A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness
1. You do not ans • er my Question, viz. Whether [ 34] those Orthodox Writers (a multitude of whom you say you could heap up) do make our Personal Righteousness that by which we are justified. If they do not, their calling it Evangelical is to no purpose. 2. It is not preposterous to say, That Righteousness (viz. inherent) is required unto Sanctification; it being that whereby we are sanctified, as Imputed Righteousness is that whereby we are justified. You said before, That I did ill oppose that whereby we are justified, as if the same thing might not do both: You grant then (it seems) that Righteousness may sanctify; I think it must, and so is required unto Sanctification. How you can make Inherent Righteousness ita se habere ad sanctificationem, ut se habet Albedo ad Parietem, to me seems very strange: rather (I think) ut se habet Albedo ad Dealbationem. 3. If you had spoken absolutely without any qualification, [He that affirmeth a Man Righteous, (viz. by Inherent Righteousness) and yet denieth him to be justified, viz. by that Righteousness, contradicteth himself] you had condemned all our famous Divines (I think) of selfcontradiction. But your speech being so qualified, as it is, [so far as he is Righteous] I know not at whom it striketh. But though none by the Law of Works can be pronounced perfectly righteous, and therefore if they be tried by it, all will be found unrighteous, yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no such thing as an Imperfect Righteousness.
You seem not to dislike what I say, neither do I what you now say. I grant, that the New Covenant is to the wicked an unspeakable mercy, in that by it they may be freed from the condemnation of the Old Covenant: yet until they embrace the New Covenant, they remain under the Old, even under the condemnation of it.
1. Concerning Christ's Satisfaction, how it may be called both our Legal and our Evangelical Righteousness, [ 35] I have spoken before. Legal Righteousness may either signify the Righteousness of the Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or the Righteousness which is of or from the Law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . There is great difference between these two, for the former is asserted, but the latter is exploded, Rom. 8. 4. & 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9. Christ's Satisfaction may be called our Legal Righteousness in the former sense, not the latter. But in both respects it is our Evangelical Righteousness, as being the Righteousness of the Gospel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. the Righteousness which the Gospel doth hold out unto us, and the Righteousness which is of or from the Gospel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. the Righteousness which by the Gospel we are made partakers of through Faith. And therefore it is called the Righteousness which is of Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and by Faith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Rom. 9. 30. & 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9. 2. In that Faith is the Condition, or Instrument (or what any please to call it) whereby Christ's Righteousness is made ours unto Justification, it rather follows, that Faith itself is not properly our Righteousness, by which we are justified.
Something out of Rivet I have cited before to this purpose; hear also what another saith, viz. Vignerius, whose Disputation Rivet much commends, and thought meet to annex it to his own, Quidni in fide nostrâ gloriabimur, si ex fide justificatio est, ut operae Evangelico, & appositâ foederi conditione, contra Apostolum, qui exclusam esse dicit per Legem fidei gloriationem? Rom. 3. 26. —An possibile est, ut sit fidei instrumentum accipiendae justitiae, & simul sit ipsa, quam querimus, justitia? Utut sane glorietur homo, solus tamen Christus est nostra justitia, nec aliud agit Fides, quam quod Christum apprehendit, & nostram facit illius justitiam, ut in eo inveniamur, non nostram habentes justitiam, quae ex Lege est, sed illam, quae est per fidem Christi, justitiam, quae est ex Deo per fidem, Phil. 3. 9.
1. I see nothing in the place cited (viz. Aphor. p. 127, 128.) but a Similitude, which proves nothing; and I gave some touch of it in the Ammadversions. Whereas you now say, [In respect of the condition of our personal performance to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, Faith is imputed unto us instead of our personal performance of Perfect Obedience], it seems to imply as if personal performance of Perfect Obedience might be required as a Condition to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, which were very strange. For if Perfect Obedience could be performed by us, what need were there of Christ's Satisfaction to be imputed to us, except for sin committed or contracted before this personal performance of perfect Obedience? If Righteousness come by the Law, Christ died in vain, Gal. 2. ult. But how-ever, such Obedience cannot be performed by any, there being not a Just man upon Earth, that doth good, and sinneth not, Eccles. 7. 20. That Faith is as effectual or • ufficient a Condition under the New Covenant, as perfect personal Obedience, if performed, would have been under the Old Covenant: if this were all that you meant, though I like not your expression, yet I allow the thing; only this I think meet to observe, That perfect personal Obedience was so the Condition of the Old Covenant, that it was also the Righteousness required in it: But Faith is so the Condition of the New Covenant, as that it is not properly the Righteousness itself, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness that the New Covenant doth offer and afford to a Believer, instead of Perfect Obedience personally to be performed by the Old Covenant. For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn, &c. I do not think that we can be said truly and properly to pay anything ourselves as a price, whereby to purchase the benefits of the New Covenant; see Isa. 55. 1. and Apoc. 22. 17. When we preach and press Holiness and Good Works, we use to distinguish betwixt Via Regni & Causa regnandi; and we make them requisite unto Glorification, but not unto Justification. Dicimus (inquit Rivet) bona opera necessaria esse, tanquam adjunctum consequence justificationem, tanquam effectum acquisitae salutis, quatenus salus accipitur pro justification; & tanquam antecedens ad salutem, quatenus accipitur pro glorificatione; non autem tanquam causam, quae salutem efficiat.
2. The acceptance of a Gift, being a means to enjoy it, is a means whereby the Gift doth enrich; and so Faith is a means whereby Christ's Righteousness doth justify us, as being a means whereby it is imputed unto us, and made ours. But properly it is the Gift that doth enrich, though not without the acceptance of it; and so it is the Righteousness of Christ that doth justify, though not without Faith. The Trial of a Man's Title in Law to a Gift, depends on the Trial, and Proof of his Acceptance of it, because otherwise except he accept of the Gift, it is none of his: Yet for all this, it is the Gift that doth enrich, though it must be accepted, that it may do it. And so it is Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, though Faith be required of us, that it may be made ours, and so we may be justified by it.
That my words are contradictory one to another, you say, but the Reason which you add for proof of it, is of little [ 36] force. I deny it to be as proper to say, [We are justified by Faith as a Condition] as to say, [We are justified by Christ's Satisfacti • n, as the Meritorious Cause]; yea and as the Righteousness by which we are justified. What inconvenience doth arise from it, if Paul and the Scriptures do oftener speak improperly than properly in this Point? May not improper Speeches, concerning some Point, be more frequent in Scripture, than proper? Sacramental Speech • s, wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing signified, are improper: Yet are the • more frequent in Scripture, than those which in that kind are more proper.
1. You not clearing the Question, either there or any where else (that I know) in your Aphorisms, seemed to leave it doubtful; and so I thought meet to note it, that you might prevent any ones stumbling at it.
2. What you now add upon review, doth less please; For the Holiness that is in us, is from God, the imperfection of it is from ourselves; this therefore may be sinful, though God's Work be good.
1. Relation when it is founded in Quality, may (for anything I see) be intended and remitted, as the Quality is wherein it is founded. I like not Scheiblers joining Similitude and Equality together, as if there were the same reason of both. One thing cannot be more or less equal, though it may be nearer to, or further from Equality than another; but one thing may be more or less like, when yet there is a true and proper likeness in both.
2. That no Man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works, is the same that I say: But why do you put in these terms [fully and exactly] if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exact?
3. That our Inherent Righteousness (for I must still mind you that we are speaking of it) is Non-reatus poenae, I deny; and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent, as being nothing to Inherent Righteousness, about which now is all the Dispute. Pag. 37. You seem to come up to what I say, when you grant, that our Gospel-Righteousness considered in esse officii, as related to, or measured by the Precept, so our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees. Here by Faith and Holiness, you mean the same with that which immediately before you called Gospel-Righteousness, which must needs be meant of Inherent Righteousness. As for those words which you insert, [and that only quoad materiam praeceptam] I know not well what they mean. For how can officium, as related to, and measured by the Precept, be considered but quoad materiam praeceptam?
1. If I take Holiness (as you say) as opposite to [ 37] Sin, How do I make all the Actions of the Heathens Holy? Do I make them not sinful? I have ever approved of those Sayings of the Ancients.
Sine cultu veri Dei, etiam quod virtus videtur esse, peccatum est. And, Omnis infidelium vita, peccatum est, & nihil est bonum sine summo bon • . Ubi enim deest agnitio aeternae & incommutabilis veritatis, falsa vertus est, etiam in optimis moribus. And, Quicquid boni fit ab homine, & non propter hoc fit, propter quod fieri debere vera saptentia praecipit, & se officio videatur bonum, ipso non recto sine peccatum est. Scripture also doth carry me that way, namely these places, Rom. 8. 8, 9. and Heb. 11. 6. I wave that place Rom. 14. ult. because it seems to look another way; though Prosper de Vitâ Contempl. lib. 3. cap. 1. doth urge it to this purpose. There is not then the same reason of the Actions of Heathens, as of the Actions of Believers: these are imperfectly holy, the other are altogether unholy.
2. You grant that Holiness is the same with Righteousness, which is opposed to Reatus Culpae: And truly I should think, that Inherent Righteousness is rather Non-reatus Culpae, than Non-reatus Poenae. For your Parenthesis, [If any were found, that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works] it is ever granted, That such a perfect Righteousness is not found in any upon Earth; but still it is denied, that because it is not perfect, therefore it is none at all.
Justi appellantur (saith Jerome, speaking of Zacharias, Elizabeth, Job, &c.) non quod omni vitio careant, sed quod majori parte virtutum commendentur. You grant, that Holiness may be denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept. Now this you must grant, may recipere magis & minus: for so you grant that Holiness may. And if Congruency, why not Conformity? For Congruency and Conformity, though divers words, yet import (for anything I see) one and the same thing. I take I aith to be in part our Inherent Righteousness, as it is Officium, not as it is Conditio praecise considerata.
3. Whether Habitual Faith, or Actual, be properly the Condition of the Covenant, is little to our purpose. And for the thing itself, as I shall grant, that we must not content ourselves with a habit of Faith, but must als • act Faith: So (I think) you will not deny, that we are Fideles, and so justified, even when we sleep, though no act of Faith be performed by us.
You say nothing to that which I answered concerning our Divines, of whom you spake, viz. That they hold, That the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is not our Personal Righteousness; and therefore though they say, (as you allege) That our Justification is perfect, and therefore (as you infer) our Righteousness, viz. whereby we are justified, must be perfect also; yet all this is little to your purpose.
2. To what you say, I have said enough before, viz. That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant, as to Justification, is not our Righteousness whereby we are justified, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, the only Righteousness by which we are justified. And for being rei poenae Novae Legis for non-performance of its Condition; I say still, I know no punishment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition, but only a leaving to the punishment of the Old Law; which punishment yet (I grant) will be so much the more grievous, as the sin, which an Unbeliever, both as an Unbeliever, and otherwise, is guilty of by Gospel-Aggravations, is the more heinous.
1. I as little doubt but that sincerity of Righteousness [ 38] doth consist with imperfection of Righteousness, viz. Inherent Righteousness, which is really the same with Holiness, how-ever in this or that respect we may distinguish the one from the other.
2. How Hypocrisy can be taken for a seeming or appearing better than we are, yet without affectation or dissimulation, I do not understand. If without any affectation or dissimulation of ours, we seem better than we are, it is another's error, not our fault; neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites. Your manifold distinctions of Sincerity do serve rather to confound the Reader, than to unfold the matter. I take sincerity to be no distinct Grace, but the Modus of other Graces: but why that Modus may not admit of degrees, I confess I do not see. I conceive Zeal to be of like nature, yet one may be more or less zealous, and so also more or less sincere. You say here, [There is no Medium inter Ens & non Ens] of which I make no doubt but pag. 2. you think Relations to be inter Ens & Nihil; and what difference between Nihil & non Ens? You say, That you have over and over shown, That Conformity to the Rule of the Condition, doth consist in indivisibly. Indeed you have divers times affirmed, That all Conformity is of that nature, but I could never yet see it proved. But why do you now speak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition? I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Personal Righteousness, and the Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteousness. And this Righteousness, though it be sincere, I hold to be imperfect, because the Conformity to the Rule is imperfect. [Sincerity (saith Master Blake) is said to be the New Rule, or the Rule of the New Covenant. But this is no Rule, but our Duty, taking the Abstract for the Concrete; Sincerity for sincere walking, and this according to the Rule of the Law, not to reach it, but in all parts to aim at it, and have respect unto it. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Psal. 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Righteousness, which in reference to its Rule (N. B.) labors under many imperfections]. And a little before he saith thus, [I know no other Rule but the Old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule].
3. It seems very incongruous to grant, that Apoc. 22. 11. [Be holy still] doth import an increase of Holiness; and yet to deny, that [Be righteous still] doth import an increase of Righteousness. For anything I know, some on the contrary may as well say, That the latter words import an increase of Righteousness, and yet the other no increase of Holiness. Whereas you speak of varying the sense according to the variety of Subjects, you take it for granted, That here the Subjects are various; whereas both by this, and divers others places before cited, it seems clear to me, that the Subjects, viz. Righteousness and Holiness are really the same one with the other. For the Formal of Righteousness, what is it but Conformity to the Law, the only Rule of Righteousness? And why such Conformity may not be more or less, I am yet to learn. That place indeed, as many other, speaks of a true Personal Righteousness in the Saints, but yet not of a Perfect Righteousness in them; and consequently not of such a Righteousness, as whereby they are justified, except it be only in some sort, and in some measure, which is not the Justification about which we contend. This Imperfect Righteousness is measured by the Law of Works, as a Rule, though it be accepted only by the gracious condescension of the Gospel.
To Ephes. 4. 24. you give many Answers, but they [ 39] seem but so many Evasions.
1. I think there is no Question, but the Apostle speaks by way of Precept and Exhortation. q. d. If you have indeed learned Christ, and have been taught by him, you have learned to do so and so; therefore have a care to do so. Surely the Apostles words import a duty required, and so implicitly contain a Precept or Exhortation.
2. That he speaks as well to Believers, True Believers, as mere Professors, is as little to be doubted. For he speaks unto them upon a supposition, that they had learned Christ, and had been taught by him; which though it may belong to mere Professors, yet to true Believers much rather.
3. If the New Man, which is created in Righteousness and Holiness, may increase, as you grant, then surely Righteousness and Holiness, in which the New Man is created, and without which the New Man is nothing, must increased also. To say, That the New Man may increase in Holiness, but not in Righteousness, is for one that would say anything, so that he may but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As well might it be said, That the New Man is created in Holiness, but not in Righteousness.
4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law, to which we must labor to conform still more and more, not only extensive, but also intensive.
5. The very conjunction of the words here, as in other places, shows that they are used as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Besides, how we should give unto God the things that are God's, and to Men the things that are Men's, and not conform to the Law, which doth prescribe our Duty towards God, and towards Men, I cannot see: and surely Conformity to the Law, is the Righteousness now in question.
1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum; What need is there of any other justification? [Upon the Laws Convictions (saith Mr. Blake) there may follow Gospel-Aggravations; but Conviction is the Work of the Law]. If 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Conviction, then surely Condemnation. If the Law do not condemn, what can? And what can the Law condemn for, but for sin? It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation, 2 Cor. 3. 9. By the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. 20.
2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestitam Conditionem, it is no new Accusation, but a making good of a former Accusation; and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis, is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Legis; save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur.
3. I confess, I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of: I did not find them in your Aphorisms, but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification, so I understood it. But truly now that you open your conception more than before, I can see no solidity in it. We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith; but not by Faith, as being itself our Righteousness. Faith is indeed required unto Justification, yet not as our Righteousness, but as a Condition, Instrament, or Means (for I would not strive about words) whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness. I see not, that the Scripture doth speak of such a Two-fold Justification, one by Christ and his Righteousness, another by Faith as our Righteousness; but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith. By him all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.
Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness, of which I expressly spake. I take it to be really the same with Holiness. What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaeus, is nothing against me, I speaking of Righteousness in one sense, and they in another. Besides, you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker 's words: for Sons is as much as reus culpae, and insons as much as non-reus culpae; whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae, and Insons for Non-reus poenae; how-ever his words are not to our purpose.
1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe that, which I said about the Materiality and Formality, as well of Holiness as of Righteousness.
2. As Holiness (you grant) is a Conformity to the Law, as it doth constituere debitum officii, so I conceive is Righteousness, (Inherent I still mean) and not a Conformity to the Rule, as it constituteth, Conditionem praemii obtinendi, & poenae vitandae, si nimirùm seclusá omni consideratione officii, Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur.
1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting as Righteous, or Accounting just, is (I think) as much as Justifying.
2. I did not (nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned) speak so generally, but to presuppose Faith, whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ, and then our Actions. By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice, &c. Heb. 11. 4. At length, after many words, which touch not me, in your 6th, you grant as much as I did, or do desire, viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled, before our external Obedience can be accepted. Whereas you there add, That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works, that Abel 's Works were accepted: I answer, It was not indeed by the Law of Works; yet as they were a sincere, though imperfect Conformity to that Law, as a Rule, so they were accepted by the New Covenant. The Law of Works directs, the Covenant of Grace accepts, though we come short of what the Law requires.
[The Law (as Mr. Blake saith) still commands us, though the Covenant in Christ, through the abundant Grace of it, upon the terms that it requires and accepts, frees us from the Sentence of it]. And again, [A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant, God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience: In this sense our Imperfection hath its perfectness; otherwise I must say, That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness, in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness, &c.] He means the Law of Works, which (as before noted) he saith is, a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule.
