righteousness, verse. 23. and that is by God, and coram Deo. 5. Abraham 's sacrificing his Son, would rather have condemned him before men. 6. It is such as the Scripture about Imputation was fulfilled in. 7. It is the same Justification as that by Faith is: For the Apostle saith, [It is by Works, and not by Faith only,] importing, it is by Faith, but not only by Faith. Now coram hominibus it is not by Faith itself at all (indeed by the profession of Faith it may be.) 8. The Apostle makes Faith without Works unprofitable to save, verse. 14. And is it before men, or by men only, that they are saved? 9. Men know not when we work from sincere Faith, and when not. 10. Men be none of our Judges, nor doth the Apostle discourse of so small a matter as our being judged by man: And yet this is the commonest Exposition. Thus I have told you, why I think by Works is meant Works: and why they justify, and that coram Deo.

2. Now to Dr. Prestons saying, which I marvel that you could produce against yourself so fully, and take no notice of it. Though I believe Dr. Prestons Notions were not so digested as they should be in the point of Justification, yet they were so clear about the nature of justifying Faith (above any man that I know of) that it hath maintained much soundness in his Doctrine in the point of Justification in most things (only the notion of an Instrument was not then questioned:) and therefore if you go once to Dr. Preston, I know where your cause is. It seems you could not pick one saying out of him seeming for you, but what saith almost as much against you as I do. 1. I say as he, that Faith alone justifieth, speaking of our first, or begun Justification, which makes a man justum ex injusto (that Works never do.) 2. I say Works follow Faith necessarily. 3. This twofold Justification I maintain against you, which Dr. Preston here maintaineth. 4. In the common sense it may be said, that one is more fully Justificatio personae than the other: But then remember, 1. That both are yet most truly and properly Justificationes personae, as Bradshaw shows in the place before-cited. 2. And that Dr. Preston confesseth it: For when he hath said, that one is [of the Faith,] he yet adds, [Works justified Abraham that he was no Hypocrite.] Sin is it that is inquired after at the Bar of the Law: Only one kind of sin is inquired after (as to Condemnation) at the Bar of the New-Law; that is, Unbelief, or rejecting the Redeemer, and recovering Grace. This Unbelief is either open (against the Accusation of this, men are justified by Faith and Profession; or secret (which is the Hypocrisy here mentioned) and against this Accusation both Faith and Works justify: (Of which I spoke fullier before.) When Abraham is accused of being but a seeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obedience; and so, either of not-performing, or but half-performing the Condition of the New-Covenant: Here there is no way in the World to justify him, but by his own Faith and Works. I shall speak more of this yet anon.

Animadversion.

The Apostle cannot make Faith and Works concomitant in Procurement of Justification, seeing that Abraham was justified by Faith, as the Scripture cited by the Apostle doth show long before, that his Faith did operate and show forth itself by that Work which the Apostle mentioneth: Therefore by Works, and not by Faith only, must needs be as much, as [not by Faith which is alone without Works:] Which is also clear enough by the whole Series of the latter part of the Chapter, and namely by that, Vers. 17. Even so Faith, if it hath not Works is dead, being alone.

Reply.

I will not forsake the plain sense of the Text, till other kind of Arguments than these constrain me. 1. Do not you easily see, that your necessary Consequence is against yourself and the truth, more than me, and hath indeed no necessity or verity. You speak of Abraham 's first Justification, and yet you say, it must needs be by Faith, which is not alone without Works. But Abraham 's first Justification was by Faith alone without Works. 2. Do not you see that you argue to no purpose, that [the Apostle cannot make Faith and Works concomitant in procurement of Justification, as continued and consummate, and sentential at Judgment, because Abraham was justified before?] But was his continued and sentential Justification before? The Law doth still moraliter agere, and so still Justificare, and so doth God by his Law or Grant. So that it being actus Legis, the Law doth as properly justify you today, as it did the first day. And yet it requires more Conditions at your hand today, than the first moment. I wait therefore for some proof of your Consequence, That Abraham 's Justification twenty years after his Conversion, cannot be by Works as part of the Condition of Continuance, because his Justification was begun without Works. 3. For your clear proof from the Series and Vers. 17. I see not the least show of proof, much less clear, but against you.

Animadversion.

1. Faith if it be alone without Works (hoc est renuens operari, as Cajetan doth well express it,) cannot justify, and so is dead as to the use and purpose of justifying. Yet do not Works therefore concur with Faith to Justification, nor are they part of the Condition required of us, that we may be justified.

