A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness

[By Works his Faith was made perfect]; i. e. By Works his Faith did appear perfect, i. e. sound and good. This Exposition is such that as yet I see no reason to dislike it.

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

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

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

Bellarmine in this saith truly, (though it was little to his purpose); Cognitio apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem, sed non est ipsa proprie fides.

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

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

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

So Rivet himself saith; Fides non justificat, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi.

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

Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum (saith Ames) non absolute consideratum, quo sensu Christus etiam est causa ipsius vocationis, sed propter Christum fide apprehensum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Though Remission of Sins be ordinarily ascribed to Repentance, yet it is nowhere said, That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness, as it is said of Faith. Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification, Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance; yet Faith and not Repentance is made the Condition and Instrument of Justification, as being that which doth apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad 2. Do you think Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification, and not also to the Inchoa • ion of it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Beza ait, tu negas; Utri potius assentiendum? Quid dico Be • a? Quis enim istud non dicit? Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere, rations ante allatae expendantur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it; Quod autem Papistae ad enervandam fidei justitiam hoc torquent, puerile est.

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

Repentance is required, that we may be justified, but not that we may be justified by it, as we are by Faith, though Instrumentally and Relatively, as it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified. For Prayer, it is a Fruit of Faith, and therefore called, The Prayer of Faith, Jam. 5. 15.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the mean while, besides what hath been said before, hear what Bucan saith to this purpose; An perficitur justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ? In Justification quemadmodum judicamur, & re utamur à Deo justi, ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae. Ration igitur decreti divini, & sententiae ipsius de vitâ aeternâ trolatae à Deo judice; item ration justitiae, quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis, jam perfecta est just • ficatio nostra in hác vità, nisi quod in alterâ magis patefacienda (N. B.) sit ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata, & arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda. Ea tamen tota perficitur in hâc vitâ, in quâ potest homo dici plene perfecteque justificat • s. Filii Dei sumus (ergo justificati) sed nondum patefactum est quia erimas, 1 John 3. 2. At si executionem respicias, & rationem habeas vitae, & gloriae, quae nobis adjudicatur, & quae nobis inhaesura est, quia in nobis non perficitur in hâc vitâ, imperfecta etiam Justificatio in hâc vità censeri potest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Jus in re, I take to be such a Right, as from which the Possession itself is not, nor can be separated.

4. The Text doth not ascribe Jus ad rem to Obedience, but only Declarative: as a Fruit of Faith it maketh it appear, that there is such a Right which Faith hath procured.

5. I do indeed believe, That a Man may have, and hath Jus ad Gloriam without Obedience, even as he is justified without Obedience. For certainly as soon as a Man is justified, he hath Jus ad Gloriam. For what doth hinder but sin, the guilt of which by Justification is done away? Yet still I say, Faith which doth justify, and so gives right to Glory, will show itself by Obedience. Those words [If he live to Age] are needless: for we speak continually of the Justification of such as are of Age. But how can you seriously ask me this Question, when yourself put it out of all question, holding that a Man (that is of Age, I presume) is at first justified, and consequently (as I think you will not deny) hath Jus ad Gloriam, by Faith without Obedience?

6. It is no debasing of Faith to say, That after it, as a Fruit of it, Obedience is required to give Jus in re, i. e. to bring into the actual possession of Glory. How can you pretend this to be a debasing of Faith, who debase it much more in making it insufficient to give Jus ad rem, except there be Obedience concurrent with it? Though yet herein you do not keep fair correspondence with yourself, without a distinction of Jus Inchoatum, and Jus Continuatum; which distinction how it will hold good, I do not see.

If any shall think that you have said enough to prove, That we are justified by a Personal Righteousness, I shall [ 78] think that such are soon satisfied.

1. When we speak of Justification, we speak of it as taking off all Accusation, and as opposed to all Condemnation. And what Righteousness is sufficient for this, but that which is perfect?

2. That Lud. de Dieu hath not the same Doctrine on Rom. 8. 4. as you deliver, I have sufficiently shown before: And if he had, I take the Authority of Calvin and Dav • nant (whom I ci • ed, and to whom many others might be added) to be of more force against it, than de Dieu's could be for it. That Holiness and Obedience is necessary unto Salvation, so that no Salvation is to be expected without it, it were pity (as I said in the Animadversions) any should deny: but to argue from Salvation to Justification, Dr. Fulk told the Rhemists, is Pelting Sophistry: Yet you seem to wonder that I make a great difference between the Condition of Justification, and the Condition of Salvation. As for Right to Salvation that's another thing: as Faith alone doth justify, so it alone gives Right to Salvation: Yet because this Faith is of a working Nature, therefore before the actual Enjoyment of Salvation, Faith, as occasion doth require, will show itself by Obedience; and that is all which the Apostle teacheth Rom. 8. 13.

Verum est quidem (saith Calvin) nos solâ Dei misericordiâ justificari in Christo: sed aeque & istud verum ac certum, omnes qui justificantur vocari à Domino, ut digne suâ vocatione vivant.

It is true, He that proved a Man lived not after the flesh, but mortified it, doth justify him from that Accusation, That he is worthy of Death: but that is only, because a Man's not living after the flesh, but mortifying it, proves the truth of his Faith, whereby he hath interest in Christ, and so is freed from all Condemnation, as the Apostle clearly showeth Rom. 8. 1. If that be a Reatus to make Faith only the Condition of Justification, yet Obedience also a Condition of Glorification. I say with the Orator, Quod maxim accusatori optandum est, habes consitentem reum: But what Reatus there is in this, I do not see, nor could our choicest Divines (it seems) see any in it.

Rivet saith, that Opera sequuntur Justificationem, sed praecedunt Glorificationem; the words were cited more at large before.

So Ames; Nos non negamus bona opera ullam relationem ad salutem habere: habent enim relationem adjuncti consequentis, & effecti ad salutem (ut loquuntur) adeptam, & adjuncti antecedentis ac disponentis ad salutem adipiscendam.

Thus also Davenant, (De Justit. Actual. cap. 32. sub initio;) Verum est, nos negare bona opera requiri, ut Conditiones Salutis nostrae, si per bona opera intelligamus exacte bona, & quae Legis rigori respondeant: si etiam per Conditiones salutis intelligamus Conditiones foederis, quibus recipimur in favorem Dei, & ad jus (N. B.) aeternae vitae. Haec enim pendent ex solà conditione fidei Christum Mediatorem apprehendentis. At falsum est, nos negare bona opera requiri, ut Conditiones salutis, si per bona opera intelligamus illos fructus inchoatae justitiae, quae sequuntur justificationem, & (N. B.) praecedunt glorificationem, ut via ordinata ad eandem.

What some Divines in their private Contests with you may do I know not; I show what eminent Divines in their public Writings do deliver, even the same that I maintain, viz. That Faith alone is the Condition of Justification, and of right to Salvation and Glory: and yet that Works are also requisite as the Fruits of that Faith, and as making way for the actual enjoyment of Glory.

For the term [Instrument], I was not willing to wrangle about it, neither am I willing to strive about words. Yet I told you, I thought it might well enough be used as our Divines do use it. And I always let you know, That though perhaps Faith may more fitly be called a Condition, yet not so as to make it to be merely Causa sine quá non, but so as to ascribe some Causality and Efficiency unto it in respect of Justification, viz. in that it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ's Righteousness; by which through Faith imputed unto us we are justified.

[Faith (saith Mr. Ball) is not a bare Condition, without which the thing cannot be, (for that is no cause at all) but an Instrumental Cause, &c.]

This (as you might see by many Passages) is the very reason why (I think) the Scripture doth attribute Justification to Faith alone, and not to Works, nor any other Grace besides Faith; because only Faith doth embrace Christ and his Righteousness. Though therefore I neither was, nor am willing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet I neither did, nor do disclaim the word [Instrument] as unmeet to be used.

And indeed seeing Faith hath some Causality in Justifying, what Cause it should be rather than Instrumental, I do not know.

Hear Mr. Ball again, if you please, [If when we speak of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace, by Condition we understand whatsoever is required on our part, as precedent, concomitant, and subsequent to Justification, Repentance, Faith and Obedience are all Conditions: but if by Condition we understand what i • on our part required as the Cause of the good promised, though only Instrumental, Faith or Belief in the Promise is the only Condition].

And again; [Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification, which is among the number of true Causes, not being a Cause without which the thing is not done, but a Cause whereby it is done. The Cause without which a thing is not done, is only present in the action, and doth nothing therein; but as the Eye is an active Instrument for Seeing, and the Ear for Hearing; so is Faith also for Justifying. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is? It is the Instrument of the Soul, wrought therein by the Holy Ghost, and is the free Gift of God].

So Ames when Bellarmine objected; Sacramenta promissiones applicant, & nostras faciunt! non ergo per modum instrumenti applicantis fides sola justificat.

He answers; Sola tamen ex iis, quae sunt in nobis, vel à nobis erga Deum: sola fides accipiendo: quia Sacramenta sunt à Deo erga nos, & Promissionem applicant, ut instrumenta dandi, non accipiendi.

Thus then is Faith taken for an Instrument of Justification, in that by Faith we receive the Promise, or Christ promised, by whom we are justified.

Bellarmine again objecting; Hoc non multum refert: nam utrumque est instrumentum Dei.

He answers; Plurimum refe • t, quia sicut Sacramenta quamvis aliquo sensu possint dici instrumenta nostra, quatenus per illa tanquam per media assequimur finem nostrum, proprie tamen sunt instrumenta Dei: sic etiam Fides, quamvis possit vocari instrumentum Dei, quia Deus justificat nos ex fide & per fidem, Rom. 3. 20. proprie tamen est instrumentum nostrum. Deus nos baptize • t, & pascit, non nosmetipsi; nos credimus in Christum, non Deus.

If you desire more to this purpose, besides what hath been said before, I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant, chap. 12. and Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4.

1. The non-fulfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant [ 79] doth condemn, yet it is by the Law, and for the transgressing of it that any are condemned; there being no freedom from Condemnation, but by the New-Covenant, nor any by it without fulfilling the Condition of it. Such as do not embrace the New-Covenant, and that on the terms upon which it is made, are left to the Condemnation of the Old-Covenant, which will be so much the sorer, as the Sin in despising the Mercy offered is the greater. So that still (as I said in the Animadversions) the fulfilling of the Law, viz. Christ's fulfilling it for us, is that by which we are justified, though Faith be required of us, that Christ's fulfilling of the Law may be imputed unto us, and so we may be justified by it.

The Accusations which you speak of, viz. 1. Of not fulfilling the Condition of the New-Covenant. 2. Of having therefore no part in Christ. 3. Of being guilty moreover of far sorer punishment.

All these Accusations (as I have often said) are but a re-enforcing of that Accusation, That we are guilty of transgressing the Law, and so to be condemned; and therefore the more guilty, and the more to be condemned, because freedom from that Guilt and Condemnation might have been obtained, and was neglected; see Acts 13. 38, 41. Heb. 2. 3.

2. The Gospel doth not join Obedience with Faith as the Condition of our right unto Salvation, though it require Obedience as a Fruit of that Faith, whereby we obtain that Right, and so as the way or means whereby to enter into the actual enjoyment of Salvation.

3. You might see that I do not yield the Thesis, wherein you make Faith and Obedience so to be Conditions of the New-Covenant, as withal to be Conditions of Justification▪ This both now and every-where I deny.

1. If it be not much (as you say) to your purpose; Why do you allege it? That Christ did not receive either of the Sacraments for that end as we receive them, who can question?

2. If you judge it uncertain, whether Luke or Matthew did relate those words, [I will not drink hence-forth, &c.] out of due place, why are you so peremptory in your Aphorisms as to say, [Luke doth clearly speak of two Cups, and doth subjoin these words to the first, which was before the Sacramental]?

3. Why do you call that Supposition, [If Luke had not written] a merry one? Is it ridiculous to suppose such a thing?

Let us suppose (says Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer) that Question had not been put to our Savior, and that the Apostle had not written his Epistle to the Ephesians, &c.]

May not one as well sport with this Supposition of theirs, as you with that of mine? Luke himself shows, That he wrote his Gospel after others, Luk. 1. 1. Probable it is, that he wrote after Matthew and Mark: And how should any reading only these, imagine that those words [I will not drink, &c.] were meant of any other than the Sacramental Cup, they not making mention (no not in appearance) of any other?

Apud Matthaeum (inquit Ames.) 26. 29. pronomen istud demonstrativum, [ex hoc fructu vitis] necessario refertur ad illud, quod precedentibus verbis fuit eodem pronomine demonstratum, [Hoc est sanguis meus].

Though Matthew and Mark had not written, yet it had been no such boldness to suppose Luke to rela • e some words out of that order wherein they were spoken, such Anticipations (as I said, and you do not gain-say it) being usual in the Scripture.

Thus again Ames; Ex ipso Luca (quamvis ibi transponantur verba) contrà colligitur aperte, illa verba pertinere ad Calicem Mysticum & Sacramentalem Coenae Domini. Nam cap. 22. 17. dicitur Dominus gratias egisse super illud poculum, in quo dicit fructum vitis postea mansisse, eodem modo quo v. 19. gratias egit super panem. Hâc autem gratiarum action intelligi benedictionem & Consecrationem Sacramentalem concedit Bellarminus, cap. 10. &c.

1. It is such a Justification, as the Apostle where he doth professedly treat of that Subject, doth scarce ever mention: nor yet do Divines use to speak of it. Therefore your [totus Mundus Theologorum Reformatorum], 〈2 pages missing〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 how it can be proved by any of those Texts, I cannot see. They speak of the necessity of Obedience unto Salvation, of God's rendering unto Men according to their Deeds, of the reward of good Works, &c. But doth it therefore follow, that Obedience and good Works are Conditions of Justification? I am loath to be so plain with you, as sometimes you are with me, otherwise I could say, I have seldom seen so many places of Scripture alleged to so little purpose. Some of those places you seem to lay more weight upon, as John 16. 27. and 2 Cor. 5. 10. and 1 John 3. 22, 23. For here you do not only note the places, but you also cite the words, as if they were more especially to be observed.

Now for that Joh. 16. 27. [The Father hath loved you, because you have loved me]; What do you infer from thence? That Works justify as part of the Condition of Justification? If this be a good Consequence, I may say, Reddat mihi minam qui me docuit Dialecticam.

1. Works and Love differ as well as Works, though Works flow both from Love and Faith.

Calvin makes those words [because you have loved me], to denote an unfeigned Faith, which proceedeth from a sincere Affection, here called Love. And I grant that such a Love, viz. of Desire doth go before Justifying Faith.