1. I shall not deny, but that our Faith and Obedience may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness: Yet I think, That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners. For besides that the unsoundness of Faith (and so of Obedience) is sin; besides this (I say) if our Faith be not sound, it is in vain, we are yet in our sins, we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, there being no freedom for us without Faith.
2. I know none that say, Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works. For my part I should say, We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works, i. e. from the condemnation of it, God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions, notwithstanding our imperfection, for which the Law, if we should be sentenced by it, would condemn us. But here by the way, let me observe this, That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms, doth seem to manifest thus much, That when you composed those Aphorisms, you either knew not, or liked not that Twofold Justification, which now you so often speak of, and somewhere say, That my ignorance in this Point is it, that doth mainly darken all my Discourse. That common saying is not always true, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
For my words; 1. I see not why those, [Acquitting us from all sin] should offend you. For you might see by what I there said, That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us. And so the Phrases used in Scripture, of God, not remembering our sins, his covering them, casting them behind his back, into the bottom of the Sea, &c. they all import such an acquitting of us from sin, as I intended; not as if God did account us to be without sin, which were false, but that God doth not charge sin upon us, viz. so as to exact satisfaction for sin from us. I meant the very same with Mr. Gataker in the words which you cited p. 39. Non hoc dicitur, Deum apud se judicare, illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christus satisfecit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse; sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum, & jus ad vitam aeternam, ac si nihil vel mali admisissent, vel boni debiti omisissent. Thus Christ speaks to the Church, Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair, my Love, and there is no spot in thee. What? may some say, Is there no spot in the Church? No, none in her, so as to be imputed to her. Sine maculâ deputatur, quia culpa non imputatur, as one doth no less truly than elegantly express it. You yourself yield as much as I desire, or as my words import, viz. That God acquitteth us from all sin, so as it induceth an obligation to punishment.
2. When you say, That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, is one Justification, and to justify us against the accusation of being so obliged, is another Justification; I confess (Davus sum, non Oedipus) I do not well understand what you mean, for to my apprehension these are one and the same. Me-thinks it must needs be, That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, doth also eo nomine justify us against the Accusation of being so obliged. For how are we acquitted from the Obligation, if not justified against the Accusation of being obliged?
3. I marvel why you should trouble yourself with speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and of final unbelief, when as you could not but know, that I spake of all sin, from which we may be justified. Why might not one as well quarrel with those words of the Apostle, Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things, &c.
4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief, yet (as I expressly added in that very place which you take hold on) so that this be rightly understood. For the right understanding of it, I said something before; and for further explication, I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant, Chap. 33.
5. But in the next you do most strangely, even without any cause that I can see, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and (as they say) fluctus in simpulo excitare. That [first our Persons, and then our Duties and Actions may properly be said to be justified, that is, accepted as just, and acquitted from all accusation brought against them, though in themselves they be not such, but that sin doth cleave unto them] why should this seem such horrid Doctrine, as that your Heart should detest it?
1. I speak of good Actions: for it is absurd to say, That evil Actions are accepted as just, though we may be so accepted notwithstanding our evil Actions.
2. I plainly say, That sin doth cleave to our good Actions; yet (I say) God doth accept them as just, notwithstanding the imperfection of them, and the sin that doth cleave unto them. If this be offensive to you, as well (I think) may you be offended at that Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me, O Lord, concerning this, and spare me according to the greatness of thy Mercy. And so at that 1 Pet. 2. 5. You also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual House, an Holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ. Neither is there any reason why those words [acquitted from all accusation brought against them] should distaste you. For what though an Accusation be true, if yet in some other respect it be of no force? May not they be properly said to be acquitted from all Accusation, who notwithstanding the Accusation, are freed from condemnation? What matter is it how we are accused, so long as we are sure not to be condemned? Therefore the Apostle useth these Expressions as equipollent, [Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect?] and [Who is he that condemneth?] Rom. 8. 33, 34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon those words of the Apostle, [Who shall lay anything to the charge, &c.] as you do upon mine? Might you not say, Why? I will lay this, and that, and that, and ten thousand things besides to their charge? Yea, but when you have done all you can, to what purpose is it? For who is he that condemneth them, notwithstanding all the Accusations brought against them? These very words of the Apostle doth Ames allege in the former of those Sections which you cite. And if (as you say) all may be the • e fully seen in Ames, that you would say in this, then I see not that you would say anything against me, a • indeed you do say nothing. But what do you mean by those words, [and that as to the Law of Works] which by a Parenthesis you thrust in among mine? As if I meant, that as well our Actions as our Persons are accepted a • just, and acquitted from all condemnation by the La • •• Works. Truly I think tàm quàm, as well the one as the other, that is indeed neither the one nor the other. The Law doth convince of sin, and (as much as in it lies) condemn for sin, both us and our Actions, even the best of them: But by the New Covenant, Through Faith in Christ we are accepted as just, though guilty of manifold sins; and our Actions are accepted also, though full of imperfection. When you say, That the Reatus Culpae cannot possibly be removed, or remitted, though I think it is but a striving about words, which I do not love, yet I cannot assent unto it. For I think it is truly and properly said to be remitted or pardoned; neither doth that seem proper or pertinent, which you add by way of Explication, [that is, The Man cannot be, or justly esteemed to be a Man that hath not sinned]. Quid tum postea? Cannot therefore the guilt of sin be remitted? Yea, how should sin be remitted, if it were not committed? I think it is as proper to say, Remittere culpam, as Remittere poenam. Surely if I may argue from the frequent use of Phrases, and hence infer the propriety of them, as you did, there is nothing more usual in Scripture, (and so in other Writings, and in common Speech) then to say, that Sins, Faults, Offences are remitted. Grotius saith, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in Latin is Remittere, is as much as missum facere; and that the Greek Scholiasts usually expound it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. to neglect, not to regard, to pass over, (as Prov. 19. 11. to pass over a transgression) and that therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is peccata missa facere, which the Scripture (he saith) following the Metaphor further, calls peccata in mare projicere, Mich. 7. 19. It is true, Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment: Remittere, or missa facere peccata, (as Grotius saith) is as much as punire nolle. Yet this hinders not but that sin, or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned; yea (I think) it doth confirm it. For if it be proper to say, That God will not punish sin, and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin; then it is proper to say, That God doth remit or pardon sin. In a word therefore, my words, about which you make so much ado, are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them. They do not import, that our Actions, e • en the best of them, if strictly examined, are not sinful; or that God doth not see any sin in them; but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them, and accept them in Christ, (who is the High-Pri • st, that doth bear, and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things, Exod. 28. 38.) as if they had no sin in them. Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions, and yet grant the justifying of our Persons. Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other. For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions? Surely if the Action be sinful, the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too. And though you pass over the next, because you reverse your former Assertion, yet in that which I there said, you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me.
1. You grant what I say.
2. I have said before, That though (in mine Opinion) [ 42] sin may properly be said to be remitted, yet this is in reference unto punishment.
3. You had no reason to imagine, that I should think, that my Actions, or the Actions of the best upon Earth, can be justified against all Accusations, as if they were absolutely good and perfect; when in that very place I spake of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions, and how it is through Christ covered, and not imputed unto us. Yea, and immediately I cited divers places of • cripture ( • iz. Eccles. 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8, 9. Job 9 4. Exod. 28. 38.) to prove, that neither our Persons, nor our Actions are so righteous, but that we may be accused of, and condemned for sin in them, and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be. It is strange how you should pass by all this, it being directly before your eyes, and should raise a suspicion, as if I should mean quite contrary.
1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ, afterward they may be justified by our Works, when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained i • , viz. That first it is meant only of good Works; and then that God doth not justify those good Works for their own sake, as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous, but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them▪ Illud semper retineatur, (inquit Davenantius) han • acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione person in Christo; Cum enim ipsi renati carnem peccatricem adhuc gestent, & opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant, Deus neque ipsos, neque eorum opera grata haberet, n • si & hos & illa in Christo magis q • àm in seipsis amplexaretur. What you say of Chamîer and others, as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ, might well have been spared, as being nothing at all against me, who am far from making our Works meritorious, when I make even the best of them imperfect, and to need pardon. 2. It is evident by this very Section, to which you now reply, that I spake only of good Actions. For how absurd and senseless were it to say, that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous, as I there say that our Works are not? The two former Sections also clearly show of what Works I spake; so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere.
1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing, though it be that, and somewhat more.
2. I cannot tell what Judgment some others may be of, I speak for myself.
3. I take all sin to be against the Law, as it is distinguished from the Gospel, though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel. Of that Law I suppose St. John spake, saying, Sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul, By the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. 20. And again, I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not know lust, (or as the Margent hath it, concupiscence, viz. to be sin) except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgment of Divines, that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments.
4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief, and neglect of the Sacraments, &c. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue. The first precept requires us to have the Lord, and him only, for our God; and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us, and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us. The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe; and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances; See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath, Part. 2. Chap. 4. §. 21, 22, 23. What you add after, makes all for me in this particular, only some things seem meet to be observed.
1. This (I confess) to me is strange Philosophy, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, ceased not to be Earth still, when it was made Man. As well may you say, That Adam 's rib, of which Eve was formed, ceased not to be a Rib still; and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixed Bodies.
2. The Precept and Threatning (you say) are parts of the New Law, though they be common with the Old. Here you seem to grant, That nothing is commanded, or threatened in the New Law, which is not commanded or threatened in the Old. Me-thinks then you should not make a Two-fold Righteousness, and a Two-fold Justification; one in respect of the Old Law, another in respect of the New. The Precept [believe] belongs to the Old Law; but as it is not only a Precept, but also a Condition, upon performance of which Salvation is promised, [Believe; and thou shalt be saved] so it belong; to the New Law. So this Threatning [If thou dost not believe, thou shalt perish] belongs to the Old Law, as threatening death for every sin, and consequently for unbelief, which is a sin: and it belongs to the New Law, as leaving an Unbeliever under the condemnation of the Old Law both for that sin of unbelief, and also for all other sins, from the guilt of which he cannot be freed, because he doth not perform the Condition, which the New Law to that end doth require of him. And (as I have before noted) the Condemnation of an Unbeliever is now increased, as his Sin is, by neglecting Salvation offered upon condition of believing.
3. You say, That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige. But your Reason seems invalid, Quia cessat materia, vel capacitas subjecti. You mean, no Man can perform the Condition; and so no Man is capable of the Promise made upon that Condition. But why may it not be said, That as the Precept, which is also the Condition, ceaseth not, though none be able to obey it: so the Promise doth remain, though none can enjoy the benefit of it? It may seem unreasonable, that the Threatning should still be in force, and the Promise be quite taken away.
4. You say again, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, doth still retain the form of Earth; which surely doth need further Explication, or Conformation, or both.
5. The threatening of the New Law (you say) hath something proper to the New Law: But for anything I see, the New Law doth threaten nothing, which the Old Law doth not threaten: though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of sin, so there will be an increase of condemnation.
6. Whereas you say, that the right stating and clear apprehension of this part, (viz. of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, and how far the Law of Works is abrogated) is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadversions take notice of, or than anything (as to difficulty) that I deal with; truly my desire was, and so is, only to give you some hints for the further clearing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphorisms. But if you think, that here in this Section, which is somewhat long, you have sufficiently explicated those Points, I am not of your mind.
1. All that you here say is nothing to my Animadversion; only you strive a little about the acceptation of those [ 44] word▪ [the Moral Law].
2. Neither do I make the Moral Law as taken for the Precept co • junct with • he Threatning, a true part of the New Law: ye 〈…〉 Moral Law so taken, being not dissolved •• abr • g ••• d by the New Law, as you grant, Unbelievers while they remain such, both for their unbelief, and for their other sins, are under condemnation, as belonging • n • o them by the Old Law, there being no Remedy provided for them by the New Law; which hath no other threatening, (I think) but that it leaves Unbelievers to the Old Law, and the condemnation of it.
1. I do not dislike your Thesis, [That Christ died not to satisfy for the violation of the Covenant of Grace] as you understand it, viz. for final unbelief. Yet I hold, That such as profess the Gospel, and live in those sins, which are not consistent with true and sincere Faith, do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace; and for such violation of that Covenant Christ died, or else all such are left without Remedy. I am in this fully of Mr. Blake's mind, [As a wife (saith he) by adultery, so they by sin forsake the Covenant, by which they stand betrothed; and by consequence it must needs follow, that Christ died for breach of the Covenant of Grace, as well as for breach of the Covenant of Works; unless we will say, That all Men by name Christians, and found in any of those sins, are in a lost and unrecoverable condition, joining with those that hare said, That there is no Grace or Pardon for those that fall into sin after Baptism. That he died not for their sins, that live and die •• final impenitency and unbelief, may be easily granted: and that rises to no more, than that he died not for those, that finally and unrecoverably break Covenant with him].
2. Whereas you confess, That for unbelief and impenitency, though it be not final, Men remain obligati ad poenam per L • gem Naturae, but deny it as to the proper Obligation of the New Law; I conceive that the New Law providing no Remedy for them, while they remain such; in this respect they are as well by the New Law obligati ad poenam for the time, as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are forever. You grant the Gospel doth non-liberare, while Men continue in Unbelief; yet you conceive, That it doth not obligare ad poenam proprie, viz. ad non-liberationem, & ad poenam majorem. Now I conceive that while it doth non-liberare, it may be said, obligare ad non-liberationem; though I should rather like to say, That it doth relinquere in statu non-liberationis, and so majoris poenae ob contemptum gratiae, & misericordiae oblatae. In your Similitude, The Malefactor, whiles he refuses to come in, and submit to the Terms upon which Pardon is offered, remains in a state of Condemnation, though the sentence be not executed upon him, except he continue in his refusal of the offer unto the term prefixed. But you profess yourself willing to acknowledge, That this non-liberatio may in some sort be called Poena; and truly I think, that Poena Nova Legis non alia est, quàm non-liberatio à poená veteris Legis; hoc tamen semper addito, poenam veteris Legis, ob neglectum liberationis in Lege Novâ oblatae, graviorem reddi.
I mean [Actually in the state of Damnation] and [ 45] you grant as much as I desire, viz. That they are obliged even for that sin unto death, per Legem Naturae, & non liberati per Legem Gratiae. Why then should you deny, that they are actually obliged to Damnation? Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation? Or betwi • t obliged, and actually obliged? He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation, and so remains, as long as he remains in unbelief; The Wrath of God abideth on him, John 3. 36. That the Sentence is not yet executed, but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it, is another thing.
The Parenthesis, which you say, is wanting in your Aphorisms, might help to make the words more clear; as they stand, they seem obscure: which is all that I would have observed.
Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Philosophical Disputes; yet I am also unwilling to recede from received Opinions, except I see urgent cause for it. Now that an Accident must have a Subject to exist in, as it is generally held, so I am persuaded it is true. Burgersdicius (whose authority I may well enough oppose to Scheiblers) saith, Accidens est Ens substantiae inhaerens. Indeed he saith, Relations non tam inherent alicui subjecto, quàm adhaerent: but he doth not deny that they do inhaerere. For he saith, Relatio ejusmodi accidens est, quod non tantùm (N. B.) in aliquo est, ut in subjecto, sed refertur etiam ad aliud. It is usually one Argument which our Divines have against Transubstantiation, that thereby Accidents are made to exist without a Subject. Scheibler grants, that an Accident hath not existence by itself, that it is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (so it should be, not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ). Now everything that hath Existence, must (I think) either exist by itself, or in some other thing.
2. Adjunctum & Subjectum, and Effectum & Causa, are not so contradistinct, but that the same thing may be Adjunctum & Effectum, and so the same thing Subjectum & Causa.
3. Whereas Scheibler saith, Actio transiens nullum habet subjectum, ne quidem ipsum Patiens, ut visum est; I say, Ego illud nondum vidi, nec vel verum, vel verisimile mihi videtur. I think, Omnis Actio subjectatur in Patiente: and this I hold to be true even of Immanent Actions, which though they have the Agent for the Subject, yet it is because the Agent is there also the Patient; and it is not quà Agens, but quà Patiens, that it is the subject of the Action.
4. He argues thus, Actio ut sic non dicit nisi egressum à virtute activâ alicujus Agentis. Egressus autem opponitur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 esse in. Resp. 1. Actio ut sic necessario infert Passionem. Fieri enim non potest, ut aliquid agat, nisi etiam aliquid patiatur. Ergo Actio non tantum dicit egressum à virtute activá, verùm etiam infert receptionem in Patiente. 2. Actio & Passo sunt idem metus; sed Actio vocatur quatenus ab Agente procedit, Passio autem quatenus in Patiente recipitur. Etiamsi igitur Actio & Passio formaliter differant, cum tamen realiter idem sint, si Passio est in subjecto, Actionem etiam in ubjecto esse necesse est.
5. Whereas you doubt whether Scotus be not right in holding that Immanent Acts are in the Prcdicament of Quality, that (as divers other Passages) doth show that you are much inclined to that which doth cross the common Opinion; which surely is in itself very dangerous, though (I know) you are prudent and sober-minded, so that there is little cause of fear this way in respect of you. Yet wanton Wits, and unstable Spirits, may extend your Notions further than you intended them; and therefore, especially considering the times into which we are fallen, you have need to be wary: but dictum sapienti sat est.
