EXCEPTIONS Against a WRITING OF Mr. R. BAXTERS, In Answer to some ANIMADVERSIONS Upon his APHORISMS.  
By Mr. Chr. Cartwright of York.  
LONDON, Printed for Nevil Simmons and Jonath. Robinson, at the Princes-Arms and Golden-Lion, in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1675.   

Exceptions against a Writing of Mr. R. Baxters, in Answer to some Animadversions upon his Aphorisms.  
HOw Relations should be inter Entia & Nihil I cannot see; 
Page 2. 1. 2.  For Nihil is Non ens; & inter ens & non ens non datur medium.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is indeed for most part so taken, 
4.  as to include Love and goodwill; yet it seems to be otherwise taken Matth. 11. 26. and Luke 10. 21. as Dr. Twisse observeth. And it is true, 
Vindic▪  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Beneplacitum express one the other: 
Lib. 1.  yet if we consider the propriety of the words, 
Part. 2.  both of them may well signify the Will and Pleasure of God concerning any thing whatsoever. 
Sect. 20.  It is observed, that the Lxx Interpreters devised the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to express the Hebrew Ratsa, which is as much as Velle; though it be often used for Benevolum esse. The Members of that distinction, [Gratia gratum faciens, & gratia gratis data] fall one into another, as well as the Members of this, [Voluntas Beneplaciti, & Voluntas Signi] yet the distinction, though not so exact, may be useful.  
1. What you intended, 
Ibid.  I know not; but you seem to speak alike of all the Signs mentioned, 
Ibid. 3.  Aphor. p. 3. 2. I find Aquinas express for this, 
Part 1.  that Voluntas Signi, 
Quaest. 19  is but Signum Voluntatis; so that according to him Voluntas Beneplaciti seems indeed to signify the whole Will of God, 
Art. 11.  properly so called; and Voluntas Signi the whole Will of God also, so far forth as there is any signification of it. But however, I see not how you can hence infer, [than impletio voluntatis beneplaciti de eventu, non est signum voluntatis beneplaciti de jure]. This seems but a mere evasion; it sufficeth, that Impletio is Signum Voluntatis de eventu, as Praeceptum is Signum Voluntatis de Officio.  
1. When you say, that God doth permit, 
Ibid.  and more than permit the Wicked to amend; I suppose you mean, he doth command them: But is not this to take the word [permit] morally? Yet pag. 5. you say, That you speak all the while of Permission Natural, not of Moral Permission. 2. Permission is only made Signum Volintatis Dei de malo. 
Part 1.  Thus Aquinas, Permissio ad malum refertur, 
Quest. 19  operatio autem ad bonum. And Maccovius, 
Art. 12.  Objectum Voluntatis Permissivae Des est peccatum. Ita quidem est. 
Thes. Theolog. Disput. 26.  Nam bonum, quod vult, vult Voluntate effectiuâ, non permissiuâ. 3. That Permissio Mali, is certum signum voluntatis Dei de malo quoad eventum, I think is not to be denied. 
Animad. p. 162.  [The Permissive Decree (saith Bp Davenant) concerning Sinful Actions, implieth an infallibility of the Events so permitted]. And he citys Ruiz, saying, Positâ permissione, certissima est futuritio peccati, quod permittitur & omnium circumstantiarum, quae permittuntur in illo. So Dr. Twisse, 
Vindic.  Posito decreto permittendi peccatum, non potuit homo à peccato abstinere: 
Lib. 1.  haec tamen necessitas exhypothesi cum libertate convenit. 
Part. 1.  Camero makes this the reason, 
§. 3. §. 4.  why God doth foreknow evil, because he doth decree to permit it; 
Advers.  which were no reason, if the Event did not certainly follow Permission. 
Tilen.  Stat igitur sententia mea, Deus novit peccatum fore, 
pag. 193.  quia decrevit permittere peccatum. And he speaks divers times to this purpose. So Maccovius, 
De Provident.  Deus praescit futura peccata. Ergo decrevit permittere. Nam quae Deus praescit fore, ea praescit fore ex eo, quia decrevit. 
Disp. 5.  The same Author also gives another reason; 
Thes. Theolog. part 1 Disp. 26.  Permissionem necessario sequitur eventus: hoc est, quod perm●●tit Deus, necessario evenit— Ratio etiam hoc ipsum evincit. Nam si Permissio nihil aliudest, quam gratiae Dei substractio, sive privatio, quâ posita peccationi impediretur, ut à nobis antè ostensum est, fieri non potest, ut Creatura n●n labatur ubi Deus eam non sustentat: in Deo enim Movemur, vivimus, 
Part 2.  & sumus. And again; Non agitur de Permissione Ethicâ, 
Disp. 14.  quae nihil aliud est quam Concession, sed de Physicâ, hoc est, de 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non-impedire. Quid verò sit disquiritur; Nos cum Whitakero dicimus, quòd sit privatio auxilii divini, quo posito peccatum impediretur. — Necessariò ergò sequitur Permissionem Lapss: interim tamen Permissio non est causa Lapsus, sed antecedens solùm. 4. Augustine's saying, which I cited, seems to hold out thus much, That as well God's Permittere as his Facere, is a sure sign of his Will concerning the Event. 5. I see not, that the Opinion of the necessity of Physical Efficient Predetermination doth deny God's Permission, seeing that Predetermination is de Bono, or de Actione quà tali; but Permission is de Malo, or de obliquitate Actionis. Dr. Twisse in that very Digression which you mention, after a tedious Dispute against that Proposition, grants as much as (I think) Perkins did, or any need desire. For he grants, Manifestò sequi peccati existentiam ex permissione ejus Divinâ: 
Vindic.  He adds indeed, 
Lib. 2.  Nequaquam sequitur ex naturâ Permissionis in genere, 
Digr. 3. §. 3.  quod non paucis Theologis visum est, ut in superioribus accepimus, sed ex peculiari modo permissionis divinae, constant sc. negatione gratiae, quip sine quà peccatum à nemine vitari potest. But this is that Permission which Divines speak of, as I have showed. What he further adds, de peccato definitè sumpto, viz. that a bare Permission doth not infer the existence of it, seems little to the purpose. To his Instance about Formation, I Answer: There is a Restraining Grace as well as a Renewing; God vouchsafes the one to many, to whom he doth not vouchsafe the other; see Gen. 20. 6. I grant, that besides a mere Permission, there must be (as he speaks) aliqua alia rerum administratio, secundum quam actus aliquis naturalis patretur, quae sit proxima materia talis deformitatis: and that quoties juxta Permissionem Divinam res aliqua sortitur effectum, toties Dei permissio non est solitaria, sed aliam Divinam Providentiae gubernationem concomitantem obtinet. But I suppose, that Perkins and others comprehend all under the name of Permission, that being it upon which Sin indefinitely considered, as Twisse himself confesseth, doth follow, though for the specification of the sin something more be required. The reason is, because malum is privatio, and so in alieno fundo habitat; therefore there cannot be Permissio Mali, but there must also be Effectivus Concurs●●● ad id, in quo Malum existit. 
§. 2. §. 1.  But for the thing itself Twisse is as clear (I think) as any. Nec (inquit) minùs efficax esse dicimus decretum Dei de Permissione Mali, quam de Effectione Boni.  
1. I make Voluntas Signi, as put for Signum Voluntatis, to be but metaphorically Voluntas; yet I hold, that there is Voluntas propriè dicta, quae Signo indicatur. 2. When I say [so far forth as the Signum is praeceptum] it is only (as you might see) to show, that Volunt as Signi (not Signum Voluntatis, but voluntas cujus signum est Praeceptum) is the same with that which you call [Will of Precept]. 3. If Dr. Twisse do not extend it to the whole Law, but only to Precept, it may be he had not occasion to extend it further. Neither do you speak so fully in your Aphorisms as in this Writing. You mention indeed Legislative Will, but so as to call it also Praeceptive, and to make the Object of it our Duty, Aphor. pag. 4. 4. That he doth take notice of the Immanent Will de debito, whereof Praeceptum is Signum, is clear by the words which I cited, viz. Precepta non indicant quid Deus velit esse Nostri Officii, etc. Yea yourself here say, p. 4. That he makes Praecipere & Vetare to be the Objects of God's Will; and that this clearly implies, that he took in the Immanent Acts, of which they were the Objects. You add indeed, That he so often contradicteth it by speaking otherwise, that you doubt it fell from him ex improviso: but I see no cause for any such surmise.  
1. Those words of yours [to bestow good upon a Man] I know not how I omitted; 
3. 9  perhaps because I thought there was no need of expressing them. For however they must be understood; because God's Word and Truth is else engaged in a Threatening as well as in a Promise▪, 2. You say, Append. p. 48. That the absolute promise of a New Heart is made to wicked Men: where you seem to speak of a Promise properly taken, as distinct from Prophecy or Prediction: Yet Aphor. p. 9 you say, That Absolute Promises are but mere Predictions; so that you seem not well reconciled to yourself. But you best know your own meaning, only I think it meet that you express it so, as that none may have occasion to stumble at it.  
I see indeed, 
Ibid.  that you call it Legislative Will: But, 1. you make Legislative and Preceptive both one, 
4. Ibid.  and make the Object of it Man's Duty, Aphor. p. 4. So that you rather seem to restrain the word [Legislative] by the word [Preceptive], than to enlarge the word [Preceptive] by the word [Legislative]. 2. When you take the word [Legislative] largely, you make Precept and Promise distinct parts of it: So that still it is strange to me that you should say; That Promises fall under the Will of Purpose, not of Precept. For if the Will of Precept be taken strictly and properly, it is superfluous to say, That Promises do not fall under the Will of Precept: Neither on the other side is it true, if the Will of Precept be taken largely and improperly, viz. for the whole Legislative Will, which doth contain both Precept and Promise.  
These two Questions (as you now make them) you comprise in one Aphorism, 
Ibid.  p. 15. and equally determine of both. 
Ibid. 15.  For you say, That the Life promised in the First Covenant, was in the judgement of most Divines (to whom you incline) only the continuance of that Estate that Adam was in in Paradise: So that according to this Opinion, Adam was both to have continued in the same place, and also in the same Estate. I think still, 
Exe● cit. 2.  he should have been changed in respect of both. In Adamo (inquit Barlous) omnes in universum homines jus ad Coelum habebant, & si ipse stetiss●●, ipsum Coelum unusquisque habuisset; adeò ut jus ad Coelum in Adamo habuimus primaevum, à Christo jus rest tutum. Adam's continuance in the same Estate, is most clearly expressed by those whom you seem to follow; and how then can you say, That you did not meddle with that Question? And if he were to continue in the same Estate, no question he was also to continue in the same Place; For Heaven is no place for such an Estate as Adam had in Paradise.  
I shall wonder if any will be so bold as to affirm, That Adam was Created in Patriâ, and not in Viâ. How was he to be tried by his Obedience, if he were not Viator, but Comprehensor? It seems also strange that any doubt should be made, whether Adam being Created after the Image and Likeness of God, were capable of Heavenly Blessedness.  
The Reasons which I alleged, 
Ibid.  notwithstanding any thing you say against them, seem cogent. 1. By the Second Death, you might see, I meant not the same degree, yet the same kind of punishment. The Scripture seems to speak of several degrees of Hell-Torment, yet all is called the Second Death. And this Second Death, viz. Hell-Torment, Adam by his sin became liable unto: therefore if he had not sinned, he should have enjoyed a Life directly opposite to that Death, viz. Celestial Glory. The perpetual Death which Adam (without a Saviour) should have suffered, was not a perpetual abiding in the Estate of Death, viz. a perpetual separation of Soul and Body, or a mere privation of that Life he had before his Fall, but an enduring of eternal Torment; and so consequently the Life promised upon condition of Obedience, was not a perpetuating of his earthly Life, but the fruition of Heavenly Happiness. 2. I grant, God was able to change Adam's State, not changing his Place; but it seems rather, that both should have been changed. And though we know not the Nature of the Life to come, yet we know it is not such a Life as Adam had in Paradise, to Eat, Drink, Marry, etc. 3. It is not in vain to say, How in an ordinary way of Providence should there have been room for Men upon Earth, if Adam and his Posterity, still increasing and multiplying in infinitum, should there have continued for ever? 
Of the Coven. chap. 5.  Your Friend and mine Mr. Blake, having urged this Argument, seems to enervate it when he hath done, saying, [But a thousand of these God can expedite, when we are at a stand]. But yet that without a Miracle it could be done, he doth not say, and he there professedly opposeth you in this Point. Whereas you add, [Especially seeing God knew there would be no place for such difficulties] I know not to what purpose it is. For the Opinion, which I impugn, doth suppose that upon which such difficulties do arise. 4. How should Paradise be a Type of Heaven, if Man should never have come to Heaven? If Heaven had not belonged unto him upon condition of his Obedience? Whereas you say, That you little know where or what that Paradise was; I do not well know what you mean. By [that Paradise] I suppose you understand (as I and others do) the Garden wherein Adam was placed: a place upon Earth for certain it was, and very pleasant; yet such a place as wherein Adam lived a natural Life, far beneath that happiness which he was made capable of.  
Those words [Thou shalt die] being not only meant of a privation of the Life which he then enjoyed, 
Ibid.  but also of eternal torment; 
5. Ibid.  it follows, That the Life implicitly promised, is to be understood, not only of the continuance of that Life, but of Eternal Blessedness.  
I do not say that any now are altogether as Adam was under the Covenant of Works; 
Ibid.  but that some are so under that Covenant, that in statu quo they have no part in the other Covenant, nor are guilty of contemning it, being utterly ignorant of it.  
To whom God doth not say, 
Ibid.  [Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved] to them in effect he doth say [Obey perfectly and live]; or, [If thou sin, thou shalt die eternally]. But there are many in the World to whom God doth not say [Believe, etc.] that Promise is altogether unknown unto them, they live and die without ever hearing of it, so that to them it is as if it had never been. Consider (I pray) what the Apostle saith to this purpose, Ephes. 2. 12. Might not the Ephesians have continued in that condition unto death? Do not many continue in the same Condition? I yield, that none are so under the Covenant of Works, but that if they repent and believe they shall have Mercy, and that by virtue of the New Covenant: but that which I stand upon is this, That the Covenant of Grace wherein Mercy is promised, being not revealed unto some, nor any way dispensed unto them, they cannot be said to be under it, nor shall be judged as transgressors of it.  
Add, 1. Though the Covenant of Grace had never been, yet I see not but such Mercies as the Indians enjoy, (setting aside the possibility of partaking of the New Covenant) might have been enjoyed. Add, 2. Though the Covenant of Works vouchasafeth no pardon of sin upon Repentance, yet surely it requiring perfect Obedience, consequently it also requireth Repentance and turning unto God. Else if the Covenant of Grace had not been made, Man after his Fall, though plunging himself into sin continually more and more, yet had contracted no more Gild, nor incurred any greater Condemnation, than he did by his first Transgression. And, 3. Christ as Mediator shall judge even those that never heard of any Salvation to be obtained by him; and consequently he will not judge them as guilty of neglecting that Salvation. Christ judgeth wicked Men as Rebellious Subjects; but as rebelling (I conceive) only against the Law, not against the Gospel, they being such as never were acquainted with it. Add, 4. There are common Mercies, (which might have been though the New-Covenant had not been) the abuse whereof is sufficient to condemn; yet the improvement of them is not sufficient to save. If such Mercies as mere Pagans enjoy tend to their recovery, How then are such said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Ephes. 2. 12.  
Rom. 2. 12. I cited to this purpose, 
Ibid.  to show, That as they that sinned without the Law, shall perish without the Law; even so they that sinned without the Gospel, shall perish without the Gospel. That 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8. speaks not only of them that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but also of such as know not God. The Apostle there seemeth to divide all the Wicked into two sorts, viz. such as know not God; so he describes the Gentiles, 1 Thess. 4. 5. and such as obey not the Gospel, etc. that is, such as having had the Gospel preached unto them, would not receive it, either not at all, or not sincerely. Yet Christ (he saith) will in flaming fire take vengeance on both, as well on the former as on the latter. And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me, and so, as that he citeth this very place to the same purpose as I do. 
Of the Coven.  Infidels (saith he) that were never under any other Covenant than that of works, and Covenant-breaking Christians, 
Chap. 5. p. 23.  are in the same condemnation; there are not two Hells, but one and the same for those that know not God, and those that obey not the Gospel of Christ, 2 Thess. 1. 8.]  
You pass by that which I alleged from Rom. 6. ult. viz, 
Ibid.  That death, which is the wages of sin, is opposed to Eternal Life, which is the happiness of the Saints in Heaven. Ergo, Death comprehends in it the misery of the Damned in Hell; and that (you know) is it which the Scripture calls the Second Death. I marvel therefore that you make no more of it than to say, [Call it the first or second Death, as you please]?  
The Argument drawn from the Body's Co-partnership with the Soul, 
Ibid.  I take to be a good proof of its Resurrection. Tertullian surely thought so, or else he would not so frequently have used this Argument. 
De Resur. cap. 15.  Age (inquit) scindant adversarii nostri carnis animaeque contextum prius in vitae administratione, ut ita audeant scindere illud etiam in vitae remuneratione. Negent operum societatem, ut merito possint etiam mercedem negare. Non sit particeps in sententia caro, si non fuerit in causâ And again, Secundum consortia laborum consortia etiam decurrant necesse est praemiorum. And again also, 
Ibid. c. 38.  Non possunt separari in mercede (caro & anima) quas opera conjungit. 