3. God doth love those that love him, and that love Christ, amore amicitiae; yet amore benevolentiae, he loves us before we love him, 1 Joh. 4. 10, 19.

Secundum hanc rationem (inquit Calvinus) hîc dicimur amari à Deo, dum Christum diligimus, quta pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis, &c.

That in 2 Cor. 5. 10▪ [according to, &c.] avails your Cause nothing. For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgment, so as that we shall receive according to them, and yet be no part of the Condition of Justification, but only Fruits of that Faith whereby we are justified? So for that in Joh. 3. 22. [because we keep his Commandments, &c.]

I say with Calvin; Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris orandi fiduciam; sed in hoc tantùm insistit, non posteà fide disjungi pietatem, & sincerum Dei cultum. Nec absurdum videri debet, quod particulam Causalem (N. B.) usurpet, utcunque de causà non disputetur. Nam accidens inseparabile interdum Causae loco poni solet. Quemadmodum siquis dicat, Quia Sol Meridie supra nos lucet, plus tunc esse caloris. Neque enim sequitur ex luce oriri calorem.

1. You shall confound Justification and Salvation, betwixt which (you know) I make a great difference.

2. I see not that any of the Texts alleged do prove Obedience to be concurrent with Faith unto Justification, or to Right to Salvation. Obedience is an Argument à posteriore of our Right unto Salvation, and à priore a means of our enjoyment of it. More than this by any Text of Scripture (I presume) will not be proved.

Your First and Second have nothing but mere Words.

Ad 3. I answer, No more is the word [Justification] in any of the Texts which you cited.

Ad 4. What trick do you mean? Or what prejudice? Do you so wonder at this, That I cannot be persuaded by any of your Allegations, that we are justified by our personal Righteousness? Or that Works concur with Faith unto Justification, as being part of the Condition that the Gospel doth require, that thereby we may be justified? Then all Protestant Divines are Men to be wondered at, or at least never considered the Texts, which you allege; and surely that were a great wonder.

Ad 5. For Justification at Judgment, I will say no more until I see more proof of your Opinion about it.

Ad 6. The Qualifications spoken of tend to that end, That we may enjoy Salvation, but not that we may have right to Salvation: They only manifest that Right, which by Faith in Christ we do obtain.

Ad 7. Of James his words enough already.

Ad 8. I wish you were more Argumentative, and less Censorious, or at least more wary in expressing your censure. To say [It is next to non-sense] is over-broad; If you had said, That you could see no good sense in i • , this had not been so much, as truly I cannot in your words. For may not a thing be spoken by way of Sentence, and yet by way of Argumentation too? I think, Yes, when a reason is given of the Sentence. But what should that in Luke 19. 17. force me to confess? That Works are more than Fruits of Faith, by which we are justified?

Why do you stand so much upon the word [Because], when-as you acknowledge that Works are no proper cause? May i • not be said, [This is a good Tree, because it bringeth forth good Fruit?] and yet the goodness of the Tree is before the goodness of its Fruit; and this is but only a manifestation of the other. So what should I see in Luk. 19. 27? That none should be saved by Christ, but such as are obedient unto him, that I see; but not that Obedience is that whereby we are (at least in part) justified. Yea, I think it worthy your consideration, That the Texts which you allege and build upon, speaking only of Works and Obedience, and not of Faith at all, either must be interpreted, That Obedience and Works are necessary Fruits of Justifying Faith, or else they will reach forth • r than you would have them, even to make Obedience and Works the only Condition of Justification at Judgm • nt.

Ad 9. Where you performed that, I know not: But however your Work was no • to overthrow any Arguments for Merits, (for which I am far from urging) but to answer my reason, which I urged, why those Scriptures which you alleged, might rather seem to make Works meritorious of Salvation, than to concur with Faith unto Justification, viz. because they follow Justification, but go before Salvation. I know you will say, That they go before Justification as Continued and Consummate at Judgment▪ but for the overthrowing of that, I need say no more till you say more in defense of it.

The Texts which you allege speak only of Obedience: and so if you will think to prove by them, That Obedience [ 81] is the Condition of our • ustification; you may as well say, That it is the only Condition, and so quite exclude Faith, which is not mentioned in those Texts. If you say, It is in other Texts; so (say I) do other Te • ts show that Faith is the only Condition, and that Obedience is not concurrent with Faith unto Justification, though it necessarily flow from that Faith by which we are justified. That may be alleged as the reason of the Justifying Sentence, which yet is but the Fruit and Effect of Justifying Faith. If Sententia be Praemii Adjudicatio, then (I think) Causa Sententiae must be also Causa Praemii adjudicati. The word [For], when we say [Justified for Faith], must note either the formal, or the meritorious Cause: the ratio Sententiae may be drawn from that, which is neither the formal nor the meritorious Cause of Justification, nor yet a Condition or Instrument of it, but only a Fruit and Effect of that which is so.

3. The Scripture doth not say, That Works do justify us in that sense as you take it, viz. as joint Conditions with Faith of Justification.

4. I think it not so proper to say, [We must be judged, and receive our Reward by our Works] as [according to our Works]. And however, to be judged by our Works, is not as much as to be justified by them, otherwise than as they are Fruits and Effects of Faith, and so manifest our Interest in Christ, by whom all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39.

5. Your [For] must needs be the same with [Propter]. When you say, [We are justified for Faith] surely in Latin it must be propter Fidem. Here [enim] will not be suitable.

1. That which I intimated is this, That in respect of God, such an outward judicial Proceeding needed not, no more than God doth need a Sign. Whether the Judicial Proceeding be all upon mere Signs, and the Ipsa Causa Justitiae not meddled with, is not to the purpose. Though why may not that which is in some respect Justitia Causae, and so Justitia Personae quoad istam Causam, be Signum Fidei, & per consequence Justitiae Christi nobis per Fidem imputatae, qua simpliciter & absolute justificamur?

2. and 3. That which is the Condition of Glorification, is not therefore the Condition of Justification, or of right to Glorification, which doth immediately flow from Justification, or at least is inseparably joined with it. No Man can be accused to be Reus Poenae, and so to have no right to Glorification; but he that is accused to be Reus Culpae: and from that Accusation we are justified by Faith, which is made manifest by our Works.

1. I perceive I did mistake your meaning, the contexture of your words being such, that one might easily mistake the meaning of them.

2. Your Affirmation is no Proof; and as well may you say, That because in other places of Scripture the Righteous are usually spoken of in respect of Personal Righteousness, in opposition to the wicked and ungodly, therefore all those places prove, That Personal Righteousness is that whereby we are justified. Because we must have a Righteousness inherent in us, as well as a Righteousness imputed to us: are we therefore justified as well by the one as the other? Appello Evangelium pariter ac totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum.

1. Your Aphorisms tend to prove Justification by Works, to which end you press the words of St. James, and reject the Interpretation which our Divines give of them.

2. Paul indeed and James did not consider Works in the same sense. For Paul considered them as concurring with Faith unto Justification, and so rejected them: but James looked at them as Fruits of Justifying-Faith, and so asserted the necessity of them. You do not rightly understand Paul 's words, Rom. 4. 4. of which I have spoken before. He doth not speak absolutely; for so he should quite abolish Works, which in other places he doth maintain and plead for, as without which we must not think to be saved: but he speaks in reference to Justifica • ion, and so he excludes Works even for this very reason, because they cannot justify, except they be meritorious, and such as that the reward of them is of debt, and not of Grace, viz. pardoning Grace; for otherwise whatever reward the Creator doth bestow upon the Creature, it is of Grace. Yet it doth not therefore follow that Faith is meritorious, because we are justified by Faith. For Faith doth justify Relatively, in respect of Christ's Righteousness, which it apprehendeth, and by which so apprehended we are justified; but so Works cannot justify; they must either justify for their own worth, or not at all, save only Declarative, by manifesting our Faith, and so our Justification. See Mr Ball of the Coven. c. 3. p. 19. &c. 6. p. 69, 70.

1. The Scriptures do plainly so distinguish, as to deny [ 82] Working, that thereby we may be justified, Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. Yet to asser, Working, that thereby we may be saved, Phil. 2. 12. You will say, That the former places speak of Meritorious and Legal Working.

But, 1. All Working which is good, is Legal, as I have shown before, i. e. according to the Rule and Prescript of the Law, even Gospel-Obedience is in that respect Legal. And when the Apostle doth exclude the Deeds of the Law from Justification, he doth not mean (as some take it) Deeds done by the Power of the Law, without Grace, but Deeds which the Law doth prescribe however done. For he denies that Abraham was justified by his Works; yet doubtless they were not done without Grace.

The Apostle taketh it as granted, That all Works whereby we are justified, are meritorious: for if there be no meritoriousness in them, he supposeth there is no being justified by them. For indeed how can Working justify, if there be any defect and failing in it? Therefore Faith itself doth not justify in respect of itself, but in respect of Christ whom it apprehendeth. See Calvin Inst. lib. 3 cap. 11. §. 7. the words were before-cited.

To your Second; I have always denied that there is the same reason of Salvation (viz. complete) and Justification; and have always held, That Justification at Judgment is but a manifestation of our present Justification.

To your Third; None is Reus Poenae, except he be Reus Culpae; and there is no Reatus Culpae, but by transgressing the Law, though it may be aggravated, and so the other, by the Gospel. But properly the not-fulfilling of the Condition of the Gospel, taking it merely as a Condition, and not as a Duty, doth not bring a new Guilt, but only leaves a Man in the old Guilt, with an aggravation of it, he having no benefit of the Gospel to free him from his Guilt, and being the more deeply guilty, in that he neglected the Mercy which he might have obtained.

1. Some of your words (I confess) I do not understand, nor can I see what reference they have to mine in the Animadversions. But when you speak of Right to Justification and Salvation, you seem to mean Sentential Justification at Judgment. For else we have here Justification itself, and not only a right unto it, though we have only a right to Salvation, and not Salvation itself; I mean in respect of the fullness and perfection of it. And though Justification and Salvation flow from the same Covenant, yet there is more required unto Salvation, than unto Justification by that Covenant: and so you also hold in respect of your first Justification.

2. You trouble yourself more than needs with your Distinctions, which (as you do use them) do but involve the Matter in more obscurity. Surely my words of themselves, [Freedom from all sin in respect of imputation, and from all condemnation for sin] are far more perspicuous, than when you so multiply Distinctions to find out (forsooth) the meaning of them. For, 1. Is not [Freedom] more plain than [Liberation?] though they both signify the same thing. 2. Can there be an Active Liberation without a Passive, or a Passive without an Active? If God free us, are we not freed? And if we be freed, doth not God free us? What need then to distinguish in that manner? If freedom relate to God, it is Active; if to us, it is Passive. And what difference betwixt Liberation, or Freedom, (viz. from the Imputation of Sin, and Condemnation for Sin) and Absolution?

3. The Reprobate are Condemnati per sententiam Judicis, Joh. 3. 18. etiamsi sententiae publica prolatio, ejúsque plena executio in ultimum usque diem sit dilata.

4. Not only right to Absolution, but Absolution itself is perfect to a Believer through Christ, Rom. 8. 1. Neither are there anymore Conditions of Justification at any time than Faith: though more sins be every day committed, and so more are to be pardoned, yet still Faith as well afterward as at first doth procure the pardon of them, without Works, as therein concurrent with it.

Non aliam Justitiam (saith Calvin) ad finem usque vitae habent fideles, quàm quae illi • (nempe Rom. 4. 2 Cor. 5.) describitur.

5. Actual Absolution, and Judicial per sententiam Judicis, is in this life, and that perfect, though there be not a perfect declaration of it till the Last Judgment.

6. When you say, [Condemnation is not perfect, if any at all, till the Last Judgment], you do in effect question whether there be any Justification till then. For if no Condemnation, then no Justification. But Condemnation (I say) is perfect here, though the Sentence be not publicly pronounced, and fully executed till hereafter.

7. I do not speak of freedom from all sin as the Antinomians do, as if God did see no sin in his Children, and they had no sin to be humbled for: but I say, That God doth not impute sin unto them, so as to condemn them for it. And so much surely the Scripture doth say, if I understand it, 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 8. 1. For freedom from future sins, I have said enough before.

8. The word [Justification] may be used in sensu Judiciario, (as I have shown before) and yet Justification at Judgment be but a manifestation of our present Justification. Your Quotations out of the Civilians are not against me, for I say, Sententia Judicis jam lata est, etiamsi in extremo demum die plene publiceque sit revelanda. I speak also of an Authoritative Manifestation; and therefore your Instance of a Woman manifesting a Felony, &c. is not to the purpose.

Obedience as a Fruit of Faith is necessary, both necessitate [ 83] praecepti, so that it is sin to omit it; and also necessitate medii, so that we cannot be saved without it. But if it be a Means, (say you) then it is a Condition. Well, but a Means and a Condition (say I) of what? Of Salvation? It is granted. Of Justification? It is denied, neither doth this follow upon the other.

Taking Christ for Lord is virtually included in taking him for Priest; see Rom. 14. 9. and 2 Cor. 5. 15. They cannot be divided, though they be distinguished. That Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest, doth also receive him as Lord, either expressly, if Christ be propounded as Lord, or at least implicitly: yet Faith only, as receiving Christ as Priest, doth justify, for the reason alleged before, to which I see nothing that you have said of force to refel it. Wicked Men cannot unfeignedly receive Christ as Priest, whiles they retain a Heart standing out in rebellion again • t Christ as Lord. Can they indeed embrace Christ as satisfying for them, and yet not yield up themselves in obedience unto him?

The Apostle (it seems) was of another mind; [The love of Christ (saith he) constraineth us. For we thus judge, That if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them, and rose again]. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15.

And again, [I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live, I live by Faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me], Gal. 2. 20.

This is the nature of that Faith which doth receive Christ as a Reconciler, to work through Love, Gal. 5. 6. May I not retort upon you, and say, When you have taught wicked Men, that Faith alone doth justify at first, and they are willing to believe, will you persuade them that they are unjustified again, because Works do not follow after? For my part, I know no unjustifying of those who are once justified. You speak sometimes of being justified today by Faith without Works, and of being unjustified tomorrow, o • the day after, except Works come in and help to justify. But I say, Faith without a promptitude to Works doth not justify at first; such as do not receive Christ as Lord, and do good Works, when there is opportunity, were never justified at all, they never had a true Justifying-Faith, which is never without Works, as the seasonable Fruits and Effects of it: Yet Faith both at first and last doth justify without Works, as concurrent with it unto Justification. What you say of a willingness to receive Christ, is nothing. For I speak of a true actual receiving, which I say cannot be of Christ as Priest, except it • e (either expressly or implicitly) of Christ as Lord also: and yet we are justified by receiving him in the one respect, and not in the other. None can have that Faith which justifieth, but they shall have also other Graces and Works of Obedience in their season; Yet do not other Graces therefore, or Works justify as well as Faith.