2. Works do not properly make Faith alive, but only demonstrate it to be alive. Works are the effect of justifying Faith, and the effect cannot give life to the cause, but may evidence the life of it.

Reply.

1. You yield to my Exposition of [Dead;] viz. non ut fides, sed ut medium, that Works are part of the Condition; I doubt not to say, the Scriptures cited in the Aphorism fully prove.

2. You must know that those words were miswritten, or misprinted: They should be thus, [And without Works, Faith is not alive;] yet the words are true as they are. For by [Fai • h] I mean not, [fidem qua fides,] Works do not make Faith alive in itself; but, [fidem qua medium:] And by [Making alive,] I mean not efficienter, but constitutive. And so when a man hath a Condition to perform which hath two parts, when the first is performed, the performance of the second part makes it to be sufficient to the end; it makes it to be the totum, the Condition fully performed, and so alive or sufficient ut medium: When without it, it would be but pars, and insufficient.

3. To your Argument I grant all, and what the better are you? Works are the effect of Faith, and so they neither give life to Faith as Faith, nor to Faith as the cause of Works, nor yet to Faith as the Condition of our begun-Justification (because so Faith is the whole Condition, as to external Works, though not as to the exclusion of Repentance, Knowledge or Love;) but as it is the medium or Condition of our confirmed, continued, consummate Justification. Your Fine is the full Condition of first possessing a leased Tenement, but your Rent must be added to continue your Interest and Possession (yet in our Case there is no ratio pretii.)

Animadversion.

1. Why you render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to work in and with I know not, it signifieth only to work with.

2. The meaning of those words cannot be, that Faith and Works work together unto Justification, or are conjunct (as you say) in the work of justifying; seeing the work there soecified, (viz. Abrahaems offering of his Son) was long after Justification, which Faith alone had procured. I see no Reason therefore to dislike Calvin 's Exposition, Fides dicitur cooperata fuisse operibus, quia non fuit otiosa.

Reply.

1. I used those words not as a mere Translation, but as the Translation [working with & the Exposition; as supposing that Faith was said to work with Works, when it produced them, and so work'd in them; and so consequently I thought they concurred to justify, according to the next words, [By Works Faith is made perfect.] But seeing this Exposition pleaseth not (though it makes as much for you as your own) I let it go, and will not insist on it.

2. I have shown the invalidity of your Consequence before, that [Faith and Works cannot concur to continued and consummate Justification, because we were at first justified by Faith alone.] When will you show a word of Reason for that Consequence?

3. For Calvin 's Exposition: As you seem not to own it in the main, viz. [That it is not Justification coram Deo, but coram Hominibus that is here meant:] So I stick not much at this, though I think it very imperfect to say, that Faith is said to cooperate, because it is not idle. It might indeed be well said to operate, because it is not idle, or rather not to be idle, because it worketh.

Animadversion.

Piscator and Pemble, and others say, It is: You say, It is not: But their [Tea,] may stand against your [Nay,] for anything I yet see. Their Exposition is for phrase agreeable to Scripture elsewhere, viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9. and for matter to the Contex • .

3. The habit of Faith hath no other immediate and elicit acts (that I know) besides believing; and by believing we are justified, though not as it is our act, but in respect of its Object, Christ, whom Faith apprehendeth, and by whom so apprehended we are justified. Other Works proceed from Faith as the fruits of it, but they perfect Faith no otherwise, than by manifesting the perfection of it; even as the fruit of a tree doth manifest, but not make the tree perfect. Faith (saith Dr. Prest • n) is made perfect by Works; namely, as an Artist is declared skillful by his artificial Work, or a tree by the fruit it bears; the sap is the cause of the Goodness, the fruit the sign.

3. Marriage is a state, which is consummated per congressum, though there never be pro creatio: But what this makes for the illustrating of Faith's being made perfect by Works, I do not see.

4. Faith is not the Covenant, but a Condition of the Covenant, and therefore your last similitude seems not quadrare.

Reply.

1. I magnify their authority and worth: But whose Reasons have more weight, I leave to others to judge as they see cause.

2. Your self yield before, that it is quoad usum & finem, and not quoad naturam, that Faith is said to be dead; that is, ut medium, non ut fides (still remembering that we speak of Assent:) And why should it not be so in this point of the perfecting of Faith? viz. Works perfect it, ut medium, non ut fides (as before.)

3. To whom was Abraham 's Faith manifested to be perfect? Not to men, that saw not his act, or at least, saw not his Faith by it, or would rather condemn him: Not to God, to whom all things are manifest, though by an Anthropopathy he say, Now I know that thou fearest God, &c.