Ibid. c. 8.  And surely that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5. 10. [That every Man may receive the things done in the Body] doth imply, That as the things were done in the Body, so also the Reward must be received in the Body. As for the dissolution of the Body which you speak of, it is but such a punishment as the Godly lie under as well as the Wicked, until the Resurrection, Therefore it is not probable, that it was the only punishment intended to the Body in the First Covenant. whatever some new Philosophers may say, true Philosophy (I think) doth tell us, That it is the Body, which by the Sensitive Soul doth ●eel pain; even as it is the Eye, which doth see by the Visive Faculty.  
You observe not (it seems) that I did but answer your Queries, 
Ibid.  which you made Append. p. 10. To the second, [When should he have risen?] I thought, and still think it sufficient to answer, That Adam, and so others, should either have risen in the end of the World, as now they shall, or when God should please to raise them. It is for you to prove that it could be neither the one way nor the other.  
How doth the Apostle 1 Cor. 15. seem to extend the Resurrection, which he speaks of, unto all, when he expressly limits it to those that are Christ's? vers. 23. And when the whole discourse is about Resurrection unto Glory? 
Maccov. de statu primi ho. Disp. 5.  Expressè resurrectio Christi est causa resurrectionis eorum, qui ad Vitam Eternam suscitabuntur, 1 Cor. 15. 20, 21, 22. To the same purpose also is that 1 Thess. 4. 14. etc. What the other Texts you speak of be, when you show, I may consider then. This I grant, That the Wicked shall rise by the Power of Christ as Mediator, John 5. 28, 29. But that is not enough to prove, That had not Christ been Mediator, there should have been no Resurrection; no more than it follows, that otherwise none should have been condemned for sin, because no● all Judgement is committed unto Christ, John 5. 22, 27.  
I see no such difference betwixt them. 
Ibid.  For slaying before the foundation of the World, 
7. 24.  cannot be meant of actual slaying, but only of fore-ordaining to be slain.  
I mean Christ's Sufferings, 
Ibid.  as in obedience to his Father he submitted unto them. This Commandment have I received of my Father, said he, John 10. 18. Sufferings simply considered without Obedience, find no acceptance with God. No need therefore to except against the Phrase commonly used, 
Vide Gataker cont. Gomarum p. 14, 15.  [Passive Obedience] i. e. Obedience in Suffering. Christ had a Commandment to lay down his Life, it was the Will of his Father that he should do it, and in obedience thereto he did it.  
The Rule (A quatenus ad omne, 
Ibid.  etc.) doth not here make for you, 
Ibid. 56.  because it was not Christ's suffering merely as obedience, but as such obedience, viz. Obedience in suffering, that was satisfactory. So that neither Suffering without Obedience, nor Obedience without Suffering would avail. Sed quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant.  
If only such Obedience be meant Rom. 5. 19 as is opposed to Adam's disobedience, 
Ibid.  and therefore Active Obedience is meant, it will follow that only Active Obedience is meant, which you will not admit, because Adam's Disobedience was only Active. But Christ's Obedience in Suffering, may be opposed to Adam's Disobedience in Acting; and Christ's Passive Obedience (suffer me to speak so) may stand in opposition to Disobedience in general, as working a contrary effect, viz. Whereas Disobedience doth make Sinful, Christ's (Passive) Obedience doth make Righteous; and in that respect only doth the Apostle oppose Christ's Obedience to Adam's Disobedience.  
1. The Apostle saying, 
10  That Christ was made under the Law, 
Ibid.  it seems to be without doubt, That it was the Will of God that he should observe the Law. 
58.  For is it not the Will of God that his Law should be observed by such as are under it? Yet Christ might observe the Law for some ends peculiar to himself, as for those ends he was made under it. Christ according to the flesh was a Jew, therefore meet it was he should observe the Jewish Law, otherwise he had been an offence unto them. 2. As Christ was not made Man for himself, so (it is true) he was not bound to observe the Law for himself. But thus you should not limit it to some Works; for all his Works were so for us, as he was nobis natus, nobis datus, Isa. 9 6. Yet being made Man, as Man he was bound (I think) to perform that Obedience which God did require of Man. You say, That he used the Legal Ceremonies to show his subjection: So say I; and this (I think) is against you, it being meant of such subjection as the Law required of all those that were under it. 3. If Christ were sub Lege, as the Apostle saith he was, than it was ex Lege that he observed those legal rites. Yet, I grant, it was ex vi sponsionis propriae; so all that he did, so his very being made Man was. Whereas you say, [Else the Law would have obliged him to the act and end together]; I Answer, The Law doth oblige, according to the Will of the Lawgiver, who might oblige Christ to it otherwise than he did others. I think the Ceremonial Observances, besides the Typical Nature of them, are to be considered as Religious Rites, whereby God was honoured and worshipped; and so Christ as Man was obliged unto them, Man being bound to honour and worship God, so as God doth require of him. That which you add of the burden of Penal Actions, seems impertinent; For Penal Actions (I think) have the nature of Sufferings, and so they concern not the Point in Controversy betwixt us, which is only concerning Actions as Pious, not as Penal.  
Your Reasons drawn from the Actions of Christ, 
Ibid. 11. 9 59  receiving their chief Dignity from his chief Nature, etc. will reach further (I think) than you intent or desire, even to make all Christ's Active Righteousness to be satisfactory for us. And so indeed you seem to hold, Aph. p. 61. where you say, [The Interest of the Divine Nature in all the Works of Christ, maketh them to be infinitely meritorious and satisfactory]. Yet here, p. 10. you seem to restrain it to Penal Actions, and the burden of tedious Ceremonious Worship, as you call it. For my part, I yet think; That as the Holiness of Christ's Nature, so also the Holiness of his Life was requisite to qualify him for suffering, and (by suffering) satisfying for us. Him that knew on sin, God made sin for us, 2. Cor. 5. ult. Such an Highpriest became us, who is holy, harmless, etc. Heb. 7. 26. Mr. Blake (whose Judgement I do much value, though I cannot force mine own further than I am convinced) in this Point, concerning the Imputation of Christ's Active Righteousness, seems to differ both from you and me; 
Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 78.  he saith, [Christ had been innocent, though he had never come under the Law to have yielded that obedience]. But how Christ could have continued innocent, without yielding obedience to the Law; or how being Man, he could be exempt from that Law, whereby the Creature is to show his subjection to the Creator, I cannot see. He adds, [His Person had not been as ours under the Law, unless of his own accord he had been made under the Law]. He was not made Man (say I) but of his own accord; 
Vide Gatakerum nosturm adversus Lucium, Respons. ad vindic.  yet being Man, I conceive it was necessary that he should be under that Law which God imposed upon Man, and so both under the Moral Law, as the eternal Rule of Righteousness; and also under the Ceremonial Law, as the prescribed Rule of Worship. He adds further, [Somewhat might be said for the subjection of the Humane Nature in Christ, 
Part. 2.  the Manhood of Christ, which was a Creature, but the Person of Christ, 
Sect. 7. pag. 54. etc. Et contra Gomarum p. 4. & 22.  God-Man, seems to be above subjection]. This I confess seems strange to me; for the Humane Nature of Christ, though personally united to the Divine Nature, being still a Creature, must needs be in subjection to him that made it; and therefore the Person of Christ, God-Man, though not as God, but as Man, must be under subjection. He goes on saying, [We know the mortality of the Humane Nature, yet Christ bade never died, unless he had made himself obedient unto death; neither needed to have served, unless he had humbled himself, Phil. 2. to take upon him the form of a Servant]. But Mortality is no necessary consequent of Humane Nature, as subjection unto God is; and Christ taking upon him the Nature of Man, did es nomine take upon him the form of a Servant; for Man must be Servant unto God, the Creature to the Creator. He bids, [See the Assemblies Confession of Faith, Chap. 8. Sect. 5. and Dr. Featlies' Speeches upon it]. These Speeches I cannot now see, but I have seen them long ago, and was not satisfied with them. The words of the Assembly are such, as that some question may be made of the meaning of them, viz. Whether by [Christ's perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself] be not meant one and the same thing, so that the latter words are exegetical to the former. But to return to you, who say, [The Question should be, Whether it be only Poena Christi, or Obedientia also, that satisfieth and meriteth]? I think it is not simply Poena, or Obedientia, but Poena Obedientialis, and Obedientia Poenalis.  
1. The Creator is absolute Lord over the Creature, and so you grant no Work of the Creature can be meritorious. 
Ibid. 60.  2. You seem to make even the Actions of sinful men capable of being meritorious, though less properly. 3. Though Obedience be absolutely perfect, yet if absolutely due, it seems repugnant to Luke 17. 10. that it should be meritorious.  
The interest of the Divine Nature doth certainly put an infinite excellency into all Christ's Actions: 
Ibid.  Yet see not how Christ's good Actions (I speak of mere Actions, 
Ibid. 61.  which have no penality or suffering mixed with them) could properly be meritorious, they being otherwise due, supposing Man had not sinned, and so there had needed no satisfaction to be made for him. Though I am not of their mind, who think that the Son of God should have been incarnate, though Man had never sinned; yet I see no reason to doubt but so it might have been: Now hoc supposito, all Christ's mere Active Righteousness would have been due, but not his Passive Righteousness.  
I have divers times told you, That when we speak of Christ's Sufferings as meritorious or satisfactory, we are not to consider them merely as Penal, but as Obediential also; so that your long Section hath nothing against me.  
My interpretation of these words, 
Ibid.  [The Father judgeth no Man] containeth indeed no absolute exclusion of the Father, 
10. 65.  neither can I admit any such exclusion; but an exclusion of him in some respect it doth contain. He that doth a thing, yet not immediately by himself, but by another whom he hath put in authority to do it, may be said in some respect not to do it. When the Egyptians cried to Pharaoh for Bread, he bade them go to Joseph, etc. Gen. 41. 55. q. d. I meddle not with these things, Joseph is to do all such matters. Yet Pharaoh indeed did all, though not immediately, but by Joseph. Your Arguments, p. 13. press not me, who never intended to deny that it belongs to Christ's Mediatorship, and namely to his Kingly Office, to judge the World; only I showed what I took to be the meaning of those Texts, John 5. 22. & 27. Wherein I followed Jansenius and Maldonate, no absurd Expositors, though Papists. And even Calvin and Beza also seem to agree with me in the exclusion of the Father, v. 22. In Patre nihil mutatum est, 
Calv. in John 5. 23.  etc. Est enim ipse in Filio, & in eo operatur, 
Beza in eundem loc.  saith Calvin. And so Beza, Negat Christus â Patre administrari hunc mundum, ita, viz. ut Judaei arbitrabantur; qui Patrem à Filio separabant, cum Pater contrà non nisi in personâ Filii manifestati in carne mundum regat.  
You seem to make the present death of Adam a part of the rigorous execution of the Law, 
14.  when you say, 
Ibid. 67.  Aphor. p. 33. [That the Sentence should have been immediately executed to the full, or that any such thing is concluded in the words of the Threat, In the day that thou eatest, etc. I do not think; for that would have prevented both the Being, the Sin, and the Suffering of his Posterity]. How would this have been prevented, if Adam's present Death were not included in the immediate and full execution of the Sentence, i. e. in the rigorous execution of it? Therefore though you argue, That the words of the Threat were not so meant, as that the Sentence should immediately be executed to the full, yet your very Argument supposeth, That if the Sentence should have been so executed, Adam should presently have died. Now though Christ had not died, yet this part of the rigorous execution of the Law might have been suspended, and supposing the propagation of Mankind must have been: against this (so far as I see) you say nothing.  
I desire to be as favourable an Animadverter as Truth will permit: 
Ibid.  but how under the name of Animadversion I defend what you say, 
11. 68  I do not see. If you had used the word [Chastisements], it would not have freed you from mine Animadversion. For I show that Chastisements are Punishments. And whereas you speak of my great oversight, it is indeed your great mistake; for I did not take those words to express your Opinion, only you seemed therein to allow the distinction betwixt Afflictions of Love and Punishments; this is it which I thought worthy of an Animadversion.  
You might see, 
15.  that I make the Afflictions of God's Children in their Nature to be Evil, and a Curse, though not so to them, they being sanctified and working for their good. And I presume, those Divines whom you oppose, meant as both you and I do, though you interpret them otherwise. The difference here betwixt you and me is this; You allow their Expression, and dislike their meaning; I allow their Meaning, and dislike their Expression. They distinguish betwixt Chastisements and Punishments, which distinction in your Aphorisms you seem to allow, only disliking the Application of it. The distinction itself I dislike, though I think that some who used it, did not err in that which they intended in it. In the Contents of Isa. 27. there are these words, [God's Chastisements differ from Judgements], which words I hold incongruous. I like not that of Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, Chap. 4. p. 139. [Punishment aimeth chiefly at the satisfaction of Justice, Correction at the amendment of the Offender]. That is not true of all Punishments, see Geld. Lib. 6. cap. 14. Yet the meaning of those that used them, was not (I think) erroneous.  
I would give you no cause to quarrel with me. 
Ibid.  But is not this your own Argument? 
12. 70.  Do you not thus oppose the Common Judgement as you call it? [They are ascribed to God's anger, etc.] Aphor. p. 70. Do you not there oppose God's Anger to his Love? Whereas Love and Hatred, not Love and Anger are truly opposite. God may be angry with us, and yet love us; yea therefore angry with us, because he loveth us. Rev. 3. 20. There is Ira Paterna & Castigans, as well as Ira Hostilis & Exterminans, Davenant in Col. 3. 6. Where those words of yours are, which you say I almost repeat, I do not know. I expressed mine own sense in mine own words; and my scope was only to correct that Opposition which you make betwixt Love and Anger, though I see that Aphor. p. 71. you speak of a mixture of Love and Anger, and say, That there is no Hatred, though there be Anger. My chief design in those Animadversions was, That in your Second Edition, which you promised, you might have occasion, if not to confirm your Assertions, yet to clear your Expressions.  
I know you oppose their sense that so distinguish, 
Ibid.  but their distinction simply considered you seem to admit; if you say that you do not, I am satisfied.  
Your words were of Affliction as Affliction, 
Ibid.  therefore of Affliction in general. 
Ib. Ib.  You say, Aphor. p. 70. [The very nature of Affliction is to be a loving punishment, etc.] But you confess now, that you should have said [Chastisement]; and so I have my desire in this Particular, viz. your better expression.  
God is not the Father of the Unregenerate, 
Ibid.  though Elect, in respect of Actual Adoption: 
Ib. Ib.  But you know that Ephes. 1. 5. [Having predestinated us to the Adoption of Sons, etc.] God having loved such with an everlasting Love, viz. Benevolentiae, though not Complacentiae, no marvel if he afflict them in Love before their Conversion, viz. in order to their Conversion. But (you know) I speak of Reprobates, and that it is written, 
Rom. 9 13.  [Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated]; Whether that import the Election of Jacob, and the Reprobation of Esau, I now dispute not; but I think it doth import God's love of the Elect, and his hatred of the Reprobate. 
Part 1.  Deus omnes homines diligit (inquit Aquinas) & etiam omnes Creaturas, 
Quest. 23.  in quantum omnibus vult aliquod bonum: 
Art. 3. ad 1.  non tamen quadcunque bonum vult omnibus. In quantum igitur non vult hoc bonum quod est vita aeterna, dicitur eos odio habere, & reprobare.  
Sanctified Suffering I hold to be malum in se & suâ naturâ: 
Ibid.  and so I think do they, 
Ib. Ib.  against whom you dispute in your Aphorisms: but though Suffering as Suffering be evil, yet as Sanctified it is not evil. It is good for me that I was afflicted, Psal. 119. 71.  
Afflictions were then indeed to be loved, 
16.  if they were good of their own Nature: but being only good as sanctified, we are not simply to desire them, but a sanctified use of them, and in that respect to rejoice in them, Jam. 1, 2, 3. Rom. 5. 3, 4, 5. Whereas you advise me to take heed of arguing thus, [That which worketh for our good, etc.] Where do I argue so? Rather thus; That which is sanctified to us, doth work for our good: and so though it be evil in itself, yet it is good to us. But Affliction is sanctified, etc.  
I am apt to oversee: 
Ibid.  but neither I, nor they (I think) whom you first opposed, 
Ib. Ib.  deny Sin to be the meritorious cause of Affliction, if that were all you aimed at in your Question.  
What I mean by Comformity unto Christ, 
Ibid.  you might set by Rom. 8. 17. which I cited: I may also add 1 Pet. 4. 17. In these places the Scripture speaks of suffering for well-doing, which is acceptable with God, 1 Pet. 2. 19 Yet I grant, sin is the Root of all suffering; so it was of Christ's suffering, though not his sin, but ours. Only I thought it meet to put you in mind, that God in sending Affliction hath other ends than to punish sin, which the places alleged do show, and so other places.  
The Object of Love is not only present Good. 
Ibid.  There is a Love of Desire, as well as of Delight. 
13. 71.  The Spouse wanting Christ, was sick of Love, Cant. 5. 8.  
I did not say, 
Ibid.  That Sanctified Suffering is not Evil, but that it is not evil as sanctified. Suffering, though sanctified, is suffering still, and so evil; but as sanctified, it is good, and not evil.  
Those Arguments prove nothing against me, 
17.  nor (I am persuaded) against those Divines mentioned in your Aphorisms. 