Though we cannot know God to Perfection, yet we may and must know him so, as to remove from him all [ 46] Imperfection, and consequently all composition. The more simple anything is, caeteris paribus, the more perfect it is: Therefore God being most Perfect, he is most Simple.
This con • ains only a Logical Dispute about the Predicaments and Relations. Now for the Predicaments, though I do not say that they all note real Beings distinct one from another, so Actior and Passion do not; yet I think they all note real Beings, i. e. Beings which are not merely rational or imaginary. And how you should question this, especially of Substance, Quantity and Quality, (which are more than two) I cannot conceive. And for Relations, hear Aqu • nas, whose judgment (besides that he gi • eth reason for what he saith) with me is of far more weight than of your late Authors. Quida • p • s •• erunt Relationem non esse rem naturae, sed rationis tanti • m. Quod quidem apparet esse falsum ex hoc, quod ipsae res naturalem ordinem & habitudinem habent ad invi •• m. Yet as there are Entia Rationis, so there are Relations Rationis. Yea, Aquinas shows, that Q • aedam Relati • n • s sunt quantum ad utrumque extremum res naturae, &c. Quandoque vero in uno extremo est res naturae, & in a • t • o extremo est r • s rationis t • ntùm, nempe c 〈…〉 duo extrema non sunt ejusdem ordinis, &c. And of this latter sort he notes the Relations are, which are betwixt God and the Creatures. Cum igitur (inquit) Deus sit extra totum ordinem creaturae, & omnes creaturae ordinentur ad ipsum, & non e converso, manifestum est, quod creaturae realiter referuntur ad Deum, sed in Deo non est aliqua realis relatio ad creaturas, sed secundum rationem tantùm, in quantum creaturae referuntur ad ipsum. Et sic nihil prohibit hujusmods nomina importantia relationem ad creaturam, praedicari de Deo ex tempore, non propter mutationem aliquam ipsius, sed propter creaturae mutationem, sicut columna fit dextra animali, nullâ mutatione circa ipsam existente, sed animali translato. And again, Creatio (inquit) active considerata significat actionem divinam, quae est ejus essentia cum relatione ad creaturam. Sed relatio in Deo ad creaturam non est realis, sed secundum rationem tantùm: relatio vero creaturae ad Deum est realis, &c.
Heereboord, p. 179. saith, Pater non significat aliquid, quod humanae naturae proprie & per se insit, sed quomodo ill, qui sic dicitur, se habeat ad filium. Resp. Pater est Relatum, nempe Substantia cum Relatione ad aliud: Paternitas est Relatio, & inest subjecto, nempe homini, qui est Pater. Quod p. 184. dicit Relationem esse medium inter Ens rea • e & Nihil, id tantum dicit, non probat.
You say, That however you are confident, that Relation is not vere Ens; yet you will not say, that it is Nihil or Non Ens; and you said before, (as I noted, and it is most sure) Inter Ens & non Ens non datur medium. The distinction of Medium Participationis, & Medium Negationis will not here serve. For certainly Contradictoria non admittunt medium Negationis. Aut Homo, aut non Homo: aut Ens, aut non Ens: non datur medium. The Authors to which you refer me, I have not, save only Dr. Twisse; but he is of another Edition, viz. in Folio, so that I cannot find the place, as you cite it.
1. He that is justified, is so freed from all condemnation, that he is liable to no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. And he that is so freed, is perfectly freed, and consequently perfectly justified, though the freedom from condemnation, and so the justification be not so fully and perfectly made manifest as it shall be. The freedom from condemnation per sententiam Judicis, of which you speak, doth not add to the freedom itself, but only to the manifestation of it. The Sentence is indeed past already, John 3. 18. though it be not so solemnly pronounced, as it shall be.
2. He that is freed from all Condemnation, is certainly freed from all Accusation, so as that no Accusation can be prejudicial to him; though he may be accused, yet it matters not, seeing he cannot be condemned. Else the Apostle had triumphed before the Victory, saying, Who shall lay anything to the charge, &c. Who is he that condemneth? Rom. 8. 33, 34.
3. The Apostle doth not only say, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. but also, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's Elect? v. 33. viz. when they are in Christ, and so justified. Which in effect is as much, as if it were said, There shall be no condemnation to such. But you grant, That other Texts speak as much, and that such neither now are, nor ever shall be under condemnation. Yet you say, That they would be tomorrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. You mean (I suppose) if they did not renew the Act of Faith: but (I say, and you grant it) they who are once justified, though they sin daily, yea, and may lie long in sin, as David did, yet they shall renew the Act of Faith, and have the joy of God's Salvation restored unto them, as he prayed, Psal. 51. 12. Neither is there any intercision of Justification, though there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it.
To your Objections, I answer, Ad 1. He that is once justified, can contract no guilt so as to fall from his Justification. Besides, when I spake of Justification being perfect, I only mean, That a Justified Person is justified, not in part only, but fully, i. e. from all sins which at present he is guilty of: not but that his Justification hath need to be renewed in respect of new sins; and so his Justification may be said to increase extensive, as extending to more and more sins, as they are increased more and more. But that in this respect we shall be more fully justified at the last Judgment than we are now, is but by accident, and not from the Nature or Essence of Justification.
Ad 2. Justification per Sententiam Judicis, & Sententiam magis publicam, makes (as I said) but for the more full and perfect manifestation of it. In die judicii (inquit Maccovius) Christus non tam justificaturus (N. B.) est credentes, quàm declaraturus est ex operibus eorum, eos credidisse in hac vitâ, & justificatos fuisse. Thus undoubtedly is that to be understood in Acts 3. 19. For without question no sins shall then (at the last Judgment) be blotted out, which were not blotted out before: but the blotting of them out shall then more fully appear than before. In resurrection à mortuis, (inquit Rainoldus noster) Christus, qui veniet judicatum vivos & mortuos, quemadmodum ipse pronunciat, ea quae ligaverint ipsius ministri, ligatum iri in coelis, ita quae priùs in terrâ remissa fuerint, confirmabit ipse suâ sententiâ, ut remissa & deleta in aeternum, omnia nimirum fidelium & sanctorum peccata. Quare quaecunque, & quorumcunque peccata remissa fuerint in hoc seculo, etiam in futuro seculo remittentur, quoniam autem peccata non fuerint remissa in hoc seculo, non remittentur in futuro, nempe peccata hominum incredulorum & impiorum. Petrus, Act. 3. hoc locupletissime confirmavit.—Resipiscite (inquit) ut deleantur peccata vestra, postquam venerint tempora refrigerationis, &c.—Nostri cum affirmant peccata non remitti in futuro seculo, sed in isto tantum, negant id quod astruunt Pontificii, peccata remissum iri in futuro seculo, quae in praesen • i non remittebantur. Nam Christus confirmabit sententiam suam, quam priùs tul • t, cum feret sententiam illam novissimam in ultimo judicio. Itaque peccata nulla tum remittentur, nisi quae quisque testimonto conscientiae suae hîc percipit remissa esse in presenti seculo.—Certe ipse (Bellarminus) agnovit, vel agnoscere potuit e verbis Calvini quae citat, nos hoc judicio esse, praesertim in eo ipso loco Calvini quem citat, ubi ait Calvinus, Christum (Mat. 12. 32.) hâc partitione usum esse, quâ judicium complexus est, quod sent • t in hác vitâ uniuscujusque conscientia, & postremum illúd, quod palam (N. B.) in resurrection feretur. For peccata futura, which you also here speak of, I have said enough in answer to the former Objection. And you may see much more to this purpose in the Account given to the Parliament by the Ministers which they sent to Oxford, p. 7, 8, 9.
Ad 3. Castigatory Punishment is no part of that Condemnation, from which we are freed by Justification, but a means to preserve us from falling into Condemnation, see 1 Cor. 11. 32.
Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional, viz. upon condition of the continuance of our Faith, yet the continuance of the Condition being certain, so also is the continuance of our Justification. There is not the like reason of Predeitination, which is only a decreeing of what God will do for us; but God justifieth (as you say) pro praesenti; and whom he once justifieth, he will always justify; else the Apostle would not say, Whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. 8. 30. Though Means must be used, and Conditions performed for the continuation and consummation of our Justification; yet it being certain that the Means shall be used, and the Conditions performed, it is also certain that our Justification shall be continued and consummated.
Here perhaps you may take hold of what I say, and object, It shall be consummated; therefore as yet it is not consummated.
Answ. It is not (I grant) in respect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to Justified Persons: but it is already consummated; so that they have a full right to the enjoyment of those Benefits. Therefore the Apostle speaks as of a thing already done, Whom he justified, them he also glorified: see also Rom. 5. 1, 2.
Ad 5. If by this, [the solemnizing of all is wanting] you mean That yet there wants the manifestation of our Justification, it hinders not but that our Justification is already perfect, though it be not so perfectly made manifest as hereafter it shall be. So if by [Marriage not solemnized] you mean a Marriage not publicly celebrated, I see not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in itself as perfect as the other. But it seems strange, that you should think, that we should scarce be called Justified now, but in reference to Justification at the last Judgment; when-as both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as a thing that we are here actually partakers of. What you say of Mr. Lawson, as if he held, That Justification here is but a right to Justification hereafter, I much wonder at: His Reasons I know not, but if that be his Opinion, the whole current of Scripture, and the general consent of Divines (I think) is against him. Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day, Sentential Justification, I should rather call it, Public Sentential Justification, or a public manifestation of the Sentence of Justification. For surely our Justification here is Sentential. God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous, though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgment. Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word [Justification] for Justification (as you say) by Sentence, do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day, but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justify those that believe.
Perhaps you will say, Where is that Sentence?
Answ. It is in the Scripture. But (you may say) The Scripture speaks only in general. Well, but if God in the Scripture say, That all that believe are justified, as Acts 13. 39. then consequently he saith, That you and I believing, are justified. And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular; though it is true, they have not that clear evidence and full assurance, as they shall have hereafter. So for Condemnation at the last day, I think it to be but a more solemn and public pronouncing of the Sentence, together with the immediate and full execution of it. For otherwise the Sentence is past already, He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3. 18. I do not deny, that Declarative Justification at the last Judgment, is properly Justification; only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have, though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is. That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before, only shows that it is more full Extensive, as freeing from the guilt of more sins: but that is only per accidens; Justification in itself considered, was as perfect before: for it freed from all sin, and from all Condemnation, and the other doth no more.
What the meaning of your Question was, [If we be [ 50] not one real Person with Christ, then one what?] I could not tell: but the words did seem to imply, That we must either be one real Person with Christ, or else we could not any way be one with him; whereas the Scripture is clear, that Believers are one with Christ though that they are one real Person with him, is no to be admitted. Therefore I thought meet • o answer as I did, viz. That we are one Spirit, as the Apostle expresseth it, 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is, spiritually one with Christ, as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him. No doubt but further Queries may still be made: and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature? Yet I see not why we should not content ourselves with those Similitudes and Resemblances, which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery, as of the Vine and Branches, Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members, Ephes. 5.
To your next Section I need say no more than this, Non oportet litigare de verbis, cum de re constet.
I have shown my meaning all along, viz. That Christ's Satisfaction, and not Faith, is properly that by which we are justified. Whereas you say, [We are justified by Faith itself, as the Condition, and not so by Christ] I can admit it only thus, That Faith is the Condition required of us, that so we may be justified by Christ. Otherwise I cannot yield, that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification, is properly that by which we are justified; but of that enough before. For the Habit and Act of Faith, I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature. For Habits may be in us when we sleep, or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits. I think also, that though acquired Habits follow Acts, yet infused Habits (such as Faith is) go before.
2. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ, I see not how any can make the Act of Faith, but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ. And if any of our Divines say, That it is not the Habit of Faith, but the Act that doth justify; I think they mean, that Faith doth justify as acting, i. e. receiving Christ. So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justify, yea, they make it the instrumental cause of Justification; only they make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification. The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose, though they differ as you say. No Similitude is to be set on the Rack: if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used, it is sufficient. But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul, I see not how Faith is the perfection of it. For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith, or any other Habit. Whereas you labor much to prove, that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument, I think you trouble yourself to no purpose, though (I know) you have some end in it. But what if it be not an Instrument properly, if yet it may not unfitly be so termed? And for anything I see, it may, even as generally Divines do so term it.
Fides (saith Rivet) est velut organum; & manus animae, quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur. And again, Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens—Id fidei exclusive tribuendum, &c.
So Trelcatius Jun. Ex parte hominis, Justificationis passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductive, tota est Instrumentalis, & Fides est, &c.
Thus also Calvin, Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7.
And Wotton, Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides, quam Instruments locum obtinere diximus. And again, Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti, quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scriptures (Fides) insigniatur. Nam nec Causa esse dicitur, cujus tamen rationem obtinere, Theologi omnes confitent • r.
And Bellarmine saying, that Luther makes Faith Formalem causam Justificationis; Davenant answers, Instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem, &c.
Pemble saith, [Faith doth justify Relatively and Instrumentally]. Of Justif. §. 2 chap. 1. p. 27.
So Mr. Ball of Faith, chap. 10. pag. 135. [It is a cause only Instrumental, &c.]
And of the Covenant, chap. 3. p. 19. [Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification, &c. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is? It is the Instrument of the Soul, &c.]
Mr. Blake's words (I think) do more nearly concern you. [And these things considered, I am truly sorry, that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification; nay, scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us, &c.] And having cited Acts 18. 26. Ephes. 3. 17. & Gal. 3. 14. he saith, [These Scriptures speak of Faith as the Souls Instrument to receive Christ Jesus, &c.] See there much more to this purpose.
I will add to these one more, viz. J. Goodwin, who though in divers things he be cross and contrary to our Divines, yet in this, at least in words, he doth comply with them, professing to hold, That Faith doth justify instrumentally.
If the propriety of Words must always be strictly examined, we shall scarce know how to speak: It is well if we can find words, whereby to express ourselves so as that others may understand (if they please) what we mean. All that our Divines mean, when they speak of Faith justifying Instrumentally, or as an Instrument, I suppose, is this, and so much also they usually express, That Faith doth not justify absolutely, or in respect of itself, but Relatively in respect of its Object, Christ and his Righteousness laid hold on and received by Faith. Neither should you (methinks) strive about the word [Receiving] how it should be the Act of Faith. It sufficeth, That the Scripture makes Believing in Christ, and Receiving of Christ, one and the same, John 1. 12. That which you say of our most famous Writers ordinarily laying the main stress of the Reformed Cause and Doctrine on a plain Error, did deserve to have been either further manifested, or quite concealed; to me it seems very injurious both to our most famous Writers, and also to the Reformed Cause and Doctrine.
My meaning is, That Faith justifieth, as it apprehendeth [ 52] and receiveth Christ, whom the Gospel doth give for Righteousness to such as receive him, i. e. believe in him. And thus our Divines frequently express themselves.
Luther, Fides justificat, quia apprehendit, & possidet illum the saurum, scil. Christum presentem. Loc. Com. Class. 2. loc. 19. ex tom. 4. And again, Fides non tanquam opus justificat, sed ideo justificat, quia apprehendit misericordiam in Christo exhibitam. Ibid. ex tom. 1. in Gen.
So Calvin, Quod objicit (nempe Osiander) vim justificandi non inesse fidei ex seipsâ, sed quatenus Christum recipit, libenter admitto.—Fides instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae.
Thus also Hemingius, Justificamur autem fide, non quod fides ea res sit, quâ justi sumus, sed quia est Instrumentum, quo Christum apprehendimus, & complectimur.
Davenant, Hoc necessario intelligendum est, quatenus suum objectum apprehendit, & credenti applicat, nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitià. And again, Quî igitur Fides apprehendit, & applicat nobis Christi justitiam? id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.
Ames. Dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, quia non habe • (N. B.) vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi. And again, Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam, non est simpliciter per modum objecti, sed per modum objecti (N. B.) nobis donati. Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum, & omnia cum eo, Scriptura disertis verbis testator, Rom. 8. 32. Hic tamen observandum est, accurate loquendo, apprehensionem Christi & justitiae ejus, esse fidem justificantem, quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi, & apprehensio justificationis, ut possessionis nostrae prasentis, fructus est, & effectum apprehensionis prioris.
Pemble, [We deny that Faith justifies us as it is a Work, &c. It justifies us only as the Condition required of us, and an Instrument of embracing Christ's Righteousness; nor can the contrary be proved].
Mr. Ball, [When Justification and Life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].
Mr. Blake, [Faith as an Instrument receives Righteousness unto Justification]. Of the Coven. chap. 12. pag. 82.
If you agree with me (as you say) in this particular, you will agree also with these whom I have cited, for I agree with them; their meaning and mine (so far as I can discern) is the same. See also Mr. Ball of Faith, Part 1. chap. 10. pag. 135.
For the Twofold Righteousness, which you make necessary unto Justification, I think also I have said enough before. But seeing that in the place, on which I made the Animadversion, you mention it as a Reason why Faith must justify in a proper sense, and not Christ's Righteousness only, I cannot but observe how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contrary way, viz. That Faith doth not justify, as taken properly, because then we should be justified by a Two-fold Righteousness. [We are not justified (saith he) by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects; But if we be justified by the Work of Faith, we shall be justified partly by that Righteousness which is in us, viz. of Faith, and partly by the Righteousness of Christ without us]. And again, [We cannot be properly justified by both, for our own Faith, and Christ's obedience too. For if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith, what needs the imputation of Christ's Obedience to make us just? If for Christ's Righteousness we be perfectly justified, How can God account us perfectly just for our Faith?]