4. To your second I say, 1. That Faith hath more acts than one: Your self before said, Three at least. 2. It's cloudy to say, [Believing justifieth, but not as our act, but in respect of its Object, Christ, &c.] For it is neither: But qua conditio praestita. Why doth not the Object justify without the Act? Is it because God could not so order it, or because he would not? Doubtless the latter: And therefore the Donor's Will only createth the formal interest of Faith in justifying: As the Holy Ghost giveth the matter. We know Christ is the meritorious Cause: But the Question is, What interest or place Faith hath? Either it is causa vel conditio: For no doubt it is medium Morale, & non tantum natural (as your words would insinuate:) And I know not what moral Medium it can be else, but either causa vel conditio: I think it is no proper Cause, therefore a Condition. To say, [It justifieth in respect to its Object,] is to speak darkness. Will any respect give it that interest? Hath not Love, Joy, &c. respect to Christ? Have not all Gospel Ordinances respect to him? What respect then is it? Either of a Cause, or a Condition, or somewhat. 3. I have shown in how many respects Works do perfect Faith, besides manifesting it. Is mere manifesting a saving means? James saith, [Can Faith save him?] Yes, without Manifestation, if that were all: If the very manifesting be not part of the Condition of Salvation. Works perfect Faith ut medium & ut conditio, though not ut fides, vel ut causa operum. Doth fruit no otherwise perfect the tree, than by Manifestation? I am not of your mind in that, I think the tree is perfected, as the totum integrale by the accretion of a noble part, and also as a medium in attaining a chief end.

5. To your third I say, Procreation perfecteth Marriage ut medium perficitur per finem, though not in the essence of Marriage: And so doth Works perfect Faith, though Works be but the nearest end, and not the ultimate. This is the Illustration which you could not see.

6. But my fullest Explication is in the next, where I doubt not is your greatest oversight. Faith is not God's Covenant, but the Condition of it: But Faith is our Covenant itself. Faith and Covenanting is the same thing (as Dr. Preston oft makes it the Marriage-Covenant:) To Consent (after Assent, that is still implied) that Christ as offered in his Offices, and to these uses, shall be mine, and that I will accordingly be his, is justifying Faith, and is the Covenant on our part (as to the heart-Covenant:) And the profession of this Faith (if fully) is nothing but open covenanting. And therefore my similitude doth quadrare: And just as the Marriage-Covenant is perfected by after -Marriage, Faithfulness, Love, Subjection; so is Faith perfected by Works; that is, not in esse conjugii, fidei, unionis initae; but as the medium, that is, the Condition of continuing the interest which Faith alone hath obtained. But then as to the Title, to the great Absolution at Judgment, and to Salvation, Works in our case go beyond Marriage-fidelity in the similitude.

Animadversion.

In all points (I grant) Faith alone is not the entire Condition of the New-Covenant; but yet it is for so much as concerns Justification, because Faith alone doth apprehend Christ, by whose Righteousness we are justified. It is true, some Repcntance must go before Justification but no Repentance without Faith, will avail to Justification: And for the Reason pre-alleged, Justification is ascribed, not to Repentance; but to Faith only. As for sincere Obedience, it proceeds from Faith, and so follows Justification, and therefore is not a Condition pre-required for the obtaining of it.

Reply.

1. Your first Assertion and its Reason is already denied; and you attempt not the proof of it.

2. What if Repentance will not avail without Faith? may it not therefore avail with it?

3. Remission of sin is ordinarily ascribed to Repentance as the Condition; and therefore your Reason pre-alleged, is no Scripture-Reason, nor sound.

4. Sincere Obedience goes before that Justification which it is the Condition of, though it follow the beginning of Justification.

Animadversion.

1. Here (methinks) you yield the whole Cause. For if we be first justified by Faith alone, then Works do not concur with Faith to procure our Justification, seeing it is procured already by Faith alone without Works.

2. And as our Justification is begun, so it is continued. It is begun by the beginning of Faith, and continued by the continuance of Faith: Though true justifying Faith can neither continue nor begin without a fitness to produce Works, and so an actual production of them in due time.

Reply.

If this Concession will make us one, I think I shall never recall it. But it is a strange yielding of the Cause.

1. Works do not concur to procure that first change, which makes us justos ex injustis: Doth it follow that therefore they concur not as Conditions of that continued Moral act of God by his Covenant, by which he doth truly justify us every day.