Ib. Ib.  It is granted, That Death in itself is Evil, an Enemy, a Punishment, to be feared, avoided, etc. Yet as it is sanctified, it is good, a Friend, a Mercy, to be desired, embraced, etc. 2 Cor. 5. 6, 7, 8. Phil. 1. 21, 23.  
It is evil, 
Ibid.  1. to them to whom it is not managed for their good. 
Ib. 72.  2. To them also to whom it is so managed, but not as it is so managed.  
Lex abrogata vim nullam habet obligandi, 
Ibid.  saith Grotius. 
14. 79.  Well, but we are not always so much to mind the strict propriety of words, 
De Satisfact. p. 57  as what they that use them do mean by them.  
That which you speak of our discharge before believing, 
Ibid.  might have been omitted, the question being about Believers, and so believing presupposed.  
Why the Justification and Condemnation of Believers doth not depend upon the Law, 
18.  this (I think) is a sufficient reason, 
15. 83.  Christ hath redeemed them from the Curse▪ of the Law, etc. Gal. 3. 13. Si quid novisti rectius isto, Candidus imperti.  
The Law so concurs to the constitution of Gild, 
Ibid.  as were there no Law, 
Ib. Ib.  there were no Transgression. In the other two Particulars, which follow, we do accord also.  
1. Neither did I mean so, 
Ibid.  as if there were no explicit threatening to Unbelievers▪ 
16. 85.  but only this, That pardon of all sin being promised upon condition of believing, it implies that death is only threatened in case of unbelief. And though there be an express threatening to Unbelievers, (viz. Mark 18. 16.) yet not only to Unbelievers. The threatening of death only to Unbelievers, is (I think) only employed in the promise of Li●e made to Believers. 2. Neither did my words hold out any other meaning of 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8. than what you express. 3. The new Law or Gospel requiring Faith, the Fruit whereof is Obedience; it will condemn the disobedient, i. e. it will leave them to the condemnation of the Law, while they remain in that estate, though it hold out Mercy upon condition, that they believe and bring forth Fruit meet for repentance.  
Mr. Lawson I know for an able Scholar; 
Ibid.  but his reasons for that Position I do not know. 
17. 86.  If no Law, no sin; for sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 John 3. 4.  
Your saying, 
19  Aphor. p. 89. [Whosoever will believe to the end, 
Ib. 89.  shall be justified], may seem to imply, That though a Man ●elieve, yet he remains unjustified, (as well as unglorified) until he go on and hold out unto the end: otherwise (I suppose) all will yield, That a Man must believe unto the end, that he may be justified unto the end.  
1. Though you deny that which I say your words seem to imply; 
Ibid.  yet what your meaning was, 
18. Ib.  or is▪ you do not clearly show. 2. You seemed to make the Life promised to Adam, only a continuance of his present enjoyments, which were as all upon the Earth, so many of them earthly, and none comparable to the happiness of the Saints in Heaven.  
1. Though there be several degrees of Damnation, 
Ibid.  yet all being the damnation of Hell, 
Ib. Ib.  I do not think that there is such difference between one degree of Damnation and another, as there is betwixt the scratch of a Pin, and the pulling off a Man's flesh with Pincers. 2. If Adam had not sinned, he should have had that happiness which all those Privileges that you mention tend unto; and by his sin he forfeited all that happiness. Besides, when I spoke of the identity of Punishment for kind, though not for degree, I meant it of Poena sensus; and that (I conceived) was your meaning also.  
No question but the Confirmation, 
Ibid.  Radication, and further degree of Grace is comprehended in those Promises, 
Ib. 91.  [I will put my Law in their inward parts, etc.] as a further degree of Spiritual Circumcision is promised, Deut. 30. 6. and a greater measure of the Spirit, Luk. 11. 13. But though the Circumstances of those Texts do so limit the Promises contained in them, (which yet may be questioned concerning Deut. 30. 6.) yet so do not (that I see) the Circumstances of that in Jer. 31. 33. and Heb. 8. 10. And therefore there is no reason to restrain these in that manner. Ampliandi favores. Besides, it is certain, Man can perform no condition required of him, except God work it in him, 2 Cor. 3. 5. Phil. 2. 13.  
By Relative Change you mean Justification and Adoption: 
Ibid.  Now I think it is no hard matter to prove a real change in any, 
19 95.  in whom this relative change is, i. e. That they that are justified and adopted, are also sanctified. 1. They that are justified and adopted, are Christ's, Gal. 3. ult. Ergo, they that are justified and adopted, are sanctified. For so are they that are Christ's, Rom. 8. 9 Take the Syllogism, if you please, thus; They that are 
* Viz. By actual relation unto him.  Christ's, are sanctified: But they that are justified and adopted, are Christ's. Therefore they that are justified and adopted, are sanctified. 2. They that are in a state of Salvation, are sanctified, 2. Thess. 2. 13. John 3. 3, 5. But they that are justified and adopted, are in a state of Salvation, Tit. 3. 7. Rom. 8. 17, Ergo. Hear one▪ with whom you are acquainted, and whom I shall have occasion to cite afterward, 
De Reconcil. Part 2.  viz. Wotton, Vt regni (inquit) coelestis hereditatem adipiscamur, & veniâ peccatorum, & sanctimonia opus est, 
Lib. 2. — Quâ enim ratione heres esse vitae aeternae intelligatur, 
Cap. 22.  qui immundus est? And lest you should put this off, and say, That Sanctification indeed is requisite before any can enter into the possession of Eternal Life, but not before they can have a right unto it; he adds, Remissione igitur sive condonatione opus est ad haereditatis jus obtinendum: Sed nequaquam in ill â sunt omnia. Etenim (ut paulò antè significavi.) acced●t etiam oportet regeneratio, per quam sanctimoniâ imbuamur. Qu●re Christus factus est nobis & justitia, & sanctificatio, 1 Cor. 1. 30. For the Arguments which you mention in Mr. Bedford's Book, if you had propounded any of them, I should have considered how to answer them. Now as you only refer me to that Book for Arguments against my Opinion, so shall I refer you to another Book for answer to those Arguments, viz. Mr. Gataker's lately published.  
Nay indeed, if Baptism be a Seal of remission of sins, than remission of sins (I think) is not the end of Baptism. For the thing must be, before it be sealed, i. e. confirmed. Though Baptism therefore be ordained to this end, to seal remission of sins, yet none can make this use of it, until they believe, and so have their sins remitted. Neither doth this make for Anabaptists, for Circumcision was of the same nature, Rom. 4. 11. Yet were Infants circumcised. 
Of Persever. ch. 12.  [Not all that are baptised (saith Bp. Downam) are truly justified]. And again, [It is not necessary, that every one baptised, should presently be regenerated, or justified: but Baptism is a Seal to him of the Righteousness of Faith, either to be applied by the Holy Ghost to the Elect dying in infancy, or to be apprehended also by Faith in them, who living to years of discretion, have grace to believe]. Again also, [The Papists themselves teach, That the Sacraments do not confer Grace ponenti obicem mortalis peccati; but all that come to Baptism, are guilty (if not justified before) of mortal sin, not only adulti, who to their original sin have added their own personal transgression, but Infants also, who besides their original corruption, in respect whereof they are mortally dead in sin, stand guilty of Adam 's most heinous transgression]. 2. Baptism is as well a Seal of Sanctification, as of Remission of Sins; for it seals the whole Covenant, and all the Promises contained in it. And as Circumcision signified and sealed the taking away of the Foreskin (or superfluity of naughtiness, as St. James speaketh, Chap. 1. 21.) of the Heart, so doth Baptism signify & seal the washing away of the filthiness, as well as of the guiltiness of it. Indeed Mr. Mede in one of his Diatribae, would have the thing signified in Baptism, to be only the sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost; wherein I cannot subscribe unto him, Whereas you speak of an External Covenant, as some call it; some may express themselves one way, some another, yet all mean the same thing. For my pa●t, I do not use to speak of an External Covenant, but of an External Being in the Covenant, which is all that ordinarily we can be assured of in respect of others, and which is enough for admittance to the Sign and Seal of the Covenant. The People of the Jews, until by professed unbelief they fell away, were generally in the Covenant, Rom. 9 4. even in that Covenant, which they that were Allens from, had no hope, Ephes. 2. 12. Yet many of them were but externally in the Covenant, Rom. 9 6, 27, 29. You labour in vain, when you seek to evade that Text, Rom. 8. 9 How should any be actually Christ's, except they be united to him? And how united, but by the Spirit? 1 Cor. 6. 17. And if you meant (as you say) only of Saving Relations, Can a Saving Relation be put upon any, and yet no Saving Work wrought in them? Neither truly is a mere profession ●uch a real change, as I supposed you did mean, viz. a change of the Heart, whereby one is made a new Creature.  
I think that properly there are not distinct Laws, 
23.  from whose distinct condemnations we must be freed: 
Ibid. 103.  That the Gospel doth not condemn any, 
Ad. 1.  but only leave some to the Law to be condemned by it, though their Condemnation by reason of the Gospel, as of every Mercy neglected, or abused, will be the greater.  
The Father (as I have said before) doth judge, 
Ibid.  though by Christ, 
Ad. 2.  see Acts 17. 31. And however, I see not how you can conclude any thing to the purpose by this Argument.  
If for every several Accusation there must be a several Righteousness, 
24.  than there will be need of infinite Righteousnesses, 
Ad. 3.  seeing there may be infinite accusations. But one Righteousness, viz. that of Christ's Satisfaction for us, will take off all Accusations brought against us; else how doth the Apostle say; Who shall lay any thing to the charge, etc. Rom. ●. 33, 34. Indeed the Promise is made upon condition of believing, and therefore the not performing of the Condition, debars from benefit of the Promise. But this (I conceive) is not properly a new Accusation, but only a making good of the former accusation, we having nothing to show why it should not stand in force against us. Yourself did well distinguish p. 22. betwixt a Condition as a Condition, and a Condition as a Duty. Now Faith as a Condition, is required in the Gospel, but as a Duty in the Law; For the Law requires us in all things to obey God; that is comprehended in the first Precept, therefore it requires us to believe in Christ, God commanding it. Else not to believe, were no sin; for sin is a transgressiin of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. Now as Believing is a Duty, so notbelieving doth afford matter of Accusation, and cause of Condemnation: But as Believing is a Condition, so Not-believing doth only leave the Accusation otherwise made in force against us; and for sin, whereof we are accused and found guilty, leaves us to condemnation. Thus (I think) are those Texts to be understood, John 3. 18. and ult. Whereas you say, That the Accusation may be threefold, truly in that manner it may be manifold: But indeed the Accusation is but one and the same, viz. that we are Non-credentes: For Pagans do not so much as appear, and Hypocrites, 
* Solifidians are no Believers, as believing is a receiving of Christ, and that is the believing by which we are justified.  Solifidians do but appear to be Believers.  
For the several Sentences from whence you argue; 
Ibid.  1. You urged Joh. 5. 22. 
Ad. 4.  to prove that God Creator judgeth none. 2. How are any freed from the Sentence of the first Law, but by the benefit of the New Law? therefore I see no ground for that which you seem to insinuate, viz. That we must first be freed from the Sentence of one Law, and then of another. Indeed I do not see, That the Gospel hath any Sentence of Condemnation distinct from the Law; only it doth condemn Unbelievers, in that it doth not free them from that condemnation which by the Law is due unto them.  
That there is a sorer punishment, 
Ibid.  as of a distinct kind, than that Death threatened Gen. 3. 
Ad. 5.  you do not prove, neither (I presume) can it be proved. There are (I grant) several degrees of that Death, yet all of the same kind, viz. The loss of Heavenly Happiness, and the enduring of Hell-Torment. And if there must be a several Righteousness for every several degree of Punishment, there must be more Righteousnesses than you either do or can assign.  
I say as before, 
Ibid.  I do not think this, [Thou art an unbeliever] (I speak of Unbelief as a not-performing of the Gospel-Condition) to be a new Accusation, 
Ad. 6.  but only a Plea why the former should stand good, viz. that we are sinners, and so to be condemned by the Law, because the benefit of the Gospel which we lay claim to, doth not belong unto us, we not performing the condition to that end required of us.  
Whereas you say, 
Ibid.  [We are devolved to the New Law before our Justification is complete]. Are we not devolved to it for the very beginning of our Justification? So again, [Christ's Satisfaction is imputed to us for Righteousness, etc. But the New Covenant gives the personal Interest]. Doth not the New Covenant give Christ also, in whom we have interest? I note these Passages, because your meaning in them perhaps is such as I do not sufficiently understand.  
I say still, 
Ibid.  Here is no occasion properly of a new Accusation, but only of a removens prohibens, a taking away of that which would hinder the force of the former Accusation. And so there is no new Righteousness of ours required unto Justification, but only a Condition, without which we cannot have interest in Christ's Righteousness, that thereby we may be justified.  
In your Aphorisms you speak only of a Twofold Righteousness requisite unto Justification; 
Ibid.  now you speak of a Twofold Justification necessary to be attained. But the Scripture speaks of Justification by Christ, and Justification by Faith, as of one and the same Justification, Acts 13. 39 Rom. 5. 1.  
The Second Cause (as you call it) viz. 
25.  [Whether the Defendant have performed the condition of the New Covenant] is indeed this, Whether he have any thing truly to allege, why upon the former Accusation he should not be condemned? And so he must be justified indeed by producing his Faith, (and so his sincere Obedience to testify his Faith) yet not as a new Righteousness of his own, but only as intitling him to Christ's Righteousness, as that whereby he must be justified.  
Whereas you speak of a threefold Gild, 
Ibid.  viz. [Reatus culpae. 2. Reatus non-praestitae Conditionis. 3. Reatus poena propter non praestitam conditionem]. 1. As Omne malum est vel Culpae, vel Poena, so omnis reatus seems to be so too. 2. The not-performing of a Condition, as a Condition, brings no new guilt of Punishment, (if it did, surely it were Culpa, and so the second Member falls in with the first) but only the loss of the Remedy, or Reward promised upon the performing of that Condition; though the not performing of the Condition as a Duty, will bring a new guilt of Punishment. 3. Therefore the Reatus peenae is not properly ob non praestitam Conditionem, but ob culpam admissam, which Reatus doth remain in force, because the Condition required for the removing of it, is not performed.  
We must take heed of straining Law-terms too far in Matters of Devinity. I see not how the firmness of my title to Christ's Righteousness for Justification, 
26  may properly be called my Righteousness whereby I am justified; though the firmness of that title may be questioned, and must be proved; yet if it prove false, it is not that properly which doth condemn, (I speak of the Meritorious Cause of Condemnation) but sin committed against the Law, is that which doth put into a state of Condemnation, and for want of that Title, there is nothing to free from Condemnation.  
The Obligation unto Punishment is not dissolved by Satisfaction made by Christ, 
Ibid.  as to Unbelievers, because for want of Faith, the Satisfaction of Christ is not imputed unto them.  
1. For that far greater Punishment, 
Ibid.  which you speak of, I have said enough before. 2. Is that Non-liberation from former misery a distinct punishment from that misery? Though the former misery may be aggravated by neglect of that which would procure a liberation from it. If God had never made a New Covenant, there had certainly been a Non-liberation from that misery, which the breach of the first Covenant did bring upon us; and under that misery they must lie for ever, who neglect the Remedies provided for them; and as their neglect doth aggravate their sin, so will it increase their Condemnation.  
The Immunity doth result from the New Covenant, 
Ibid.  the Penality from the Old, unto which Unbelievers are left, the New Covenant affording them no Remedy by reason of their unbelief: and the Penality of the Old Covenant is accidentally increased by the New Covenant, in that by neglect of its Remedy sin is increased.  
I am of this opinion, 
Ibid.  That the New Covenant hath no other Penality, but that it doth leave Unbelievers to the Penality of the Old Covenant, and by accident increase the same.  
If that Penality be but the same Death, 
Ibid.  it hath no more than the former; neither can that Act of Grace be properly said to appoint a new Punishment, but only to leave to the former Punishment, as not delivering from it. You speak indeed of Double Torments appointed by that Act for such as do reject it; but so (I think) the Similitude doth not hold. For I see not; that the Covenant of Grace doth so, but only (as I have said) leave some upon their not performing the Condition required of them, to the Punishment appointed by the Covenant of Works; which Punishment will be the sorer, as Sin by neglect of Grace offered is the greater.  
3. Though our Mediator do not believe, 
Ibid.  repent and obey for us, but we ourselves must believe, repent and obey, yet it doth not follow that our believing, repenting and obeying, is that Righteousness by which we are justified.  
4. Though we be not guilty of not performing the Condition of the New Covenant, yet this is not properly our Righteousness, 
27  by which we are justified, though without it we cannot be justified, because not partàke of Christ's Righteousness.  
5. The rejecting of Christ may be considered▪ 1. As the receiving of Christ is a Duty Commanded. 2. As the receiving of Christ is the Condition of Pardon and Salvation offered. In the former respect, the rejecting of Christ is properly a sin; and so against the Law, though aggravated by the Gospel, in that Christ is rejected notwithstanding all the benefit to be obtained by him. That the Law doth not speak of Christ, is nothing; for it speaks of obeying God in all his Commands, and so implicitly it speaks of receiving Christ, when God doth command it. In the latter respect the rejecting of Christ (I think) doth not properly bring a new guilt, but only continue and aggravate the former.  