Bellarmine objecting; Fides vera potest reips • à dilection separari.

Ames answers; Aliqua fides potest; talis est pontificia: sed illa fides, cui nos tribuimus justificandi virtutem, cum unionem faciat nostri cum Christo, à Christi Spiritu vivificante, & Sanctificante non potest separari.

Yet he saith; Fides non justificat, ut respicit praecepta operum faciendorum, sed solummodo ut respicit promissionem gratiae.

So Dr. Prideaux; Fides sola justificat, non ration existentiae, absque spe & charitâte, sed muneris. Lect. 5. de Justif. §. 7.

And Mr. Ball of the Coven. c. 6. p. 73. [Abraham was justified by Faith alone; but this Faith, though alone in the Act of Justification, no other Grace co-working with it, was not alone in existence, did not lie dead in him, as a dormant and idle quality.— Works then (or a purpose to walk with God) justify as the passive qualification of the Subject, capable of Justification, or as the qualification of that Faith which justifieth; or as they testify or give proof that Faith is lively: but Faith alone justifieth, as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ].

Here by the way observe how Ames and Mr. Ball speak of Faith apprehending and embracing the Promise; which manner of speech may also be observed in other eminent Divines, yet you somewhere censure Mr. Cotton somewhat sharply for speaking in that manner.

1. If it be as difficult for the Understanding to believe, (i. e. assent unto) Christ's Priestly Office, as is his Kingly, then it seems also as hard for the Will to consent to, or accept of the one as the other. If the Will be inclined to a thing, it will move the Understanding to assent unto it. Quod valde volumus, f • c • le credimus. That the Jews believed neither Christ's Kingly nor his Priestly Office, was the perverseness of their Will, as well as the error of their Understanding. What the Papists, with whom you have met, do say, matters little; we see what their great Rabbies say and maintain in their Disputations. Yet it is no strange thing, if even they also now and then let fall something, wherein they give testimony to the Truth, though in the whole current of their Discourses they oppose it.

Ames showeth, That Bellarmine in that very place which you cite, doth contradict himself, whiles he is overearnest to contradict Protestants; Bellarminus hîc implicat seipsum contradictione, ut nobis possit contradicere.

Whereas you cite Rivet disclaiming that which Bellarmine maketh to be the Opinion of Protestants, viz. That Christ's Righteousness is the formal Cause of Justification, I have said enough about it before, viz. That some understanding the Term one way, some another, our Divines express themselves variously; yet all agree in the thing itself, viz. That Christ's Righteousness, through Faith imputed unto us, is that by which we are justified; See Davenant de Justit. Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. where he answers this very Argument of Bellarmine, though he contract his words, and leave out those which you cite; but however, both there, and in other places which I cited before, he hath enough to this purpose, concerning the formal Cause of Justification, and how the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us may be so termed.

Dr. Prideaux also (I see) is offended at Bellarmine for saying, Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam, ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur, & simus, i • nos cum recta ration pugnare contendimus; as if this were the Opinion of Protestants.

At quis unquam e nostris (saith the Doctor) not per justitiam Christi imputatam, formaliter justificari asseruit?

But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion; Annon formam quamlibet inharentem, quà formaliter justi denominemur, semper explosimus?

In this sense also Davenant doth reject it; Quod dicit Bellarminus, impossible esse, ut, per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus, si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter, nugas agit, atque tribuit illam ipsam sententiam Protestantibus, quam oppugnant. De Justit. Habit. cap. 24. ad 5. Yet in another sense he holds that Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, is the formal Cause of our Justification; the words were before cited.

And as others, so Dr. Prideaux speaks the very same thing, saying, Justificamur per justitiam Christi, non personae, quâ ipse est vestitus, sed meriti, quâ suos westit, nobis imputatam.

But for the principal thing intended in this Section of yours, Though wicked Men may be more ready to receive Christ as their Justifier, than as their Ruler, (so you express it); yet it follows not, that the receiving of Christ as a Ruler, is that Act of Faith which doth justify. For the difficulty of a thing is no good Argument to prove the necessity of it, either at all, or to such a purpose.

2. My second Note was to this purpose, quite to take away the force of your Argument, and so (I think) it doth notwithstanding your Reply. For have we not God's means to overcome that averseness of nature, if the receiving of Christ as Lord do necessarily follow Pardon, as well as if it be a Condition of Pardon? When I make it a Fruit of Justifying-Faith to take Christ for Lord, I do not say but that Christ may at once be received both as Priest and as Lord, and so must, if he be so propounded; I speak of express propounding and receiving: But my meaning is, That though we be justified by receiving Christ as Priest, perhaps not yet hearing of him (expressly) as Lord, yet that Justifying-Faith will also put forth itself to take Christ for Lord, when he is so set forth unto us. To be j • stifi • d before we take Christ as Christ. For Christ is Christ as Priest, though not only as Priest. Indeed to receive Christ in respect of one Office, so as to refuse him in respect of another, were not to receive Christ as Christ: but that is not the Case as I do put it. And for the moral necessity of taking Christ as Lord, which you ask what it is, if it be not a Condition: I suppose it may be morally necessary as a thing commanded, and yet be no Condition of Justification. For can nothing be commanded, and so be morally necessary, but it must be commanded and be necessary to that end, that thereby we may be justified? Works are commanded, and so necessary, yet you hold them to be no Condition of our Justification at first, neither indeed are they afterward, as that of Gen. 15. 6. with Rom. 4. 2, 3. doth irresragably prove.

Your Argument I thus retort, [He that is justified, is in a State of Salvation, and should be saved, if he so died. But he that hath Faith without Works, is justified; Ergo, he is in a State of Salvation, and if he so die, shall be saved]. Answer for yourself as you please: for my part I say, The same Faith which receiveth Christ as Priest, and so justifieth, is ready also to receive Christ as Lord, when he is so propounded; even as that Faith, which justifieth, is ready to produce Works, when they are required.

1. You should not only suppose, but prove, that the [ 84] excluding of Obedience from Justification (as co-partner with Faith in justifying) is a Scandal given, and an Error.

2. If it were not Paul 's design to advance Faith above Love, &c. in point of Justification, what then means his so frequent asserting Faith to be that whereby we are justified, and his never-mentioning Love, &c. to that purpose?

3. Your self acknowledge an aptitude in Faith to justify as appreh • nding Christ, and I acknowledge, that besides this God hath appointed Faith for that purpose, in respect of i • s aptitude, making choice of it rather than of any other Grace.

I have also oft enough considered what you have said. Justificatio (saith Davenant) purgat, & abluit à reatu & poenâ peccati, idque uno momento, & perfect. De Justit. Habit. cap. 23. ad Arg. 4.

Though Jus • ification be perfect, as freeing from all Condemnation; yet so long as there may be Accusation, there is need of Justification. Whereas you speak of the Law justifying, &c. It is God that justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. though according to the Gospel or New-Covenant, (for that, I presume, you mean by the Law) and by the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. Christ as our Advocate doth plead our Cause, and procure our Justification; and at the Last Judgment, as God's Vicegerent, he will publicly pronounce Sentence.

I see nothing against me, but that still you run upon this Supposition, That there is the same Condition of Salvation, and of Justification at Judgment, whereas I suppose that Works are a Condition of Salvation, as full and complete, but not so of Justification at Judgment, that being but a manifestation of our present Justification, and so Works looked at but as Fruits and Evidences of Faith, whereby we are justified. If Illyricus his Doctrine were the same with this, his fellow-Protestants (I dare say) would not blame him for it. Neither do I see how Illyricus could, or any rational Man can grant Works to be necessary Fruits of Faith, and yet deny them to be means or Conditions of Salvation, in respect of the actual and full enjoyment of it. For surely as Faith itself is required that we may be justified, so the Fruits of Faith (to be produced in due season) are required that we may be glorified. But why do you thus still jumble together Justification and Salvation, saying, [Illyricus his Error was in denying Works to b • necessary to Justification and Salvation?] Yet when you cite Bucer and Melancthon as asserting the necessity of good Works, there is not a syllable in them about Justification, as if Works were necessary in that respect.

Bucer in that Conference at Ratisbon, which you cite, though he maintain Inherent Righteousness, (as who doth not?) yet he saith, Hâc justitiâ nemo justificatur coram Deo justification vitae, as he is cited by Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4. ubi plura vide.

So Melancthon is cited by Bellarmine as holding with other Protestants of prime note, that, Sola fides justificat, & tamen fides quae justificat, non est sola.

And Wotton saith, (De Reconcil. Part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. Num. 4.) Lutherus, Melancthon, Calvinus, Chemnitz, ea potissimum causâ nos infusâ & inhaerente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt, quod illa in nobis ita imperfecta sit, ut in Dei conspectum, quum ad judicandum accedat, prodire non audeat. But of Bucer and Melancthon more by and by.

For Illyricus, what in other places he may hold I cannot tell, but in the Centuries (whereof he was the chief Author) he seems to agree with other prime Protestants; For he brings in 27 Arguments, whereby the Apostles (he saith) prove, Hominem solâ fide absque operibus Legis justificari; Among which the 23d is this; Duae sunt tantum viae ad salutem, & nulla est tertia, &c. Una harum est per opera Legis; altera est per fidem in Christum, qui pro nobis Legem implevit. Sed illa, quae est per opera Legis, postulat à nobis integerrimam impletionem, quam quia nemo potest praestare, omnes damnantur à Lege. Ea verà quae ser fidem est, gratis propter opera Christi, donat justitiam & vitam credentibus. Qui ergo vult per opera salvari propria, is alteram viam tollit; & e contrà, qui vult per fidem salvari gratis, is non potest per opera sua justificart. Gal. 5. (perhaps it should be Gal. 3.) Rom. 4. & 10. Ephes. 2.

Here he seems indeed to confound Justification and Salvation, as if there were the same reason of both, and Works were no more required unto Salvation than unto Justification. But surely by Salvation he meant a Right unto Salvation, which doth necessarily go along with Justification; and whatsoever it be that doth justify, the same also doth give a right unto Salvation. For otherwise he makes Works and new Obedience necessary to the full enjoyment of Salvation.

For he treats at large de novâ obedientià seu bonis operibus justificatorum; and he goes through the several Commandments, and brings in a Catalogue of Good Works which are required in every Commandment.

Though he sometimes only expresseth these Reasons, why new Obedience and good Works must be performed, ut glorificetur Deus, & inserviatur proximo, & sint testimonia verae fidei; yet even these reasons do imply that new Obedience and good Works are necessary unto Salvation, viz. in that sense as I have explained. For can any think to be saved, except they have a care to glorify God, to serve their Neighbor, and to give testimony of their Faith?

But sometimes he speaks more expressly to this purpose, saying, lis qui fidae gratis acceperunt remissionom peccatorum, Apostoli etiam de novitate vitae concionantur, & poenas comminantur rurses sese peccatis sine poenitentiâ polluentibus.

And among other places he alledgeth that Phil. 2. Cum timore & tremore vestram ipsorum salutom operamini.

And among other reasons, Why all must repent and walk in newness of Life, he brings in this as the sixth; Subitus extremi judicii adventus; And cites that 1 Joh. 2. Manete in eo, ut cum apparuerit, fiduciam habeamus, & non pudesiamus in adventu ejus: And that 1 Thess. 5. Ipsi plane scitis, quod dies ill Domini, ut fur in nocte, it a venturus sit: Cum enim dixerint, Pax & tuta omnia, tunc repentinus eis ingruet interitus, sicut dolor partus multeri praegnanti, &c. Proinde ne dormiamus, &c.

And for the next reason he brings in this; Poenae aeternae impoenitentium, citing Rom. 2. Juxta duritiam tuam, & cor poenitere nescium, colligis tibi ipsi iram in die irae, quo patesiet justum judicium Dei, &c. Ventura est indignatio, ira, afflictio, & anxietas adversus omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum, &c.

This (I think) is sufficient to show that Illyricus (at least when he helped to write the Centuries) was as much for Obedience and good Works as either Bucer or Melancthon, for anything that I see you cite out of them, and that he made them so Fruits of Faith, whereby we are justified, and have right to Salvation, that withal he made them Means or Conditions of Glorification; and more than this the words of Bucer and Melancthon do not import.

Whereas you say, that Davenant 's words, which I cited, have nothing that you dislike, save only that Grace is said to be infused in ipso actu justificandi, which yet you show how it is not to be disliked; you consider not for what end I cited those words, viz. To show that all Protestants generally acknowledge and profess, (so he, Omnes enim agnoscimus, & clare profitemur) that Inherent Righteousness doth go along with Imputed Righteousness, though it be this and not that by which we are justified; and consequently, That Works are necessary as Fruits of Faith, and Means of Salvation, though yet Works have no Copartnership with Faith in justifying.

Neither Bucer nor Melancthon, nor any of our famous Divines that I know, did teach other Doctrine. And because you seem to carry it so as if Melancthon and Bucer had been of your Opinion; though what I have said already may suffice to show the contrary, yet I will add a little more.

Melancthon saith; Plane & clare dico, Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonae conscientiae seu operum, quae Deus nobis percepit, necessario sequi reconciliationem debet.

But here he saith no more for Works than generally Protestants do; he is far from making them concurrent with Faith unto Justification.

Again; Sed nos (inquit) sctamus suum locum esse justitiae operum, longe vero aliâ consolatione opus esse in quaerendâ reconciliatione.

And again; Cum dicitur, fide justificamur, non aliud dicetur, quàm quod propter Filium Dei accipimus remissionem peccatorum, & reputamur justi. Et quia oportet apprehendi hoc beneficium dicitur fide, i. e. fiduci • misericordiae promissae propter Christum. Intellegatur ergo propositio correlative, Fide sumus justi, i. e. per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti.

And he alledgeth Basil, saying; Sine ullâ sophisticâ detrahit justificationem bonis operibus; nec loquitur de ceremonialibus, sed de omnibus virtutibus; nec tentùm loquitur de operibus ante renovationem, sed de virtutibus in renovatis, ac jubet sentire, quod solâ fiduciâ misericordiae propter Christum promissae justi sumus.—Haec est (inquit Basiliûs) perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo, quando ne quidem propter justitiam suam aliquis effertur, sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram justitiam, fide autem solà in Christum justificari, &c.

Bucer also commends Melancthon for saying; Sola fide justificamur, solius miscricordiae fiduciâ justi pronuntiamur.