2. If that be a good Reason, then no act of Faith through our lives doth justify us, but the first act: for every after-act findeth us justified. But that this is false, I prove 1. Ad hominem: You confess it in the next lines, that our Justification is continued by the Continuance of Faith; and that Continuance is as truly justifying as the first. Which is fully proved. 2. In that the act of Faith, which the Scripture saith was imputed to Abraham for Righteousness, was not his first act. Nor that of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, &c. mentioned in Heb. 11. I take this for plain proof. 3. The sum of all your mistake is your Assertion, that [As our Justification is begun, so it is continued,] which meaning of the Condition is far from truth. It is continued by the same God, Christ, Merit, Covenant: But not by the same condition only. 1. Your next words contradict this: For the first act of Faith (which you say begins it) and the contiuuance (that is, the renewed acts; for the same act continueth not) is not all one. But if you mean specifically, though not numerically the same; that's not so neither. 2. I have proved out of many Scriptures, that [forgiving others,] Repentance of after-sins, praying for Pardon, sincere Obedience, &c. are by God made conditions of Continuance. 3. And (that it may not seem strange) it is usually so in almost all conveyance of Right by Contracts. There is more put in the Contract as the Condition of continuing Right, than of first possessing it. Marriage, Consent or Contract on the Woman's part, is all the Condition of her first right to her Husband, and his Honors and Estate: But Fidelity, Love, Subjection (specially of the Church to Christ, who is also absolute Lord) is also part of the Condition of Continuance. Your Servant shall have first right to the privileges of a Servant in your Family upon the bare Contract; but it shall not be continued but on his faithful serving you. A Tenant hath first Right and Possession on his Lease and Fine; but the Continuance is on Condition that he also pay his Rent. The Subject hath the privileges of a Subject on his engaging to the Sovereign Power; but the Continuance is on his fidelity and actua obedience to the Laws. And the Reason is, because in all these Covenants, there is besides the present Covenanting (which is all that's first required) somewhat promised and covenanted to be done for the future, that the benefits may be enjoyed. We covenant to do something which must be done. In what sense soever James saith, Abraham was justified by Works (supposing it coram Deo), I think his Justification was begun without them. This therefore I conceive to be the root of most of your mistakes in this point.

Animadversion.

But Abraham 's Faith was perfect long before, as it is the fulfilling of that Condition which is required unto Justification: For by it long before he was justified, Gen. 15. 6.

Reply.

JUst as a woman hath fulfilled the Marriage-Conditions by her actual Marriage (which is fulfilling enough to give her an Interest, but not to continue it:) And as you fulfil the Sovereigns Conditions of enjoying the privileges of a Subject, by engaging to him as Sovereign: Which is enough for first Possession, but not for Continuance.

Animadversion.

Though Justification be a continued act, yet neverthess Abraham was justified long before he offered Isaac, as the series of the History doth clearly show. Abraham 's Justification (I grant) was not ended before, nor yet after: it shall never end. For Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified, is an everlasting Righteousness. Dan. 9. 24. and therefore our Justification is an everlasting Justification. But if you mean, that Abraham 's Justification was not perfect before he was but half justified, or but in part: If this be your meaing, it agrees neither with Scripture nor Reason that I can see. The Scripture saith, that he was justified, his Faith was imputed unto him for Righteousness: It nowhere intimateth that his Justification was incomplete, and part of it then, and another part a long time after. He was so justified, that Righteousness was imputed unto him; he was reputed of God just and righteous: And what is more required? Indeed if he had not shown his Faith by his Works, he had shown that his Faith was not such whereby he could be justified; and so the Scripture had not been fulfulled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteousness. Therefore all that St. James requires is, that we show our Faith by our Works.

Reply.

1. I have fully told you what was wanting. His Justification in Application to Abraham as the subject in praesenti statu was perfect: But that Justification would not have been perfect to him a year after, when he was to be justified from the guilt of many more sins.

2. And his Justification was to be continued, which could not be done by the same means alone that begun it. The relation will cease cessante fundamento: And if Works had not been added to Faith, the Fundamentum, (the Gospel-Grant and Virtual-Sentence) would have ceased for want of that performance of the Condition.

3. Sentential Justification (which is the most proper, full, noble Justification) is either not at all till Judgment, or certainly not perfect till then. You are not yet freed from all Satan's Accusations till at that Bar and Day.

4. You argue not soundly, [Christ's Righteousness is everlasting, therefore our Justification is so:] I believe the truth of the Conclusion, but not that it follows your premises, except you add much more to it.