6. But recurrit questio, viz. Whether the New Law doth require the Condition as our Righteousness: it seems to me to require it only to that end, that Christ's Righteousness may be imputed unto us, and that so by that Righteousness we may be justified.  
7. Faith, as a Duty, is a Conformity to the Law, though a partial and imperfect Conformity unto it, and so there's no being justified by it. As a Condition, it is a conformity to the Gospel, but no Righteousness by which we are justified, though a Condition upon performing of which we are justified by Christ's Righteousness.  
8. I deny that there is any other condemnation of the Gospal, but only a not-freeing in some case from the condemnation of the Law.  
9 The Condition being considered merely as a Condition, and not as a Duty, to object that we have not performed the Condition, is not to bring a new Accusation, but only to take away the Plea, why the old Accusation should not prevail against us.  
10. The performance of the Condition of the New Covenant, being designed to that use, which you mention, viz. [to be the sinners selfdenying acknowledgement of his sin and misery, and insufficiency to deliver himself] it doth hence rather follow, that properly it is not our Righteousness, by which we are justified, though it be required of us to that end, that we may be justified by Christ's Righteousness.  
11. That the Condition is not of so large extent as the Duty commanded, seems not to the purpose, the Question being of the Condition as a Condition, not as a Duty. Faith as a Duty (I grant) is part of our Personal Righteousness; but that is not it by which we are justified.  
12. As the Condition is a Condition, and no more, so the performing of it is no Justitia at all: as it is a Duty, so indeed the performing of it is Justitia particularis, & secundum quid, as the performing of every Duty is: but such a justitia I dare not rely on for Justification. Whereas you say, That Christ's Righteousness is not simply our Universal Righteousness it is true, if by [simply] you mean [absolutè & nullâ interpositâ conditione] otherwise our Universal Righteousness it is, so that we have no need of any other Righteousness for our Justification, though we have need of some thing to that end, that we may partake of Christ's, Righteousness, and be justified by it.  
13. The Gospel as distinct from the Law, doth show us our Remedy; the Law as distinct from the Gospel, doth prescribe unto us our Duty. Or if the Gospel also doth prescribe unto us our Duty, yet no other Duty, though upon other terms than the Law doth prescribe. However, though the performing of the Duty be in some sort our Righteousness, yet it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified. Still I distinguish of Believing considered as a Duty, and considered as a Condition. As a Duty, it is our Righteousness, but not that whereby we are justified; as a Condition, it is that whereby we are justified, but not our Righteousness; it is only that whereby we receive Righteousness, viz. the Righteousness of Christ, that Righteousness indeed by which we are justified. Whereas you say, [The difference of the two Laws or Covenants, is the main ground which shows the necessity of a Twofold Righteousness]. The necessity of a Twofold Righteousness is not denied, but only the necessity of a Twofold Righteousness unto Justification.  
This Twofold Justification seems to be a new conceit. 
Ibid.  I remember not that you spoke any thing of it in your Aphorisms; neither (I think) will it easily be granted because of your Positions and Suppositions, but rather they will be rejected, as inferring that which is not to be admitted. For truly where the Gospel doth speak of more Justifications than one, (in that sense as we treat of Justification) I am yet to seek.  
From a Twofold Covenant you infer a Twofold Justification. 
Ibid.  But is there a Twofold Covenant, by which we are or may be justified? I conceive, we are justified only by the New Covenant. For by the Deeds of the Law (the Old Covenant) shall no flesh be justified, Rom. 3. 20. See also Acts 13. 39  
1. To be accused as an Unbeliever, and a Rejecter of Christ, 
Ibid.  etc. is to be accused as a finner, and as one that did not continue in all things written in the Law to do them. For else Unbelief and rejecting of Christ were no sin; that Christ is not spoken of in the Law, is nothing, as I have showed before. 2. That Accusation (that a Man is an Unbeliever, and a Rejecter of Christ) if it be made good, doth leave a Man to the Law, and makes all its Accusations to be in force against him, with aggravation of his Sin for contempt of Mercy.  
For the Authors which you cite, I can examine but few of them, because I have them not. Bradshaw (so far as I see) makes nothing for you. 
De Justis. c. 24. §. 21.  He saith, Bona opera quodammodo justificare dicuntur, quôd fidem, i●samque 〈◊〉 justificationem nostram arguendu, accomprobando, utramque ista ratione justificent. This is but what others say, That Faith doth justify the Person, and Works justify the Faith: and that is indeed no more than what all Protestants do say, viz. That Works declare and manifest Faith to be such as whereby the Person is justified: and that therefore a Man is said to be justified by Works, because thereby he appears to have Faith, whereby he is justified.  
Again he saith, 
Ibid. §. 23.  Obedientia non minùs quam ipsa (ex quâ oritur) sides ad falutem aeternans est nobis necessaria, utpote sine quâ justitiam Christi imputatam prodess nobis posse spes nulla exist at. This is but what Protestants generally acknowledge, That Obedience is necessary as a Fruit of Justifying Faith; so that without Obedience it is in vain to think of being justified by Christ's Righteousness: Yet is not our Obedience therefore a Righteousness, by which we are justified.  
Again he saith, 
Ibid. §. 25.  Cujuslibet Christiani, quicum actu Deus in gratiam rediit, duplex est Justitia; Imputata una, Inhaerens altera. But he doth not say, That we are justified by Inherent, as well as by Imputed Righteousness: He is as far from that as other Protestants generally are; and other Protestants generally are as ready to assert the necessity of that Twofold Righteousness, as he is.  
Again he saith, 
Ibid. §. 26.  Per justitiam Christi nobis imputatam non possimus dici absolutè sive omni modo justi, etc. He means, We are not freed from future Obedience, though we be freed from the guilt of Disobedience. This (except Libertines) none, I presume, will deny. But all this, as to the Controversy betwixt us about a Twofold Righteousness requisite unto Justification, is (that I see) just nothing. But concerning Bradshaw, and the places which you point at in him, I observe, that §. 21. is twice so figured, and therefore which of the two you did intend, may be a question. I before noted what is in the former; but in the latter there is something, which peradventure you intended, though I judge it as little to your purpose as the rest. He saith, Nova Nostra Obedientia pro grad● suo, & mensurâ, etiam justitia nostra dicitur, quâ & formaliter, inherenter, habitualiter, siuè ex operibus justi (pro ipsius modulo) cora● Deo etiam verè dicamu●, utpote cujus ratione pro justis ex parte à Deo ipso censeamur, cujusque intuitu etiam in foro divino aliquo modo (si id opus esset) justificari possimus. But, 1. you see what mincing of the matter here is; [Pro gradu suo & mensurâ: Pro ipsius modulo: exparte: Aliquomodo●e si id ●pus esset]. This is not to the Point we have in hand, who speak of universal and entire Justification. 2. Here he makes against you; for he clearly makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect, [cujus ratione pro justis ex parte à Deo censemur] whereas you hold all Righteousness to be perfect, or none at all. What you mean by citing Wotton de Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18. I cannot imagine, for nothing do I there see for you, but much against you, though touching other Particulars in debate betwixt us. As in the very beginning of the Chapter; Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides, quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus. And the title of the Chapter is, Quomodo Fides Causa Instrumentalis Justificationem Nostram operetur. And pag. 100 he citys and approves that of Downam, Fides sola est, quae nobis jus tribuit ad omnes Dei promissiones in Evangelio consequenàs, etc. And pag. 103. that of our Church; Nihil ex hominis parte flagitatur ad ipsius justificationem, praeter veram & vivam fidem. And immediately after he adds; Neque tamen hac Fides spem, dilectionem, timorem, panitentiam excludere censenda est, quasi ad eum, qui justificandus est, non pertinerent, sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi (N. B.) significantur penitùs excludi. Atqut hoc quidem justificandi munus sol● Fidei convenire, his rationibus ostendo, etc. The rest of the Chapter is taken up with those Reasons. Now what there is for your purpose, judge you. The next place which you refer me to, is more punctually cited, viz. part 2. lib. 2. cap. 35. pag. 383. but neither there do I find any thing that makes for you. He there answers Bellarmine's Arguments, whereby he would prove, That Fides est solus assensus, non etiam siducia: But what is this ad rhom●●●? I know not whether you may lay hold on those words, Fidem Justificantem, sive quatenus Justificat, non esse unam virtutem, nec ullam quidem virtutem, sed justificare omninò, & solummodò ex officiò & loco, quae Deus misericors illi sponte & liberè concessit, ut dixi parte 1. lib. 2. cap. 28. So it is printed, but it should be cap. 18. for there are but nineteen Chapters of that Book. What you can gather from this (if this were it you aimed at) I cannot tell, especially he referring us to the other place before mentioned, where there is much against you, but nothing (I think) for you. And as little for your purpose do I meet with in part 2. lib. 1. cap. 7. pag. 144. where he only saith, Accedat etiam oportet, ut idonei simus, quibusaditus ad Coelum pateat, habitualis justitia sive Sanctitas, de quâ, etc. Mat. 5. 8. Denique vitae etiam sanctimen●â, & bonis operibus opus est, ut Regnum Coeleste comparemus, Heb. 12. 14. Matth. 25. 34, 35. But doth he say; That this Habitual Righteousness (which he maketh all one with Holiness, therein opposing you as I do) is requisite unto Justification? Otherwise that it is requisite, Who doth question? Whereas you next cite part. 2. lib. 1. cap. 5. p. 127. n. 3, 4. I doubt whether you did well observe what the Author there meaneth. He only answereth an Argument of Hemingius, denying that which (he saith) Hemingius supposeth, viz. Eandem justitiam esse viam ad vitam aternam, cum in Lege, tum in Evangelio. But of a Twofold Righteousness he there makes no mention; not (I say) of a Twofold Righteousness required of us at all, much less required of us, that thereby we may be justified. He saith indeed, Quid enim si Lex Dei in decalogo sit norma illius justitia, quae e●t via Vitae Eternae? Si praeter hanc in Lege praescripta sit alia via in Evangelio constituta, quid impediet, quo minùs justificetur quispiam sine Legis impletione? He doth not mean, That the Righteousness prescribed in the Law, is one Righteousness, and the Righteousness constituted in the Gospel another Righteousness, whereby we are justified; but that we are justified only by this latter, and not at all by the other. He was far from thinking of your Legal and Evangelical Righteousness, as being both necessary unto Justification; he only asserts Evangelical Righteousness as necessary in that respect, which Righteousness he makes to consist merely in remission of sins. See part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 2. n. 12. & cap. 3. per totum. To the very same purpose (i. e. nothing at all to yours) is that Ibid. cap. 6. p. 138. n. 2. where he taxeth Hemingius for taking it as granted, Nullam esse justitiam, vel injustitiam, nisi in Lege praestitâ, vel non praestitâ: And then he saith, Nam si alia sit justitia, quae Lege non contineatur, fieri potest, ut alia etiam sit via Aeternae Vitae consequendae. He doth not grant (as you seem to understand him) that Justitia, quae in Lege continetur est una justitia, quae ad Justificationem à nobis requiritur; for that indeed he denies, and saith, That there is another Righteousness now in the Gospel ordained for that end; and remission of sins (as I said) he makes to be that Righteousness, even the only Righteousness by which we are formally justified. Immediately after indeed he adds that which I cannot allow; Verum nec peccatum quidem Legis in Decalogo cancellis circumscribitur. This is not directly to the Point now in hand; yet because it may reflect upon it, and somewhat we have about it afterward; I therefore think meet to note it by the way, and say, That if it be as he saith, than (it seemeth) St. John did not give us a full definition of sin, 
1 Joh. 3. 4.  when he said, Sin is a transgression of the Law: but of that more hereafter. Wotton's Argument is of small force; Fides (inquit) in Christum crucifixum non praecipitur in Lege: but I have before him, showed that it is otherwise. He himself presently after citys that, 1 John 3. 23. [This is his Commandment, That we believe, etc.] Now the Law contained in the Decalogue, requires us to do whatsoever God commandeth; for if we do not so, we do not make him our only Lord God, as the Law requireth. That the Apostle doth oppose (as he saith) Faith to the Law, Gal. 3. 12. makes nothing for him. For Faith, as a Duty, is required in the Law, though as a Condition it be required only in the Gospel. Neither doth that advantage him, which he also objecteth, That the Law hath nothing to do with Christ as Mediator, Gal. 5. 4. For though the Gospel only hold out Christ as Mediator to be believed in; yet Christ being so held out, the Law doth require us to believe in him. For the Law doth require a belief of every Truth that God doth reveal, and a performance of every thing that God doth enjoin. Now for Lud. de Dieu, If the Justification which he speaks of, Quâ ut sanctificati ac regeniti absolvimur à falsis Diaboli & improborum criminationibus, be meant of some particular Acts, of which we are accused, it is but such a Justification as the Reprobates themselves may partake of, who may be accused of some things whereof they are not guilty. See Bradshaw de Justif. cap. 25. If it be meant of our estate in general, (as I suppose it is) than this is indeed no distinct Justification, but only a confirming of the other. For in vain do we pretend to be justified by Faith, (by which alone de Dieu grants we are justified) so as through Christ to be freely acquitted from the guilt of our sins, if yet we remain unregenerate and unsanctified. By the way I observe, That de Dieu's words are against you, [Jacobus non agit de Justificatione, quae partim fide, partim operibus peragatur]. Thus much I had said in reference to this Author before I had him upon the Epistles; but now that I have him, I shall speak more fully to him, or to you of him, from that other place to which you remit me, viz. his Notes on Rom. 8. 4. There he speaks likewise of a Twofold Righteousness, and of a Twofold Justification, yet so as but little to patronise your Cause. Besides Imputed Righteousness, which we have in Christ, there is also (he saith, and who doth not?) an Inherent Righteousness which we have in ourselves. The former Righteousness (he saith) is that, Quâ nos Deus, etsi in nobis ipsis Legi adhuc dissormes, plenè tamen, ipsius etiam Legis Testimonio, justificat, eique pro omninò conformibus habet in capite Christo: de quâ justificatione Apostolus supra, cap. 3. & 4. & 5. multis disputavit. Altera est, de quâ, Rom. 6. 13. Ephes. 4. 24. 1 Joh. 3. 7. Quâ nos Deus per regenerationem in nobis etiam ipsis Lege ex parte conformatos, ex parte nunc justificat, & indies justificat magis ac magis, prout incrementum capit regeneratio, ac justificabit plenè, ubi perfectio advenerit, de quâ Justificatione agitur, Jac. 2. 21, 24. Apoc. 22. 11. Mat. 12. 37. 1 Reg. 8. 32. Hanc justificationem Opera Legis ingrediuntur; ut primam constituit sola Fides, i. e. justitia Christi fide imputata, non opera; sic alteram censtituunt opera, non fides. Here, 1. he makes Inherent Righteousness imperfect, and so also the Justification which doth arise from it. By this Righteousness we are but Legi ex parte conformati, & ex parte nunc justificati: But Imputed Righteousness, and Justification by it, he acknowledgeth to be perfect: hereby we are plenè justificati; tanquam Legi plenè conforms in capite Christo. 2. He makes Faith only, i. e. (as he explains it) the Righteousness of Christ imputed by Faith, that whereby we are fully and perfectly justified. Now you make all Righteousness, as such, perfect: for otherwise you make it to be no Righteousness if it be imperfect. And you make Faith and Works to concur unto the same Justification, though you distinguish of the Inchoation, Continuation and Consummation of it. You also make Faith properly taken to be the Righteousness (though not the only Righteousness) by which we are justified. So that de Dieu's Opinion and yours are much different.  
Again, Sola Fides (inquit) amplectens istam obedientiam (sc. Christi) imputatur in justitiam, Ibid. p. 104.  
And pag. 105. Fidei imputatio est in justitiam perfectam, qualis est Obedientia Christi. Operum imputatio in imperfectam, qualia sunt ipsa Opera in hâc vitâ.  
And pag. 109. he citys Bucer in Colloq. Ratisb. as agreeing with him, and saying thus, Dixeramus nos, secuti Apostolum, & omnem Scripturam, duplicem esse Sanctorum justitiam, quâ justi sunt coram Deo & hominibus. Vnam Christi, perfectam, quâ illis spes omnis gratiae Dei, & salutis vitaeque semp●ternae tota nititur. Alteram in ipsis per Spiritum Christi inchoatum, quâ considere non debent, proptereà quòd ea imperfecta semper est, dum hîc vivunt, & Deo non nisi ex liberali & infinitâ ejus misericordiâ, & merito Christi probari non potest. Hâc justitia nemo justificatur coram Deo justificatione vitae.— Justitiam hanc Inchoatam sentimus esse quidem veram & vivam Justitiam, Dei praeclarum & eximium donum, vitamque novam in Christo hâc justitiâ constare, omnesque Sanctos hac ipsâ quoque justitia justos esse, & coram Deo, & coram hominibus, & propter eam Sanctos quoque à Deo justificari justificatione Operum, i. e. comprobari eos à Deo, laudari, & remunerari. Attamen quamlibet haec justitia sit vera ac viva, & suo etiam modo (N. B.) justificans, tamen non esse ejusmodi, non sic veram vivam & solidam, ut quisquam Sanctorum justificari ea possit justificatione vitae, multo minus ut sit ipsa justitia vel justificatio vitae.  
Thus than de Dieu in the Matter itself doth not differ from other Protestant-Writers, who generally hold, That the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, is that by which we are fully and perfectly justified; and yet we must also have Inherent Righteousness, which will justify us in some sort, but not fully and perfectly, because itself is imperfect.  