And presently he adds; Nemini siquidem pio dubium esse potest, quin per solam Dei miscricordiam, propterque unius Christi meritum, ac nulla omnino nostra quamlibet sancta opera, & germanissimos Spiritus fructus, nos justificemur, hoc est, à Deo justi pronuntiemur.

1. I am sorry to see you so bent to maintain what you [ 85] have once done. Is it fair to take hold on a few words of an Author, and to pass by that which immediately followeth, and show that he meant quite contrary to what is pretended? Is not this to make yourself guilty of that which you accuse others of, viz. to take up some scraps against the meaning of the whole Book, and even the very Page out of which you take them?

2. I think nothing is more clear, than that Mr. Ball 's words following those which you cited, gainsay your Opinion, viz. of Works concurring with Faith unto Justification. For he expressly saith, That Faith alone justifieth, and that Works do but testify and give proof, that Faith is lively.

Is not this the very thing that I so much contend for? And yet you stick not to say, That he yieldeth Faith and Works to be the Condition of Justification, as if they were Copartners in this respect, whereas he ascribeth Justification wholly to Faith, and excludeth Works from having any concurrence with it in justifying. A little before the place by you cited, he opposeth those who make Faith and Works the Condition, without which Remission cannot be obtained, and saith it is impossible to conceive how Faith and Works should be conjoined as Con-causes in Justification, seeing Faith attributes all to Free-Grace, and Works challenge to themselves. And a little before that again he saith, [We read of two ways of Justification, by Faith, and by Works, but of a third manner, by Faith and Works both, as joint Causes, or Con-causes, we find nothing in Scripture]. As he makes Faith to be more than a bare Condition, if by [Condition] be meant only Causa sine quá non, so do I: yet he doth use the words [Condition] and [Instrument] promiscuously, and doth sometimes call Faith the one way, sometimes the other. He supposeth also, That if Works concur with Faith unto Justification, they are Con-causes, and not such Conditions as are only Causae sine quibus non, as you seem to take it.

3. You say that you allow of the Explicatory terms, as I judge them. Why? then you allow of this, [Faith alone doth justify]; yea, [as it embraceth the promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ]; for so immediately Mr. Ball doth explain himself. And for this very reason he denies Works to justify, because [Works do not embrace Christ]: Your distinction of Inchoated and Continued Justification, will here stand you in no stead. For besides that Mr. Ball speaks of Justification simply considered, it's certain that Works neither at first nor afterward conconcur with Faith in embracing the promise of for-forgiveness in Jesus Christ: and therefore if Faith justify in this respect, (as Mr. Ball saith it doth, and you seem to give your approbation of what he saith) surely both at first and afterward Faith alone doth justify: though Works appear in their season, yet they do not concur with Faith unto Justification.

4. That which you cite out of Mr. Ball, p. 20. doth not reach home to your purpose. To say, as he there doth, [A disposition to good Works is necessary to Justification], is no more than to say, A lively and working Faith, or a Faith apt and ready to Work, is necessary unto Justification. So when he saith, [Good Works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification, and so to our final absolution, if God give opportunity]; he meaneth only this, that Works are necessary Fruits of that Faith by which we lay hold on the Righteousness of Christ, and so are justified and absolved. [The Faith that is lively (saith he) to embrace Mercy, is ever conjoined with an unseigned purpose to walk in all well pleasing, and the sincere performance of all holy Obedience, as opportunity is offered, doth ever attend that Faith whereby we continually (N. B.) lay hold on the Promises once embraced. Actual good Works of all sorts (though not perfect in degree) are necessary to the continuance of Actual Justification, because Faith can no longer lay claim to the Promises of Life, than it doth •• rtually or actually lead us forward in the way to Heaven]. It is clear, that as well afterward as at first, he ascribes Justification only to Faith, as being only that which doth embrace the Promises, though he require a working Disposition at first, and Works themselves afterward, as opportunity serveth, to testify and give proof that Faith is lively, as he expressly speaketh. The words which you further add, I have cited before, and they are directly against you, showing that as I and others take the word [Condition] Faith is the only Condition of Justification, and Works no part of it. And see what Mr. Ball addeth immediately after those words, [Faith and Works are opposed in the Matter of Justification, not that they cannot stand together in the same Subject, for they be inseparably united, but because they cannot concur or meet together in one and the same Court, to the Justification or Absolution of Man]. That which you cite from p. 21. is not to be understood (as you seem to take it) of actual walking, but of a disposition to walk, as he said p. 20. [A disposition to Works, &c.] This disposition is the qualification of that Faith, or always conjoined with that Faith, whereby we are partakers of Christ's Righteousness. This plainly appears to be his meaning, both by the words immediately going before, and also by the words in the preceding Page, both which are already cited.

1. If Personal Righteousness be not perfect, but have need of pardon for the imperfection of it, then there is no being justified by it. This very reason Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and Chemnitz give, why we cannot be justified by Inherent Righteousness, as I noted before out of Wotton de Recon. part 2. lib. 2. cap. 19. num. 4. And to this purpose I also have cited before the words of Calvin, Davenant, Ames, Rivet and Maccovius. As for the Metaphysical Perfection of Being, which you speak of, it is but such as doth belong to things that are most imperfect. And for Praestatio Conditionis N. Legis, it is not (as I have said before) properly that Righteousness by which we are justified, though it be required to that end, that we may be partakers of Christ's Righteousness, and so (viz. by that Righteousness of Christ) be justified. 2. Of Justification quàm continuationem, & Sententiam Judicis (nempe in ultimo Judicio) enough hath been said before. Neither Calvin, nor any of our famous D • vines, (that I know) nor yet the Scriptures (so far as I can find) do teach, that we are justified by Faith alone at first, but by Faith and Works afterward; yea I have shown the contrary both from the Scriptures, and from our Divines; yet they both teach, That Faith whereby we are (both at first and afterward) justified, hath in it at first a readiness to Works, and afterward doth work, as opportunity is offered. Quìd commerita est Fides (inquit Maccovius) in progressu vitae, ut tantum non possit, quantum in initio? Ergone ingenium fides mutaverit, &c. De Justif. Disp. 10. See Calvin Instit. lib. 3. cap. 14. §. 11. and Rivet in Gen. 15. Exercit. 83. pag. 404. Col. 1. Whereas you say that Calvin maintaineth a true Personal Righteousness; What is that to the purpose? Who doth not so? If that were all that you bade see Calvin for, truly you might soon cite Authors good store: but (as Martial speaks) Dic aliquid de tribus capellis. Shew that either Calvin, or any Judicious Orthodox Divine doth hold such a Personal Righteousness, as whereby we are justified: both Calvin and all our eminent and approved Writers (that I know) deny this Personal Righteousness to be available unto Justification. Yea, and so do some of chief account in the Church of Rome. Contarenus, a Cardinal, to this purpose you may find cited by Ames contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 1. Thes. 1. Pighius also, a great Romish Champion, is as clear and full for this as may be. In illo (inquit sc. Christo) justificamur, non in nobis; non nostrâ, sed illius justitiâ, quae nobis cum illo communicantibus imputatur. Propriae justitiae inopes, extranos in illo docemur justitiam quaerere. Much more he hath to the same purpose, and herein doth so fully agree with Protestants (though about Faith, as being that alone whereby the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, he dissents from them); that Bellarmine having recited the Opinion of Protestants, saith, (De Justif. lib. 2. cap. 1.) In eandem sententiam, sive potius errorem incidit Albertus Pighius; he adds also, Et Authores Antididagmatis Coloniensis. And for Pighius he saith further, Bucerus in libro Concordiae in articulo de Justification, fatetur Pighii sententiam non dissentire à Lutheranorum sententiâ, quod attinet ad causam formalem Justificationis, sed solùm quantum ad causam apprehensivum, quam Lutherani solam fidem, Pighius dilectionem potius quam fidem esse d • finite. Here by the way observe, That Bucer (if Bellarmine did truly relate his Opinion, though not his only) made Christ's Righteousness imputed to us, the formal Cause of Justification, and Faith the only apprehensive Cause: and that therefore he was far from making us to be justified by our Personal Righteousness, & from making Works concurrent with Faith unto Justification; but that otherwise is evident enough by what hath been cited before out of him. The truth of my Conclusion (I think I may well conclude) is firm and clear, viz. That according to Calvin (and so Bucer and all our famous Writers) Personal Righteousness i • not that whereby we are justified. What color you can have to except against this Conclusion, to say it is merely my own, is to me a wonder.

Ibid. Repentance and Love to Christ are not excluded from our first Justification, yet have they no co-interest with Faith in Justifying; Faith, not Repentance, or Love being Causa apprehensiva (as Bucer and other Protestants do speak) that which doth apprehend Christ's Righteousness, by which so apprehended we are justified. Neither is it denied, that outward Works are requisite, that we may continue justified here, and be sententially (solemnly and openly) justified at the last Judgment: yet it follows not that Justification as continued and consummated at Judgment, is by Works, as concurring with Faith unto Justification. It is the Righteousness of Christ apprehended by Faith, by which we are justified from first to last, only this Faith being of a working Nature, we cannot continue justified, nor shall be (i. e. declared to be) justified at the last Judgment, except we have Works to testify and give proof that our Faith is lively, a • Mr. Ball before cited doth e • press it: but thus also it will follow, that Works being wholly wanting, we never had a Justifying Faith, nor were at all justified.

86. 1. That the Qualification of Faith is part of the Condition of Justification, so that Faith alone, as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, is not the Condition (or Instrumental Cause, for I do not take Condition for Causa sine quâ non, but for that which hath some causality in it) you have not proved. The Condition of our Justification is that we b • lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ; this presupposeth a desire of him, and inferreth a delight in him, and submission to him; yet it is only believing in him, by which we are justified. 2. Though the taking of Christ for King be as Essential to tha • Faith which justifieth, as the taking of him for Priest, yet not to Fai • h as i • justifieth. Of Fides quae, and Fides quâ justificat, as also of taking Christ for King, and taking him for Priest, I have said enough before. 3. I mean that Faith only justifieth, as it receives Christ as Priest, though that Faith which justifieth doth receive Christ as King also. 4. If it be (as you grant) Christ's Satisfaction, and not his Kingship (or Sovereignty) which justify • h meritoriously, then (as far as I am able to judge) it is our apprehending of Christ's Satisfaction, and not our submitting to his Sovereignty, by which we are justified. The Act of Justifying Faith, as Justifying (methinks) can extend no further than to that Office of Christ, in respect of which he justifieth; or than as Christ is our Righteousness, by which we are justified; Christ as Advocate doth only justify by pleading his Satisfaction for us, and our interest in it, and as Judge, by declaring us to be justified by it: and all this secundum foedus novum, which is the ground of our Justification. 5. I so confess Faith to be the Condition of Justification▪ that nevertheless I hold it to justify as apprehending Christ's Righteousness, God having in that respect required Faith of us, that we may be justified. And herein (as I have shown before) I have Mr. Ball and other Judicious Divines agreeing with me, who call Faith a Condition of Justification, and yet make it to justify as it apprehendeth Christ and his Righteousness.

Ibid. My words clearly show my meaning, viz. That Justification as it is begun by Faith alone, so it is continued, so that Obedience hath no more insiuence into our Justification afterward than at first Justifying Faith at first is Obediential, i. e. ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience: and afterward, as there is opportunity, it doth actually bring forth the same; yet both at first and afterward it is Faith and not Obedience by which we are justified.

Ibid. 1. I have also oft enough told you, that you bring nothing of any force to prove Sentential Justification at Judgment a distinct kind of Justification, or anymore than a declaration and manifesta 〈…〉 our present Justification. 2. For the Texts which you alleged, you do 〈…〉 answer what I objected. You alleged them to p • ove, That we are justified completely and finally at the Last Judgment, by perseverance in faithful Obedience. I objected, That they speak of Justification, as it is here obtained, and so make not for your purpose; to this you say just nothing only you seem to say something 〈…〉 those words in the end of the Animadversion, [They show who are justified, nor by what they are justified]; but that which you say, 〈…〉 small force. For none can truly say as much of the Texts alleged for Faith's Justifying, seeing that those Texts expressly say, That we are justified by Faith, and that Faith is imputed unto us for Righteousness, which the other Texts do not say of Obedience.

Ibid. 1. Did you never understand my meaning about Faith's just ••• ing until now? Nay, you seem not yet to understand it. Doth not Faith justify at all, if it only justifies Instrumentally and Relatively? Is this so strange unto you, that when we are said to be justified by Faith, i • i • meant in respect of the Object, viz. Christ and his Righteousness, which is indeed that by which we are justified, though i 〈…〉 st be apprehended by Faith, that we may be justified by it? Where 〈…〉 now the totus munnd • s Theologorum Ref • matorum, which some 〈…〉 you spake of? My acquaintance in this kind is no • so great (I think) as yours, yet I have before alleged many to this purpose. I will here add one more, a Man of note, Dr. Prideaux, (Lect. 5. de Justif. §. 11, 14, 16.) Justificamur (inquit) per justitiam Christi, &c. A • qui •• des ex part • nostrâ hanc justitiam sic a Deo imputatam, appr • hendi • s • l 〈…〉 & applicat; quia neque Charitati, vel spei, vel alteri habitui hoc munus competat. And again, Justificat primo Deus Pater admittendo, & imputando. 2. Deus Filius, Satisfaciendo, & advocatum agen lo. 3. Spiritus Sanctus revelando & obsignando. 4. Fides apprehendendo & applicando. 5 Opera, manifestando & declarando. And again, Animadvertere • otuit Bertius, nos non proprie justificationem fidei attribuere, sed metaleptice, quatenus objecti actus propter arctam connexionem inter illum & habitum, usitatâ Scripturae phrasi, in habitum transfertur. 2. For Christ's Righteousness justifying formally, or being the formal cause of Justification, I have shown in what sense some of our Divines do hold it, and some reject it, and that the difference is rather in words, than in the thing itself. 3. To me it seems no obscurity to say, [Faith or Believing doth justify, because Christ's Righteousness, except it be apprehended by Faith, is not available to Justification]. Is not this as much as Faith doth justify Instrumentally, or as apprehending Christ's Righteousness by which we are justified? The reason why Christ's Righteousness cannot justify, except it be apprehended by Faith, is this, That God doth require Faith of us; Faith (I say) apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, [Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ] that so we may be justified. God's Will is properly the Cause, yet there is a congruity in the thing itself, an aptitude (you grant) in the nature of Faith: it is of an apprehensive Nature, and its apprehending of Christ's Righteousness (the Will of God still presupposed) doth make this Righteousness ours, even as a Gift becomes ours by our receiving of it. If Davenant 's words, which I cited, be not against you, then nothing that I can say is against you. For I cannot express my own mind, as to that point, more clearly and fully than he doth. I will repeat his words again; (De Justit. Habit. cap. 28.) Nihil usitatius quàm causae applicanti illud tribuere, quod proprie & immediate perment ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides appreh • ndit, & app • icat nobis justitiam Christi, id fides ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur. Is not this against you, who say, Append. p. 120. [Faith is a Work and Act of ours; and if Faith justify as an apprehension of Christ, it justifieth as a Work?] Do not these words of Davenant tell you, that it is not Causa applicans, but res applicata; not Fides, but Christus side apprehensus that doth justify? Faith then is said to justify, yet not in respect of itself, but in respect of its Object: it is not properly Faith apprehending, or the apprehension of Faith, but Christ and his Righteousness apprehended, by which we are justified. Much hath been said before to this purpose. If this be nothing against you, I know not how in this particular to say anything against you: if it be against you, surely it is nothing but what that Reverend Author saith in the words cited. And mark (I pray) upon what occasion he brings in those words. Bellarmine (De Justif. lib. 2. cap. 9.) saith that Calvin, from Rom. 4. Ubi dicitur fidem Abrahae imp • tatam esse ad justitiam, gathers, nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam (nempe quâ justificamur) quàm fidem in Christum, id est, (N. B.) Christi justitiam Christi side apprehensam. Against this he objects, Apostolus dicit ipsam sidem imputari ad justitiam: fides autem non est justitia Christi, &c. To this Davenant answers, Sed frivola est haec objectio. Nam nihil • sitatues quàm causae a pli • anti, &c. Your Objection is the very same in effect with Bellarmine 's▪ so that if Davenants words be anything against Bellarmine, they are as much against you. And truly as you put off the words of Davenant, so you might with the same case have answered all my Animadversions, and so you may all these Exceptions, by saying, That they are not against you. It is a strange faculty that you seem to have, of making anything for you, as when you bid see Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. and nothing against you, as he • e in this place.