Animadversion.

1. If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law, we are fully justified: For what can accuse or condemn us, if not the Law? therefore if the Righteousness of Christ be that which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law, then the Righteousness of Christ is that whereby we are fully justified. What need then of a twofold Righteousness, as that by which we must be justified, as you have said before? Faith indeed is required, that the Righteousness of Christ may be apprehended by us, and imputed to us, that we may be justified by it: But here Faith is no distinct Righteousness by which we are justified, but only the Condition required of us, that the Righteousness of Christ may be ours to Justification. And in this respect only are we said to be justified by Faith, because it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified.

Reply.

1. That you may be fully freed from the Condemnation of the Law, and so be fully justified, you must first perform the Condition of the New-Testament, or New-Law, and so be just quoad praestationem conditionis.

2. This Condition being imposed by a New-Law, backed with its Sanction, is therefore itself a Righteousness in the sense of that Law: For the fulfilling of the Conditions of a Law, is a real Righteousness in the sense of that Law, when the Question is, de Titulo ad premium, vel de reatu poenae.

3. As Bradshaw well saith, Christ satisfied not for all that we should perform to the Law, but all that we should perform, and did not; (that is, for our sins) except this Condition of the New-Covenant. This Condition therefore (as before is shown) is part of the Duty of the Old-Law (in the sense before opened) taken out and made a New-Law by conjunction with a New-Sanction (as Adam 's Body from the Earth) and so imposed as of indispensible necessity, and the final neglect of it excepted from pardon. And so whenever you call it [the Condition,] and deny the performance to be a Righteousness in sense of that Law, you contradict yourself. Yet as the New-Law is but Lex Remedians, and so a subordinate Law; so is this Righteousness but a subordinate Righteousness, having the nature of a medium to the Righteousness of the Old Law: Neither of them alone, but both together, are Justitia universalis: But the Righteousness of the Old-Law, had it been performed by ourselves, would have been Justitia universalis: And Christ's Righteousness imputed is nearest to it; for there is excepted out of it, only our own performance of the Condition of the New-Testament. As therefore the medium goes before the end, so we must have this personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis Novi-Testamenti, before we can have that which freeth us from the Law.

4. To your Question, I say, The Accuser of the Brethren can accuse you besides the Law: And the New-Law will accuse Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ, besides the Old Law: (The Words that I speak shall judge you, &c.) And you must have a Righteousness Evangelical of your own performance to plead against Satan's Accusation, that you are an Unbeliever, Hypocrite, Rebel; or else never be sententially justified.

Animadversion.

St. James (that I see) doth not propound either expressly or implicitly any such Question, but only doth confute those that rely on such a Faith as is without Works. See James 2. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The different state of the Question, as handled by St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and as handled by St. James in Chap. 2. is well expressed by Beza in Jac. 2. 14. Illic de causa questio est: hic vero de effectis: Illic à causa ad essecta descenditur, hic ab effectis ascenditur ad causam. Illic quaeritur quomodo Justificemur? hic quomodo justificati fuisse intelligamur: Illic excluduntur opera tanquam Justificationis causae: hic stabiliuntur tanquam Justificationis causae: hic stabiliuntur tanquam Justificationis effecta. Illic negantur opera praecedere Justificandos: hic dicuntur Justificatos consequi.

Reply.

His whole Dispute is against those that rely on Faith alone without Works. But how did they rely on Faith? As their Legal Righteousness, instead of Christ's Satisfaction? I trow not, nor will you say so. It was therefore as the Condition of the New-Covenant that they relied on it; or else I pray tell me how, and under what notion? And therefore James 's scope must needs be, to prove that Faith alone is not the Condition: [Can Faith save him? A man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, &c.] I am loath to stand to open the 〈…〉 kes in Beza 's words. To his first difference. 1. Paulus non loquitur de fide ut de causa Justificationis (non enim est causa) nec ut de causâ operum: (hoc enim nihil esset ad rem suam) Jacobus quaerit de fidei effectis, sed not quâ effecta. Ad differentiam secundam idem dicendum est. Ad tertiam, Jacobus non quaerit tantum quomodo Justificati fuisse intelligamur: Sed quomodo, vel quibus mediis Justificamur quoad confirmationem, continuationem & quoad sententiam, nec non quomodo salvemur. Ad quartam, Ut Paulus excludit opera ut Justificationis causa, ita & ego: Stabiliuntur autem à Jacobo non tantum ut Justificationis effecta sed etiam ut conditions & media: Effecti (enim) ut effecti nulla est necessitas moralis ad finem: Sed opera hic stabiliuntur ut necessaria ad Justificationem, Vers. 22, 23, 24, 26. & salutem, Vers. 14. Ad quintam, Et ego opera Justificationis initium praecedere pernego: Sed Jacobus non tantum dicit opera Justificationem consequi, sed ad Justificationem ulteriorem, & salutem esse necessaria.