For Placeus I have him not; but because you allege his words, I will say something to him. He speaks indeed of a Twofold Accusation, and of a Twofold Justification. But, 1. he seems to differ from me and others only modo loquendi. For he saith, Ab accusatione priore (qua sc. objicitur nos esse peccatores) sola fide justificamur; qua Christi gratiam & justitiam amplectimur: à posteriore, (qua objicitur nos esse infideles) justificamur etiam operibus, quatenus iis Fides (N. B.) ostenditur. This seems to be in effect the same with that of Maccovius, 
De Fide Justif. Disp. 12.  Conciliationem hîc (inter Paulum & Jacobum) hanc ponunt Theologi, & quidem ex Scriptura, sola Fides nos justificat apprehensiuè, opera declaratiuè. 2. To speak properly, they are not (I think) two distinct Accusations. For to omit this, That to be Infideles, is to be Peccatores; and so the one Accusation doth include the other: To omit this (I say) the latter Accusation is but a reinforcing of the former. Thou art a Sinner, saith the Accuser, and therefore to be condemned. Not so, saith the Party accused, for I am a Believer, and therefore justified. Hereupon the Accuser replies, Nay, it is not so as thou pretendest, thou art indeed no Believer, therefore the guilt of thy sins is upon thee, and thou art under condemnation. All this is but one Accusation, prosecuted and confirmed against a Plea made against it. If they were distinct Accusations, t●en we might be freed from the one, and yet be condemned by the other: but it is here quite otherwise. For the force of the former Accusation doth depend upon the latter; neither are we freed from the former, except we be freed from the latter; whereas you seem to carry it so, as if we were first justified from the former Accusation, and then were again to be justified from the latter: this seems to be the result of your Opinion.  
1. Because I grant Faith to be required of us, that so Christ's Righteousness may become ours, do I therefore make Faith itself to be our Righteousness, viz. that whereby we are fully justified. A part of Inherent Righteousness. (I grant) Faith is, by which we may be justified in some measure; but that is not the justification here enquired of. 2. You should not put me to prove, That your Assertion is without Scripture; it is sufficient for me to say it, until you allege Scripture for it. 3. Christ's Satisfaction is solely and wholly our Righteousness, whereby we are justified from all Condemnation, though except we believe in him, we cannot enjoy that benefit by him; 
(p. 36.)  See 2 Cor. 5. ult. and Acts 13. 39 4. The New Covenant doth hold out unto us Christ's Righteousness to be made ours by Faith, that so we may be freed from the Condemnation of the Old Covenant, to which Condemnation we are left, if we believe not; and our Condemnation will be so much the sorer, by how much the sin in neglecting so great Salvation is the greater. 5. I confess indeed that there is more than Faith in the Condition of the New Covenant, but not as to Justification. For that which you add, [James saith, We are justified by Works, and Christ by our Words]; the question is not, Whether we be said to be justified by our Works or Words; but how and in what sense we are said 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 unto us. 6. To say, That we are healed partly by the Medicine, and partly by the Application, I still think to be improper; neither do you bring any thing, whereby to show the propriety of it. The Application of the Medicine is indeed requisite, yet it is the Medicine properly that doth heal, though not except there be an Application of it. Common Speech is not always Proper Speech; neither can any that are acquainted with Scripture, and know how to distinguish between Proper and Improper Speeches, think it strange that there are improper Speeches found in Scripture. What will you say of those, [This is my Body] [The Rock was Christ] and a hundred suchlike? For Rules of Logic, if you had made use of any, I might have considered of them. 7. May not a Similitude illustrate, though there be such a difference as you speak of, betwixt that from which it is fetched, and that to which it is applied? But why do you join Repentance and Obedience with Faith in point of Justification; I speaking only of Faith, and you as yet having said nothing for the joint interest of the other? 8. In your Aphorisms you plainly assert two distinct Righteousnesses, as requisite unto Justification; that there you make them subordinate, is more than I observe. But though Faith be subordinate unto Christ's Satisfaction in the matter of Justification, yet that we are justified by Faith as a distinct Righteousness, I cannot yield, no more than that the Application of a Medicine is a distinct Medicine by which one is healed. I am glad that you plainly disclaim a Coordination of Christ's Righteousness and Faith in the Work of Justification: But if they be but subordinate, then (methinks) they should not be two distinct Righteousnesses, by which we are justified. I see not how we can be justified (I speak of an Universal Justification, opposite to all condemnation, that which Bucer calls Justificationem Vitae) both by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us, 
Apud. Lud. de Dieu in Rom. 8. 4.  and also by our own personal Righteousness. You say, [A Man having a Medicine, and not applying it, may properly be said to die for want of Application]; but to speak properly, I think, It is not the want of Application of the Medicine, but the Disease that doth kill the Man; So though a Man wanting Faith shall be condemned, yet take Faith merely as a Condition, not as a Duty, it is not properly the want of Faith, but Sin that is the cause of his Condemnation; though his want of Faith may as aggravate his Sin, so increase his Condemnation.  
That I speak your words, 
Ibid. 20. 108.  is more than I do know. How Christ's Righteousness may be called our Legal Righteousness, I showed by Rom. 10. 4. viz. as serving us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us, and for want of which the Law otherwise would have condemned us. Neither did I blame you merely for calling Christ's Satisfaction our Legal Righteousness, but for making another Righteousness of our own, which you call our Evangelical Righteousness, necessary unto Justification. Now also you overlook that, which I alleged about Christ's Satisfaction, as being our Evangelical Righteousness.  
1. Doth the Old Covenant prescribe Christ's Satisfaction as our Righteousness? 
Ibid.  You said a little before, 
Ib. 110.  [I do not think, that Christ's Righteousness of Satisfaction is that which the Law required]; as if I said, That the Law did require it; whereas I meant only this, That the Law required Satisfaction, and Christ made it for us, so that Christ's Satisfaction serveth us instead of that Righteousness which the Law required of us, and so may be called our Legal Righteousness. But the New Covenant doth hold out Christ's Righteousness to be apprehended by us, and made ours Faith, that so thereby we may be justified. Where the Scripture speaks of a Twofold Righteousness so as you do, or how this makes for the unfolding of the main Doctrine, or tends to heal our Breaches, I do not see: You affirm these things, but do not prove them. 2. What plain ground you laid down in your Aphorisms for that Twofold Righteousness, I do not know: What I could observe any way Argumentative, I was willing to examine, and so am still.  
1. If it imply Blasphemy, to say, That Christ repented, 
21. 111.  and believed for us; Doth it follow that Faith or Repentance is our Righteousness, by which we are justified? Can nothing be required of us, and performed by us, but it must therefore be our Righteousness, and by it as our Righteousness we must be justified? 2. The Scriptures which I alleged, (viz. Rom. 9 29. & 10. 6. Gal. 5. 5. and Rom. 3. 22.) do sufficiently distinguish Faith from that Righteousness, whereby we are justified, and show it to be only a means, whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, and so by that Righteousness of Christ are justified. The Argument (I think) is good, notwithstanding any thing you say unto it. Faith is only a means whereby Christ's Righteousness is imputed unto us unto Justification: Therefore it is not that Righteousness by which we are justified, 
De Fide Justif. §. 15 & 16.  Rivet speaking of the Remonstrants saith, Volunt igitur Fidem cum operibus ven●re in partem justitiae debitae, & Fidem justificare, non Relatiuè, ut organum apprehendens objectum, sed Inherenter, etc. Hoc iniquitatis mysterium, etc.  
1. You might easily know what I meant by [Simply and Absolutely justified in the sight of God], 
Ibid.  if you did well consider the other Members of the distinction, viz. to be wholly freed from all Condemnation; the same that Mr. Bradshaw meant by Universal Justification: You know sufficiently the distinction betwixt Simpliciter or Absolutè, & secundum quid. Bradshaw having said, Hoc modo (sc. justificatione particulari) non Electi soli, sed & Reprobi ipsi coram Deo Justificari possunt: Adds immediately, Neutri vero eorum absolute hoc modo justificari possunt.— Hoc modo justificari non est penitùs à peccati reatu, sed ab hujus vel illius peccati imputatione injustâ liberari. 2. Comparative Righteousness I showed to be but a less degree of Unrighteousness: but Ironical Righteousness is downright Unrighteousness, whereas a less Unrighteousness in comparison of a greater, is a kind of Righteousness. Minus malum respectu majoris habet rationem boni. 3. I do not deny the Righteousness of Faith, though I deny Faith to be that Righteousness by which we are justified. Though our Salvation depend upon our Faith, and sincere Obedience, yet are we not therefore justified by Obedience, but Declaratiuè, as it is the fruit of Justifying Faith; nor by Faith, but Apprehensiuè, as by it we apprehend and receive Christ's Righteousness.  
1. I never doubted, 
Ibid. & 32.  much less denied Faith to be a part of Inherent Righteousness. 2. It is indeed a strange Righteousness, that will not justify so far forth as it will reach: but it is not strange to Protestant-Divines, that Inherent Righteousness cannot reach so far as to justify in that sense as we speak of Justification. 
De Justif. Habit.  Ilud concedimus, (inquit Daven.) esse in omnibus justificatis justitiam quandam inherentem, 
cap. 22.  quam si formalem causam statuant Justifactionis, (liceat enim vocabulum procudere) non repugnabimus: sed predictae Justificationis, quae respondet stricto examini Coelestis Judicis, nec formalis, nec meritoria esse ●llo modo potest. And he lays down these two Positions; 1. Christi Mediatoris, 
Ibid.  in nobis habitantis, atque per Spiritum sese nobis unientis, perfectissima Obedientia, est formalis causa justificationis Nostrae, utpote quae ex donatione Dei, & applicatione Fidei fit nostra. 2. Justitia per Spiritum Christi nobis impressa & inherens, non est formalis causa, per quam stamus justificati, hoc est, per quam liberati judicamur à damnatione, & acceptati ad vitam aternam, tanquam eâdem digni per hanc qualitatem nobis inherentem. 
Ibid.  That you may not catch at the word [digni], he afterward expresseth it thus; 
cap. 26.  Atque hie ne inanem de vocabulis velitationem instituamus, illud praemittêdum nos per formalem causam Justificationis nihil aliud intelligere, quam illud, per quod stamus in conspectu Dei à damuatione liberati, innocentes, gratificati, & ad vitam aeternam acceptati. And the whole Chapter is to prove that Inherens' Justitia non est formalis causa Justificationis Nostrae coram Deo. But it is a needless labour to cite Authors to this purpose. For what more common with our Divines (I speak of such as are of chief note) than to acknowledge Inherent Righteousness, and yet to deny that we are justified by it? What you mean, when you yield that we are not universally justified by Faith, I do not well understand. For if you mean (as you seem to do) that we are not freed by it from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, but only from the Punishment of the New Covenant; 1. I know no Punishment of the New Covenant, but a leaving to the Punishment of the Old Covenant, with an aggravation of it for contempt of Mercy offered. 2. Faith, though not as our Righteousness, yet as the means whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness, doth free us from the Punishment of the Old Covenant, viz. Death. For the Just shall live by Faith, Rom. 1. 17. And in that sense Faith doth universally justify us. For being justified by Faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5. 1. Whereas you speak of justifying against the Accusation of Non-performing the Condition of the New Covenant; I must still tell you, That taking the Condition merely as a Condition, the Accusation of non-performing it, is but a confirming a former Accusation of being guilty of the breach of the Old Covenant, and therefore to be condemned, as having no relief from the New Covenant, the Condition of it being not performed. 3. If I do ill oppose the Righteousness whereby we are justified, and the Righteousness whereby we are sanctified, as if the same thing might not be both; then welfare the Papists, who confound Justification and Sanctification. 
Duraeus Advers.  Duraeus the Jesuit, in his Defence of Campian, saith, Nova haec, Whitakere, Theologia est, 
Whitak.  nos per grattiam insusam, vitae novitatem ac sanctificationem adipisci, miaimè tamen justificari. At quae te, obsecro, Scriptura docit Justificationem à Sanctificatione distinguere? The same Righteousness that doth sanctify, cannot also justify; because that Righteousness, which doth sanctify, doth it but in part; but that which doth justify, must do it fully, or else it is to little purpose. 
De Justif.  For (as Bradshaw observes) even the Reprobate as well as others, 
cap. 25.  may have a particular Justification. 4. The Texts which I cited, (Luke. 1. 75. Ephes. 4. 24. Psal. 147. 17. Apoc. 22. 11.) seem to me to make the terms [Righteousness and Holiness, Righteous and Holy] equipollent: and that Text, Psal. 145. 17. speaks not of God's People, but of God himself, which (it seems) you did not observe. And why should you call it tautologizing, when two words are joined together as Synonima's? What is more frequent in Scripture than this? It hath more show of tautology, when divers sentences importing the same thing, are joined together; which yet is very usual. And as the Scriptures, so also our Divines do promiscuously use the words [Righteousness] and Holiness]. 
De Just. Habit.  Davenant, Hanc ergo qualitatem justitiae, sive Sanctitatis, quaem Deus imprimit hominibus renatis, 
cap. 26.  negamus esse causam formalem justificationis, 
Bell. Ener.  etc. So Ames. Non excluditur justitia, seu Sanctit as inherens, 
Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. p. 126.  etc. 5. The Matter of our Righteousness, is that which is conformable to the Law: Justum est, quod est secundum Legem; Injustum, quod contra Legem; and so by your own confession is the matter of our Holiness.  
1. They are no vulgar Divines, that say, 
32.  Our Inherent Righteousness is imperfect; yea, and make this one principal Argument to prove that we are not justified by Inherent Righteousness. 
Contra Camp. ad  Fides, & spes, & Charitas (inquit Whitakerus) nos justos aliquo modo faciunt, 
Rat. 8. p. 178.  sed inchoatè, non absolute. Lud. de Dieu, and in him Bucer were cited before. 
De Justif.  Here now Davenant; Ipsa (inquit) justitia inherens, 
Habit. cap. 26.  in se considerata, qualis reperitur in utatoribus, imperfecta est, atque caret illis perfectionis gradibus, 
Arg. 4.  qui ad justificationem perfectam necessario requiruntur. 
Contra  Vide etiam Ibid. cap. 23. ad Arg. 6. Thus also Amesius; 
Bellar.  Justitia quâ justificatur homo coram Deo, 
Tom. 4.  debet esse perfecta: Sed justitia nobis inherens, 
lib. 6. c. 1.  non est talis. Ergo. Wotton speaks not only for himself, 
Arg. 11.  but also for others, even our chiefest Divines; Lutherus, 
De Recon. par. 2. l. 1. c. 19  Melancthon, Calvinus, & Chemnitius, tâ potissimum causâ (N. B.) nos infusâ & inherente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt, quòd illa in nobis ita imperfecta sit, ut in Dei conspectum, cum ad judicandum accedat, prodire non audeat.  
And again; 
Ibid.  Nihil profecò cause erat, cur Vasquez in 1. 2. Disp. 202. n. 26. 
cap. 23.  tantopere huic argumento confideret, ut illo potissimum ●iteretur; Perfectio nostrae justitiae (inquit Vasques) non debet probari ex quibusdam Scripturae testimoniis, in quibus commendaetur perfecta & integra charitas, sed potius ex illis, in quibus docemur nobis inesse justitiam. Nam justitia non est, quae vera, & perfecta non est.  
And again; 
Ibid.  Justitia nostra habitualis nobis à Deo infusa, 
lib. 2. c. 16. & c. 19  non est perfecta. And again; Respondent nostri Theologi justitiam illam habitualem esse imperfectam. I will add one more, 
Of the Covenant, ch. 16. p. 10  whom both you and I reverence, viz. Mr. Blake, He having spoken of some (he names none, but you know, I suppose, whom he meaneth) who grant Holiness to be imperfect, but will have Righteousness (our Personal Righteousness) by all means to be perfect; he adds, [This and much more to assert a personal perfect Inherent Righteousness, as is said] all which, as it is here held out, to me is new, and I must confess myself in ignorance all over. I never take Imperfect Righteousness to imply any such contradiction, no more than Imperfect Holiness. Isaiah (I am sure) saith, All our Righteousnesses are as filthy Rags, etc. See more afterward.  
2. I take Righteousness to be a Conformity to the Law, which Conformity may be more or less perfect, as one may more or less come up to the Rule set before him. If I over-slipt any thing in your Aphorisms, you might have directed me to it; otherwise to search for it, may prove both a tedious and a fruitless labour.  
That one thing may be more or less like another, 
Ibid.  is most evident, 
Alio alio amicior, & similior, Alsted. Metaph. lib. 2. c. 5.  so that if all the wit in the World should conspire against it, yet one might as easily demonstrate it, as he did, who to prove dari motum, when one had disputed against it, rose up and walked. Is not the Similitude sometime more, sometime less, that is betwixt Parents and Children, and betwixt Children of the same Parents, especially Twins? and so in other things? To deny this, what is it but to put out men's eyes, or to bid defiance unto commonsense? 
Log. l. 1. c. 7  Relata recipiunt magis & minus, saith Burgersdicius. Yet he saith, Recipere magis & minus non convenit omnibus Relatis. Surely there is great difference betwixt Similitudo and Aequalitas, so that neither Scheibler nor any Man else must think to carry it so, as if there were eadem utriusque ratio; so that because Aequalitas consistit in indivisibili; therefore similitudo must do so too. Perfect Righteousness indeed is quaedam Aequalitas, not simply all Righteousness. That an Action cannot be conform to the Precept, except it be perfectly conform, you must prove as well as assert, before I can assent. 