1. If you do not oppose the Literal sense of Scripture to Figurative, I do not oppose you, but grant that Faith doth justify figuratively, viz. as apprehending Christ by whom we are justified.
[In these places (saith Pemble) where it is said, Faith is imputed for Righteousness, the Phrase is to be expounded Metonymice, i. e. Christ's Righteousness believed on by Faith, is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness].
A figurative sense may be a plain sense, yet it is not a proper sense; for surely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other.
Distinguendum est (inquit Rivet) inter has phrases, quae et si in unum sensum convenient, differunt nihil ominùs in eo, quod una est figurata, altera prop ia. Figurata est, Fides imputatur ad justitiam. Propria est, Justitia imputatur credenti. Tum enim justitiae nomen ponitur direct pro eà justitiâ, cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus est, & pro justis habet. In primo autem Fidei tribuitur, quod ejus non est proprie sumptae. Nec enim est justitia, nec justitiae loco habetur, sed objectum ejus est justitia vera, quae per fidem nobis imputatur, ut pro nostra habeatur, quam credendo amplexi sumus. Haec si capere nolint aut veteratores Romani, aut Novatores Sociniani, sufficiat nobis Apostolos autores habere, qui operibus nostris, ergo fidei quâ opus, omnem justitiae laudem detrahunt, eamque in justitiâ, quae sine operibus nobis imputatur, constituunt. That the sense by me and others put on Scripture is forced, you affirm, but prove not.
2. I acknowledge but one Righteousness by which we are justified, viz. the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed unto us; see Rom. 5. 18. Your Similitude makes against you. For our Hands and Teeth are but Instruments whereby we are fed: so our Faith is but an Instrument whereby we are justified. And mark here, how you can use the Comparison yourself, which yet you dislike when others use it. But doth the Scripture nowhere say, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? Doth not the Scripture call Christ our Righteousness? Jer. 23. 6. Doth it not say, That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to everyone that believeth? Rom. 10. 4. Is not this as much as if it were said, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? See also Rom. 5. 18, 19. and 2 Cor. 5. ult.
What Mr. Gataker saith concerning this Point, not having the Book which I suppose you mean, (his Defense of Wotton) I cannot tell: What Wotton and J. Goodwin say, I see, but am not satisfied with it. Maccovius de Justif. in divers Disputations doth professedly oppose Wotton, and answers his Objections. If you had urged any of his, or the others Arguments, I should have taken them into consideration; but seeing you do not, it is enough (I think) to oppose their authority, with the Authority of others no way inferior unto them.
Davenant, Scripturae, quae asserunt ipsam fidem nobis imputari ad justitam, aporte indicant Christi justitiam credentibus imputari. Nam fides, qualitas in se considerata, non potest magis imputari ad justitiam, quàm all • ae qualitates ab eodem Spiritu in • usae: sed hoc necessa •• o intelligendum est, quatenus suum objectum apprehen •• t, & credenti applicat, nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ. Among other Scriptures which he cites to this purpose, that is one, which you stand so much upon, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]. Ex hisce (inquit) nos colligimus, imputari credentibus Christi justitiam, quando illam verâ fide apprehendunt.
And Bellarmine objecting, Ipsa fides imputatur ad justitiam: fi • es autem non est imputata Christi justitia, sed qualitas in nobis inhaerens. He answers, Frivola est Objectio: nam nihil usitatius, quàm causae applicanti illud triburre, quod proprie & immediate pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit & applicat nobis justitiam • hristi; id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.
So Ames. answering the very same words of Bellarmine, saith, Fides imputatur ad justitiam, Rom. 4. 5. idem est cum co quod dicitur, v. 6. Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus; & remittit peccata, v. 7. Fides autem ipsa absolute considerata, neque est justitia sine opere, neque remissio peccatorum: necesse est igitur, ut fides imputata relative involvat suum objectum, id est, Christum fide apprehensum.
Bucan. Quomode igitur fides dicitur in justitiam imput • t •• ? Non absolute, sed relative, &c. And having cited Rom. 3. 22, 25. he saith, Quibus locis Fidei voice (metonymia continentis pro re contentâ) Christus crucifixus intelligitur, sed fide apprehensus. Hoc sensu fides Abrahae imputata est ei ad justitiam, seu pro justitià, Rom. 4. 9. Et fides cuilibet credenti imputatur ad justitiam, i. e. Christus cruc • fixus apprehensus fide censetur nostra justit • a; censetur, inquam, à Deo e tribunah suo sententiam justitiae pronunciante. Quemadmodum igitur manus, quae recipit thesaurum donatum, non ditat, se • th • saurus: sic nec fides opus, vel actio nos justificat, s • d ipse • hristus, quem fide apprehendimus. Et hoc est, quo • Theologi Orthodoxi dicunt, nos justificari fide correlative, & ration Objecti fidem imputari in justitiam. Quae assertio inde mamfesta est, quod apud Paulum, Rom. 3. 27, 28. opponitur haec enuntiatio, Fide sumu • justi, propositioni huic, Justificamur ex ope • ibus, tanquam contradictoriae. Qua • e ex natura contradictionis perspicuum est, non justificart quemquam Fide in quantum est opus sive nostrum, sive Dei in nobis, sed in quantum Christi meritum includit.
Rivet; Fides excludit seipsam, quà opus est. Unum enim opus non justificat, nec quidem potest justificare. Redeundum ergo ad Controversiae statum, quo Fides statuitur justificare, non quatenus est opus, sive per se, sed relative, quatenus significat applicationem justitiae Christi, i. e. non nostrae, sed alienae. The same Author also saith thus, Apostolus non distinguit inter Opera Legis, & Opera Fidei, sed in hoc negotio Fidem semper quibuslibet operibus opponit. Unde etiam sequitur fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi.
That we are justified by Faith, is without controversy, the Scripture being express for it: but when you say, That Faith properly taken doth justify, which the Scripture saith not, in this I dissent from you. And also because you make Faith one Righteousness, by which we are justified, as indeed you must, if properly we be justified by it.
Davenant urgeth from Rom. 5. 18. That there is unum tantùm 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod ad justificationem vitae potest valere, nempe unius Christi obedientia. Whence he infers, Justificatio igitur vitae non redundat in nos ab ullà qualitate in nobismet ipsis inherente, sed ab hâc justitiâ completà Mediatoris nobis donatâ & imputatâ. Nostra justitia inherens non habet in se 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hoc est, perfectionem justitiae completam, & absolutam. Ergo non potest producere in nobis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.
You mistake my Argument, and do not mind the Text which I alleged, viz. Acts 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified, &c. Therefore not only all that believe in Christ are justified, but it is by him that they are justified, i. e. by his Obedience, as it is expressed Rom. 5. 19. So that Christ's Obedience is that which is properly imputed for Righteousness, though it be so imputed only to those that believe; Faith to apprehend it, is required of us, that it may be imputed to us; and in that respect Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness.
1. The first Note seems to show thus much, That some may make Faith an Instrument of Justification, and yet deny that we are properly justified by it as by an Instrument: Though if this be granted, I see not what you gain by it. For (as I said in the Animadversion) they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification, when they deny that we are properly justified by Faith; they mean, That Faith is not the Righteousness by which we are justified; and that we are therefore only said to be justified by Faith, because by Faith we receive the Righteousness of Christ, by which Righteousness properly we are justified. That this is the meaning of our Divines, appears by that which I have before alleged.
2. Therefore who those be, of whom you speak, I do not know: However, I do not see that your Objections are of force. For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text, though it be so interpreted, as that by [Faith impured] is meant Christ and his Righteousness, viz. as apprehended by Faith; and I presume that they whom you tax, did so understand it. And this doth not exclude Faith, but include it. Your Question therefore seems captious, [If by Faith be meant Christ's Righteousness, then what word doth signify Faith?] For by Faith is not simply meant Christ's Righteousness, but as it is apprehended by Faith.
3. Davenant 's words, which I cited, are clearly to the purpose to which I cited them; neither do I see anything in them, which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of. Whereas you add, [It seems he discerned the mistake of them, that affirm Christ's Active Righteousness as such to be our Righteousness]. I think your Scribe did mistake, and it should be, [he discerned not]. For therein indeed, in that Chapter, but not in the words which I cited, he differs both from you and me: But I was willing to let that pass, both because it is nothing to our present purpose; and also I like not to show my dissent from any eminent Writer, except I be forced to it.
4. What you say you will allege out of Davenant against me, is to be considered when it is alleged. But here you profess yourself far from approving what he saith, viz. That Christ's Righteousness est formalis causa justificationis ex communi nostrorum sententi • ; You should say, Christ's Righteousness imputed to us: for so Davenant hath it in the words which I cited. And you should also consider how immediately before thes • words he explained himself about the formalis causa justificationis.
For Bellarmine objecting, That though Christi obedientia sit meritoria causa justificationis nostrae, propter quam Deus nos justificat, yet Justitia inherens potest esse formalis, per quam justificati constituimur; and taxing Chemnitz for stating the question thus, Quid sit id, propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat, &c. He answers, Sed immemorem se hîc praebet Jesuita, qui eodem modo & ipse loquitur de Just. lib. 2. cap. 1. [De Causâ formali, propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo, differendum est]. Atque reverà in Justification talis causa formalis ponenda est, quae simul & meritoria esse possit. Nisi enim illam contineat dignitatem in se, propter quam homo rite justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis causa, per quam justificatus exist at in conspectu Dei.
And again, Ut itaque seponamus Philosophicas Speculationes de natura causae formalis, quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostrae, quaerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod immediate Deo gratus, & ad vitam aeternam acceptus stat, cujus beneficio damnatoriam Legis sententiam evadere, denique quo inti possit, & debeat ad coelestis Judicis favorem & approbationem consequendam.
And again, Quod igitur dicit Bellarminus, impossible esse, ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus, si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter, nugas agit, &c. Si autem per formalem causam intelligat il • ud ipsum, quod Deus intuetur quando quemvis peccatorem justificat, &c. dico hoc non esse inhaerentem ullam qualitatem, sed Christi obedientiam & justitiam credentibus gratuitâ Dei miseriocordià donatam atque imputatam. Impossible quidem est, ut haec justitia, quae in Christo inhaeret, sit etiam nostra per modum inhaesionis; sed quando tanquam membra unimur Christo capiti, non est impossible, ut nostra fiat per modum donationis, & salutiferae participationis: atque hic modus sufficit, ut in Justification formalis causae rationem, efficaciam, & similitudinem obtineat.
Me-thinks all this should suffice to satisfy any ingenuous Man, and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling about the term, when there is so full and frequent explication of the meaning of it.
So also Ames having out of Contarenus distinguished of Righteousness, and stated the Question about the formal cause of Justification, he saith, Hoc sensu nos negamus formalem causam absolutae (N. B.) nostrae justificationis esse justitiam in nobis inhaerentem.
And again, Non aliâ ration formaliter nos justos nominari, & esse dicimus imputata Christi justitià, quam quà • s cujus debitum ab altero solvitur nominatur & est abillo debito liber & immunis; & qua is cui procuratus est alterius favor aut gratia, nominatur & est alteri gratus. For that which you cite out of his Med. l. 1. c. 27. §. 12. I find there only these words, Christi igitur justitia in justification fidelibus imputatur, Phil. 3. 9. Those which you add are not in my Edition, viz. Quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur.
However they are not repugnant to what I have cited, both from him and Davenant, because (as Davenant expressly notes) Causa formalis hîc etians est meritoria. Alsted 's words, as you cite them, [Christus est justitia nostra in sensu causals, non in sensu formali] carry no good sense, at least are not so accurate. For surely it Formalis Causa, then Sensus Formalis is also Sensus Causalis.
You add, [So Rivet Disp. de Fide.] but you should also have noted the Section. Indeed §. 13. he saith, That Bellarmine doth affingere nobis sententiam de justitia Christ's, tanquam causâ formali. And elsewhere he saith, Forma justificationis consistit in justitiae Christi imputatione, propter quam nobis remittuntur peccata.
So Treloatius, Forma justificationis, Active sumptae, est Actualis Justitiae Christi gratuita imputatio, quâ meritum & obedientia Christi nobis applicantur, vt communionis arc • issimae, qua ill in nobis, & nos in illo.
Dr. Jackson saith, That to demand what is the formal cause of Justification, is as if one should ask what is the Latin for Manus: and that it is the folly or knavery of our Adversaries to demand a formal Cause of their Justification, who deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God. [He alone (saith he) is formally just, who hath that form inherent in himself, by which he is denominated just, and so accepted of God: as Philosophers deny the Sun to be formally hot, because it hath no form of heat inherent in it, but only produceth heat in other Bodies].
Thus there is difference among our Divines about the term, but they agree in the thing. Some would have no formal Cause of Justification at all; some would have such a Cause, but would not have Christ's Righteousness imputed, but the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to be it: yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Cause of Justification, in that sense as Davenant and Ames do explain it.
1. As Faith alone is the Condition of our Justification, [ 54] so also Faith alone as continued (though it is not continued alone) is he Condition of our Continued Justification.
Neque etiam (saith Calvin) sic putemus commendari post gratuitam justificationem opera, ut & ipsa in locum justificands hominis posteà succedant, aut ejusmodi officium cum Fide (N. B.) partiantur. Nisi enim perpetuo maneat solida Fidei justificatio, illorum immundities detegetur. Nihil autem absonum est, sic Fide hominem justificari, ut non ipsc mo • o justus sit sed opera quoque ejus supra dignitatem justa censeantur.
So Mr. Ball, [Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, and then leave it to works, that we might attain the accomplishment by them, but it doth ever rest upon the Promise until we come to enjoy it].
2. I know no accusation but of the Law of Works, though in case of unbelief and impenitency that Accusation be aggravated by the Law of Grace.
Though Calvin thinks not that Joh. 5. 45. [Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, &c.] to be to this purpose, as some do; yet he grants, That it is Legis propriereos peragere infidels.
To question whether he spake of the Law of Works, were to question whether the Sun shineth at noon-day. When any is accused to be an Infidel, or finally impenitent, or a sinner against the Holy Ghost, as it is a sin that he is accused of, so the Accusation is from the Law: but as Unbelief or Impenitency (for why you bring in the sin against the Holy Ghost, I do not know) doth import a want of the Condition required in the Gospel, so (as I have said before) it is no new accusation, but only a re-enforcing of a former accusation; and so the refelling of this Accusation, by showing the fruits of Faith and Repentance, is not properly a justifying of ourselves by anything in ourselves, but only a proving and manifesting that we are indeed justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us.
3. The imperfection of our Faith and Obedience doth prove that it is no Righteousness by which we can be justified; consider always, that I speak of absolute and universal Justification.
Si per se (saith Calvin) vel intrinsecâ, ut loquuntur, virtute justificaret fides, ut est semper debilis & imperfecta, non efficeret hoc nisi ex parte; sic manca esset justitia, quae frustulum salutis nobis conferret.
So Davenant, Ad justificationem efficiendam non sufficit justitia suo quodam modo perfecta, & aliquo modo imperfecta; sed necesse est eam esse legali modo perfectam, & omnibus suis numeris absolutam. And again, Nulla justitia coram Deo justificat, sed quae ad amussim Legis perfecta est: Sed nostra inharens non est talis, &c.
Thus also Maccovius, Quod nobis imputatur ad justitiam, (nempe proprie & per se, seu respectu sui) id debet esse perfectissimum, ut consistere possit cum judicio Dei, Rom. 2. 2. At Fides non est perfectissima, 1 Cor. 13. 9.
To me it seems not hard to be certain of the meaning of that place, Luke 7. 47. [Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much]. It appears (as I noted) plainly enough by the Context, what the meaning is, viz. not that her love was the cause of the forgiveness of her sins, but the forgiveness of her sins the cause of her love: And you see how sharply Calvin (whose words I cited) censures those that interpret it otherwise.
The Parable going before those words are so clear, That Maldonado is forced to say, Videtur ex hâc parabolà non fuisse colligendum, quod Christus colligit, multa peccata illi multeri remitti, quia multum dilexisset, sed contrà proptereà eam multum dilexisse, quod multa illi peccata remissa essent.—Quae res speciosam Calvino, & caeteris haereticis, errandi occasionem praebuit, negantibus huìc multeri propter praecedentia charitatis opera remissa peccata; illa vero verba, quoniam dilexit multum, sic interpretantibus, ut dictio illa quoniam, non causam, sed effectum, & consequentiam significet: quod utinam nemo Catholicorum secutus esset.
And see how poorly and pitifully he comes off, viz. either thus, Ut Christum inversà parabolâ usum fuisse deceremus. q. d. Sicut ill dilexit multum, quia multum illi remissum fuerat; ita huic mulierie contrario, quia dilexit multum, remissa sunt peccata multa. Or, which he rather inclines unto, thus, Quod Christus hoc loco rogat, Quis ergo eum plus diliget etsi futurum tempus est, tamen ex consuetudine loquendi vim praeteriti habere puto. q. d. Quem tu judicas, ex effectu conjecturam faciens, plus ante Dominum suum delexisse? Utrùm illi magis amicum fuisse, cum amicitiae causa faenerator debitum utrique remiserit? What straits was this acute Man driven to, because he was resolved to hold the Conclusion, and yet saw how ill it did suit with the Premises?