Ibid. When Mr. Manton speaketh of Faith Justifying as a Relative Act, his words immediately before (which I also cited) show his meaning, viz. That Faith justifieth in its relation to Christ, as it receiveth Christ: so that not every Act relating unto Christ, but that which doth so relate unto him as to recei • e him, is that which justi •• eth: but what I say of the Act justifying, must always be understood in the sense before explained. That Faith in respect of its apprehensive nature, is more than C •• sa si •• a •• non, to me is clear; it is Ca • sa app • icans, as D •• enant in the words even now cited doth call it. 2 To contend much a • out Faith' • Instrumentality, I do not like; I me • n in respect of the word [Instrumentality], so that we agree in the matter▪ yet as o • r bes • Divin • s have used the word, I see not but it is convenient to be used. 3. I gran • th •• i • i • a material question▪ Whe • h • r it be the rec • iving of Christ o • lie as Priest that doth justify; for the confounding of Christ's Offices, and of the Acts of Faith (as Mr. Blake before cited saith well) is not to be endured. But I see no necessary dependence of this question upon the other, viz. Whether Faith justify as an Instrument, a sole-working Instrument, or as an C 〈…〉 nance, or R • lati • e Action required on our parts; which Mr. Manton said is all to the same issue and purpose, and so I think it is.

87. For the distinction of God's Will, you might at first apprehend what I meant, though perhaps my Expressions were not altogether so 〈…〉 nei • her indeed do you seem to speak so clearly of 〈…〉 . 2. How pertine • t • hose Testimonies which you s 〈…〉 cannot tell; b •• truly as you cited Calvin on Lug. 1. 6. 〈…〉 . 3. What you allege out of Davenant, I might evade, by saying as you did, That it is not against me; but I will not put you off so. I answer therefore, Ad 1. [Bona opera sunt necessaria omnibus fidelibus, & justificatis, qui habent usum rationis, & per aetatem operari possunt]. Ita sane res habet: quis negat? Sed num ideo bonis operibus aeque ac side justificamur? Advert, quaeso ipsa authoris tui verba. [Bona opera sunt necessaria justificatis], non justificandi • . Nam (ut scite Augustinus) [Bona opera sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt justificandum. Quid quod tuipse fateris, nos fide absque operibus in initio justificari? Ita, inquies, sed posteà ut justificati simus, opera etiam à nobis requiruntur. At Davenantius istud non dicit, non its certe verbis quae citasti. Jubes autem legere sequentia; lego igitur, [Facile est hujusmodi opera multa (praesertum interna) commemorare sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta, nunquam obtinebitur]. Sed ne hic quidem dicit opera ista pariter ac fidem justificari. Ea enim, quae ad justificationem requiruntur, cum us quae justificant, confundi non debent, ut been monet Ames. Quin & ipse Davenantius latum discrimen facit inter Fidem & Opera, cum Fidem ideo justificare dicat, quod justitiam Christi apprehendat, ac nobis applicet. Id enim Fidei peculiare est, nec Operibus ullo modo tribui potest. Ex Davenantii igitur sententia, non partim fide, partin operibus, sed fide sola justificamur. Ad 2. That Conclusion is the same in effect with the former. Some internal Works must go before Justification, yet they do not therefore justify as well as Faith. Davenantius eo ipso loco negat opera necessaria esse ad justificationem, ut causas, sed tantùm ut ab obtinen • am Equestrem dignitatem necessarium est adire aulam regiam, atque coram rege in genua se dimittere. Fidem autem (loco alio, atque alibi citato) dicit esse causam applicantem justitiam, Christi, atque ideo ei tribu • , quod proxime & immediate pertinet ad rem applicatam; Fidem nempe dici justificare, cum proprie justitia Christi fi • e apprehensa justificet; id quod ego mordicus teneo. Ad 3. De retinendo scilicet, & conservando Justificationis statu, anteà satis responsam est. Id nunc dico Davenantium nec in principio Justificationis, nec in progressu ejus vim vartutemque justificandi operibus juxta ac Fidei • ribuere, et tamsi dicat bona opera ad Justificationis Statum retinendum & conservandum esse necessaria: id quod ego libenter agnosco. Cum enim in ipso Justificationis ex • rdio Fidem operibus gravidam esse oporteat, procedente denium Justification Fidem opera parere necesse est. Ad 4. Dico te extra oleas vagart, cum ego de Conditione Justificationis loquar, a • qui istiusmodi quidem Conditione, quâ justificari dicimur, tu autem oppo • is mihi authorem de operibus justificatorum (i. e. Eorum, qui jam justificati sunt, & fide quidem, non operibus, ex authoris istius sententiâ) ad salutem necessariis disserentem. The Pages to which you further refer me, I cannot consult, my Edition differing from yours, as you might perceive by some places which I cited. But our Inference is of no force, as having no ground for it, viz. That if I will be of Davenant 's mind, I must be of yours. I do not see that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do, who hold that they justify, and urge the words of St. James for it, whereas Davenant (as I have shown) makes Faith to justify as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness, which surely Works cannot do. He saith also, Opera sequuntur Justificationem, & praecedum Glorificationem, being not acquainted (it seems) with your distinction of Justification as Inchoated, and as Consummate at Judgment, whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of Justification, as of Glorification. What Davenant doth mean when he calleth Faith an Instrument, he doth sufficiently show, making Faith to have a Causality in Justifying, by apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified. But do our greatest Divines give as much to Works as you do? This you will undertake (you say) to manifest. Why? then make it appear, that they hold Works to justify as well as Faith, or to have a co-interest with Faith in the Effect of Justifying. Except you perform this, (which I presume you never will) you cannot make good your Undertaking. So do our greatest Divines give more to Faith than you. As you urge the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of St. James for being justified by Works, so you also insist upon the very Letter of St. Paul, and will have Faith itself to be properly our Righteousness, by which we are justified: Thi • our greatest Divines do not no more than the other. Yet you stick not to brand them, as making Man his own Justifier and Pardoner. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Truly this is overgross. What professed Adversary could reproach our greatest Divines more than thus? Whither will not a Man's partiality carry him, if he be let alone? May you not as well say, That Christ made some their own Savior's, because he said, That their Faith had saved them? I had thought that all the Glory did belong to the principal Agent, rather than to the Instrument. And to what purpose do you say, [Who can forgive sins but God only?] Do they that make • ai • h an I • s • r • meant of Justification, deny this anymore than you, who mak • both • aith and Works Conditions of it?

Yea, some will have that Monstrum horrendum, and first-born of Abominations (as they phrase it) to be laid at your own door. For my part I shall say no more than this, That you seem as guilty this way yourself, as they whom you censure, though neither you nor they (I think) are indeed guilty in this kind. But why may not Man's Act be an Ins • rument of God's Act? Or to speak more properly, Man acting be an Instrument of God acting? We are workers together with God, 2 Cor. 6. 1. Surely not in a way of Co-ordination, but in a way of Subordination; and so Man may be God's Instrument. I am not therefore of your mind, but think, that the Gospel rather is properly a Means, and Ministers Instruments: though to be nice and curious about words, so that the Matter be sound and good, I do not love.

Ibid. & 88. 1. That Faith doth justify, as it apprehendeth Christ, appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum; I have given you enough to this purpose before. No • to your Reasons why this is to set up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere, I answer; Ad 1. Not Apprehendere & Credere simpliciter, but Apprehendere & Credere in, i. e. Apprehendere Christum, & Credere in Christum, are all one. And when it is said, That this doth justify, the meaning is, Christus fide apprehensus justificat: so that this doth not set up 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Credere, as some do set it up, who make it as our Act simply considered, to be that Righteousness by which we are justified. Ad 2. Their meaning is not obscure, as you pretend, that you may the better oppose it. The Object of Faith, Christ's Righteousness apprehended by Faith, doth justify: and so Faith is said to justify, not as considered in itself, but in respect of its Object, which it apprehendeth, because it apprehendeth that, viz. Christ's Righteousness which doth justify. Ad 3. The formal reason why Faith doth justify, is its Apprehension, yet still that is in respect of the thing apprehended, Causae applicanti illud tribuitur, quod immediate pertinet ad rem applicatam. Id fides ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur, as Davenant before cited doth express it, whose words you said were not against you, though none can be more in this Matter.

For the second Point you are quite mistaken. For I do not put a difference betwixt Justification and Right to Salvation, but betwixt Justification and Salvation itself, i. e. • he full enjoyment of it, viz. Glorification. I have frequently expressed myself to this effect, I hat by Faith alone we are justified, and so have Right to Salvation; yet by Works and Obedience also we must come fully to enjoy Salvation.

In hoc Faedere (scil. Evangelico, saith Davenant, De Justit. Actual. cap. 30. pag. mihi 396.) ad obtinendam reconciliationem, justificationem, atque aeternam vitam, non alia requiritur Conditio, quam verae & vivae fidei. Presently after he explains himself thus; Justificatio igitur, & jus (N. B.) ad aeteraam vitam ex Conditione solius Fidei suspenditur.

By the way you may observe how he calls Faith the Condition, and the only Condition of our Justification, and yet he makes it not to be Causa sine qua non, but Causa Instrumentalis & Causa applicans, as appears by his words before cited. Your following Arguments are not against me, you do but fight (as they say) with your own shadow. Yea, you having objected against yourself, Rom. 5. 10. You answer directly as I use to do, viz. That Paul doth not distinguish betwixt Reconciliation and a Right to Salvation, but betwixt Reconciliation and actual (and Compleat) Salvation. You add, That Paul makes them both Fruits of Free Grace. And what Protestant (say I) doth not so? A necessity of good Works, as the way of attaining unto Salvation is asserted, yet it is denied that good Works are meritorious of Salvation. That in Rom. 8. 6. (whence you infer, That only Faith is not the Condition) proves not that Faith alone is not the Condition of Justification and Right to Salvation, which is all that I contend for. What you mean by those words [Life as well as Righteousness] I do not know. Neither do I see what those Verses, 13, 14, 17. (viz. of Rom. 8.) are for your purpose. Whereas by the way you say, [Faith justifies, not quà Instrumentum, vel Apprehensio proxime, sed quà Conditio praestita, because Justification is given as a Reward; and Rewards are given on Moral Considerations, and not merely Physical]; I have told you before, That I also include a Moral Consideration, and do not make Faith to justify merely as it is of such an apprehensive Nature, but as being of such a Nature, God • herefore in that respect hath been pleased to make choice of i • for that end, that by it, apprehending Christ and his Righteousness (i. e. properly by Christ and his Righteousness apprehended by it) we should be justified.

The Substance of Mr. Cartwright 's Exceptions considered.

TO reply to these Exceptions verbatim, I conceive were a sinful loss of time, and a great wrong to to the Learned Author, and more to myself, and most of all to the Reader and the Truth. For it would unavoidably tire us all, and drown the Truth in a mountainous heap of useless Altercations; and the main business would be to manifest a Reverend Brother's mistakes, which I conceive may sooner kindle the fire of Anger, than the light of Information.

I shall therefore pass by all that part of the work, and only deal with the remaining Differences, which are the Soul of the Book, and that not in the Order as they lie, but as they seem of greatest moment, or are most insisted on by the Reverend Author.

The main substance of the Exceptions, consisteth of these points following:

1. That I say Faith (and secondarily sincere Obedience) are as to the Law of Works or Innocency, but the Conditions of our Justification by Christ's merits, from its condemning sentence: But they are our material Righteousness in respect to the Law of Grace; viz. a particular subordinate Righteousness, because a Condition of our Pardon and Salvation. But Mr. C. yieldeth that they are such a Condition, but not that we are justified by them, or that they are our Righteousness thereto.

2. That I make Works to have a co-interest with Faith in Justification.

3. That I make Faith to be but a Condition of our main Justification, consisting in remission of sin: But Mr. C. makes it a Cause, which he calleth Causa applicans.

4. That I make two Laws, and Mr. C. but one; only yieldeth to call the Promise the New-Law.

5. That I make the New▪Covenant a Law to have a peculiar penalty, which Mr. C. denieth.

6. That I make Obedience a Condition of our right to Salvation, [Juris continuandi vel non amittendi) though not of our first Righteousness: And Mr. C. makes it a Condition of Salvation itself, and not of our right to it; yet confesseth that it is the same thing that is the Condition of Justification, and of right to Salvation.

7. That Mr. C. makes the Gospel-Grant to be properly, A sentence of Absolution by God as Judge; and I make it to be but A Donation of pardon and life by God as Rector and Benefactor by Law, and Deed of Gift, and so a virtual, not an actual judicial Sentence: Which yet I little stick on.