Of the Coven. c. 16. p. III  I could yet see no reason to doubt of that which Mr. Blake saith, [As an Image carrying an imperfect resemblance of its Sampler, is an Image; so Conformity imperfectly answering to the Rule, is Conformity likewise.]  
1. You do not well to confound Conformity and Equality. 
33.  And though the Law require perfect Conformity, which none can perform, it doth not follow that imperfect Conformity is none at all. If a perfect Conformity to the Law could be performed by us, than we should be justified by the Law, which we cannot be: yet the Regenerate conform to the Law in some measure, and so it behoves us to do; For than shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Ps. 119. 6. I let pass your Second and Third. Ad 4. I do not speak of Qualification considered absolutely, but in reference to the Rule. 
Loc. cit.  Mr. Blake saith well, [Neither do I understand how Holiness should be imperfect, taken materially, and Righteousness perfect, taken formally, in reference to a Rule. We may (for aught I know) as well make Holiness formal, and refer it to a Rule, and Righteousness material, in an absolute consideration, without reference to any Rule at all. And in such consideration I do not know how there can be perfection or imperfection either in Holiness or Righteousness; it is as they come up, or fall short of the Rule, that they have the denomination of perfection or imperfection]. Holiness and Righteousness are opposite unto sin: therefore formally considered, they are a Conformity to the Rule, as Sin●is a deviation from it. The Conformity therefore of our Actions and Dispositions to the Rule is not (as you say) the matter of our Righteousness, but (as I conceive) it is the form; and our Actions and Dispositions themselves are the matter of it, viz. of our Personal and Inherent Righteousness; and so of our Holiness. The Rule of Righteousness (to which as we conform more or less, we are more or less righteous) is the Law, the sum whereof is contained in the Decalogue: therefore it is said, That Believers are under the Law as a Rule, though not under it as a Covenant. For Pana Evangelica, of which you speak, I have said enough of it before.  
To your Queries and Objections, 
Ibid. & 34.  I answer, Ad 1. Christ doth justify the Unrighteous, God doth justify the Ungodly, Rom. 4. 5. But how? They were unrighteous and ungodly before they were justified; they are not so when they are justified, though it is not their Personal Righteousness or Godliness whereby they are justified. Know ye not that the Unrighteous shall not inherit, etc. And such were some of you, but you are washed, 
Of the Coven. p. 219.  etc. 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. That of Tainovius, cited by Mr. Ball, is useful here; In Scriptura saepe res dicitur quod paulò antè fuit, ut caeci vident, surai audiunt, claudi ambulant, etc. Ad 2. The Law doth not justify any but such as are perfectly righteous; therefore they that are imperfectly, though truly righteous, cannot be justified by it. 
De Just.  Sumus verè justi, (saith Daevenant) non putatiuè, 
Hab. c. 23. all Arg. 7. Ibid. ad  si respiciamus justitiam nistram habitualem: sed haec vera justitia est adhuc inchoata & imperfecta. 
Arg. 8.  And again, Sanctification●m nostram non putativam & fictitiam, sed veram & realem statuimus. Bellarmini autem Dialecticam, qui inde concludit nos justificari justitia inherente, putativam arbitramur, & fictitiam. And why should not Imperfect Righteousness be acknowledged True Righteousness, as well as Imperfect Holiness is acknowledged True Holiness? That of the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 24. [in Righteousness and true Holiness]; or, as the Original hath it, [in righteousness and holiness of Truth], attributes Truth as well to Righteousness, (though imperfect) as to Holiness. Genitivus Veritatis (saith Calvin on the place) loco Epitheti positus est, qui tam justitiae, quam sanctitati convenit. Ad 3. You seem quite to mistake the meaning of that in James 2. 10. It makes nothing against an Imperfect Righteousness, but only shows, That respect must be had to one Precept as well as to another because though a Man should keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, viz. so as wholly to wave it, and to have no respect unto it, he were guilty of all, his Obedience were indeed none at all. For at all. For to obey, is to do that which is commanded, because it is commanded. Now he that doth any one thing eo nomine because it is commanded, will endeavour to do every thing that is commanded. A Quatenus ad omne, etc. That this is the meaning of the words, is clear by v. 11. See Calvin on the place. Ad 4. The Law doth pronounce an imperfect Obeyer imperfectly righteous; and therefore if he be left to the Law, to stand or fall by it, he shall not be justified for his Righteousness, but shall be condemned for his Imperfection: Ad 5. The Damned and Devils cannot be pronounced Righteous according to the Law, as the Saints may. Is there no difference betwixt Imperfect Obedience, and Perfect (if it may be called Perfect) Disobedience? The Unregenerate do something that, but nothing as the Law requireth: the Regenerate do something both that, and as, though not so perfectly as the Law requireth. 
De Just. Act. c. 34. Memb. 2.  Licet modus agends (inquit Daven.) bonus sit, quia agunt ex fide & charitate, tamen gradus in hoc modo deficit, quia non agunt ex tantà fide & charitate quanta ab ipsa Lege praecipitur. It is granted, That the best action of any upon earth is not good and just according to the rigour of the Law; for the rigour of the Law requires it to be perfectly good and just, which it is not. But it follows not, that therefore it is not good and just at all. 
Ibid.  Name aliudest (saith the same learned Author) actionem esse verè bonam, 
Cap. 36. add test. 7.  alud esse purè bonam, & ab omni vitio liberam: sicut aliud est aurum verum, aliud aurum purum, ab omni foece depuratum. That Rule therefore, Bonum non nisi ex integrà causà oritur, malum ex quolibet defiectu, must be taken cum grano salis, viz. so as that the Defectus must be either in the substance of the Act, or in some material Circumstance: And of such Actions Dr. Twisse (whom you cite) doth speak; Qui dat elecmosynam vanae gloriae study, etc. There is indeed some defect in the best Actions of the best Men, quoad gradum: But shall we therefore deny them to be good, because they are some way defective, and so not perfectly good? And see here I pray, to what you have now brought the matter; even to make Imperfect Holiness no Holiness, as well as Imperfect Righteousness no Righteousness. For is not Holiness Goodness as well as Righteousness? Therefore if every defect make Goodness no Goodness, than there is no more an Imperfect Holiness (which yet you grant) then there is an Imperfect Righteousness. Those words, [Neque put andum est, fieri posse, ut per Legem saltem aliquâ ex parte justificemur] taken in rigore are not true. For then there were no such thing as a particular Justification; neither do they accord with that which I cited before out of Lud. de Dieu on Rom. 8. 4. to which place you did refer me. Indeed we cannot be so justified by the Law, as thereby to be freed from all condemnation; and this seems to be all that your Author here cited did mean, when he saith, Si non es Legem transgressus, Lege justificaris: si transgressus es, condemnaris. But this doth no more prove, That Righteousness must either be perfect, or it is none at all, (though indeed it is none as to absolute and universal Justification) than it doth prove, that there is no Holiness at all, except it be perfect. For doth not the Law require perfect Holiness as well as perfect Righteousness? And is not every transgression of the Law a privation of Holiness, as well as of Righteousness? How then can you admit an Imperfect Holiness to be Holiness, and yet deny an Imperfect Righteousness to be Righteousness? And if our Inherent Righteousness (for of that we speak) must needs be perfect, if it be any at all, must not the same be said of our Holiness, this being a conformity to the Law as well as the other?  
1. You do not answer my Question, 
34  viz. Whether those Orthodox Writers (a multitude of whom you say you could heap up) do make our Personal Righteousness that by which we are justified. If they do not, their call it Evangelical is to no purpose. 2. It is not preposterous to say, That Righteousness (viz. inherent) is required unto Sanctification; it being that whereby we are sanctified, as Imputed Righteousness is that whereby we are justified. You said before, That I did ill oppose that whereby we are justified, as if the same thing might not do both: You grant then (it seems) that Righteousness may sanctify; I think it must, and so is required unto Sanctification. How you can make Inherent Righteousness it a se habere ad sanctificationem, ut se habet Albedo ad Parietem, to me seems very strange: rather (I think) ut se habet Albeds ad Dealbationem. 3. If you had spoken absolutely without any qualification, [He that affirmeth a man Righteous, (viz. by Inherent Righteousness) and yet denieth him to be justified, viz. by that Righteousness, contradicteth himself] you had condemned all our famous Divines (I think) of self-contradiction. But your speech being so qualified, as it is, [so far as he is Righteous] I know not at whom it striketh. But though none by the Law of Works can be pronounced perfectly righteous, and therefore if they be tried by it, all will be found unrighteous, yet doth it not therefore follow, that there is no such thing as an Imperfect Righteousness.  
You seem not to dislike what I say, 
Ibid.  neither do I what you now say. I grant, that the New Covenant is to the wicked an unspeakable mercy, in that by it they may be freed from the condemnation of the Old Covenant: yet until they embrace the New Covenant, they remain under the Old, even under the condemnation of it.  
1. Concerning Christ's Satisfaction, 
35  how it may be called both our Legal and our Evangelical Righteousness, I have spoken before. Legal Righteousness may either signify the Righteousness of the Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the Righteousness which is of or from the Law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is great difference between these two, for the former is asserted, but the latter is exploded, Rom. 8. 4. & 10. 5. Phil. 3. 9 Christ's Satisfaction may be called our Legal Righteousness in the former sense, not the latter. But in both respects it is our Evangelical Righteousness, as being the Righteousness of the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Righteousness which the Gospel doth hold out unto us, and the Righteousness which is of or from the Gospel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. the Righteousness which by the Gospel we are made partakers of through Faith. And therefore it is called the Righteousness which is of Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and by Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 9 30. & 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9 2. In that Faith is the Condition, or Instrument (or what any please to call it) whereby Christ's Righteousness is made ours unto Justification, it rather follows, that Faith itself is not properly our Righteousness, by which we are justified.  
Something out of Rivet I have cited before to this purpose; hear also what another saith, viz. Vignerius, whose Disputation Rivet much commends, and thought meet to annex it to his own, 
De Satisfact. Christi inter opera Riveti, Disp. 13. §. 61.  Quidni in fide nostrâ gloriabimur, si ex fide justificatio est, ut operae Evangelico, & appositâ foederi conditione, contra Apostolum, qui exclusam esse dicit per Legem fidei gloriationem? Rom. 3. 26.— An possibile est, ut sit fidei instrumentum accipiendae justitiae, & simul sit ipsa, quam querimus, justitia? utut sanè glorietur homo, solus tamen Christus est nostra justitia, nec aliud agit Fides, quam quòd Christum apprehendit, & nostram facit illius justitiam, ut in eo inveniamur, non nostram habentes justitiam, quae ex Lege est, sed illam, quae est per fidem Christi, justitiam, quae est ex Deo per fidem, Phil. 3. 9  
1. I see nothing in the place cited (viz. Aphor. 
Ibid.  p. 127. 128.) but a Similitude, which proves nothing; and I gave some touch of it in the Animadversions. Whereas you now say, [In respect of the condition of our personal performance to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, Faith is imputed unto us instead of our personal performance of Perfect Obedience], it seems to imply as if personal performance of Perfect Obedience might be required as a Condition to make Christ's Satisfaction ours, which were very strange. For if Perfect Obedience could be performed by us, what need were there of Christ ' Satisfaction to be imputed to us, except for sin committed or contracted before this personal performance of perfect Obedience? If Righteousness come by the Law, Christ died in vain. Gal. 2. ult. But however, such Obedience cannot be performed by any, there being not a Just man upon Earth, that doth good, and sinneth not, Eccles. 7. 20. That Faith is as effectual or sufficient a Condition under the New Covenant, as perfect personal Obedience, if performed, would have been under the Old Covenant: if this were all that you meant, though I like not your expression, yet I allow the thing; only this I think meet to observe, That perfect personal Obedience was so the Condition of the Old Covenant, that it was also the Righteousness required in it: But Faith is so the Condition of the New Covenant, as that it is not properly the Righteousness itself, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness that the New Covenant doth offer and afford to a Believer, instead of Perfect Obedience personally to be performed by the Old Covenant. For that which you add about the paying of a Pepper-Corn, etc. I do not think that we can be said truly and properly to pay any thing ourselves as a price, whereby to purchase the benefits of the New Covenant; see Isa. 55. 1. and Apoc. 22. 17. When we preach and press Holiness and Good Works, we use to distinguish betwixt Via Regni & Causa regnandi; and we make them requisite unto Glorification, but not unto Justification. 
Colleg. Controver. Disp. 36.  Dicimus (inquit Rivetus) bona opera necessaria esse, tanquam adjunctum consequens justificationem, tanquam effectum acquisitae satutis, quatenus salus accipitur pro justificatione; & tanquam antecedens ad sàlutem, quatenus accipitur pro glorificatione; non dutem tanquam causam, quae sali●tem efficient.  
2. The acceptance of a Gift, being a means to enjoy it, is a means whereby the Gift doth enrich; and so Faith is a means whereby Christ's Righteousness doth justify us, as being a means whereby it is imputed unto us, and made ours. But properly it is the Gift that doth enrich, though not without the acceptance of it; and so it is the Righteousness of Christ that doth justify, though not without Faith. The Trial of a Man's Title in Law to a Gift, depends on the Trial, and Proof of his Acceptance of it, because otherwise except he accept of the Gift, it is none of his: Yet for all this, it is the Gift that doth enrich, though it must be accepted, that it may do it. And so it is Christ's Righteousness that we are justified by, though Faith be required of us, that it may be made ours, and so we may be justified by it.  
That my words are contradictory one to another, 
36  you say, but the Reason which you add for proof of it, is of little force. I deny it to be as proper to say, [We are justified by Faith as a Condition] as to say, [We are justified by Christ's Satisfaction, as the Meritorious Cause]; yea and as the Righteousness by which we are justified. What inconvenience doth arise from it, if Paul and the Scriptures do oftener speak improperly than properly in this Point? May not improper Speeches, concerning some Point, be more frequent in Scripture, than proper? Sacramental Speeches, wherein the Sign is called by the name of the Thing signified, are improper: Yet are they more frequent in Scripture, than those which in that kind are more proper.  
1. You not clearing the Question, 
Ibid.  either there or any where else (that I know) in your Aphorisms, seemed to leave it doubtful; and so I thought meet to note it, that you might prevent any one's stumbling at it.  
2. What you now add upon review, doth less please; For the Holiness that is in us, is from God, the imperfection of it is from ourselves; this therefore may be sinful, though God's Work be good.  
1. Relation when it is founded in Quality, 
Ibid.  may (for any thing I see) be intended and remitted, 
Vide Alsted. Metaphys. lib. 2. c. 5.  as the Quality is wherein it is founded. I like not Scheiblers joining Similitude and Equality together, as if there were the same reason of both. One thing cannot be more or less equal, though it may be nearer to, or further from Equality than another; but one thing may be more or less like, when yet there is a true and proper likeness in both.  
2. That no Man ever performeth one act fully and exactly conform to the Law of Works, is the same that I say: But why do you put in these terms [fully and exactly] if there can be no conformity but that which is full and exact?  
3. That our Inherent Righteousness (for I must still mind you that we are speaking of it) is Non-reatus poene, I deny; and all that you add there in that Page is impertinent, as being nothing to Inherent Righteousness, about which now is all the Dispute. Pag. 37. You seem to come up to what I say, when you grant, that our Gospel-Righteousness considered in esse officii, as related to, or measured by the Precept, so our Faith and Holiness admit of degrees. Here by Faith and Holiness, you mean the same with that which immediately before you called Gospel-Righteousness, which must needs be meant of Inherent Righteousness. As for those words which you insert, [and that only quoad materiam praeceptam] I know not well what they mean. For how can officium, as related to, and measured by the Precept, be considered but quoad materiam praeceptam?  
1. If I take Holiness (as you say) as opposite to Sin, 
37  How do I make all the Actions of the Heathens Holy? Do I make them not sinful? I have ever approved of those Saying of the Ancients.  
Sine c●ltu veri Dei, 
Prosp. de Vocat. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 7.  etiam quod virtus videtur. esse, peccatum est. And, Omnis infidelium vita, peccatum est, & nihil est bonum sine summo bono. Vbi enim deest agnitio aeternae & incommut abilis veritatis, falsa virtus est, 
Idem in Sentent. ex Aug. Sent. 106.  etiam in optimis moribus. And, Quicquid boni fit ab homine, & non propter hoc fit, propter quod fieri debere vera sapientia praecipit, & se officio videatur bonum, ipso non recto fine peccatum est. Scripture also doth carry me that way, 
Aug. contra Julian. lib. 4. c. 3.  namely these place, Rom. 8. 8, 9 and Heb. 11. 6. I wave that place Rom. 14. ult. because it seems to look another way; though Prosper de Vit● Contempl. lib. 3. cap. 1. doth urge it to this purpose. There is not then the same reason of the Actions of Heathens, as of the Actions of Believers: these are imperfectly holy, the other are altogether unholy.  
2. You grant that Holiness is the same with Righteousness, which is opposed to Reatus Culpae: And truly I should think, that Inherent Righteousness is rather Non-reatus Culpae, than Non-reatus Poenae. For your Parenthesis, [If any were found, that had any such Righteousness according to the Law of Works] it is ever granted, That such a perfect Righteousness is not found in any upon Earth; but still it is denied, that because it is not perfect, therefore it is none at all.  