1. What others, of whom you speak do, I know not; they may answer for themselves.
2. I take affiance (which is a Believing in, or Relying on) to be an Act of Faith itself, the Act of Faith being as well Credere in, as simpliciter Credere. But internal Obedience or Love, (for these you make both one, though indeed Believing itself is inward Obedience as well as Love, the one being commanded as well as the other) is not the Act of Faith, though caused by Faith; not actus dicitus, though actus imperatus: therefore this is not so immediate a product of Faith as the other.
3. I conceive Affiance to be a part of Justifying-Faith, and not only a Fruit of it. To believe in Christ, which is as much as to rely on him, and to have affiance in him, is requisite unto Justification. He that believeth on him is not condemned, John 3. 18.
1. As Justification is begun upon sole Believing, so is it also continued and consummated. The Scripture (so far as I see) makes Justification simply and absolutely to depend on Faith, and not only in respect of the beginning of it: yet (it is true) Justification is neither begun, nor continued, nor consummated upon such a Believing as is not attended with other Duties. That this is the Uniform Doctrine of the prime Protestants, I shown by the confession of our greatest Adversary, to which you oppose nothing.
2. Though some other things besides Faith must go before Justification, yet do they not therefore justify as well as Faith, it being only Faith that doth apprehend Christ, by whom so apprehended we are justified.
Neque tamen haec fides (saith Wotton) spem, dilectionem, timorem, paenitentiam excludere censenda est, quasi ad eum, qui justificatus est, non pertinerent; sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi (N. B.) significantur penitùs excludi. Atque hoc quidem justificandi munus soli Fidei convenire, his rationibus ostendo. Quia solâ Fide rectà in Christum tendimus, ut per eum justificemur, & promissiones Dei de justification amplectimur. 2. Ubicunque Spiritus Sanctus disertis verbis loquitur de justification impii, ejusque causas ex hominis parte assignat, nullam ejusmodi causam assignat nisi fidem.
But hear also Luther, who doth both thunder and lighten in this particular: Cur insane Sophista, asseris dilectionem, spem, & alias virtutes? Scio has esse insignia Dei dona, divinitùs mandata, per Spiritum Sanctum in nostris cordibus excitari & ali. Scio fidem sine his donis non existere; sed nunc nobis quaestio est, quid cujusque proprium sit. Tenes manis varia semina, non autem quaero ego, quae cum quibus conjuncta sint, sed quae cujusque propria virtus. Hic aperte dic quid faciat Sola Fides, non cum quibus virtutibus conjuncta sit. Sola autem Fides apprehendit promissionem, credit promittenti Deo, Deo porrigenti aliquid admovet manum, & id accipit. Hoc proprium solius Fidei est; Charitas, Spes, Patientia habent alias materias, circa quas versantur; habent alios limites, intra quos consistunt. Non enim amplectuntur promissionem, sed mandata exequuntur; audiunt Deum mandantem, non audiunt Deum promittentem, ut Fides facit.
In the next Section we are agreed. [ 55]
To this long Section I need not say much. For now that you explain yourself, there seems to be but little differente betwixt us. All that I aim at, is this, That Christ simply considered, is not the Object of Justifying Faith, but Christ as promised in the Gospel: so that to believe in Christ, doth imply a believing of the Promise, and that not only so as to assent unto it, but so also as to apply it. And therefore we often find in Scripture, That the Axiom or Proposition concerning Christ, is made the Object of Justifying and Saving Faith, see Rom. 10. 9. 1 Joh. 5. 1. Acts 8. 37. Joh. 6. 69. And thus our Divines often speak of Faith justifying as apprehending the Promises.
Sola Fides (saith Luther) apprehendit Promissionem.
So Wotton; Solá Fide Promissiones Dei de justification amplectimur.
And Mr. Ball, [For Faith only doth behold and receive the Promises of Life and Mercy, &c. When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].
But I willingly grant, That the Axiom, Proposition or Promise doth but serve to convey Christ unto us, and the apprehending and receiving of him, is the Faith by which we are justified. Only I say, it is Christ in the Promise, or Christ promised, who must be apprehended and received unto Justification.
Fidei objectum quod (saith Ames.) vel material; est quicquid à Deo revelatur ac proponitur credendum, &c.—Hoc objectum est immediate semper aliquod axioma vel enuntiatio 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.
All this I like well enough, save that he seems to make the Act of Faith exercised about an Axiom or Enunciation to be only Assent, as to that which is true; whereas sometimes it is also Apprehension and Receiving as of that which is good, though (it's true) this Act of Faith is principally terminated in the thing, which the Axiom or Enunciation doth contain in it.
1. I do not say, That the receiving of Christ as King is Fides quae justificat, though I grant it is Actus fidei quae justificat.
2. I refer [quà] to [Justificât] q. d. [Faith which justifieth, doth receive Christ as King; yet this is not the Act of Faith, whereby it justifieth]. Or if you will, thus; Christ as King is the object of Faith, which justifieth, but not of Faith as it justifieth. Indeed Faith, which justifieth hath respect to the whole Word of God, yet only to the Word of Promise concerning Christ, and the Mercy of God in Christ, as it justifieth.
Non tam quaeritur (inquit Ames.) quae aut quid sit Fides, quae justificat, quàm quae sit ratio quâ proper dicitur justificare. And presently after follow the words, which I cited in the Animadversions. Again, Una & eadem (inquit) Fides est, quâ placemus Deo ad reconciliationem, & jam reconciliati dirigimur & sustentamur ad placendum ipsi in Obedienti • novâ. And again, Fidem illaem, quae justificat, praesupponere, involvere, & infer concedimus fidem Historiae, atque etiam (in quibusdam olim) miraculorum; sed historiae ac miraculorum fidem saepe à justification separari palam est; Quamvis multae sint exercitia & objecta Fidei, non tamen justificans est, nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christo. Hinc omnes illi, quorum fides in eo capite (Heb. 11.) laudatur, collimabant ad promissionem illam miserecordiae in Christo.
3. Where do I say, That the receiving of Christ as King doth justify, that you ask me in what sense it doth so? I say, Justifying Faith doth receive Christ as King, but not as justifying; or that Faith in that respect doth not justify.
4. Faith as the Condition of Justification is the receiving of Christ as satisfying for us.
5. If Christ's Satisfaction only be our Righteousness, by which we are justified; and Christ as Priest only made Satisfaction for us, then by receiving Christ as Priest only we are justified. This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument, though I left out the word [only].
And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me, as (I think) in every point, wherein we differ, if he have occasion to treat of it.
Your Similitude is not suitable; for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband, may be enriched or dignified by him, though she never look at him as rich or honorable, but only as her Husband. But we must look at Christ as a Priest, and as making Satisfaction for us, that so we may be justified by him. For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification; see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9. 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult. Rom. 8. 34. where those words [It is Christ that died] show how Christ doth justify us, and free us from condemnation, viz. by dying, and so satisfying for our sins. That which follows of Christ's Resurrection, &c. seems (as to our Justification) but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death, and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction, which he made for us by his Death, that so we may be justified by him.
6. You grant, that Christ, not as King, but as Priest, doth justify us meritoriously and satisfactorily; and that is it which I urge, That Christ's Satisfaction, which as Priest he made for us, is that whereby, or for which we are justified. Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification, therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us, and so receive him as to that purpose, viz. our Justification; though (I grant) whole Christ, or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received; neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfy for us, except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us, and as a King to govern us. So I usually Preach and Teach.
1. When you say, That I leave the Error in his Language, [ 57] but not in his Sense, your words are ambiguous. For they may import, That I leave, i. e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way, but not the other. Or that I leave, i. e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language, but not in his Sense. This I take to be your meaning, for else you could not say (except ironically, which I do not suspect) that it is a fair Exposition, and that you like it. I have no reason to strive about another's words, especially not knowing how they are brought in: but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear: neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous, may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them.
2. Where Ames. hath those words, you do not show: But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali. For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth, nor with himself in saying, Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis. The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith, though not of Faith as Justifying; and so much is acknowledged by Ames, as appears by his words before cited. Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects, but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration.
Besides, I find Ames to have such words as you mention, but withal to add such, as plainly to express what I say. Christus (inquit) est adaequatum objectum Fidei, quatenus (N. B.) Fides Justificat. Fides etiam non aliâ ration justificat, nisi quatenus apprehendit •• lam justitiam, (N. B.) propter quam justificamur.
1. The Text (1 John 4. 19.) cannot (I think) be rightly understood but as I interpreted it. For v. 10, 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us, in giving his Son for us. And v. 19. he shows whence it is that we love God, viz. from hence, that God loved us first, i. e. we apprehending the Love of God to us, answer his love with love again. Amat non immerito, qui amatus sine merito, as Bernard speaketh. Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us, before we can love him for what he hath done for us.
2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love, of which I speak.
3. Embracing, which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the completing Act of Justifying-Faith, doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii; we can never sincerely embrace Christ, if we do not desire him: but amor delectationis, or complacentiae doth follow after embracing, viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed. All that you add, holds only in respect of the former kind, not in respect of the latter.
1. There are divers kinds of Love, but I speak of that [ 58] Love which differs from Desire; and so did you seem to understand it, as I noted from your words, Aphorism, p. 267.
2. Whereas you say, [There is no need of Faith to make it present, before it can be accepted and loved]; you cannot by Faith mean Assent, for that, you grant, doth go before Love and Acceptance. And if by Faith you mean Acceptance, surely there must be Acceptance, before a thing can be accepted, though in time these go together. But perhaps you only mean, That though Faith as an Assent, must go before in time, and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature, yet not so as to make a thing present. For you add, That God's Offer doth make it present. But though the Offer be present, yet the thing offered is not present, so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must be: for it must be present by way of Enjoyment, but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for; so that the thing, though it be offered, yet until it be accepted, it is absent, because it is not enjoyed. The thing offered must be desirously, and in that respect lovingly accepted; but it must first be accepted, and then loved, so as to joy and delight in it.
3. We look at Christ as enjoyed, when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight, of which Love I speak.
Gaudium oritur ex hoc, (saith Raimundus de Sebunda) quod aliqua res scit se habere id, quod habet, & non ex hoc dunt axat, quod habet.
There must both be the Having of a thing, and also the Knowing that we have it, that we may rejoice in it.
4. As Assent must go before Acceptance, so must Acceptance go before that Love, of which I speak.
1. I did not say, or think, that you thought so of all Love, viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed; for there is no distinguishing here of these, as I have shown before; the Object is not present, except it be enjoyed. You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object; and I thought you had meant that kind of Love, because you did distinguish Love from Desire. Therefore I said, [Love as you take it, considereth its Object as present and enjoyed] viz. Love as distinguished from Desire. I know not (I confess) what to make of Love, but either a Desire, if the Object be abs • nt, or a Delight, if the Object be present.
2. That which you say concerning Acceptance, Election, and Consent, is nothing to me, who do not inquire whether they be divers acts or no, but only show that they go before Enjoyment, and so differ from Love, as I take it, viz. Love of Complacency, which doth follow Enjoyment.
I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance, and the Love of Complacency to follow after it. Although [ 59] Amare & velle bonum be one and the same, yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio, si objectum absit, vel cum Complacentiâ, si adsit.
Aquina • doth not satisfy me, when he saith, Nullus desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato; if he mean, that a thing is amatum prius quàm desideratum. The very Desiderare (I think) is Amare, and so is Gaudere also; but the one is Amare quod abest, the other Amare quod adest. So you in the next Section say, [Desire is Love, and Complacency is Love].
1. I did not doubt, much less deny that there is Amor Desiderii, as well as Amor Complacentiae; only I shown, that your words there must be meant of the former, in which sense I did not oppose you, but as it is taken in the other sense; and so you seemed to take it before, because you did expressly distinguish it from Desire.
Neither is your second anything against me.
3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense, as according to the most proper sense, viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture.
Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was.
1. The places, which you allege (John 16. 27. and 14. 21.) do not prove, that Love, viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love, and Christ's Love to us, so that we must first love God and Christ, before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ. For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ, therefore we love God and Christ, 1 John 4. 19▪ The meaning of those other places (as Calvin notes) is this, That they that love God, insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris testimonium: To which may be added, That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more.
2. Not only Love, but Obedience also must go before Glorification; but it doth not therefore follow, That they must go before Justification, as yourself hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified. That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first, is more than I can find in Scripture.
1. What some have answered, and what you have read in others I know not; you cite none whose Works are extant, but only Mr. Ball, and him at large, [On the Covenant] but where in that Book you do not show. I find there that he doth use the words [Instrument] and [Condition] promiscuously.
[The Covenant of Grace (saith he) exacteth no other thing inherent in us, as a Cause (viz. instrumental) of Justification, or a Condition (N. B.) in respect of which we are justified, but Faith alone]. This is point-blank against that which you say of him. And again, [It is (saith he) the sole Instrumental or Conditional (N. B.) Cause required on our part to Justification].
As I shown before in the Animadversions, ad pag. 243. our Divines say, Fides sola justificat, sed Fides quae justificat, non est sola: but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith.
Thus Staplet • n somewhere (I cannot now cite the place) testifieth of them, saying, Omnes ad unum Protestants docent Fidem justificantem esse vivam, & operantem per charitatem, at que alia bona opera.
2. I grant, That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite; if you will call it so, as I see not but you may, though Amor Concupiscentiae is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae, and so you speak of it, p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae, then neither do I speak against you. For of that do I speak, and had reason (I think) to understand you as speaking of it, because you spake of Love as distinct from Desire. Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature, abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency, which are the Species of it: but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love, that Love which is not the one of these, must needs be the other. We accept or choose a thing, because we first Love, i. e. desire it, or (as we use to say) have a mind to it: and having accepted and chosen it, we further love it, so as to delight in it, except our Love turn into Hatred, as Ammon 's unchaste Love did: but the very Accepting of Choosing of a thing is not (that I see) properly a Loving of it.
3. I grant, that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance, Consent, &c. the Love of Desire doth not; but the Love of Complacency doth. This is all that I have desired, and so much you have yielded.
1. The distinction of Fides quae, and Fides quà, as it is frequently used by our Learned Writers, so it doth hold good notwithstanding anything you have said, or (I suppose) can say against it.
Quamvis hanc controversiam elevent, (saith Rivet, speaking of the Remonstrants) nec ciccum (ut loquuntur) interdiunt, an Fides quae est viva, an Fides quà est viva, ad justificationem requiratur, & Logicam tantùm pugnam esse velint, Logica tamen haec pugna realem continet magni momenti. Siquis enim dicat, Christus qui homo est infinitus, & Christus quà homo est infinitus, nemo sanus existimabit nihil differ has enuntiationes.
I grant you more than you require, That not only Christ as Lord, but even the whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying Faith; but not therefore of Faith as Justifying. The Hand may receive both Meat and Money, yet it doth not enrich, as it receiveth Meat, nor feed as it receiveth Money.
2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness, (which I think you have ever affirmed, though you would also have another Righteousness of our own, and that unto Justification;) then I see not but that I may speak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending Christ's Satisfaction. For though the Satisfaction was made unto God, yet it was made for us; and in that respect we are to lay hold on it, and receive it, and not only to assent to the truth of it.
You somewhere cite Bellarmine yielding unto us thus much, Imputari nobis Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi.
Which words also Ames doth cite, and interpret to be as much as if he did say, Christi merita sunt nobis à Deo donata, ut possimus ea pro nobis Deo offerre tanquam Satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris.
It is Satisfactio Christi, though by Faith it becomes Nostra, which we must offerre Deo: but first we must by Faith receive it, before we can have any interest in it, to make such use of it. Faith justifieth (I grant) as a Condition, because it is required of us, that we may be partakers of Christ's Right • ousness; but it is not Faith properly, but the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified.
Recte Contarenus (saith Ames.) in Tract. de Justif. Fide justificamur, non formaliter, sicut Albedo efficit parietem album, aut Sanitas hominem sanum; sed efficienter, sicut Linitio efficit parientem album, & Medicatio efficit sanum: sic, vel non dissimili ration, Fides efficit hominem justum, & justificat.
I like your Explication which you now make, and I think my labor well bestowed, as being the occasion of it. I perceive all that you mean is this, That the Covenant wherein God doth give Christ, is not of force to make Christ ours until we believe. This who can question, Christ being given to be ours only upon condition of believing? Yet Christ being so conditionally given in the Covenant, upon our believing he is made ours by virtue of the Covenant: so that still I see not but that our believing doth immediately make Christ ours, there being nothing more to that end required of us, but to beliere. But how will it follow, that God doth justify Men before they believe, when by his Covenant he doth not justify but upon condition of Believing? The Grant of a thing being Condi • ienal, it cannot be actually obtained until the Condition be performed, though upon the performance of the Condition by virtue of the Grant there be actual enjoyment.
Whether the receiving of Christ as Priest, and the receiving [ 6] of him as King be two distinct acts, doth little concern our purpose; yet I think the Acts may be distinet, though I deny not but Christ may be received at once in both respects: yet if he be, it is the receiving of him as Priest, not as King, that doth justify. I grant that the receiving of Christ in respect of any one Office doth viltually include the receiving of him in respect of all his Offices: and he that doth not so receive Christ in respect of his Priestly Office, as to be ready to receive him also in respect of his Kingly Office, when Christ shall so be set forth unto him, doth not at all receive him: such a Faith is a false Faith, and cannot justify. Yet may there be a receiving of Christ as Priest without an express and direct receiving of him as King, though implicitly and by consequence he be received as such. Neither is it a false Knowledge, though it be an imperfect Knowledge to know Christ as a Priest, and not to know him as a King. And that Christ is sometimes propounded only as a Priest, i. e. with express mention only of his Priestly Office, seem • clear and undeniable by divers places of Scripture; see John 1. 29, 36. and 3. 14, 15. and so other places which speak of Christ as suffering for us, not mentioning his Sovereignty over us, though that is there implied and expressed in other places. And though he be (as sometimes he is) expressly set forth at once both as Priest and King, and so must expressly be received at once in both respects; yet it hinders not, but that the receiving of Christ as Priest, and not the receiving of him as King, is that which justifieth. One may at once receive divers things, and yet those things not all serve for one and the same use, but one thing may serve for one use, and another thing for another use, all being, though in several respects, useful and necessary to be received.