8. Mr. C. taketh the Judgment after this life to be no other or further Justification than we have here, but only a further Declaration of it: And I take it to be a decisive Sentence, to put our right • ut of controversy, giving us our Jus Judicatum, as the Promise did our Jus Constitutum, and moreover, being the orderly means to our possession.

As to the first of these Differences, I would know, Whether it be about the Matter or the Word that we disagree? If the Matter, then Mr. C. would never have granted, 1. That Faith and Obedience is an inherent or personal Righteousness, and so called commonly by Scripture and Divines. 2. That it is the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant. 3. That if we be accused to have no right in Christ, because we have not fulfilled this Condition, we must plead the actual fulfilling of it by ourselves, or perish; and not plead any fulfilling of it by Christ for us, nor any pardon for our not fulfilling it. 4. Yea, that even wicked men may have a true particular Righteousness, (though not this which is the Condition of Salvation) I remember now no one material difference left between us.

And if it be only Verbal: 1. I conceive that the Dispute, [Whether the fulfilling of the Conditions of the New-Covenant may be called Righteousness, or we be said to be justified by it?] when we are agreed in the thing, is not worth the contending about. 2. Mr. C. saith, p. 91. of his Exceptions, Non oportet litigare de verbis cum de re constet. 3. He confesseth (as is said) that even a wicked Reprobate may have a particular Righteousness, and owneth Bradshaw 's so denominating it. He therefore that will yield that the Devil or a Reproba • e may be called righteous quoad causam particularem, and that that is Righteousness, me thinks should not deny it in our case. 4. He confesseth (for it is undeniable) that all our Divines do give the name of Righteousness to our inherent Righteousness: Therefore de nomine we differ not. 5. He denieth not (for it is past denying) that Scripture often calleth our Faith and sincere Obedience by the name of Righteousness: So that when I so call it, I do but speak as the Holy Ghost hath taught me. Thus far then methinks, we should be fully agreed (as in sense so) that the name of Righteousness is lawful and fit to be applied to our Faith itself, and personal Obedience.

It remains then de nomine, whether we may say, 1. Either that this Faith or Righteousness doth justify us? 2. Or that we are justified by it?

For the former phrase. I use not to say [Faith justifieth:] 1. Because it soundeth as if I made it an efficient Cause. 2. Because Scripture rather useth the other phrase. [We are justified by Faith.] Though there seem small difference in these speeches, yet indeed the latter best sitteth the nature of a conditional or dispositive Interest: And the Holy Ghost is the fittest Judge. But for the latter phrase, and the former taken in the same sense as the latter, viz. [That Faith justifieth as a Condition, and thence consequentially, as the matter of our subservient particular Righteousness,] I should think that here is no room for a d • s • greement. For,

1. None can deny but that I speak in the Lang •••• of the Holy Ghost, who saith, [A man is j ••• ified by W • rks, and not by Faith only;] and that [by our w • rds we shall be justified, and by our words we shall be condemned.] Say not I mistake the meaning of these word • , while, 1. Our Question is no • n 〈…〉 • bout the meaning or matter, but about the 〈…〉 of the phrase. 2. And the thing that I am first blamed for, is not the misunderstanding of a particular Text, but of the Doctrine of Justification.

2. It is beyond all doubt a contradiction unworthy the Pen of any Learned man to say, This is our Righteousness, and yet will not in tantum justify us; (and in totum, I ever denied it as much as they:) Forma proculdubio informat & denominat.

3. To justify, (in the sense I use it) is (first) to constitute Righteous, (for I take it for constitutive Justification first:) But it may be said, that we are constituted Righteous by Faith and Obedience (not speaking of universal Righteousness:) Therefore it may be said we are justified by them.

Nothing can be said to this Argument, but against the minor, by denying that the word [Justify] is ever taken for constituting Righteous, but only for sentencing us so: But I never yet met but with one Learned man, that I remember, that was of that mind. Our Divines ordinarily distinguish of Justification constitutive and sentential: 1. His Reason is, because it is still taken in sensu forensi, and so we maintain against the Papists. But I answer, Our Divines take not sensum forensem, as excluding, but including, sensum Legalem, vel Civilem (as we commonly speak) but only as excluding sensum Ethicum, as it signifieth merely our acts and qualities of Ethical Justice or Virtue. Now so I grant against the Papists, that Justification signifieth not most usually nor very oft an infusion of new Qualities; but 1. Non reatum culpae vel poenae, which is Innocence and Legal Righteousness. 2. Sentential Absolution. Now I say no more, but, 1. That our Non-reatus culpae finalis impoenitentiae & infidelitatis aut Rebellionis, is our particular Righteousness or Justification. 2. Our Non-reatus poenae propter hanc culpam is founded herein as the matter. 3. Our Non-reatus poenae aeternae in general dependeth on this (at the last Judgment) as on a Condition. 2. I little doubt but Scripture (mentioning Justification by Faith) means it of constitutive Justification; and Mr. C. for ought I perceive, thinks so too, taking it and sentential Justification for all one.

If then we may be said to be [made Righteous] by Faith and Obedience, then we may be said to be justified by them: But the former is true; Therefore, &c.

That Righteousness which makes not righteous, is a thing, never yet known, except it were only nomen justitiae sine re, and it were only equivocally so called. For Righteousness is a mere relative form, and therefore must make, that is, formally constitute the person righteous so far. Even as there is no existent Worthiness, that makes not worthy; or Guiltiness, that makes not guilty, or Unrighteousness, that makes not so far unrighteous; or Goodness, that makes not so far good: I think none will contradict this.

4. I will tell you what I will do? If godly Divines would not have me use James 's phrase, and say, [We are justified by Works,] yea, or by Obedience, yea▪ •• by Faith, as Paul speaks, rather than wrong t •• Churches p • ace, I will utterly lay it by in speech • nd writing, and I will only say, [We are made right •• us,] and not, [We are justified] by them. And so in my Explication of our Righteousness, I wi • l say, that we have a twofold Righteousness. 1. Inherent personal Righteousness (Evangelically so called;) which by reason of its exceeding Imperfection (for so I am content to speak) will not justify us of itself in Judgment: This consisteth inchoatively, or at first, of Faith and Repentance without external Obedience; afterward, of Faith continued, and Obedience added. 2. The other Righteousness is meritoriously Christ's Satisfaction for our sin, and formally the pardon of sin itself, whereby the defaults of all our Faith, Obedience, and other Graces, together with all the sins of our lives, are remitted, or our jus ad impunitatem & regnum. Our Faith or Obedience is none, no not the least part of this Righteousness of Remission, and right to Life: But yet Christ in granting his Act of Pardon or Grace, did except final Infidelity and Impenitency out of it: And therefore as he pardoneth none such, so his Righteousness of Remission always supposeth concurrent our personal Righteousness (quâ talis, not to be remitted;) Christ never died to purchase us pardon for loving God, hating Sin, Repenting, Obedience, &c. but only for the sin that adheres to these in their deficiency or evil company. Why may not this much reconcile us?

Nay, Note these two things:

1. That Mr. C. in his pleading for an imperfect Righteousness, so denominated from its Conformity to the Law, page 68, 69. professeth, that [Accepting for Righteous, and accounting just, is as much as justifying;] and that, [it is the New-Covenant that so accepteth our Works, as they are a sincere, though imperfect, Conformity to the Law as a Rule;] and that; [for his part he should say, that we and our actions are justified from the Law of Works, i. e. from the Condemnation of it.] Now is not here as much, or more by far, than I say for Works?

1. More: For I do not think that God's acceptance of our Works, is a justifying them from the Law's Condemnation; but that they are unjustifiable, and still condemned by the Law, and that the Gospel was never of force to save men's Works from the Law's Condemnation, but only to save the person: Nay, that if the Works be not condemned by the Law, the person cannot be justified by Christ, but must be justified by his Works: For justified Works will justify the person, so far as they are justified; and if the Works be not condemned, the person cannot be condemned for them.

2. But I intend not this as an Accusation of his Opinion; for I believe he meaneth soundly: But then at least consider, Whether this be not as much as I say? He alloweth here, and professeth to use the term [Justification of our Works] as the subject: And if it be fit to say, God justifieth our Works, then what man can devise a Reason why it is not as fit to say, God justifieth us thereby? so far in tanto, though not in t • to: For as Bradshaw truly saith, Every Justification of the cause, is indeed a Justification of the person. I take it for granted therefore, that Mr. C. alloweth me to say, that we are justified by our Works and Faith as our particular Righteousness, by a particular Justification: Yea, he in other places plainly expresseth as much. Now he must needs know, that I often told him, I take it but for a particular Righteousness, and to be but Mat • ria Justificationis particularis, & conditio Justificationis plenariae, vel (supposità conditione praestità) univers ••• o.

2. Note also, That he gives it as the very sum of all his Answer on this point, that [our Faith (and Obedience) as an imperfect Conformity to the Law, is a particular Righteousness, and so it justifieth not; but as it is the Condition of the Covenant, it justifieth, and so it is no Righteousness.] Now it is here granted, that a personal Righteousness is requisite to our Justification, though not as Righteousness. If Faith, which is our Righteousness, be necessary, though not as our Righteousness, but as a Condition; for my part I have all that I desire for substance in his Concession, that Faith justifieth as a Condition. The rest is but of the name: And of the name himself saith, p. 40. The Question is not, Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words (that he confesseth) but how and in what sense we are to be so justified: There is a particular Justification, and a declarative Justification: Thus we are justified by our Works and Words; but a full and formal Justification is only by Christ's Righteousness, through Faith imputed to us.

But what Reason gives he through the whole, why Faith is no Righteousness as a Condition? He saith still, that [It is no new Accusation to be accused of non-performing the Conditions of the New Covenant, but a making good the former.] But it is most evidently a distinct subordinate Accusation towards the making good the first. Is the means and end all one? Is it all one to accuse a Traitor of being liable to death for Treason merely as such; and to accuse him of not performing the Conditions in an Act of General Pard • n •• and so having no b • n • fit by that Act for his escape? The 〈…〉 no • the same, nor the sense the s 〈…〉 A ••• sation is not the same. Those things which are divisible are not the same: But these are divisible; ergo, &c. The Devils may be accused of being guilty of death for sin as sin; but not of non -performance of Conditions of Recovery: For a mere Negation is no ground of Guilt or Accusation.

But he thinks, that [the Law constituteth the officium Credendi, and the Covenant the Condition; therefore as a Condition performed, it is no Righteousness; and as a Duty performed, no justifying Righteousness, but particular.] I answer, 1. If this were all so, yet when the Covenant doth take one Legal duty for its Condition, our Salvation may lie on that particular Righteousness. 2. Will it, or may it ever be questioned in Judgment, or not, Whether we have performed the Condition of the New-Covenant? I think it will be the main Question: I am sure in Conscience it is the main. If it may ever be questioned, Whether we have right in the Promise and Christ 's blood or no, I know no way of Legal evincing it, but by producing the Deed of Gift, or our performance of the Condition. All the doubt then to be discussed will be of the latter; and on this will Reprobates begin to plead, [Lord we have done thus and thus;] for the Gift will be undeniable. Now if this will be a Cause to be pleaded at Judgment (yea, for ought I can understand by God's Word, the great Cause of the day,) then certainly the D • fendant will be Guilty, or Not-Guilty; and his Cause will be just, or unjust. If he have justitiam Causae, then Mr. C. is mistaken; if he have not, the man is condenmed. Mr. C. is very much • ut to imagine (and make it the substance of most of his Answers in the main Question) that our performance of a Condition as such, may not be a Righteousness. What if it were granted to be no Ethical Righteousness (and yet I am loath Covenant-breakers should have so much countenance, or that God's Covenant-keeping should be denied the name of Righteousness;) doth it follow that it is not a judiciary Righteousness, a justitia forensis which is nearest to our great Justification?) If Contractors enter a Suit one against another for not -keeping Covenants, may not, must not the Accused or Defendants Cause be just, or unjust? If a man enter an Action against another for not-performing a Promise, for not-doing what by Lease or other Covenant he was bound to; I think the Law will pronounce him and his Cause just, or unjust; and acquit and justify him, or else condemn him accordingly. If it be capable of being a Cause in Law, or the matter of an Action or Suit, then it is most necessary a righteous or unrighteous Cause. But,

3. I do not think it tolerable so to exclude the Law as a Law from this work. For,

1. The very Covenant is a Law, even the promisory part: I prove it, 1. God is so super-eminently and transcendently above us, and our absolute Sovereign, that we are not capable of entering into a strict Covenant (as among equals) but such as participateth of the nature of a Law. We have so wholly our dependence on him, and good from him, that he can make no Law of favor, or for our good, but so far it must be as a Benefactor (it being otherwise with earthly Sovereigns, whose Subjects receive not all their propriety from them:) And also he is so conjunctly our absolute Sovereign, that he can enter no Contract with us but authoritatively.

2. From the Definition: A Law taken most fitly, though largely (for jus Constituens, adequate to jus Constitutum; and not for Lex, as its narrowly taken as distinct from Precept, Privileges, Contracts, &c.) this true proper Law is but Constitutio debiti Authoritativa; or, Signum voluntatis Rectoris debitum Constituens. Now Constituere debitum praemii, is as true an Act of this Law (though every Law have it not, which made some exclude it;) as constituere debitum officii. Yea, acts of absolute free Grace or Pardon are true Laws. So that God did make the New-Covenant as Benefactor and Legislator both; and so gave the Legal jus ad Beneficium, and constituted the Condition of his own Gift.

2. Besides, I am not yet of Mr. C 's mind, that the Precept itself, which he calls the Law, is not a real part of the Covenant. What though it be part of the Law? so it may be, and of the Covenant too; for the Covenant (as Mr. Lawson hath well shown) is truly a Law, called a Covenant from the more excellent part (the Promise) and from God's Condescention, and from man's requisite Consent: Yet called a Laws, as being the authoritative Constitution of what shall be due to us (good or evil) and what shall be due from us for the obtaining of one, and escaping the other. But of this more anon about the Law.

3. Nay, as Unrighteousness condemneth not directly, as it is contrary to Duty, but as it is contrary to the Condition of Life, and is the Condition of the Threat: So when it concerneth Judgment, the word Righteousness doth most nearly belong to Duty as a Condition, and remotely to Duty as Duty performed.

2. The second Question or Point of Difference, [I make Works to have a co-interest with Faith in Justification.]

But how? It is sure confessed not in our first Justification, and that it is principally in our last great Justification at Judgment. Do I advance Works higher than others? or do I not rather seem to depress Faith lower? I never made Works to be the the instrumental Cause of Justification, as others do Faith. I never made them the causa applicans, as Mr. C. makes Faith. I never made them any proper cause. I do aver in the end of my Answer to him, that I give less to Faith, but no more to Works than others.