Justi appellantur (saith Hierom, 
Ad Ctesiphont. contra Pelagian.  speaking of Zachary, Elizabeth, Job, etc.) non quod omni vitio careant, sed quòd major's part virtutum commendentur. You grant, that Holiness may be denominated from its congruency to the Precept as a Precept. Now this you must grant, may recipere magis & minus: for so you grant that Holiness may. And if Congruency, why not Conformity? For Congruency and Conformity, though divers words, yet import (for any thing I see) one and the same thing. I take Faith to be in part our Inherent Righteousness, as it is Officium, not as it is Conditio praecisè considerata.  
3. Whether Habitual Faith, or Actual, be properly the Condition of the Covenant, is little to our purpose. And for the thing itself, as I shall grant, that we must not content ourselves with a habit of Faith, but must also act Faith: So (I think) you will not deny, that we are Fideles, and so justified, even when we sleep, though no act of Faith be performed by us.  
You say nothing to that which I answered concerning our Divines, 
Ibid.  of whom you spoke, viz. That they hold, That the Righteousness whereby we are justified, is not our Personal Righteousness; and therefore though they say, (as you allege) That our Justification is perfect, and therefore (as you infer) our Righteousness, viz. whereby we are justified, must be perfect also; yet all this is little to your purpose.  
2. To what you say, I have said enough before, viz. That Faith which is the Condition of the New Covenant, as to Justification, is not our Righteousness whereby we are justified, but only a means to partake of Christ's Satisfaction, the only Righteousness by which we are justified. And for being rei poenae Novae Legis for non-performance of its Condition; I say still, I know no punishment of the New Law for want of Faith as its Condition, but only a leaving to the punishment of the Old Law; which punishment yet (I grant) will be so much the more grievous, as the sin, which an Unbeliever, both as an Unbeliever, and otherwise, is guilty of by Gospel-Aggravations, is the more heinous.  
1. I as little doubt but that sincerity of Righteousness doth consist with imperfection of Righteousness, 
38  viz. Inherent Righteousness, which is really the same with Holiness, however in this or that respect we may distinguish the one from the other.  
2. How Hypocrisy can be taken for a seeming or appearing better than we are, yet without affectation or dissimulation, I do not understand. If without any affectation or dissimulation of ours, we seem better than we are, it is another's error, not our fault; neither can we therefore be called Hypocrites. Your manifold distinctions of Sincerity do serve rather to confound the Reader, than to unfold the matter. I take sincerity to be no distinct Grace, but the Modus of other Graces: but why that Modus may not admit of degrees, I confess I do not see. I conceive Zeal to be of like nature, yet one may be more or less zealous, and so also more or less sincere. You say here, [There is no Medium inter Ens & non Ens] of which I make no doubt but pag. 2. you think Relations to be inter Ens & Nihil; and what difference between Nihil & non Ens? You say, That you have over and over showed, That Conformity to the Rule of the Condition, doth consist in indivisibili. Indeed you have divers times affirmed, That all Conformity is of that nature, but I could never yet see it proved. But why do you now speak of Conformity to the Rule of the Condition? I take Conformity to the Rule of the Precept to be our Personal Righteousness, and the Sincerity of that Conformity to be the Sincerity of this Righteousness. And this Righteousness, though it be sincere, I hold to be imperfect, because the Conformity to the Rule is imperfect. 
Of the Coven. chap. 16. pag. III.  [Sincerity (saith Master Blake) is said to be the New Rule, or the Rule of the New Covenant. But this is no Rule, but our Duty, taking the Abstract for the Concrete; Sincerity for sincere walking, and this according to the Rule of the Law, not to reach it, but in all parts to aim at it, and have respect unto it. Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy Commandments, Psal. 119. 6. And this is our Inherent Righteousness, which in reference to its Rule (N. B.) labours under many imperfections]. And a little before he saith thus, [I know no other Rule but the Old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law: that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule].  
3. It seems very incongruous to grant, that Apoc. 22. 11. [Be holy still] doth import an increase of Holiness; and yet to deny, that [Be righteous still] doth import an increase of Righteousness. For any thing I know, some on the contrary may as well say, That the latter words import an increase of Righteousness, and yet the other no increase of Holiness. Whereas you speak of varying the sense according to the variety of Subjects, you take it for granted, That here the Subjects are various; whereas both by this, and divers other places before cited, it seems clear to me, that the Subjects, viz. Righteousness and Holiness are really the same one with the other. For the Formale of Righteousness, what is it but Conformity to the Law, the only Rule of Righteousness? And why such Conformity may not be more or less, I am yet to learn. That place indeed, as many other, speaks of a true Personal Righteousness in the Saints, but yet not of a Perfect Righteousness in them; and consequently not of such a Righteousness, as whereby they are justified, except it be only in some sort, and in some measure, which is not the Justification about which we contend. This Imperfect Righteousness is measured by the Law of Works, as a Rule, though it be accepted only by the gracious condescension of the Gospel.  
To Ephes. 4. 24. you give many Answers, but they seem but so many Evasions. 
39   
1. I think there is no Question, but the Apostle speaks by way of Precept and Exhortation. q. d. If you have indeed learned Christ, and have been taught by him, you have learned to do so and so; therefore have a care to do so. Surely the Apostles words import a duty required, and so implicity contain a Precept or Exhortation.  
2. That he speaks as well to Believers, True Believers, as mere Professors, is as little to be doubted. For he speaks unto them upon a supposition, that they had learned Christ, and had been taught by him; which though it may belong to mere Professors, yet to true Believers much rather.  
3. If the New Man, which is created in Righteousness and Holiness, may increase, as you grant, then surely Righteousness and Holiness, in which the New Man is created, and without which the New Man is nothing, must increase also. To say, That the New Man may increase in Holiness, but not in Righteousness, is for one that would say any thing, so that he may but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As well might it be said, That the New Man is created in Holiness, but not in Righteousness.  
4. The Form of Righteousness is Conformity to the Law, to which we must labour to conform still more and more, not only extensiuè, but also intensiuè.  
5. The very conjunction of the words here, as in other places, shows that they are used as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Besides, how we should give unto God the things that are God's, and to Men the things that are men's, and not conform to the Law, which doth prescribe our Duty towards God, and towards Men, I cannot see: and surely Conformity to the Law, is the Righteousness now in question.  
1. If we be justified from the Accusation of Reatus poenae primae Legis propter peccatum; 
Ibid.  What need is there of any other justification? 
Of the Coven. If c. 14. p. 95.  [Upon the Laws Convictions (saith Mr. Blake) there may follow Gospel-Aggravations; but Conviction is the Work of the Law]. If Conviction, then surely Condemnation. If the Law do not condemn, what can? And what can the Law condemn for, but for sin? It is the Law which is the Ministration of Condemnation, 2. Cor. 3. 9 By the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. 20.  
2. For the accusation of Reatus poenae Novae Legis ob non praestiam Conditionem, it is no new Accusation, but a making good of a former Accusation; and so Reatus paenae Novae Legis, is but to be left in reatu poenae Veteris Legis; save that aggravatâ ex Evangelio culpâ ipsa etiam poena aggravatur.  
3. I confess, I was not before acquainted with these two Justifications which you speak of: I did not find them in your Aphorisms, but only two sorts of Righteousness as requisite to one and the same Justification, so I understood it. But truly now that you lay open your conception more than before, I can see no solidity in it. We are justified by the Righteousness of Christ participated by Faith; but not by Faith, as being itself our Righteousness. Faith is indeed required unto Justification, yet not as our Righteousness, but as a Condition, Instrument, or Means (for I would not strive about words) whereby we partake of Christ's Righteousness. I see not, that the Scripture doth speak of such a Twofold Justification, one by Christ and his Righteousness, another by Faith as our Righteousness; but only of one Justification of Christ through Faith. By him all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39  
Non-reatus poenae is not Inherent Righteousness, 
Ibid.  of which I expressly spoke. I take it to be really the same with Holiness. 
(p. 47.)  What you cite therefore out of Gataker and Placaeus, is nothing against me, I speaking of Righteousness in one sense, and they in another. Besides, you seem to mistake the meaning of Mr. Gataker's words: for Sons is as much as reus culpae, and insons as much as non-reus culpae; whereas you seem to take Sons for Reus poenae, and Insons for Non-reus poenae; however his words are not to our purpose.  
1. I see not how either here or elsewhere you infringe that, 
Ibid.  which I said about the Materiality and Formality, as well of Holiness as of Righteousness.  
2. As Holiness (you grant) is a Conformity to the Law, as it doth constituere debitum officii, so I conceive is Righteousness, (Inherent I still mean) and not a Conformity to the Rule, 
(p. 48.)  as it constituteth, Conditionem praemit obtinendi, & poenae vitandae, si nimirùm seclusà omni consideratione officii, Conditio tantùm ut Conditio consideretur.  
1. Acceptance as taken for Accepting 
* Justification is by the consent of all men (I mean Protestants) a remission of our sins, and accepting of us as Righteous, Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, cap. 4. p. 138.  as Righteous, or Accounting just, is (I think) as much as Justifying.  
2. I did not (nor I suppose those other Divines by you mentioned) speak so generally, but to presuppose Faith, whereby our Persons are accepted in Christ, and then our Actions. By Faith Abel offered a more excellent Sacrifice, etc. Heb. 11. 4. At length, after many words, which touch not me, in your 6th, you grant as much as I did, or do desire, viz. That our Persons must be justified and reconciled, before our external Obedience can be accepted. Whereas you there add, That it was not as they were an imperfect Conformity to the Law of Works, that Abel 's Works were accepted: I answer, It was not indeed by the Law of Works; yet as they were a sincere, though imperfect Conformity to that Law, as a Rule, so they were accepted by the New Covenant. The Law of Works directs, the Covenant of Grace accepts, though we come short of what the Law requires.  
[The Law (as Mr. Blake saith) still commands us, 
Of the Coven. ch. 16. p. 9, 10.  though the Covenant in Christ, through the abundant Grace of it, upon the terms that it requires and accepts, frees us from the Sentence of it]. And again, [A perfection of Sufficiency to attain the end I willingly grant, 
Ibid. p. 111 112.  God condescending through rich Grace to crown weak Obedience: In this sense our Imperfection hath its perfectness; otherwise I must say, That our Inherent Righteousness is an Imperfect Righteousness, in an imperfect Conformity to the Rule of Righteousness, etc.] He means the Law of Works, which (as before noted) he saith is, a Rule, a perfect Rule, the only Rule.  
1. I shall not deny, 
40, & 41.  but that our Faith and Obedience may be said to be justified from the accusation of unsoundness: Yet I think, That this is but a making good of our Justification against the Accusation of being Sinners. For besides that the unsoundness of Faith (and so of Obedience) is sin; besides this (I say) if our Faith be not sound, it is in vain, we are yet in our sins, we lie under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, there being no freedom for us without Faith.  
2. I know none that say, Our Actions are justified through Christ's Merit by the Law of Works. For my part I should say, We and our Actions are justified from the Law of Works, i. e. from the condemnation of it, God for Christ's sake accepting us and our Actions, notwithstanding our imperfection, for which the Law, if we should be sentenced by it, would condemn us. But here by the way, let me observe this, That your retractation of what you said in your Aphorisms, doth seem to manifest thus much, That when you composed those Aphorisms, you either knew not, or liked not that Twofold Justification, which now you so often speak of, and somewhere say, That my ignorance in this Point is it, that doth mainly darken all my Discourse. That common saying is not always true, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
For my words; 1. I see not why those, [Acquitting us from all sin] should offend you. For you might see by what I there said, That I meant the not-imputing of any sin unto us. And so the Phrases used in Scripture, of God, not remembering our sins, his covering them, casting them behind his back, into the bottom of the Sea, etc. they all import such an acquitting of us from sin, as I intended; not as if God did account us to be without sin, which were false, but that God doth not charge sin upon us, viz. so as to exact satisfaction for sin from us. I mean the very same with Mr. Gataker in the words which you cited p. 39 Non hoc dicitur, Deum apud se judicare, illos pro quorum peccatis universis Christus satisfecit, nihil mali unquam commisisse, aut boni debiti omisisse; sed eodem habere loco quoad mortis reatum, & jus ad vitam aeternam, ac si nihil vel mali admisissent, vel boni debiti omisissent. Thus Christ speaks to the Church, Cant. 4. 7. Thou art all fair, my Love, and there is no spot in thee. What? may some say, Is there no spot in the Church? No, none in her, so as to be imputed to her. Sine maculâ deputatur, 
Gilber. ad Loc.  quia culpa non imputatur, as one doth no less truly than elegantly express it. You yourself yield as much as I desire, or as my words import, viz. That God acquitteth us from all sin, so as it induceth an obligation to punishment.  
2. When you say; That to acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, is one Justification, and to justify us against the accusation of being so obliged, is another Justification; I confess (Davus sum, non Oedipus) I do not well understand what you mean, for to my apprehension these are one and the same. Methinks it must needs be, That what doth acquit us from the Obligation of the Old Law, doth also eo nomine justify us against the Accusation of being so obliged. For how are we acquitted from the Obligation, if not justified against the Accusation of being obliged?  
3. I marvel why you should trouble yourself with speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, and of final unbelief, when as you could not but know, that I spoke of all sin, from which we may be justified. Why might not one as well quarrel with those words of the Apostle, Acts 13. 39 By him all that believe are justified from all things, etc.  
4. I grant the New Covenant not to be violated but by final unbelief, yet (as I expressly added in that very place which you take hold on) so that this be rightly understood. For the right understanding of it, I said something before; and for further explication, I refer you to Mr. Blake of the Covenant, Chap. 33.  
5. But in the next you do most strangely, even without any cause that I can see, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and (as they say) fluctus in simpulo excitare. That [first our Persons, and then our Duties and Actions may properly be said to be justified, that is, accepted as just, and acquitted from all accusation brought against them, though in themselves they be not such, but that sin doth cleave unto them] why should this seem such horrid Doctrine, as that your Heart should detest it?  
1. I speak of good Actions: for it is absurd to say, That evil Actions are accepted as just, though we may be so accepted notwithstanding our evil Actions.  
2. I plainly say, That sin doth cleave to our good Actions; yet (I say) God doth accept them as just, notwithstanding the imperfection of them, and the sin that doth cleave unto them. If this be offensive to you, as well (I think) may you be offended at that Nehem. 13. 21. Remember me, O Lord, concerning this, and spare me according to the greatness of thy Mercy. And so at that 1 Pet. 2. 5. You also as lively stones are built up a Spiritual House, an Holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ. Neither is there any reason why those words [acquitted from all accusation brought against them] should distaste you. For what though an Accusation be true, if yet in some other respect it be of no force? May not they be properly said to be acquitted from all Accusation, who notwithstanding the Accusation, are freed from condemnation? What matter is it how we are accused, so long as we are sure not to be condemned? Therefore the Apostle useth these Expressions as equipollent, [Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect?] and [Who is he that condemneth?] Rom. 8. 33, 34. Might you not as vehemently fall upon those words of the Apostle, [Who shall lay any thing to the charge, etc.] as you do upon mine? Might you not say, Why? I will lay this, and that, and that, and ten thousand things besides to their charge? Yea, but when you have done all you can, to what purpose is it? For who is he that condemneth them, notwithstanding all the Accusations brought against them? 
Medulla. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 20.  These very words of the Apostle doth Amesius allege in the former of those Sections which you cite. And if (as you say) all may be there fully seen in Amesius, that you would say in this, than I see not that you would say any thing against me, as indeed you do say nothing. But what do you mean by those words, [and that as to the Law of Works] which by a Parenthesis you thrust in among mine? As if I meant, that as well our Actions as our Persons are accepted as just, and acquitted from all condemnation by the Law of Works. Truly I think tàm quam, as well the one as the other, that is indeed neither the one nor the other. The Law doth convince of sin, and (as much as in it lies) condemn for sin, both us and our Actions, even the best of them: But by the New Covenant, Through Faith in Christ we are accepted as just, though guilty of manifold sins; and our Actions are accepted also, though full of imperfection. When you say, That the Reatus Culpa cannot possibly be removed, or remitted, though I think it is but a striving about words, which I do not love, yet I cannot assent unto it. For I think it is truly and properly said to be remitted or pardoned; neither doth that seem proper or pertinent, which you add by way of Explication, [that is, The Man cannot be, or justly esteemed to be a Man that hath not sinned]. Quid tum postea? Cannot therefore the guilt of sin be remitted? Yea, how should sin be remitted, if it were not committed? I think it is as proper to say, Remittere culpam, as Remittere poenam. Surely if I may argue from the frequent use of Phrases, and hence infer the propriety of them, as you did, there is nothing more usual in Scripture, (and so in other Writings, and in common Speech) then to say, that Sins, Faults, Offences are remitted. Grotius faith, 
De Satis. pag. 52.  That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in Latin is Remittere, is as much as missum facere; and that the Greek Scholiasts usually expound it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. to neglect, not to regard, to pass over, (as Prov. 19 11. to pass over a transgression) and that therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is peccata missa facere, which the Scripture (he saith) following the Metaphor further, calls peccata in mare pro●icere, 
Ibid. p. 53.  Mich. 7. 19 It is true, Sin is said to be remitted in reference unto Punishment: Remittere, or missa facere peccata, (as Grotius saith) is as much as punire nolle. Yet this hinders not but that sin, or the guilt of sin is properly said to be remitted or pardoned; yea (I think) it doth confirm it. For if it be proper to say, That God will not punish sin, and this is as much as to remit or pardon sin; than it is proper to say, That God doth remit or pardon sin. In a word therefore, my words, about which you make so much ado, are such as that I see not why any should stumble at them. They do not import, that our Actions, even the best of them, if strictly examined, are not sinful; or that God doth not see any sin in them; but only that God doth pardon and pass by the sinfulness of them, and accept them in Christ, (who is the Highpriest, that doth bear, and so take away the Iniquity of our holy things, Exod. 28. 38.) as if they had no sin in them. Neither do I see why you should detest this justifying of our Actions, and yet grant the justifying of our Persons. Your Reasons seem to make as much against the one as against the other. For are not our Persons sinful as well as our Actions? Surely if the Action be sinful, the Person whose Action it is must needs be so too. And though you pass over the next, because you reverse your former Assertion, yet in that which I there said, you might have seen enough to vindicate me from all that you have here said against me.  