You say that you are of my mind in all this, yet you seem to differ from me, in that you make Affiance a Fruit of Acceptance, which you make the very Act of Faith by which we are justified; whereas I taking Affiance for Recumbency, and for that which is meant by Believing in Christ, and Embracing him, make it to be the very Justifying Act of Faith. That Believing in Christ doth principally import Assent I cannot see: to Believe indeed doth seem principally to import Assent; but to Believe in, seems principally to import Assiance.
Credere in Christum (as Ferus saith well) est certâ, firmâ, & stabili fiduciâ Christum, omniaque ejus bona complecti, eisque toto cord, tot • animâ, totisque viribus inhaerere.
So Wotton; Quid est in Christum credere? An id solummodo; credere vera esse, quae Christus loquitur? At quid opus erat Spiritui Sancto tam novum & insolens verbum usurpare, presertim obscurum etiam, & à vulgi intelligentia remotum? Quod recte & clare dici potuit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , id Spiritus Sanctus novo more dicendi, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , voluit obscurare? Nam hic certe loquendi modus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , totus est à Spiritu Sancto illi proprius, nec ullum e Graeci • autorem agnoscit, ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes, qui Hebraea Bibliae Greece reddiderunt, à quibus Apostoli & Evangelistae multa in Scriptis suis, quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet, crebro mutuentur. Quamobrem plus quàm verisimile videtur SpiritumSanctum quum novo loquendi more utatur, quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est, aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse.
I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Phrase, Huno (inquit) Deum quis colet? quis credet in eum? Where [Gredet in eum] is as much as [fiduciam in eo collocabit]. And so the Phrase of [Believing in] used in the New Testament, seems to import as much as the Phrases of [Trusting in] and [staying on] used in the Old Testament, as namely, Isa. 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of Faith, part 1. chap. 3. p. 24, &c.
So far as I can judge, your success is not answerable to [ 61] your desire. But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on your Knees, I know not to what purpose you did speak of it. For if it were only to show the sincerity of your desire, What is your Cause advantaged, though that be granted, as I know not why any should question it?
What is that which you say is yielded? That Faith doth not justify, as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant? Yet you make Justifying-Faith, as such, to be the Condition of the whole Covenant. For you make it to include Obedience: and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience?
2. Of Justification begun, and Justification continued and consummated by sentence at Judgment, I have spoken before, nor is there need here to say anymore of it.
1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks: But what of that? Doth he speak so as you interpret him?
2. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James, express themselves diversely, yet they agree in the Matter, viz. That Works do not concur with Faith unto Justification.
Mr. Ball speaking of those words, [Faith is imputed unto Righteousness] saith, [This Passage is diversely interpreted by Orthodox Divines, all aiming at the same Truth, and meeting in the Main, being rather several Expressions of the same Truth, than different Interpretations].
Then he shows three several ways whereby those words are interpreted, which differ as much as these Interpretations which you mention. They that say, That the Apostle speaketh of Justification coram Deo, by Works, understand a Working-Faith: They that expound it of Justification coram Hominibus, take the meaning to be, That by Works a Man doth appear to be justified. They that understand it of the Justification of the Person, make the sense the same with those first mentioned: and they that say it is meant of the Justification of a Man's Faith, agree with those in the second place, making Works to prove the sincerity of Faith, and so to manifest a Man's Justification.
3. Are not those words [Hoc est Corpus meum] as express words of Scripture, as those which you allege? Though words be never so express, yet not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to be considered.
4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done many years after, that the Faith of Abraham, whereby he was justified, was a Working-Faith, of a Working Nature, a Faith fruitful in good Works, his Faith bringing forth such fruit in due season, and so showing itself by Works when occasion did require. Abraham (no doubt) had many other Works, whereby his Faith did appear, yet the Apostle thought meet to instance in that Work, which was most remarkable; and by which his Faith did manifest itself in a more especial manner.
Hoc facinus (saith Chrysostom) tanto praestantius erat cateris omnibus, ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esse viderentur.
What your Parenthesis doth mean (Legal Justification I mean) I do not well understand. But how doth James speak of Justification as Continued, and not as Begun? Is his meaning this, That a Man is indeed at first justified by Faith only, but both Faith and Works together do continue his Justification? So you understand it: but surely James doth neither speak, nor mean so. For by Faith alone without Works, in his sense, a Man never was, never can be justified. This is clear by his whole Discourse, for he calls him a vain Man that relies on such a Faith, and calls it a dead Faith, &c. So that when a Man is first justified, it is by a Working Faith: not that Faith must necessarily produce Works at the first, but it is (as I said) of a Working Nature, of such a Nature as to produce Works when they are required; which is the same with what you say out of Grotius: and this doth answer all that you object against the Interpretation which I stand for. Who can doubt but Abraham was justified long before he offered up Isaac, the Scripture being express for it? But how then? Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was past.
Answ. No indeed, that Work was not, nor could be; but Faith apt to show itself by that Work, or any other, when required, and consequently a Working Faith might be, and was the Condition of that Justification. Grotius, whom you cite, giving you such a hint of it, I wonder that you could not observe this. James and Paul may well enough be reconciled, though both of them speak of Justification as Begun. For James doth not require Works otherwise than as Fruits of Faith, to be brought forth in time convenient: and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense.
[Every observant Reader (saith Dr. Jackson) may furnish himself with plenty of Arguments all demonstrative, that Works taken as St. James meant, not for the Act or Operation only, but either for the Act, or promptitude to it, are necessary to Justification, &c.]
And again, [Faith virtually includes the same mind in us that was in Christ, a readiness to do Works of every kind, which notwithstanding are not Associates of Faith in the business of Justification].
And thus he reconcileth the two Apostles, who in this Point seem to differ, [St. James affirming we are justified by Works, and not by Faith only, speaks of the Passive Qualification in the Subject, or Party to be justified, or made capable of absolute Approbation, or final Absolation. This qualification supposed, St. Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence, or of the ground of the Plea for Absolution: the one (by his Doctrine) must be conceived, and the other sought for only by Faith. The immediate and only cause of both he still contends not to be in us, but without us: and for this reason, when he affirms that we are justified by Faith alone, he consider • not Faith as it is a part of our qualification inherent, or the foundation of other Graces, but as it includes t • e Correlative Term, or Immediate Cause of Justification, whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference, and continual aspect. This is that which in other terms some have delivered, Fides justificat relative, non effective, aut formaliter, &c.]
Take a few words more from this Author, (Ibid.) [The Apostle levels his whole Discourse to this Point maintained by us, That seeing Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by Faith, and not through Works, none after him should in this l • fe at any time, (N. B.) whether before or after the infusion of Grace, or Inherent Righteousness, presume to seek or hope for like approbation from God otherwise than only by Faith].
How I exclude Love, I have shown, even as you do, viz. Love of Complacency, which you grant doth follow Acceptance, that Act of Faith by which we are justified. And when I say that Protestants generally d • ny Faith, which is without Works to justify, I mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them. You might easily have perceived this to be my meaning by what I said out of Cajetan de fide non sterili, sed facunda operibus. A Tree is not said to be barren, except it doth not bring forth Fruit when the Season doth require.
5. I shown you what I take to be meant Jam. 2. 23. when it is said, [And the Scripture was fulfilied, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]; viz. That by Abraham 's readiness to obey God in offering up Isaac, the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear, it was then most manifest, That Abraham believed God indeed, and that his Faith was a true Justifying-Faith, it being operative, and showing forth itself so evidently by Works of Obedience, when they were required of him; so that the Scripture did well and truly say of him, That he believed God, and • t was accounted to him for Righteousness.
Cajetan doth explicate it (methinks) very well. Advert (saith he) prudens Lector, quod Jacobus non sentit fidem absque operibus mortuam esse, &c. Sed sentit fidem sine operibus, id est, renuentem operari • esse mortuam, esse vanam, & non justificantem. • t recte sentit, quontam, quae non est parata operari, mortua est. Suâpte enim naturâ operatar per dilectionem, ut Paulus dicit. Quodergo Jacobus affert verba, Gen. 15. [Credidit Abraham Deo, &c.] ad hoc affert, quod credidit paratus operari. Et proptereà • icit, quod in opere oblationis filit impleta est Scriptura loquens de side Abrahae parata operari. Impleta, inquam, est q • o • execut •• nem maximi operis, ad quod parata • rit fides Abrahae.
And though you make light of this interpretation of James, as if it were nothing against you; yet Calvin doubted not to say, Nodo insolubili constrictos i • neo, quicunque justitiam Abrahae coram Deo imput at am fingunt, quia immolavit filium Isaac, qui nondum natus erat, quum Spiritus Sanctus pronunciat justum f • isse Abraham. Itaque necessario restat, ut aliquid posterius notari discamus. Quomodo igitur Jacobus id fuisse im pletum dicit? Nempe ostendere vult, qualis illa futrit fides, quae justificavit Abraham, non otiosa scilicet, aut evanida, sed quae illum Deo reddidit obsequentem; sicut etiam Heb. 11. 8. habetur.
Calvin (it seems) never dreamed of being justified one way at first, and another way afterwards. I would not have you put him off with a taunt, as you did before. Rarcius ista tamen, &c.
But let Mr. Blake also be heard speak, [James indeed (saith he) saith that Abraham was justified by Works, when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2. 21. But either there we must understand a Working-Faith with Piscator, Pareus, Pemble, &c. and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct Questions, the one, Whether Faith alone justifies without Works? which he concludes in the Affirmative. The other, What Faith justifies, whether a Working-Faith only, and not a Faith that is dead & idle? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who straight infers from Abraham 's Justification by the offer of his Son; And the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness. How otherwise do these accord? He was justified by Works, and the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, He was justified by Faith? Neither can I reconcile what he saith, if this be denied, with the whole current of the Gospel].
And he adds a little after, [All Works before or after Conversion, are inherent in us, or wrought by us, are excluded from Justification].
Your Interpretations, viz. [Abraham believed, i. e. believed and obeyed]. Or, [Yet the Scripture was fulfilled, &c. For Faith did justify him, but not only Faith]. are so uncouth and incongruous, that I wonder how you could persuade yourself, much more think to persuade others to embrace them. Paul cites those words to prove that Abraham was justified only by Believing, and that Justification is by Faith only: And shall we admit of such an interpretation, [Faith doth justify, but not only?] Or [Abraham was justified by Believing and Obeying?] What is this else but to make the Scripture a nose of wax, and to wrest it which way we please? Yea; What is it else but to make the Scripture plainly to contradict it self? And yet (forsooth) you pretend to stand upon the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the plain words of Scripture. But Paul (you say) speaks of Justification as Begun; and that (you grant) is by Faith only? Well, and for proof of his Doctrine (say I) he alledgeth the words of Moses concerning Abraham. Must not those words then be understood of the same Justification? Will you say with Bellarmine, that Paul speaking of the first Justification, doth fetch a proof from the second? As on the other side, he saith, that James, speaking of the second Justification, doth fetch a proof from the first? This is Coelum Terrae miscere, & Mare Coelo.
6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be so, but also shown where the same phrase is so used, viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9. And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel those places, and interpret the one by the other.
Thus Cameron; Fides (inquit) dicitur perfici operibus, quia Fides, dum producit opera, ostendit quàm sit perfecta: ut 2 Cor. 12. 9. Virtus Christi dicitur perfici in infirmitatibus, quia tum scilicet se maxim exerit, & prodit.
And so Maccovius; Fides fuit perfecta ex operibus, quomodo virtus Christi perficitur in infirmitate, 2 Cor. 12. 9. quia in ea se exerit: consimili ration Fides perfici per opera dicitur, quia per ea se prodit.
Generally I find the words thus expounded by those that either comment upon them, or have occasion to treat of them.
Dicitur ex operibus (saith Calvin) fuisse perfecta, non quod inde suam perfectionem accipiat, sed quod vera esse inde comprobetur.
So Beza; Hoc igitur (inquit) ad declarationem quoque pertinet. Fides enim eo perfectior dicitur, quo pleniùs perspecta est, ac cognita, & quo efficaciùs vires suas exerit quae prius non ita apparebant.
Fulke doth cite Beda thus expounding it; [His Faith was perfected by his Deeds, that is, by perfect execution of Works it was proved to be in his Heart].
Thus also Lud. de Dieu, Quatenus bona opera vitam fidei, ejusque vim, efficaciam, sinceritatem produnt, adeoque eam illustrant & exor • ant, recte dicuntur perfectio Fidei.
And so Polanus; Fides justificans perficitur ex boni • operibus, non quoad 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seu essentiam & constitutionem suam, sed quatenus per ea firmatur, manifestatur, comprobatur; sicut res aliqua tum fieri dicitur, quum patefit.
And he cites the Interlineary Gloss upon Jam. 2. Per opera fides est augmentata & comprobata.
And Lyra; Et ex operibus fides consummata est. Habitus enim firmatur & manifestatur per opera. Et similiter magnitudo fidei Abrahae apparuit ex ejus obedienti • offerendo filium, propter quod dictum fuit sibi •• Domino; Nunc cognovi, &c.
Thus also Mr. Ball, [Faith is perfected by Works, not that the Nature of Faith receiveth complement or perfection from Works, but because it doth declare and manifest itself by Love and good Works, and is esteemed so much the more perfect, as the Works produced are the more excellent].
To illustrate this, I used also the Similitude of a Tree, the goodness of whose Fruit doth but manifest the goodness of it; and so the power of Faith doth but appear by its fruits, viz. Works. You say that Faith is really perfected by Works, as a Tree is by bearing fruit. But (as our Savior saith) a Tree is known by his Fruit. The Fruit doth not make the Tree good, but only show it to be so. And this very Similitude have Learned Divines used to this purpose.
Beza immediately after the words before cited adds, Ut si dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas tum fuisse perfecta, quum optimum aliquem frructum edidit. Nam quia de causa judicamus ex effectis, videtur quodammodo causae vis vel minus, vel augert ex effectorum proportione. Sed hoc ex effectis intelligitur quidem, & aestimatur, non autem emanat.
So Mr. Ball, [How then saith the Apostle that Faith is perfected by Works? As we judge of the Cause by the Effects, and by the proportion of the Effects the efficacy and force of the Cause may seem to be increased or diminished. Every thing is acknowledged to be perfect, when it worketh, and is esteemed so much the more perfect, by how much the more it work • h: As we say the goodn ••• of a Tree is perfect, when it hath brought forth some excellent good Fruit. Thus Philosophers teach, That the Form is not perfect, when it is considered as the first Act, but when it is taken as the second Act; for by working it putteth forth its force, and declareth itself. And so Faith is perfected by Works, &c.] as before cited.
You say also, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as a Covenant or Promise is by Performance. But the Performance doth only manifest the perfection of a Covenant or Promise. It is a perfect Covenant or Promise, as soon as it is made, if it be made sincerely and without guile, though it appears more fully to be so when it is performed. Again you say, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as it hath naturam medi • , viz. Conditionis, to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification. But you have not yet proved, That there is any other Condition of Justification as Continued and Consummated, than of Justification as Begun.
Apprehensio illa fidei habet fluxum suum continuum, &c. (saith Rivet) Quod continuum beneficium fide apprehensum, si secundam Justificationem appellare velint adversarii, imo tertiam, quartam, quintam, & millesimam, non repugnamus, dummodo conslet nullà alià ration (N. B.) nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus, quàm câ, quâ semel justificati fuimus à precedentibus.
St. James doth not speak of Works perfecting Faith more to the continuing and consummating of Justification, than to the beginning of it. For (which must ever be remembered) he speaks of Faith as apta nata operari: and such a Faith is requisite, that we may be justified as well at first as afterward. Otherwise Works neither at first nor afterward do concur with Faith to our Justification.
[A preparation or promptitude of Heart (saith Mr. Ball) to good Works, is an effect of Faith as immediate as Justification].
And again, [Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, and leave the accomplishment to Works, but doth rest upon the Promise of Life until we come to enjoy it].
Yet again you say, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as Works are a part of that necessary Matter (not necessary at the first moment of Believing, but necessary afterward, when we are called to it) whereby we are justified against the Charge of non-performance of the New-Covenants Condition, even against the Charge of being an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite. But all this proves not that Works give any perfection to Faith, but only that they show the perfection, i. e. the sincerity, force, and efficacy of it. Works may manifest a Man to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite: but it is his Faith, which being unfeigned, doth indeed make him to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite. All therefore that you have said, makes nothing against my interpretation of those words, Jam. 2. 22. [And by Works was Faith made perfect].