Animadversion.

Paul doth absolutely exclude Works from Justification, as I proved before. Though sometimes he mentions the Works of the Law, yet not so as if by some other Works we might and should be justified. For indeed, all Works, if good, are Works of the Law, i. e. Works which the Law doth require: And to be justified by Works (of what sort soever) as Works, is to be justified by the Law. And therefore to the Righteousness which is of the Law, Paul opposeth the Righteousness which is of Faith, Rom. 10. 5, 6. even as he opposeth Working to Believing, Rom. 4. 5. So that to be justified by the Law, and to be justified by Works (any Works, whatsoever they be) is one and the same thing, and contradistinct to being justified by Faith or Believing. Though therefore believing be working, yet we are not justified by believing, as it is working, so as to rest in that Work, as a Work for Justification: But we are justified by believing, in that thereby we are made partakers of the Righteousness of Christ, which is the only Righteousness whereby we are justified.

2. It is most sure, Paul doth not exclude that fulfilling of the Gospel-Conditions, that we may have part in Christ; viz. that so in Christ we may have Righteousness, and by that Righteousness may be justified; which by any Righteousness of out own, out of Christ, we cannot be. Paul so excludes Works, that he sets up Faith; and he so sets up Faith, that he sets up Christ, as him by whose Righteousness, through Faith imputed to us, we are justified. By him all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39. And so much you acknowledge presently after, saying, [Paul doth by the word Faith] especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in. For to be justified by Christ, and to be justified by receiving Christ, is with him all one.

Reply.

1. All Works are not the fulfilling the Old-Laws Condition, nor performed with such a conceit.

2. To be justified by the New-Law, against the Accusation of Unbelief or Rebellion against Christ that bought us, by our Faith and Obedience, is not to be justified by the Law of Works against the Accusation of being Sinners.

3. You are fain yourself to distinguish between quod opus, and qua opus, lest Faith be shut out: and I need no more to keep in obedience to Christ. For when you should have told us what the [qua] is in which Faith is included, you say, [In that thereby we are made partakers of Christ's, &c.] But either you mean (by this dark equivocal) quâ apprehensio, that is, quo fides, vel qua conditio naturalis (which I have at large confuted in another Brother's Notes;) or you mean qua conditio as you must, or none:) And so say I of Obedience: It doth continue our title to Christ as a Condition which Faith begun. 2. The rest I assent to.

Animadversion.

When he mentioneth Faith as the Condition of our Justification, he doth not imply Obedience as that which must concur with Faith to Justification, though he imply it as a fruit of that Faith whereby we are justified. They that have believed, must be careful to maintain good Works, Tit. 3. 8.

Reply.

He implieth Obedience, not as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification, but in the Continuance and Consummation. He implieth Obedience in requiring Faith as truly, as he that subjecteth himself to a Prince, doth imply future Obedience in his engagement to obey.

Animadversion.

Some of these places prove, that justifying Faith must show itself by the fruit of sincere Obedience, as Mat. 12. 37. Mar. 11. 25, 26. Luke 6. 37. Mat. 6. 12, 14, 15. Rom. 6. 16. Some of them show, that Repentance and turning to God is required as Antecedent to Justification, as 1 John 1. 19. Acts 3. 19. But this turning to God is by Faith; and without Faith all Repentance is vain and unprofitable, as that of Judas was. To the same purpose is that, Acts 8. 22. where together with Repentance, is joined Prayer; but it must be the prayer of Faith, James 5. 15. So that still it is Faith that doth all in point of Justification. That Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, imports only (I think) thus much, that by being baptized, Paul was to have the washing away of his sins confirmed to him; for he was already a Believer, and so his sins through faith in Christ's blood were washed away: His Baptism therefore was only to confirm this to him, and to assure him more fully of it. What 1 Pet. 1. 2, 22. & 4. 18. are to the matter in hand, I cannot see: Perhaps these places are misprinted.

Reply.