His Answer is this: [Why? then make it appear that they hold Works to justify as well as Faith, or to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying: Except you perform this (which I presume you never will) you cannot make good your undertaking.] Ans. I have proved over and over, that they affirm Repentance a Condition of Pardon; and Obedience a Condition of final Justification. If I prove that they do thus, and that I do no more, do I not prove that I give no more to Works than they? What, must I prove that they give no more to Faith, and so make no greater inequality than I, before I can prove that they give as much to Works? The co-interest of a Condition I can prove by forty of them, that they give as far I: But must I prove that they give Obedience the co-interest of a cause, which I deny myself?

So I did in the next lines cite Davenant, saying the very same words as I, and as fully as I desire, and largely explaining and proving them. Yet Davenant said well, and I say ill, when I am ready to subscribe to his words in the sense as they must plainly import, or with a Protestation to understand them as rightly as I can: If this be not non ex fide personas, sed ex personis fidem, &c. as Tertul. what is?

And what is the Difference? Why it is said, [Dic • te extra oleas vagari, cum ego de conditione Justificationis loquor, at{que} ejusmodi quidem conditione quâ Justificari dicimur: tu autem opponis mihi authorem de operibus Justificatorum, i. e. eorum qui jam Justificati sunt, & fide quidem, non operibus, ex authoris istius sententia, ad salutem necessariis disserentem.]

Resp. 1. Putàssem propiùs ad rem controversam pertinere, quid ego loquor, & de quali conditione, quam tum, cum ego rei & tu actoris partes agis?

2. Nonne Davenantius etiam loquitur de conditione? & de conditione sine qua non? & de conditione ad Justificationis statum retinendum & conservandum? imo de conditione concurrente vel praecursoriâ? Ipsissima authoris verba sunt.

3. Nonne & ego de Justificatorum operibus semper sum locutus, quando dixi ea ad Justificationem continuandam esse necessaria.

It is further answered by Mr. C. to the fifth Conclusion, [Some internal Works must go before Justification, yet they do not therefore justify as well as Faith. Davenantius eo ipso loco negat opera necessaria esse ad Justificationem ut causas, sed tantum ut ad obtinendam equestrem dignitatem, &c. Fidem autem (alio loco) dicit esse causam applicantem justitiam Christi, at{que} ideo ei tribuit quod proxime & immediate pertinetad rem applicatam, &c.]

Reply. 1. Doth not he say, that they are necessary [ut conditions praecursoriae?] If they are Conditiones, they have the interest of Conditions in Justification. I say not, [They justify us,] because that phrase sounds as if I ascribed an efficiency to them; but only, that [we are justified by them as Conditions.] And to say, [It is a Condition of Justification, and yet we may not be justified by it as by a Condition] is no better than to say, [Such a thing is an efficient, but causeth not as an efficient.] I deny them to be Causes as well as he.

2. And what if you proved that he makes Faith a Cause, when I do not, and so doth not so nearly equal them as I? Doth that prove that I give more to Works than he? or rather that I give less to Faith? He that will affirm, that he ascribeth no more to Works than you, is but sorrily confuted by your saying, that he ascribeth less to Faith, that is, that he gives Works a co-interest with Faith: Which he may do, by derogating from Faith (or from your estimation of it) without adding any further dignity or power to Works.

Mr. C. gives this as his summary Answer, [Your first inference is of no force, as having no ground, viz. that if I will be of Davenant 's mind, I must be of yours. I do not see that Davenant doth attribute as much to Works as you do. (2.) Who hold, that they justify; and urge, (3.) the words of St. James for it; whereas Davenant (4.) makes Faith to justify; (5.) as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness, which surely Works cannot. He saith also; (6.) Opera sequuntur Justificationem & praecedunt Glorificationem; being not acquainted it seems with your distinction of Justification, as Inchoate, and as Consummate at Judgment, whereby you would have Works to be as well a Condition of Justification as of Glorification.

Rep. If ever words were spoke against most express evidence in terminis, I think these are; 1. That my words were groundless, when I have no fitter expressions of my own mind, than in Davenant 's words. 2. I hold not, [that they justify,] but that [we are justified by them,] which phrase better fits a mere Condition than the former. 3. I take the words of James to be Scripture; and doth it prove, that I give more to Works than Davenant, because I cite the express words of Scripture? What if I misunderstand that Scripture? doth it follow that I give more to Works? 4. Is this an Argument to ground your Accusation on [Davenant makes Faith to justify, as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness: Works cannot so do?] What then? therefore Davenant gives less to Works than you? A sorry consequence! Or is it, [Therefore Davenant makes not Works to justify.] Answ. Nor I, if you take it efficiently, as you say, Davenant doth make Faith a Cause. But, 1. Is not this his giving more to Faith, and not loss than I to Works? 2. Doth he not say, that Works are Conditions of Justification, some precursory and concomitant, and some for continuing it? And I still profess, that we are justified by them but as Conditions. If you say, I call them Righteousness by which we are justified, I have answered that before; that is lis de nomine, and I so call them but à posteriore, because they are Conditions of our Justification, and you and Davenant call them a particular Righteousness as well as I. I still say, as to our universal Justification, they have no further interest than the very essence of a Condition imports; and if Davenant give them not this, he was to blame to tell us otherwise. 5. I make Faith also to justify [as Apprehending and Applying,] if you do not take the word [As] strictly pro ration formali, but as signifying Faith's special aptitude to a preeminence in this Work: And I affirm, that Works do not justify as Apprehending or Applying: (still remember, that when I use the phrase [Faith justifieth,] I use it in Conformity to your Discourse, and mean it as is before explained. 6. Do not I say, as well as he, that opera sequuntur Justificationem & praecedunt Glorificationem? and doth it thence follow, that he was unacquainted with my distinction of Justification Inchoate and Consummate at Judgment? Why? 1. You know the same man was acquainted with the distinction between Justification Inchoate and continued. 2. And that that he saith Works follow Justification, makes them precursory Conditions of Justification, and Conditions of its Continuance? and so plainly acquaints you, that it is those external Works, which he makes Conditions of continuing Justification, which he saith, follow it; which no doubt but they do. 3. Think you then, that this Learned man did not know, that Christ would come again to judge the quick and the dead? and so could distinguish between Justification here and hereafter? Or did he ever dr • am, that the Saints should be judged, and yet not justified then? why, then they must be condemned? For Judging is the Genus, and hath but those two species. But I have spoke further to this than I intended.

The sum of my Reply to this Question is this: 1. I never gave Works a co-interest with Faith, in causing or effecting our Justification: For I never gave Faith such an interest. 2. I never gave Works an equal interest with Faith. 3. I never gave external Works any interest in our first Justification. Only to that I require, that the Faith be such as Mr. C. himself so much pleads for, A working Faith, or non renuens operari; or that hath Works in it Virtually, (as taking Christ for King to be obeyed.)

Contr. 3. The next Difference between us is this: Mr. C. makes Faith to be Causa applicans of our Justification; and I make it to be but a Condition.

I understand my own term partly, but I understand not his: What Cause is this Causa applicans? As far as I understand him, he meaneth an efficient Cause: And that which is an efficient, may be said to effect. Here is the difference then, I do not make Faith to effect the pardon of any sin, that is, to pardon me (as a less principal Cause:) But had Mr. C. given us this Causality of Faith in any notion familiar to us Logicians of the lower Form, we should better have known what to make of it. In the mean time should I presume but to pass my Conjecture which of the sorts of Efficients he intends, perhaps I might wrong him by my mistakes; yet let these two things be remembered: 1. That I hereby give less to Faith, but not more to Works. 2. That I only excuse myself, for not calling Faith, A Cause of Justification: But I do not accuse others that so call it, nor will I contend with them about it, if they mean a moral Cause, or per accidens only, if they will give me leave to forbear. And though anon I shall show, that I hope you may yet mean the same as I by Causa applicans, that it is but dispositio causae materialis, id est, Recipientis; yet because so great a number of great Divines call it the instrumental Cause, I must first speak to that sense, on that supposition.

And here I remember Mr. C 's next words to those even now cited: [Do our Divines give more to Faith than you? 1. As you urge the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of St. James, for being justified by Works; so you also insist upon the very letter of St. Paul, and will have Faith itself to be properly our Righteousness by which we are justified: This our greatest Divines do not, no more than the other.]

Reply. 1. I had rather be accused of adhering too close to the words of the Holy Ghost, than of departing causelessly from them.

2. How oft have I told you over and over, that I make Faith to be no further our Righteousness, than as it is the Condition of our Righteousness merited by Christ? And knowing this, could you think and say, that I give more to Faith than yourself, who say, it is the Condition as well as I? Sure the naming of this Condition by the name Righteousness, is not giving more to it! If it be, 1. You cannot say so, that use the name yourself; 2. And here seem to confess I have [the very letter] of Scripture for it: And that's enough I think to justify the name, while I agree with you in the thing.

He proceeds thus: [Yet you stick not to brand them as making man his own Justifier or Pardoner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Truly this is over-gross: What professed Adversary could reproach our greatest Divines more than thus? Whither will not a man's partiality carry him, if he be let alone? May you not as well say, that Christ made some their own Savior's, because he said, that their Faith had saved them? I had thought that all the glory did belong to the principal Agent, rather than to the Instrument.]

Reply. Where I have offended God in wronging men, I desire and hope for pardon. Yet if I may give a true account of my words, I must say, 1. That I would have you review, whether it be you or I that broke the Ninth Commandment. I did not say, that these Divines do make man his own Justifier; but only that [I give not to Faith, and so to man so much as they, not daring to make man his own Justifier.] I am afraid I should be guilty of this, if I said, that Faith effecteth our Justification: Doth it follow that I say, They are guilty of it? I think not, for all your anger. For Consequences are not to be fastened upon men that disown them, at least, as directly guilty of them: I see them, or seem to myself so to do; it would therefore bring that guilt on me, if I held their opinion, though it may not on them (unless remotely.)

2. I never once thought of charging the men as holding, that they justify themselves; but only I charged their opinion with it consequentially. And must the Reverence of men prohibit us to mention or intimate the ill Consequences of their mistakes? Then hath the Serpent got the day, when he hath once lodged his errors in Reverend breasts: It will be no more lawful to disturb him, if he be once so housed. Who is he that liveth, and erreth not? What error in Morality hath not absurd and vile Consequents? If we mention them, it seems we are given up to a lamentable state of sin.

3. I now understand why you heap up the words of some late Reverend Divines, which I thought did make up utram{que} paginam in your Exceptions; and though themselves might receive a fair Answer, yet did seem your most irrefragable Argument. But if this be so, it's vain to dispute anymore: For if I bring Scripture or Reason, you may say, The Divines are against it. If I argue against their Opinions, by showing their absurdities, you may say, What professed Adversary could reproach them more? It's too gross to charge Absurdities or ill Consequents on a Doctrine that such men hold. Then must mistakes dare us and deride us, when they are got into these holts, we can follow them no further.

4. What say you by Ames, that saith, That there is such a Concatenation of Truths, that whoever denies one, and holdeth one error, doth by Consequence overthrow the Foundation? Cas. Cons. I am not of his mind, unless it be limited to some kind of Truths: But it seems then he thought, that consequentially every error denied Christ the Foundation: How far was this man given up to reproach, not only the late Reverend Divines, but all men living? far more than I.

5. M. C. thinks that Christ's active Righteousness in obeying the Moral Law, is not imputed to us for our Righteousness. I suppose his Reason is much drawn from several Absurdities or ill Consequents which he thinks will follow, if the contrary be asserted: Perhaps, that it will make Christ's death needless or vain; (for those that say as he, do charge it with no less.) Must I therefore lament the condition of Mr. C. as one left of God, to reproach all those Churches and Divines that are against him, as bad as their professed Adversaries do? and say▪ He makes them deny the death of Christ?

6. If I must believe as the Church believes, which Church is it? why am I not as excusable for being loath to reproach the Church of Christ for 1200, if not 1400 years after Christ (who never made Faith the Instrument of justifying, that I could yet find) as accusable for reproaching some part of the Divines of Europe for 150 years, by declaring the Reason of my dissent from the ill Consequence of their Opinions? If we must go to the Poll, neither you nor I shall be well pleased; if to the Ballance, to weigh the Authority of Divines, where dwells he that must hold the scales?

7. Either we may charge Consequences on the owners of mistakes, or not: If not, then how come I to be charged with this heinous crime; which can be no way made good, but by pretending such Consequence? If we may, then I might do it; which yet I did not on the men, but their Opinion.

8. If this Consequence follow not their Doctrine, then disprove it. My proof is this: [He that saith, The act of my Believing is the efficient Cause of my Justification, doth consequently say, that I justify myself: But, &c. therefore.] The major is plain, in that, [If the act be an Instrument, it is the Agents Instrument: But I am the Agent; therefore.] And if I do by this Instrument produce the effect, then I do pardon myself, for that's the effect.

9. You say, [Whither will a man's partiality carry him, if he be let alone?] 1. That Partiality was the cause either you do know, or you do not. If you do not, according to my simple Opinion, you should not have so sentenced: If you do know it, then either directly by seeing my heart from York hither; (which I will not suppose you to pretend to:) Or else by some certain sign. Suppose you have signs of my reproaching our Divines, yet prove by your signs that I did it through partiality: I say again, prove it. 2. If it were from partiality, then it is by siding with some other party against you, whom I prefer before you: That party is either myself alone, or some others. If others, who be they? Papists or Protestants? or who? I know no party on Earth that I prefer before them, or equal with them (which I speak on supposition that I know my own heart as well as you do.) If it be myself, then the Charge is much higher: But the prover must be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . To value my own judgment before so many, and such men, and thence so to reproach them, I confess is a heinous crime: where I know nothing by myself, yet am I not thereby justified. But surely, if I do know my own heart, I am partial in all my studies, for those men whom I am charged to be partial against, even against myself, and all others now living: But the light of appearing-Truth is that which forceth me to differ from them; and if I am mistaken, I have not yet learned a remedy. But certain I am, that partly partiality for these Reverend men, and partly the loathness to incur their censures, and especially loathness to occasion their offense and disquiet, have been so strong a temptation to me to shut my eyes, that I have been sometimes provoked to say, [Depart from me; this knowledge is an ungrateful burden, an offense to my dearest Friends, and makes men take me as a man of Contention:] sed vicit veritas, (if I mistake not.)