7. Your self deny necessitatem praesentiae operum in respect of our being justified at first. And for the Conducibility of Works to the effect of Justification, James speaketh not of it, but only • he •• , that Justifying Faith is not without Works, viz. when God doth call for them. He shows that Justifying-Faith is a Working-Faith, a Faith ready to Work when occasion doth require: But that Works do therefore conduce unto Justification as well as Faith, he doth not show, neither doth this any way follow upon the other. A Working-Faith is the Condition of Justification, i. e. Faith which is of such a nature as to bring forth the Fruit of good Works in due season: yet are we not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith. For we are justified by Faith only apprehending Christ and his Righteousness; though the same Faith that doth this, will also produce good Works, as Abraham 's Faith did. That Works do justify the Faith, but not the Person, though I use not to speak so, yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction. It is true, Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae, non simpliciter & absolute, sed quoad istam causam: but they that use that distinction mean (I think) only this, that Works show Faith to be sound and good, yet it is Faith and not Works, by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified. Do not (I pray) here lay hold on the word [absolutely]; it is referred to the word [justified] not to the word [Faith]. I do not say, That Faith absolutely considered doth justify: no, it doth justify as it is considered relatively; Faith, i. e. Christ apprehended by Faith, is that whereby we are absolutely justified. Though Works may justify against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the • ondition (so I would say, not Conditions, in respect of the Justification of which we speak) of the New Covenant; yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justify, but only against that Accusation, showing that a Man did perform the Condition, viz. believe, and so is simply and absolutely justified, not by Works (which do but only declare him to be so) but by Faith, as the Condition or Instrument (for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do) of Justification. Faith doth not justify as Working, i. e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works; yourself deny this in respect of our Justification at first: yet Faith doth not justify, except it be of a Working-Nature, i. e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it. More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context.
1. All Works, if good, are Works of the Law, viz. [ 63] the Moral Law, which (as I said in the Animadversions) is the eternal Rule of Righteousness. And of that Law the Apostle speaks, when he excludes Works from Justification, as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion, Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10.
Evangelii (inquit Maccovius) nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter. Adversarii cum urgentur, ex operibus legis non justificari hominem, admittunt hoc, & dicunt, ita quidem esse, sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii. Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis & Evangelit. Sed si obtineat haec distinctio, tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata, quae committuntur in Doctrinam Evangelii: Non ergo erit adaequata definitio peccati, quam dat Spiritus Sanctus, 1 Joh. 3. 4. quod peccatum sit Legis transgressio.—At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege. Certe; interim Evangelii Doctrina praecipitur Lege. Nam Deus postulat, ut Evangelio credamus, &c.
So Pemble, [Nor yet (saith he) hath this Distinction (viz. Works of the Law, and Works of the Gospel) any ground in Scripture, or in Reason. For both tell us, That the Works commanded in the Law, and Works commanded in the Gospel, are one and the same for the substance of them. What Work can be named, that is enjoined us in the New Testament, which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul, &c. What is there against the Gospel, which is not a transgression of the Law?—You will say, It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answer, Yea, it doth. For that which commands us in general to believe whatever God shall propose unto us, commands us also to believe in Christ, as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him. The Gospel discovers to us the Object, the Law commands us the obedience of believing it].
The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant, as it requireth that they which have believed, be careful to maintain good works, Tit. 3. 8, 14. and to walk circumspectly ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accurate, i. e. quam proxime ad Legis Dei praecepta, as Beza doth well expound it), Ephes. 5. 15. But this is far, and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying. For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification, I see no strength in them: and therefore I answer;
Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief, is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law. For that Accusation being only made void by Faith, where there is final Unbelief, there that Accusation hath its full force. Besides, though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works, yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justify, than by manifesting a Man's Faith, by which Faith indeed, and not by Works he is justified.
Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of, is against a true Charge, and the same with Remission of sins, as well as that which Paul doth speak of. For can they that have but a dead Faith, be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted? Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith, such as James doth require, can work that Effect. Justification against a false Accusation, is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of.
Nemo enim iniquus adeo, (as Bradshaw speaketh) aut injustus dari potest, qui falso accusari, & consequenter etiam eatenus merito justify art non possit.
Indeed Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief, is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations, because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification. But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith, and not by Works, which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith, and so of Justification.
Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification, are Competitors with Christ, or Copartners with him; so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith, and partly by Works.
Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith, so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith; which Faith both when Justification is first begun, and when it is continued, must be a Working-Faith, i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require. If our Divines affirm, That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works, means in point of merit, (as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose) surely it is, because they know no other Justification by Works, but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious.
Hear one whom I (and so I presume you also) take for a good Divine, viz. Mr. Blake, [This Justification (saith he) wrought freely by Grace through Faith, Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent with Justification by Works. And what the Apostle speaks of Election, we may well apply to Justification: the same medium equally proves the truth of both; If by Grace, then it is no more of Works, otherwise Grace were no more Grace: But if it be of Works, then it is no more of Grace, otherwise Works were no more Works, Rom. 11. 6.]
Calvin also useth this Argument to confute those who would have Works to concur with Faith unto Justification, that then we should have somewhat to boast of, which is not to be admitted. Sed quoniam (inquit) bona pars hominum justitiam ex fide & operibus compositam imaginatur, praemonstremus id quoque, sic inter se differ fidei operumque justitiam, ut altera stante necessario altera evertatur. Dicit Apostolus se omnia pro stercoribus reputasse, ut Christum lucrisaceret, &c. (Phil. 3. 8, 9.) Vides & contrariorum esse hîc comparationem, & indicari propriam justitiam oportere pro derelicto haberi ab eo, qui velit Christi justitiam obtinere.—Id ipsum quoque ostendit, cum negat per Legem excludi gloriationem nostram, sed per fidem. Unde sequitur, quantisper manet quantulacunque operum justitia, manere nobis nonnullam gloriandi materiam. Jam si fides omnem gloriationem excludit, cum justitiá fidei sociari nullo pacto justitia operum potest. In hunc sensum tam clare loquitur quarto cap. ad Rom. u • nullum cavillis aut tergiversationibus locum relinquar. Si operibus, inquit, justificatus est Abraham, habet gloriam. Subjungit, atque non habet gloriam apud De • m. Consequence • rgo est, non justificatum esse operibus. Ponit deinde alterum argumentum à contrariis. Quum rependitur operibus merces, id fit ex deb • to, non ex gratiâ. Fidei autem tribuitur justitia secundum gratiam. Ergo id non est ex meritis operum. Valeat igitur corum somnium, (N. B.) qui justitiam ex fide & operibus conflatam comminiscuntur.
Who those multitudes of Divines be of whom you speak, I cannot tell, because you name none; but I think that few or none of them will be found of your mind, viz. That Paul doth only exclude Works from Justification in point of merit; as if Justification might be by Works in some other respect, so as that no merit thereby is presupposed. So far as I observe, our Divines note this as one main Argument, whereby the Apostle doth wholly exclude Works from Justification, because otherwise the merit of Works could not be denied, which yet is to be exploded.
Thus the Centurists among many other Arguments, whereby the Apostles (they say) prove Justification to be by Faith alone, note this for one; Non est gloriandum in nobis, sed in Domino. Ergo non ex operibus, sed gratis justificamu • , ne quis glorietur, Ephes. 2. 1 Cor. 1.
Ad 5. All good Works (as I have shown before) and consequently those whereby we perform obedience to the Redeemer, are works of the Law, it being the Rule to which they must be conformed. But it is Faith in the Redeemer, not Obedience to the Redeemer, by which we are justified, though Justifying-Faith must, and will show itself by Obedience.
Ad 6. All Works that have an agency in Justification, are meritorious, and so make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace. Now to your Answers to my Arguments in oppositum I reply; And for the firs;t thus; If Abraham 's Gospel-Works did justify him otherwise than by evidencing his Faith, whereby he was justified, if they be made to have a co-interest with Faith in his Justification, then they are set in Competition or Copartnership with Christ •• Righteousness.
That no Work of the Gospel doth justify; Mr. Pemble proveth by this, That every Work of the Gospel, is a Work of the Law also; and therefore the Apostle denying that a Man is justified by the Works of the Law, doth consequently deny that he is justified by the Works of the Gospel. That Works do justify as Conditions under Christ, is repugnant to what yourself hold in respect of Justification as begun: and I see not, that the Scripture shows us any other Condition of Justification afterward than at first.
2. My Conclusion; That Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith, is not against Jam. 2. 21. no more than Paul 's Doctrine Rom. 3. & 4. is. For I mean, as Paul doth, That Abraham 's Works did not concur with his Faith to his Justification: but James meant only, That Abraham 's Faith was not such as some presume of a dead idle Faith, but a living working Faith; and that his Works did manifest his Faith to be such as whereby he was justified.
Cum obtulisset (inquit Bucanus) Abraham Isaac filium suum super altare, ex operibus justificatus est, hoc est, compertus est fuisse justificatus per fidem, idque ex operibus tanquam testimoniis Justificationis. Et sic homo operibus justificatur, id est, comprobatur esse illa persona, quae Christi obedientiâ justificatur, ex vitae sanctificatione quae tanquam effectus illam sequitur, & de illà testator. Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsonum operibus. Nam sunt duo principia, unum existentiae, alterum cognitionis. Ita fides principium existentiae facit, ut simus justs. Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt, ut cognoscamur justi. Ideo Dominus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fide, quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum, Mat. 25. Venite benedicti, &c.
For the second; 1. The Apostle Rom. 4. 4. speaketh without any distinction, To him that worketh, &c. Now (as you know) non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit.
2. If Works justify, then they must be meritorious. The Apostle doth not simply deny a Reward to belong of Grace to him that worketh, but to him tha • • orketh so as to be justified by his Works. Such an one having no need of remission of sins, because his Works do justify him, (which they cannot do if they be imperfect, and so he need pardon) he is said to receive the Reward, not of Grace, but of Debt.
3. Faith as a Work is excluded from Justification, only it justifieth as an Instrument or Hand receiving Christ and his Righteousness. Or (which is to the same effect) Faith doth not justify, a • it is a Duty, which if we perform not we sin; but as a Condition upon which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for our Justification. You are not to be blamed for making use of Bellarmine 's Argument, (for so indeed it is, not his Answer) but for not taking notice how our Divine • do answer it. See Ames. contra. Bellar. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap. 4. ad 6. Love, Hope, and Obedience are not Instruments of receiving Christ, as Faith is; neither doth the Scripture make them Conditions of Justification, as it doth Faith.
For the Third; 1. Neither doth James speak of any other Justification.
2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are justified by i 〈…〉 a Work or Duty, but only as apprehending Christ a • d his Righteousness; See Calv. Instit. lib. 3 •… cap. 11. §. 7. And Pemble of Justif. Sect. 2. chap. 2 •… pag. 38.
3. No more do the greatest Transgressors need pardo •… for that wherein they do not transgress.
4. Works as Works either justify by way of merit, or not at all: But Faith doth not justify as a Work or Duty required of us, but as an Instrument receiving Christ, or (if you will) a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified; See Pemble of Justif. §. 2. chap. 1. pag. 24.
The Exclusion (viz. of Works from being concurrent [ 64] with Faith unto Justification) is not only Mr. Pemble 's, but generally all Protestants, and indeed Paul 's and the Scriptures: and to take in Works (in that sense) is as Mr. Blake before cited truly saith, against the whole current of the Gospel.
1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it, is not to deny it to mean as it speaketh. Whether the Reasons which I alleged against your interpretation of St. James be forced, let others judge.
2. It avails your cause nothing to prove, That James by working doth mean Works indeed. I presume Mr. Pemble would not deny that, but his meaning (I conceive) was, That Works are only spoken of as Fruits of Justifying Faith, and are only said to justify, because they are (as Dr. Jackson speaketh) a passive qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified.
[Hence (saith he also) is the seeming inconvenience of St. James his Causal form of Speech ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) easily answered. For the immediate and principal cause proposed, it is usual to attribute a kind of causality to the qualification of the Subject, though only requisite as a mere passive disposition, without which the principal or sole Agent shall want his efficacy].
All that St. James intended is this, That Justifying Faith is of a Working-Nature, and not such a Faith as some rely on, viz. barren and without Works. Now for your Reasons, I answer, Ad 1. You speak of the unprofitableness of bare Faith, i. e. (say you) Assent. But quorsum hoc? You know that Protestants make Faith to justify, not as it is a bare Assent, but as it is a Receiving of Christ, and a Recumbency on him.
Fides haec justificans (saith Ames.) non est illa generalis, quâ in intellectu assensum praebemus veritati in Sacris literis revelatae, &c. Fides igitur illa proprie dicitur justificans, quá incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem peccatorum, & salutem. And this Faith they hold is not barren, but fruitful in good Works; though not Works, but Faith itself (apprehending and applying Christ) be it, whereby we are justified.
Id fidei exclusive tribuendum ex eo constat, quod sola est fides, quae Deo promittenti credit, quae sola acquiescit in gratuitâ promissione Dei in Christo, & remissionem peccatorum apprehendi • , &c. Unde etiam sequitur, Fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi, &c. Nec Jacobus dissentit à Paulo, quamvis alio modo loquendi utatur, ut redarguat eos, qui seipsos fallebant inani fidei justificationem tribuentes, quam probat non esse veram ab exemplo Charitatis, quae nullam vim habet, si tota sit in verbis, c. 2. 16. Operibus autem justificari apud Jacobum, idem est, quod apud Paulum, 1 Tim. 3. 16. justificari spiritu, i. e. Vi spiritus dare sui experimentum, quomodo experimentum dedit Abraham fidei suae, offerendo filium suum: & homo probatus fit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , tentatione, Jac. 1. 12. quae probatio non facit ut res sit, sed per experientiam docet rem esse. Unde etiam fides dicitur perfici per opera, quia per ea se prodit. Ergo cum Paulo vult Jacobus, hominem justificari fide, sed uterque eâ, quae sui experimentum dat per opera: etsi neuter vult opera esse justificationis causas, aut ad justitiam coram Deo acceptari, quorum primum volunt Pontificii, alterum Socimant & Remonstrantes. Concludimus cum Apostolo, & colligimus, fide justificari hominem absque operibus Legis, Rom. 3. 28. sub quibus comprehendimus quaelibet opera, quae secundum Legem fiunt, etiam à sanctis & fidelibus. Cum enim inter Legem factorum sive operum, & Legem fidei distinguat Apostolus, ibid. v. 27. si ex operibus justificemur, Legis operum & fidei distinctio erit vana, & Argumentum ex eà deductum pro fidei justification nutabit; quod absurdum ut vitemus, scientes non justificari hominem ex operibus Legis, sed tantùm per fidem Jesu Christi; etiam nos in Jesum Christum credimus, ut justificemur ex fide Jesu Christi, non ex operibus Legis, Gal. 2. 22. Sed cum eodem Apostolo fidum esse hunc sermonem affirmamus studendum esse • is, qui crediderunt Deo, ut bona opera tueantur, Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omni inquinamento, &c. 2 Cor. 7. 1. quod cum fiat de die in diem, 2 Cor. 4. 16. quamdiù caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum, &c. Gal. 5. 17. in eo non possumus coram Deo justificari. Nam in justificando partialem justitiam Deus non respicit, sed perfect • m & plenam, quia Lex maledicit omnibus, qui non permanebunt in omnibus quae praecipit, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10.
I have been the larger in citing this Author, both because he is eminent, and also doth speak so fully to the Point, and doth meet with many of your Opinions.
But to proceed, It is Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, which St. James opposeth one to the other, viz. Faith which is a bare Assent, and without Works, such a Faith as the Devils have, and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Christ, and the mercy of God in Christ, and is attended with Works as the Fruits and Effects of it, as the Faith of Abraham and Rahab was. Though therefore he concludes, That Faith cannot save him that hath not Works, yet i • follows not that Works concur with Faith unto Justification, but only that a Justifying Faith will show itself by Works.
Ad 2. It is granted, That Faith which is no more than a bare Assent, is neither Justifying nor Saving: But what of this? Is there no other Faith than Assent? Do not you yourself make Acceptance, which is more than Assent, the completing Act of Justifying Faith? And how can you say, That there is the same force ascribed to Works as to Faith, when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without Works? Indeed Works are requisite in their place, but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification, (show any Orthodox Writer that doth hold so) though as necessary Fruits of that Faith, by which we are justified. Say not that you speak of Justification as continued, for Works, as St. James doth speak of them, are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward, viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good Works: if this be wanting, it is no Justifying Faith, but (as St. James calls it) a dead Faith, altogether vain and unprofitable.
Ad 3. That Faith without Works is a hardening of Unbelievers, I grant: sed quid tum postea? Do therefore Works justify as well as Faith? But I do not think that St. James brings in (chap. 2. 18.) an Unbeliever so speaking. For how should an Unbeliever (a professed Unbeliever, we mean; for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite) speak of his Faith, saying, [And I will show thee my Faith?]
Calvin doth far better interpret it, saying, Jacobus dicit, promptum fore piis sancte viventibus, excute • e hypocritis talem jactantiam, qua inflati sunt.
Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief, i. e. a true Assent; but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith, even that Faith whereby we are justified at first, as yourself do hold. And you confess also that Faith doth justify at first without Works; yet (say I) not except it be of a Working-Nature, i. e. ready to Work, when Works are required: and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith Works do not justify neither at first nor afterward.