1. Your word, [must show itself, &c.] expresseth a necessity: What is the necessity of the addition of Obedience? Is it only ex necessitate Praecepti, that is, Obedience is a Duty? Then a man may be saved without it; which is not true. Is it necessitas medii? What kind of medium then is it? It is too much to say, a Cause: I know no other than to say a Condition: Antecedens qua tale non est medium.

2. Let's peruse some of the Texts, Matth. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. What expressions would you expect to satisfy you, if these be not plain enough? Is not this as plain as, [We are justified by Faith?] Mark 11. 25, 26. Mat. 6. 12. 14, 15, Luke 6. 37, &c. Are you able to invent words, wherein the nature of a Condition is expressed more plainly than in these, [For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses.] Prove if you can, that Faith is a Condition, by plainer words than these! So 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? Acts 3. 19. Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refreshing shall come, &c.] Is here nothing but Antecedency? Can you plainlier express necessitatem medii? So Acts 8. 22. [Repent and pray, &c.] I never believed that Repentance and Prayer are but Antecedents of Forgiveness, and no means? nor ever mean to believe it. We have got an honest custom of calling Prayer a means, which will disadvantage you herein. Hath Prayer and Repentance no Conducement to the obtaining of the end? This would much cool Prayer, if thoroughly received. And what means below a Condition, can you imagine these to be, for Remission of sins? yet I call them but the secondary part of the Condition. And if I had but said, they are Conditiones conditionis ut à Deo acceptandae, I had said as much as this: For as Causa causae est causa causati; so Conditio acceptandae conditionis est conditio conditionati. To that Acts 22. 16. I shall say little, having said so much in my Book of Baptism. As the solemnizing of a King's Coronation, or a Mayors or Bailiffs Instalment in his Office, by taking his Oath, is not the Confirmation of that which before was completed, but the completing of that which before was incomplete; so is Faith of the heart without solemn Baptismal Covenanting (where it may be done) but a means of Justification, not yet completed. In 1 Pet. 1. 22. there is this to the matter in hand, that Sanctification of the Spirit is a means or cause of Obedience, and Obedience a means to the sprinkling of Christ's blood, and the Soul is purified by obeying the Truth; which may include Purification from the guilt of sin, as well as the power. And 1 Pet. 4. 18. the Righteousness and diligence of the Righteous, is a means to their Salvation, as it is opposed to the ungodlie's not standing in Judgment. Many more Texts might be brought to this end, besides those in the Aphoris. Perhaps I shall add some when we come to speak of the Conditions of Salvation.

Animadversion.

Our Justification here is full, though the fullness of it doth not so fully appear as it shall hereafter. For Christ being received into our hearts by Faith, we are fully justified, even acquitted from all sin, and freed from all Condemnation, Ads 13. 39. Rom. 8. 1. 33.

Reply.

This is a mistake that, methinks, it should not be hard to convince you of. You are at first believing acquitted from all sin that you are then guilty of, and all Condemnation which the Law virtually hath at that time against you (Actualiter enim condemnare judicis est, non Legis:) But you are not acquit of all or any of the sins of your whole life afterward.

2. And you hold that same Justification, but on the performance of a further Condition than the first which begun it.

3. And sentential Justification is the most proper Justification and full; and that is not full (if at all) till Judgment. I laid great weight on this Thesis (seeing Scripture is so plain, that Obedience is a Condition of Salvation, that our Divines ordinarily acknowledge it) (as our Assembly fully in the Catech.) I expected therefore that you should either deny the major or minor, but you deny neither, if I understand you, but only take hold of the word [Full.] But I will not so leave you, but desire you to tell me: 1. Whether sentential Justification at Judgment, be properly Justification or not? 2. If it be, (as doubtless it is) then, Whether that Justification and our Salvation have not the same Conditions? If you say, No: I expect some Reason of your Negation: And I undertake to prove the contrary from Scripture. 3. Whether Obedience joined to Faith and Perseverance in both, be not the proper Condition of our Salvation? It is beyond doubt as much as the truth of Scripture I think.

Animadversion.

True, if we be saved by the merit of Good-works: Yet they are via Regni, though not causa Regnandi: therefore they must go before Salvation, I mean the full accomplishment of it: But not so before Justification▪ First, we must be justified, and then do good Works, Tit. 3. 8. But we must first do good Works, and then be saved, Rom. 2. 6, 7.

Reply.