I think he that considers, 1. That you have that party on your side who are a stronger temptation to partiality than any party (besides Christ, his Truth, and the same men in other things,) that I have to sway me against them. 2. And that you so much use their words, where I conceive better Arguments are wanting, may perhaps see cause to put it again to the enquiry, Who is more likely in this Cause to be partial?

1. As for your inference from Christ's words, [Thy Faith hath saved thee.] I reply, 1. Christ did not say, that I can find, [Thy Faith is the efficient instrumental cause of thy Salvation,] nor I think anything equipollent: For I suppose he intended no more than the interest of a Moral Condition; if you take it to be spoken of saving him from his disease, or from the guilt of sin. But if you can prove, that it was spoken of saving him from the power of sin by further Sanctification, then I will yield, that their Faith was some cause. 2. So far as a man is the efficient of his own Salvation, I think he may properly be called his own Saver: Men are called in Scripture the Savior's of others; why not as truly of themselves, when they are said to save themselves? If it be unfit (as it is) to use the word Savior in this sense, of a mere man, the Reason is not from any Logical unfitness (unless that so full a name should not be unlimitedly given to him, that is the cause of one part of Salvation, and not the rest;) but it is, because it will be justly offensive, now Christ hath made this his proper name. But can you prove, that man doth as truly pardon himself, as he doth reform himself further by Faith? and so that Logically there is no more against calling him his own Pardoner or Justifier, than [the saver of himself from actual sin.]

11. You say, you [had thought all the glory had belonged to the Agent, and not to the Instrument.]

Reply. 1. We were not speaking of the glory, which is a Moral Interest (where spoke I a word of that?) but of the Natural Efficiency. 2. I never was of your mind, nor ever shall be I think. I know as the creature compared to God is nothing, so its honor compared to his is nothing; and I know its honor, as well as its essence and existence, is all derived from God. But I think God puts an honor upon every Instrument that he useth, and most in their best and noblest Works. Proved, 1. The Relation to God, the principal Agent, puts an honor on it, to be Instrumentum Dei. 2. The Relation to the end or happy effect, puts an honor on on it. 3. Every Instrument hath an Aptitude to its office, and that Aptitude is honorable. 4. All free Agents have a Moral honor in being instrumental to any good, in that they act it voluntarily. 5. God will commend the Moral actions of his people, that were but mere Conditions of the effect; therefore surely those that were Instruments: And God's commendation doth both suppose them honorable, and pu • a glory or honor upon them.

3. But if it must be as you say you thought it to be yet I pray you remember to do me this right, as whenever I give more to Obedience, or less to Faith than you would have me, do not charge me with derogating from the honor of Faith, seeing no glory is due to it as an Instrument! And if I do give less to Christ than you, tell me of it, and spare not.

He next asks, [Whether they that make Faith an Instrument, do deny anymore than I (who make both Faith and Works Conditions) that none but God can forgive sins?]

Reply. I think they do deny it more than I. I confess they do not make man the principal Cause; but in making him the Instrumental, they make him as an Instrument under God to pardon himself, I think. The effect may be ascribed to every Cause, according to the nature and proportion of its Causality: But Conditions are no Causes as such.

2. You make both Faith and Works Conditions of Salvation; i. e. Glorification: And is not that as much against the honor of Christ, as making them the Conditions of Justification in Judgment? If it were true, that one were dishonorable to him, it would be as true of the other; but is indeed true of neither.

Here I remember the like great offense that you took before at these few words [James took not Calvin 's counsel;] when you had said, Calvin 's counsel was not to use the phrase, of being justified by Works. And you say, that [it contains nothing but a taunt against Calvin, and that it's unworthy usage of so Reverend a man.]

Reply. Truly, I do reverence scarce any name, since the Apostles days, or at least since Austin, more than Calvin 's: And there was not in me, that I know of a taunting intent; nor do I see anything in those words that contain such unworthy usage as you express. The words signify but this, [James his practice was contrary to the counsel that Calvin there gives, not to use the terms, of being justified by Works:] I thought the Emperor or the Pope would have endured as hard language as this. Certain I am, the greatest persons in honor Ecclesiastical or Civil that ever I knew, would not have taken it for such unworthy usage (as far as I can be certain by their making lighter of far worse.) Truly I fear, that this extreme high expectation of such superlative Honor in the Ministers, is the great thing that threatens our calamity: When the example of the fall of the Roman Clergy by Luther, hath no more humbled us.

After this again, you bid me, [put not off Calvin with a taunt, as I did before.] But I have said more to these by-pages than I thought to have done.

The sum of all is this, I understand not what Cause it is that you call Causa applicans, till you tell me. But I verily think that you are of my mind, and do not know it, and that you mean with Dr. Twisse causam dispositivam (for so he oft saith, Faith is of Justification;) which is but Dispositio Recipientis, and is part of the subjective material Cause, and no efficient at all; some call it a passive receiving. Instrument: And indeed conditio praestita is dispositio moralis recipientis In the mean time, I pray you take it rather for a depressing Faith (which yet you say the glory belongs not to as Instrument) than for an advancing Works, if I say that Faith is no efficient Cause of Justification.

Controv. 4. [Mr. C. acknowledgeth but one Law, from which the Covenant is distinct; and I make two distinct Laws.

To this I have spoken at large to others, and therefore shall say little now; the rather, because I take what is said to Mr. C. to remain satisfactory for all his Answers. Only I shall briefly explain my meaning about this.

Prop. 1. A Law is Debiti (vel juris) constitutio Authoritativa, vel signum voluntatis Rectoris debitum constituens. This Definition is not of Lex, as distinct from Precept, Priviledg, Contract, in the narrow sense; but as it is the Constitution of all Moral right or due, and so the act is adequate to the product debitum. This is called Jus; which word signifieth both Jus Constituens, and Jus Constitutum. The first is, Law in the true general nature of it; the second is Debitum. Even Contracts do oblige by an exercise of that Imperium which a man hath over his own actions and himself: Or else they are not efficiently obligatory at all, but only the Antecedent Conditions; which when man hath put, God seconds them with an Obligation.

Prop. 2. The parts of a Law are two: 1. One is the Constitution of what shall be due from us. This is called Precept, de agendo vel non agendo (which is Prohibition:) This constituteth the debitum officii. 2. The second is the Constitution of what shall be due to us. This is twofold: 1. Of Good. 2. Of Evil. 1. Of Good: And that is twofold, 1. Absolutely given, without any Condition; which is commonly called the act of God quà Benefactor, but so is all giving whatsoever; yet is it his act as Legislator too. 2. Conditionally: Which hath two acts, 1. To constitute the Jus ad Datum, or the Debitum beneficii. 2. To constitute the Condition of that Jus or Debitum. And that is, 1. The Condition of our first right. 2. Or of our continued right. 3. The Constitution de Debito mali poenae, is ever conditiona • , i. e. propter culpam: And though the word Condition is commonly used in bonam partem, as a member of Promises and Contracts, yet is it truly and properly also used in malam partem, as a member of the Threatning.

Prop. 3. All the Doctrines, Narratives, Historical and Prophetical found in Scripture, are Adjuncts of God's Law in the strictest sense; and parts of it in a larger sense; yea, they are signa Constituentia Debitum, and so true parts of Law strictly taken in their Remote use, though in their nearest use they are but Adjuncts; even as Narratives of the matter and occasion, are in many Statute-Laws of this Land.

Prop. 4. All the generical essence of a Law, is found in each individual; and there needeth no other form, but mere matter for the reception of that general nature, to make an individual Law.

Prop. 5. The Specification of Laws therefore, is not so proper as the Specification of Substantial Beings, but a Moral, less proper Specification.

Prop. 6. Laws may be said specifically to differ, and be distinguished these ways: 1. From the special end; especially when the ends are much distant or destructive of each other. 2. From the very matter, when the difference is very great, and so from the Condition of Premiant or Penal acts. 3. From Divers Efficients, i. e. Legislators, or the divers grounds of Legislative right, and so of Legislation. 4. From the signifying matter; and so some are written, some verbal, &c. 5. From the state of the subject to whom the Laws are given. 6. From the number of parts: So some are only Precepts, some are only for reward upon duty, some only for division of Inheritance, or Constitution of particular Rights without Conditions. Some have all the forementioned parts, Preceptive, Penal and Premiant: For they are not essential parts of a Law in Genere, but only of some Laws in specie, from the order of effecting. Some are made immediately by the Sovereign Power; some the Sovereign makes mediately, by giving power to others to make them; as Under-Laws of Corporations, &c. so from the manner of the Sanction, as remediable, or remediless, Reward and Penalty.

Pro. 7. The word [Law] agreeth properly to all the parts of God's Law, taken singly; not only to the Precept and Commination, but also the Promise: Yea, it is as properly called a Law as a Covenant; because a Law doth but Jus Constituere & Obligare subditum; but a Covenant is a self-obliging, and a making a duty to ourselves, and so putting a Law upon ourselves. Now in the most strict sense, God cannot be said to be obliged, (as Durand and others show:) But in that the perfect Goodness, Veracity, Fidelity and Immutability of God doth ascertain to us the thing promised; therefore, after the manner of men, we may say, that God by his Word doth oblige himself, who yet strictly cannot be a Debtor: And thus God is said to Covenant.

Prop. 8. This same act of Promise is called a L • w and a Covenant in several respects. It's called a Law, in that it is the act of a Rector, performed to the ends of Government, imposing on us the act of consenting, and annexing a reward and penalty.

Thus it is Lex stricta dicta. It is called a Covenant, partly as God doth, as it were, engage himself: (And so the mere Promise is a simple Covenant) partly as he requireth man's Promise or Consent to the terms (and so it is a propounded or tendered Covenant-mutual;) and partly as man doth actually repromise and engage himself to God, and accept the terms of God's Covenant: (And so it is an actual, mutual Covenant or Contract.) But it is called Jus Constituens, a Law in the general sense, as it is the Constitution of Right howsoever.

Prop. 9. Though the true nature of a Law be found in each of the forementioned acts singly, yet it is the preceptive Act that is most eminently so called, especially as (dis-junctively) taking in the Penal Act with it, explicitly or implicitly. And so the great and eminent work of Laws is obligare aut ad Obedientiam aut ad poenam, and the premiant Act is not of such constant use and necessity.

Prop. 10. The word [Law] therefore is more comprehensive than the word [Covenant] strictly taken; the former, being properly used as of every single act fore-mentioned; the latter only of the Promise. Yet is the whole Law sometimes called a Covenant from the Promise, which is a noble part of it; but that is an improper Appellation, as calling the whole by the name of a part: But the other is more proper, as calling the whole and each part by the name of that general Essence which doth inform each part, and the whole. Properly therefore God's Covenants are his Laws (unless when the name Covenant is improperly used of mere Predicti • ns, and then Remotely and Reductively they are Laws) but all God's Law is not a Covenant.

Prop. 11. According to the forementioned ways of Specification, God's Laws may be thus specified and distributed: 1. As from the special ends. And so God's Laws are either, 1. For the obliging the Subject to perfect obedience; or for the recovering and restoring him from his revolt, and from his misery. The former is also, 1. As obliging to obedience every way perfect: This was the Law given to Adam in Innocency, and it doth not so oblige us now: For it cannot obligare ad praeteritum, and to duty, so far as Penalty is suffered for former non- performance. 2. Or as obliging to perfect obedience only for the future, as supposing former sin: And so it is the general Law of God, and that Law of Nature which still remains in force to fallen Mankind, obliging him still to obey or suffer.

2. The recovering Law is specified both, 1. As it • estoreth rebelling Apostatizing man to God and his obedience, 1. Inchoatively, by Repentance and Faith. 2. Progressively, by sincere Obedience, through Sanctification. 3. Perfectly, in Glory. And 2. As it restoreth undone, lost, condemned man from his misery, 1. Relatively, by Gift. 2. Really, as in the three fore mentioned degrees. For that which brings us to God, (to Obedience, as the means to please him as the end) doth thereby restore us from our own Misery.

3. God's Laws are specified from their matter, thus:

1. As to the Precept: God hath a Law (or had) whose matter was perfect Obedience (as before-described:) And he hath a Law, whose matter is Repentance for Imperfection, Faith in him that restoreth us from sin, and sincere Obedience for the future to God-Redeemer.

2. As from the matter of the Promisory part: So God had a Law made to Adam, which as Divines do think, and it is very probable) did promise Adam not only Immunity from God's Wrath, Death, &c. but also a Celestial Glory afterward, in case of his perfect Obedience. God hath now a Law, by which he promiseth to give Christ himself to be our Head, Husband, and Lord, and Savior, and with him Remission, Adoption, Justification, the Spirit of the Redeemer, and a Glorification with our Head, where we shall forever praise him that hath redeemed us to God by his Blood, and made as Kings and Priests to God; and in order thereto, that he will by degrees take off our sin by Sanctification, and our penal misery by Preservations, Deliverances, Consolations, and at last by the Resurrection and final Absolution. These things were not the matter of the first Promise.

3. As to the Threatning, (though some say that the New-Law hath no threatening: yet) 1. God's Law purely Moral, 1. Did threaten to man in Innocency, Death in general, which contained the loss of God's Favor and Spirit, and of his present felicity, and his hopes of what was promised for the future; together with the pains and dissolution of his body, and everlasting pains (at least) to his Soul: Which pain would much consist in the gripes of Conscience for his not-continuing his Innocency, and in the sense of his misery in the foresaid Loss. 2. The same Law of Nature, called Moral, as still continued to fallen man, doth threaten upon every further Transgression, the increase of our foresaid misery (so far as we are capable subjects;) and doth by more renewed Obligations, bind on us the same.

2. God hath besides this, his special Law of Grace, which threateneth more than the Law did to Adam, or as merely natural it doth to any: (I mean as it is made to man as man, and for obedience as such, and not as it is made to man as redeemed for Recovery and Restoration:) that is, This New-Law threateneth the l • ss and privation of all that good, which we before mentioned, as the matter of its promise; as the loss of Christ himself, that he shall be no Head, Husband, or effectual Savior to us; nor be our Advocate with God to justify us, nor intercede for our Salvation: We shall lose all the h • pes we had of God's favor, as to be restored by him, and of the Remission of our sins, and of Justification and Adoption, and of the sanctifying • pirit, and all the Consolations of God, the joy and peace in believing, the deliverance from the Captivity of Satan, and from the dominion of sin, the right by promise to the bless • ngs of this Life, and to eternal Glory, as purchase▪ and restored, and of final Absolution in Judgment. The pain of serse also is much more than he fi • st Law did threaten: For as in general it will • be a far sorer punishment, so specially it will be i •• icted for ingratitude against the Redeemer;