Ad 5. Faith without Works is dead, as to the effect of Justification, even altogether unprofitable, i. e. Faith renuens operari, or which is not parata operari, as Cajetan doth well well express it. But this is nothing to prove • Co-interest of Works with Faith in point of Justification; it only proves, That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature. Whereas you add, [Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works, and on the other si • e Faith without Works]; this doth nothing hinder, but that the opposition is (as I said) betwixt Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, whereof the one is accompanied with Works, and the other not; the one is operative and fruitful, the other idle & barren. That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work, but also by Works, is more than St. James doth say, and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith. Indeed it is more than you can say, without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued; which distinction St. James never thought of. For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith, as he affirms that to be, which is without Works. That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by Works is made perfect, as accomplishing its ends, but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect. The end of Faith is to justify; and yourself say, That Faith at first doth justify without Works: so that in your Opinion Faith without Works is perfect, accomplishing its end in justifying at first. But in St. James his sense Faith doth not, cannot at all justify without Works, i. e. if it be not ready to work: and in that respect Works do perfect Faith, i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear: but of that enough before.
Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already. That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation; but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation, Continuation, and Consummation of Justification, you often say, but never prove. Sure I am James doth exclude Faith, which is without Works, viz. when God doth call for them, from the very Initiation of Justification. For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils, who surely are so far from Justification, that they have not so much as the initiation of it.
Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a Working Faith, or by a Faith which produceth Works, and so by his Works appears to be justified. The words if taken without any qualification, are against yourself, who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without Works. If you will distinguish of Justification as at first, and as afterward, to make the Apostle agree with your meaning, though indeed it will not serve: Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so, as to make him agree not only with them, but also with himself; and the whole current of the Gospel? The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there imports no more than if it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as appears by the whole series of the Discourse, and more particularly by v. 17. where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is as much as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , [by itself] i. e. alone without the concomitancy of Works, as the Fruits of it. Beza renders it per se; Tremollius out of the Syriac Sola: the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa, which Cajetan corrects, saying, pro per se, and that he expounds, hoc est sola. Wherein I suppose he followed Erasmus, whose Annotation on the place is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , i. e. per se, hoc est, sola.
Ad 8. Rahab was justified by Works so as Abraham was, and all must be, even when they are first justified, viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require.
Ad 9 Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief, i. e. Assent; and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19. such a Faith may be without Works, and so is dead, i. e. unprofitable: but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of, (as I have shown before) who hold that Faith alone doth justify without Works, though withal they hold that Faith which doth justify is not alone without Works, viz. when God doth call for them; and this is all that St. James urgeth. Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this, save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text, and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification, quite besides, yea and against St. James his meaning, as (I think) I have sufficiently demonstrated.
Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James, and reconcile him with St. Paul, after the same manner as I and others do; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Sometimes (he saith) Faith is taken for a bare Assent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and so the Devils believe: Sometimes it notes also a disposition joined with assent, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . St. James (he saith) considereth Faith in the former sense, St. Paul in the latter. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .
To conclude, It is not Faith as working that doth justify, but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness: Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness, and so doth justify, is a Working Faith. Your self grant that Works are not necessary quoad praesentiam, in respect of Justification as begun: and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis, in respect of Justification as continued, is more (I presume) than ever will be proved.
1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin, because I see nothing but bare words. As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the rest, who for 1000 years after Paul (you say) give as much to Works as you ever did, or more, and make Faith to justify as a Condition, and not as an Instrument, whatever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against the full scope of the whole Page or Book; I wish you had cited some Books, or Pages, or but Scraps, as you call them, whereby to make good what you say, I am not of such Reading, much less of such Memory, as to give an account of so many Authors. Some of them either wholly or in part I have read, but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification, and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it.
But for the Opinion of the Ancient Writers in this Point, I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in them than I am, viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit. Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmine's Allegations, and cap. 29. where he produceth his own.
And Eckhard Compend. Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who alledgeth Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril, Augustine and Bernard, as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed unto us for our Justification. And he alledgeth Ambrose, Jerome, Athanasius, Clemens Alex. Origen, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Basil, Theodoret, Hesychius, Primasius, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, Sedulius, Maxentius, Theodulus, Fortunatus, Victor Mar. and Bernard, as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without Works; and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetustâ antiquitate testimonta, quod ad hanc rem spectat, delibare.
Beda, omitted by Eckhard, is cited by B. Usher as writing on Psal. 77. thus, Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabitur, sed per solam justitiam fidei.
To your other Query concerning Calvin, P. Martyr, &c. I answer in the words of Ames, Fides specialis misericordiae duplici ration sic vocatur. 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit, vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam. 2. Quâ misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit: priore sensu justificationem antecedit, posteriore sensu sequitur justificationem. Sed quia una & eadem est fides, quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprhendendo, & applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit, & perfectio vel consolatio ejus in hâc certitudine apparet, quam etiam hosts gratiae precipue impugnant, idcirco per istam certitudinem (quae tamen quoad sensum à side potest ad tempus separari) fides justificans solet à multis describi.
And again, Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit, atquc adeo conjunctam secum habet specîalem ac certam persuasionem de grat • â ac misericordiâ Dei in Christo. Unde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non male soepe describitur ab Orthodoxis, presertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem, cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii. Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest.— 2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis, &c.
2. By Apprehending, I do not mean bare Assent, but Embracing, or Receiving, or Applying.
Ames cites and approves these words of Contarenus; Accipimus justificationem per fidem. Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellate applicationem, inquiens passionem Christi esse • eluti Medicinam communem, quam quisque sibi appitcat per fidem & Sacramenta. Protestants appellant apprehensionem, non eâ signification, quae pertinet a • cognitionem intellectus, sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere, quo pervenimus, & quod post motum nostrum attingimus.
I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ entirely, yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness by which we are justified. There is no danger in this Doctrine, so long as People are taught withal, that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them, except they also have him as a King reigning over them. Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit, That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction, or of Christ as satisfying for us, is that act of Faith whereby we are justified. Your Similitude doth not suit; because a Husband cannot be offered to a Woman in several respects, as Christ may be unto a Sinner. I do not conceive Faith to justify modo physico, or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness: If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel, this Act of Faith would not avail. As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, yet should they not be justified, because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them. Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical Act of Faith, and withal made the Condition of Justification, in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness; I see not but I may well say, That Faith doth justify us, apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification. Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification, it is all one to say, Faith do • h justify as apprehending Christ, and Faith doth justify as the Condition required unto Justification. Whereas therefore you prove, That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in itself doth not justify; it is nothing to me, who do not ascribe anything to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in itself, but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us, to that end that we may be justified. And thus (I think) do others mean, when they say, That Faith doth justify as apprehending Chris • , and his Righteousness: they do not (I suppose) e • clude, but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Jus • ification.
Pemble having said, [We are justified by Faith, i. e. by the Righteousness of Christ, the benefit whereof unto our justification we are made partakers of by Faith, as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise, and gives us ass • rance of the Performance]. He adds a little after, [He that looked on Christ believing in him, may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith, not for the worth, and by the efficacy of that Act of his, but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace, that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us; upon our obed • ence whereunto, God is pleased of his free Grace to justify us].
But still notwithstanding all you say, my Argument remains good; [Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ, therefore they concur not with it in justifying]. The Consequence is good, because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification. For this is that which Believing in, or on Christ, doth import, which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ, Joh. 1. 12. That Repentanc • and Obedience do concur with Fai • h in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification, you only affirm, but do not prove. Indeed Repentance as taken for an acknowledgment of, and sorrow for sin, is requisite unto Justification at first. For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins, except we be sensible of them, and humbled for them. Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ, which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification, as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified. It is neither Repentance, nor Obedience, though Repentance (in the sense before-mentioned) must go before this Justifying-Faith, and so before Justification; and obedience must follow after.
Penitentia (saith Ames.) quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem, ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita, sed non ut causa. Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam, cujus primaria pars est fides, ut Act. 11. & Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis, atque adeo i • sius justificationis effectum, qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem, 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quocunque modo accipiatur, dolor ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, quia (N. B.) non habet vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi. Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali. Resipisientiae & fidei differentia haec indigitatur, Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum, & fides in Dominum Nostrum Iesum Christum. See also Mr. Ball of the Coren. c. 3. p. 18, 19.
1. You need not trouble yourself to prove, That by Works are meant Works. For surely a working Faith, or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of Works, doth imply Works. But the Question is, Whether Works concur with Faith in justifying, or only are inseparable Attendants, and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth. You hold the former, yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification: I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun, continued, and consummate. Whether of us hath more ground from Scripture, let it be judged by what hath been said about it.
But 1. whereas you say, That Works are still opposed to Faith without Works, or Faith alone, and not to this or that sort of Faith: I have shown before from Oecumenius (not to speak of our late Writers) that there is one sort of Faith that is with Works, or of a working Disposition, and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ: and another sort of Faith, that is without Works, viz. a bare Assent: and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other, teaching that we are justified by the former, not by the latter.
2. You say, [It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition, but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity]; yet yourself deny not only the efficacy, but even the presence of Works to be requisite, when we are at first justified: and St. James denies Faith alone (so as he doth speak of it) to have any force at all to justify, as being dead and unprofitable. Therefore you must needs grant, That it is Faith alone, without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh. Besides, if there be a working Disposition, there will be Works themselves when there is opportunity. But all this doth only prove, That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition, and produceth Works themselves when opportunity is offered: That Works do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification, it no way proveth.
3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry, is accepted of God, when there is no opportunity to do the thing itself. And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp, though Works themselves be requisite when there is opportunity: and still I must put you in mind, that yourself requires no more than a disposition to work, when we are first justified.
4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see. He that expects mercy from God, must show mercy to his Neighbor. Doth it therefore follow, that Works of Mercy justify as well as Faith? No, but that Justifying Faith must and will show itself by Works of Mercy.
5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent, as in the Devils, cannot justify or save. Who opposeth this? Or whom doth it oppose? So, that the same Faith is justifying and saving, I think all will yield: yet is there more required unto Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment of it, than unto Justification.
6. Who makes James v. 18. to speak such non-sense as you tell of? Do they, who say his meaning is, That Faith is pretended in vain, if it do not show itself by Works, as occasion doth require? And what more can any gather from v. 20, 22, 24, 26? You might save your labor of proving, That by Works are meant Works you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith, and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying, and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. This is that which they mean, who say that James doth speak of a working Faith, i. e. a Faith ready to work, and so actually working, when God doth require it, not as if instead of [Works] it were good sense always to put [a working Faith]. Such sophistry doth not become us.
7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works, as fruits of Justifying Faith, is ever granted: that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification, is never proved. Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification.
Against this first you say, James doth make Works or Working necessary to justify; I say, he doth not, but only drives at this, That none must think to be justified by Faith, except it be a working Faith, as Abraham 's and Rahab 's was. You say, [The Soul doth not truly signify the Body to be alive]. But the word Jam. 2. 26. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Breath, which is but an effect of Life, and not a cause of it.
[Thus (saith Pemble) the comparison is exact; As the Body without Breath is dead, so is Faith without Works].
So Downam; [Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul, but to the Breath, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (derived of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Breath) doth properly signify, &c. So that the meaning of St. James is, As the Body without Breath is dead, even so Faith without Works (which are as it were the breathing of a lively Faith) is dead].
But if by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there be meant the Soul, as 1 Cor. 6. ult. I hope you will not so understand it, as to compare Faith to the Body, and Works to the Soul, as if Works were the Soul of Faith, and so did give Life unto it: whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works, and Works do but evidence Faith, and the lively power of it.
[The Apostle (saith Fulk) in this Similitude doth not make Faith the Body, and Works the Soul; but Works the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith, which is trust in God, &c.]
2. God (you say) needs no Signs. Well, but God (say I) requiring such a Faith, whereof Works are Signs, as Fruits and Effects of it, we must look to the signs of our Faith, to find it such as God requires of us to our Justification. Maccovius (it seems) met with the Objection; At Deo non est opus experimento. Resp. Hoc sane verum est: at non proinde sequitur homines non praebere sui experimentum Deo.
3. Faith may be real, and yet not justifying. A real Assent, yea and Consent, if limited, so as to exclude Christ's dominion over us, is not that Faith which your Opposers plead for.
4. The New Testament doth make a working Faith, yet not Faith as working the Condition of Justification. I wonder how you can stumble at this, when as you constantly hold, That we are justified at first by Faith without Works: yet surely that Faith whereby we are justified at first, is a working Faith, i. e. of a working Nature, and will, when there is opportunity, show itself by Works. That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification, is more than your own Principles will admit, without that distinction of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued, of which though you make much use, yet I see little ground for it. Now for Dr. Preston 's words, which I cited, I think they are clear enough against you.
For first he saith, That Faith alone justifieth and maketh Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. You limit it to Justification as begun, but he speaks of Justification simply considered, and not as begun only.
2. He speaks indeed of a double Justification, but not as you do, not to that intent to bring in a double Righteousness as requisite unto Justification. All that he intends is this, That we are justified only by Faith, according to Paul 's Doctrine; yet (as James teacheth) our Faith must appeat to be a true Justifying Faith by Works, otherwise it is but a false and feigned Faith, as it pretendeth to be Justifying, and he that pretendeth it, is a Hypocrite. His words without doing violence unto them, can have no other sense put upon them. When any one is accused of being but a seeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obedience, take Believing merely as it is the Condition of Justification by the Covenant, it is but (as I have often said) the making good this Accusation, That he is a Transgressor of the Law, and to be condemned by the Law for the transgression of it, and so much the more in that he neglected the benefit offered in the New Covenant. So that in this case to justify a Man by his Faith and Works, is but indeed to plead that he is justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him through Faith, which Faith is proved to be sound and good by his Works.
1. I see you are very tenacious of your Opinion: but if you will not forsake your Opinion till you see better Arguments to draw you from it, marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they see better Arguments to draw them to it. But to the Matter; Me-thinks you might easily see the meaning of this, that Abraham's first Justification could not be by Faith, which was without Works, i. e. by Faith, which was not of a working Nature.
Thus in that very page (52.) I explained myself, saying, [Faith if it be alone without Works, i. e. renuens operari, &c. cannot justify].
2. Do not you see that your Answer is to no purpose in limiting the words of the Apostle to Continued and Consummate Justification, whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith, which is without Works, or which is not of a working Disposition, from being able to justify, as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable?
That which you so slight, as if it were indignus vindice nodus, Calvin (a Man as likely to see into the Apostle's meaning as another) calls nodum insolubilem, as I have before noted. That more Conditions are required unto Justification afterward than at first, is more than I can find, and more (I am persuaded) than will ever be proved. Did Paul when he speaketh so much of Justification by Faith without Works, viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification, mean that we are so justified indeed today, but not so tomorrow, or some time after? All his Arguments show the contrary. Yea, doth he not prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was justified only by Believing, when as yet that was not the beginning of his Justification? So when James saith, That we are not justified by Faith, which is without Works, such a Faith being dead, and no better than the Faith of Devils; was his meaning this, That hereafter indeed we cannot be so justified, but yet at present we may? If you be of this mind, Non equidem invideo, miror magis.
3. Of the sense of James his Discourse enough before. And for v. 17. I think it might easily let you see that he speaketh not (as you suppose) only of Continued and Consummate Justification, but of Inchoated also, and consequently that he cannot be interpreted otherwise than thus, That Faith which doth not show itself by Works, is dead, ineffectual, and of no force to justify, either at first or afterward, as not being that Faith which is required unto Justification, viz. a working Faith, or Faith which is of a working Nature. I have noted before what Oecumenius (one that was long before either Calvin or Luther) saith upon that very Verse, as also how in the judgment of the Syriac Interpreter, and other Learned Men 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there is to be understood.
1. Though Faith may be true and real without Works, yet a living Faith it is not; for a living Faith is operative, so that, a working Faith, and a non-working Faith are of different Natures, this being but a bare and naked Assent, but the other an apprehending of Christ, and a receiving of him. I little doubt but the Faith of Devils, and the Faith of Men who are justified (even at first, when you say Works are not requisite in respect of their presence with Faith, though that Faith (say I) is of a working Disposition), differ much in their very Nature.
2. If you will be true to your own Principles, you cannot say, That Works make Faith alive, or that Faith is not alive without Works as actually present, though you consider Faith merely as a Condition of Justification, seeing you hold Faith to be alive in that respect, when we are first justified, though there be no Works present with it. And though, as there must be a promptitude to Works at first, so there must be Works themselves in due season; yet that Works do afterward concur with Faith unto Justification, is more than yet I see, or (I presume) ever shall see proved.
3. Therefore my Argument stands good against you, until you can make it appear, That Faith alone without the Copartnership of Works, is the Condition of Justification at first, but Faith and Works together of Justification afterward. I have shown some Reasons against it, but I can see none for it. Your Similitude of a Fine, &c. is no proof. Similitudes may illustrate something, but they prove nothing.
1. You said, [The Apostle saith, That Faith did Work in and with his Works]; whereas the Apostle using the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not speak of working in, but only of working with.
2. Of what validity that distinction is (of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued and Consummate) you have not yet shown.
3. What Calvin 's Opinion otherwise was, is not to the purpose. I only alleged his Exposition of those words, Fides cooperata est operibus suis; and I think his Exposition is genuine.
So also Mr. Manton; [That sense which I prefer, (saith he) is, That his Faith rested not in a naked bare Profession, but was operative, it had its efficacy and influence upon his Works, co-working with all other Graces: it doth not only exert, and put forth itself in acts of Believing, but also in working].
Beza renders it, Administra fuit operum ejus, and expounds it, Essicax & foecunda bonorum operum.
1. I shown before how not only Piscator and Pemble, but many others both before and after them, interpret those words, [By Works his Faith was made perfect]; i. e.