Your Answer would much confirm me in my judgment, if I doubted: 1. I reasoned from the common Argument that is brought against me, as being invalid (which is, That it is an encroaching on the honor of Christ and his Righteousness, and free Grace, for a man to be justified by sincere Obedience to Christ, as the secondary part of the Condition of continued and sentential Justification) thus: If it be not derogatory to Christ's Righteousness that we be saved by such Works, then it is not derogatory to it that we be justified by them: But, &c. therefore, &c. To the minor only you answer, [True if we be saved by the merit of them.] A true and sound Answer! But why say you not so of Justification also, nor yet give a Reason of the difference? If we were justified by the merit of Obedience, then it would be derogatory to Christ's Righteousness: But we are not justified by the merit of it; therefore, &c. 2. I would I knew what you mean by via Regni. Sure via is more than an Antecedent. And if a means, you should tell us, what it is less than a Condition. 3. Must not Obedience go as much before Justification at Judgment, as before Salvation? Or must you indeed be first justified at Judgment before you obey? If you should insist on it, that Justification at Judgment per sententiam judicis is no proper Justification, but a Declaration of it, you will have all the World of Lawyers and Divines against you, and I need not say more. Indeed it is not such a constitutive Justification as that per Legem, but it is more, a proper and full Jutification of another kind, to which this is but a means.

Animadversion.

He is thereby put into a state of Salvation. For whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. 8. 30. Yet are we not fully possessed of Salvation, not glorified without good Works, as we are fully justified without them. They follow Justification as fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified: But they go before Glorification, as making way for the enjoyment of it.

Reply.

1. They go as much before Justification by Sentence, and as continued, as before Glorification.

2. Our debate is about conveyance of Right. In justifying, it is the same thing to give Right to it, and to give the thing itself. In Glorification, and all real Mutations it is not so. You yield the thing that I assert.

Animadversion.

Our first possession of Justification is so full, as that there is no Condemnation belonging to us: And what can be more full, but only a more full manifestation of it.

Reply.

I have troubled you too oft already with repeating the same things. Though there be now no Condemnation to you, yet tomorrow there will be, if you should not sincerely obey: For you would cease to be in Christ.

Animadversion.

Our Justification in the last Judgment is not properly a completing of our Justification, as if it were only begun here, and left imperfect till hereafter: But it is only a public manifestation of it. Thus yourself expresses it, Append. p. 158. [Indeed there is a Justification by public Declaration at the great Judgment, &c.] But Glorification being the compleatment of Salvation, whatever is requisite as Antecedaneous to complete Salvation, is required as a Condition of our Glorification.

Reply.

Ad eadem sunt eadem dicenda. Justification at Judgment is not a mere constituting us Righteous, but a declaring us Righteous. But it is a declaring of a Righteousness in Question, and that by a Supreme Judge against a public Accuser, which is requifite ad plenam possessionem Praemii per Legem justis debiti: And so it is not only Declarare, sed statuere & jus Vindicare: And is more properly called justifying, than [making just] is: (You here confess a Condition of Glorification.)

Animadversion.

They that keep God's Commandments, are said [to have right to the Tree of Life,] Rev. 22. 14. because such have true Faith in Christ: And that it is indeed that giveth them that • ight. You are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3. 26. And if Children, then heirs, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8. 17. We may also distinguish between jus ad rem, and Jus in re. Faith in Christ alone gives the former right to the Tree of Life: But Works help to the attainment of the latter.

Reply.

1. The Text saith, [That they may have right, and may enter in, &c.] Doth Obedience get Faith? (surely no: not as it is here meant.) Doth it only manifest it? How then doth Obedience procure right? Will you again say here, that by [keeping the Commandments,] is not meant [keeping the Commandments,] but [a working Faith.] It is not only James, but multitudes of other plain Texts that must be forced, if your Opinion must stand. If this Text do not plainly make Obedience to be a means of our right to the Tree of Life, I know not how to understand sense by words.

2. Faith may give them right, and so may Obedience too. You argued thus even now [Repentance will not serve without Faith; therefore Faith doth all:] nego sequelam.

3. If you mean properly by [Jus in re] right to mediate Possession, and not the Possession itself (which is no right) you grant as much as I need.

4. But the Text doth most plainly ascribe both sorts of right to Obedience. Ad rem [right to the Tree of Life:] Jure, [may enter in by the gate.]

5. Do you indeed believe, that a man can have jus ad gloriam by Faith, without Obedience, if he live to age.

6. Or will you debase Faith so much as to say, that it is sufficient to give only jus ad rem, and not jus in re: Indeed it is the same right that comes by both: Even jus ad rem & in re.

Animadversion.

A personal Gospel-Righteousness is acknowledged to be requisite, but not as that whereby we are justified.

Reply.

Enough of this already.