1. You grant what I say.  
2. I have said before, 
42.  That though (in mine Opinion) sin may properly be said to be remitted, yet this is in reference unto punishment.  
3. You had no reason to imagine, that I should think, that my Actions, or the Actions of the best upon Earth, can be justified against all Accusations, as if they were absolutely good and perfect; when in that very place I spoke of the imperfection and iniquity that is in our best Actions, and how it is through Christ covered, and not imputed unto us. Yea, and immediately I cited divers places of Scripture (viz. Eccles. 7. 20. James 3. 2. 1 John 1. 8, 9 Job▪ 9 4. Exod. 28. 38.) to prove, that neither our Persons, nor our Actions are so righteous, but that we may be accused of, and condemned for sin in them, and so without the mercy of God in Christ must be. It is strange how you should pass by all this, it being directly before your eyes, and should raise a suspicion, as if I should mean quite contrary.  
1. It will not follow that our Persons being once justified by Christ, 
Ibid.  afterward they may be justified by our Works, when once our Works themselves are all justified in that sense as I explained it, viz. That first it is meant only of good Works; and than that God doth not justify those good Works for their own sake, as if they were fully and perfectly Righteous, but for Christ's sake pardoning and passing by the imperfection that is in them. Illud semper retimeatur, 
De Just. Act. c. 33. Memb. 2.  (inquit Davenantius) hanc acceptationem operum pendere ex praeviâ acceptatione person in Christo; Cum enim ipsi renaticarnem peccatricem adhuc gestent, & opera illorum omnia carnis vitium redoleant, Deus neque ipsos, neque eorum opera grata haberet, nisi & hos & illa in Christo magis quam in seipsis amplexaretur. What you say of Chamîer and others, as being against the meritoriousness of Works merited by Christ, might well have been spared, as being nothing at all against me, who am far from making our Works meritorious, when I make even the best of them imperfect, and to need pardon. 2. It is evident by this very Section, to which you now reply, that I spoke only of good Actions. For how absurd and senseless were it to say, that our Sins are not fully and perfectly righteous, as I there say that our Works are not? The two former Sections also clearly show of what Works I spoke; so that here you do but nodum in scirpo quaerere.  
1. Asserting may well enough be called Confessing, 
Ibid. 43, & 44.  though it be that, and somewhat more.  
2. I cannot tell what Judgement some others may be of, I speak for myself.  
3. I take all sin to be against the Law, as it is distinguished from the Gospel, though some sins may be aggravated by the Gospel. Of that Law I suppose St. John spoke, saying, Sin is a transgression of the Law, 1 Joh. 3. 4. And St. Paul, By the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3. 20. And again, I had not known sin but by the Law: for I had not know lust, (or as the Margin hath it, concupiscence, viz. to be sin) except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7. 7. I think it is the common judgement of Divines, that every sin is against some of the Ten Commandments.  
4. It is no hard matter to conceive how unbelief, and neglect of the Sacraments, etc. are sins against the Precepts of the Decalogue. The first precept requires us to have the Lord, and him only, for our God; and so to believe whatsoever he doth reval unto us, and to perform whatsoever he doth require of us. The second Precept requires us to Worship God as he himself doth prescribe; and consequently not to neglect any of God's Ordinances; See Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Palmer of the Sabbath, Part. 2. Chap. 4. §. 21, 22, 23. What you add after, makes all for me in this particular, only some things seem meet to be observed.  
1. This (I confess) to me is strange Philosophy, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, ceased not to be Earth still, when it was made Man. As well may you say, That Adam's rib, of which Eve was form, ceased not to be a Rib still; and so that all the Elemenrs retain their several Natures in all mixed Bodies.  
2. The Precept and Threatening (you say) are parts of the New Law, though they be common with the Old. Here you seem to grant, That nothing is commanded, or threatened in the New Law, which is not commanded or threatened in the Old. Methinks than you should not make a Twofold Righteousness, and a Twofold Justification; one in respect of the Old Law, another in respect of the New. The Precept [believe] belongs too the Old Law; but as it is not only a Precept, but also a Condition, upon performance of which Salvation is promised, [Believe, and thou shalt be saved] so it belongs to the New Law. So this Threatening [If thou dost not believe, thou shalt perish] belongs too the Old Law, as threatening death for every sin, and consequently for unbelief, which is a sin: and it belongs to the New Law, as leaving an Unbeliever under the condemnation of the Old Law both for that sin of unbelief, and also for all other sins, from the guilt of which he cannot be freed, because he doth not perform the Condition, which the New Law to that end doth require of him. And (as I have before noted) the Condemnation of an Unbeliever is now increased, as his Sin is, by neglecting Salvation offered upon condition of believing.  
3. You say, That the promissory part of the Law of Works doth not oblige. But your Reason seems invalid, Quia cessat materia, vel capacitas subjecti. You mean, no Man can perform the Condition; and so no Man is capable of the Promise made upon that Condition. But why may it not be said, That as the Precept, which is also the Condition, ceaseth not, though none be able to obey it; so the Promise doth remain, though none can enjoy the benefit of it? It may seem unreasonable, that the Threatening should still be in force, and the Promise be quite taken away.  
4. You say again, That the Earth, of which Man's Body was made, doth still retain the form of Earth▪ which surely doth need further Explication, or Confirmation, or both.  
5. The threatening of the New Law (you say) hath something proper to the New Law: But for any thing I see, the New Law doth threaten nothing, which the Old Law doth not threaten; though as by the New Law there is an aggravation of sin, so there will be an increase of condemnation.  
6. Whereas you say, that the right stating and clear apprehension of this part, (viz. of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, and how far the Law of Works is abrogated) is of greater moment and difficulty by far than my Animadversions take notice of, or than any thing (as to difficulty) that I deal with; truly my desire was, and so is, only to give you some hints for the further clearing of things in the Second Edition of your Aphorisms. But if you think, that here in this Section, which is somewhat long, you have sufficiently explicated those Points, I am not of your mind.  
1. All that you here say is nothing to my Animadversion; 
44.  only you strive a little about the acceptation of those words [the Moral Law].  
2. Neither do I make the Moral Law as taken for the Precept conjunct with the Threatening, a true part of the New Law: yet the Moral Law so taken, being not dissolved or abrogated by the New Law, as you grant, Unbelievers, while they remain such, both for their unbelief, and for their other sins, are under condemnation, as belonging unto them by the Old Law, there being no Remedy provided for them by the New Law; which hath no other threatening, (I think) but that it leaves Unbelievers to the Old Law, and the condemnation of it.  
1. I do not dislike your Thesis, 
Ibid. & 45.  [That Christ died not to satisfy for the violation of the Covenant of Grace] as you understand it, viz. for final unbelief. Yet I hold, That such as profess the Gospel, and live in those sins, which are not consistent with true and sincere Faith, do for the time violate the Covenant of Grace; and for such violation of that Covenant Christ died, or else all such are left without Remedy. I am in this fully of Mr. Blakes mind, 
Of the Coven. chap. 33.  [As a wife (saith he) by adultery, so they by sin forsake the Covenant, by which they stand betrothed; and by consequence it must needs follow, that Christ died for breach of the Covenant of Grace, as well as for breach of the Covenant of Works; unless we will say, That all Men by name Christians, and found in any of these sins, are in a lost and unrecoverable condition, joining with those that have said, That there is no Grace or Pardon for those that fall into sin after Baptism. That he died not for their sins, that live and die in final impenitency and unbelief, may be easily granted: and that rises to no more, than that he died not for those, that finally and unrecoverably break Covenant with him].  
2. Whereas you confess, That for unbelief and impenitency, though it be not final, Men remain obligati ad poenam per Legem Naturae, but deny it as to the proper Obligation of the New Law; I conceive that the New Law providing no Remedy for them, while they remain such; in this respect they are as well by the New Law obligati ad poenam for the time, as final Unbelievers and Impenitents are for ever. You grant the Gospel doth non-liberare, while Men continue in Unbelief; yet you conceive, That it doth not obligare ad poenam propriè, viz. ad non-liberationem, & ad poenam majorem. Now I conceive that while it doth non-liberare, it may be said, obligare ad non-liberationem; though I should rather like to say, That it doth relinquere in statu non-liberationis, and so majoris poenae ob contemptum gratiae, & misericordiae oblatae, In your Similitude, The Malefactor, whiles he refuses to come in, and submit to the Terms upon which Pardon is offered, remains in a state of Condemnation, though the sentence be not executed upon him, except he continue in his refusal of the offer unto the term prefixed. But you profess yourself willing to acknowledge, That this non-liberatio may in some sort be called Poena; and truly I think, that Poena Nova Legis non alia est, quam non-liberatio à poenâ veteris Legis; hoc tamen semper addito, poenam veteris Legis, ob neglectum liberationis in Lege Nouâ oblatae, graviorem reddi.  
I mean [Actually in the state of Damnation] and you grant as much as I desire, 
45.  viz. That they are obliged even for that sin unto death, per Legem Naturae, & non liberati per Legem Gratiae. Why then should you deny, that they are actually obliged to Damnation? Will you put a difference between Death and Damnation? Or betwixt obliged, and actually obliged? He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3 18. therefore he is actually under condemnation, and so remains, as long as he remains in unbelief; The Wrath of God abideth on him, John 3. 36. That the Sentence is not yet executed, but upon believing he may be freed from the execution of it, is another thing.  
The Parenthesis, 
Ibid.  which you say, is wanting in your Aphorisms, might help to make the words more clear; as they stand, they seem obscure: which is all that I would have observed.  
Neither am I willing to fall upon either Logical or Philosophical Disputes; 
Ibid. & 46.  yet I am also unwilling to recede from received Opinions, except I see urgent cause for it. Now that an Accident must have a Subject to exist in, as it is generally held, so I am persuaded it is true. Burgersdicius (whose authority I may well enough oppose to Scheiblers) saith, 
Logic. lib. 1. cap. 7.  Accidens est Ens substantiae inhaerens. Indeed the saith, Relationes non tam inhaerent alicui subjecto, quam adhaerent: but he doth not deny that they do inhaerere. For he saith, Relatio ejusmodi accidens est, quod non tantùm (N. B.) in aliquo est, ut in subjecto, sed refertur etiam ad aliud. It is usually one Argument which our Divines have against Transubstantiation, that thereby Accidents are made to exist without a Subject. Scheibler grants, that an Accident hath not existence by itself, that it is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (so it should be, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). Now every thing that hath Existence, must (I think) either exist by itself, or in some other thing.  
2. Adjunctum & Subjectum, and Effectum & Causa, are not so contradistinct, but that the same thing may be Adjunctum & Effectum, and so the same thing Subjectum & Causa.  
3. Whereas Scheibler saith, Actio transiens nullum habet subjectum, 
See Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4. p. 135.  ne quidem ipsum Patiens, ut visum est; I say, Ego illud nondum vidi, nec vel verum, vel verisimile mihi videtur. I think, Omnis Actio subjectatur in patient: and this I hold to be true even of Immanent Actions, which though they have the Agent for the Subject, yet it is because the Agent is there also the Patient; and it is not quà Agens, but quà Patiens, that it is the subject of the Action.  
4. He argues thus, Actio ut sic non dicit nisi egressum à virtute actiuâ alicujus Agentis. Egressus autem opponitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse in. Resp. 1. Actio ut sic necessario infert Passionem. Fieri enim non potest, ut aliquid agate, nisi etiam aliquid patiatur. Ergo Actio non tantum dicit egressum à virtute actiuâ, verùm etiam infert receptionem in patient. 2. Actio & Passio sunt idem motus; sed Actio vocatur quatenus ab Agente procedit, Passio autem quatenus in patient recipitur. Etiamsi igitur Actio & Passio formaliter differant, cum tamen realiter idem sint, si Passio est in subjeco, Actionem etiam in subjecto esse necesse est.  
5. Whereas you doubt whether Scotus be not right in holding that Immanent Acts are in the Predicament of Quality, that (as divers other Passages) doth show that you are much inclined to that which doth cross the common Opinion; which surely is in itself very dangerous, though (I know) you are prudent and sober-minded, so that there is little cause of fear this way in respect of you. Yet wanton Wits, and unstable Spirits, may extend your Notions further than you intended them; and therefore, especially considering the times into which we are fallen, you have need to be wary: but dictum sapienti sat est.  
Though we cannot know God to Perfection, yet we may and must know him so, 
46. See Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, chap. 4. p. 130, 131. Ibid.  as to remove from him all Imperfection, and consequently all composition. The more simple any thing is, caeteris paribus, the more perfect it is: Therefore God being most Perfect, he is most Simple.  
This contains only a Logical Dispute about the Predicaments and Relations. Now for the Predicaments, though I do not say that they all note real Being's distinct one from another, so Action and Passion do not; yet I think they all note real Being's, i e. Being's which are not merely rational or imaginary. And how you should question this, especially of Substance, Quantity and Quality, (which are more than two) I cannot conceive. And for Relations, hear Aquinas, whose judgement (besides that he giveth reason for what he saith) with me is of far more weight than of your late Authors. Quidam posuerunt Relationem non esse rem naturae, 
Part. 1. Quest. 13. Art. 7. in Corp.  sed rationis tantùm. Quod quidem apparet esse falsum ex hoc, quod ipsae res naturalem ordinem & habitudinem habent ad invicem. Yet as there are Entia Rationis, so there are Relationes Rationis. 
Ibid. Et Vide. ibid. ad 2. & add 4.  Yea, Aquinas shows, that Quaedam Relationes sunt quantum ad utrumque extremum res naturae, etc. Quandoque verò in uno extremo est res naturae, & in altero extremo est res rationis tantùm, nempe cum duo extrema non sunt ejusdem ordinis, etc. And of this latter sort he notes the Relations are, which are betwixt God and the Creatures. Cum igitur (inquit) Deus sit extra totum ordinem creaturae, & omnes creaturae ordinentur ad ipsum, & non è converso, manifestum est, quòd creaturae realiter referuntur ad Deum, sed in Deo non est aliqua realis relatio ad creatural, sed secundum rationem tantùm, in quantum creaturae referuntur ad ipsum. Et sic nihil prohibet hujusmodi nomina importantia relationem ad creaturam, praedicari de Deo ex tempore, non propter mutationem aliquam ipsius, sed propter creaturae mutationem, sicut columna fit dextra animali, nullâ mutatione circa ipsam existente, sed animali translato. 
Aquin.  And again, Creatio (inquit) actiuè considerata significat actionem divinam, 
Part 1.  quae est ejus essentia cum relatione ad creaturam. 
Quaest. 45 Art. 3. Ad 1.  Sed relatio in Deo ad creaturam non est realis, sed secundum rationem tantùm: relatio verò creaturae ad Deum est realis, etc.  
Heereboord, p. 179. saith, Pater non significat aliquid, quod humanae naturae propriè & per se insit, sed quomodo ille, qui sic dicitur, se habeat ad filium. Resp. Pater est Relatum, nempe Substantia cum Relatione ad aliud: Paternitas est Relatio, & inest subjecto, nempe homini, qui est Pater. Quod p. 184. dicit Relationem esse medium inter Ens real & Nihil, id tantum dicit, non probat.  
You say, That however you are confident, that Relation is not verè Ens; yet you will not say, that it is Nihil or Non Ens; and you said before, (as I noted, and it is most sure) Inter Ens & non Ens non datur medium. The distinction of Medium Participationis, & Medium Negationis will not here serve. For certainly Contradictoria non admittunt medium Negationis. Aut Homo, aut non Homo: aut Ens, aut non Ens: non datur medium. The Authors to which you refer me, I have not, save only Dr. Twisse; but he is of another Edition, viz. in Folio, so that I cannot find the place, as you cite it.  
1. He that is justified, 
Ibid. & 47, 48, 49.  is so freed from all condemnation, that he is liable to no condemnation, Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. And he that is so freed, is perfectly freed, and consequently perfectly justified, though the freedom from condemnation, and so the justification be not so fully and perfectly made manifest as it shall be. The freedom from condemnation per sententiam Judicis, of which you speak, doth not add to the freedom itself, but only to the manifestation of it. The Sentence is indeed past already, John 3. 18. though it be not so solemnly pronounced, as it shall be.  
2. He that is freed from all Condemnation, is certainly freed from all Accusation, so as that no Accusation can be prejudicial to him; though he may be accused, yet it matters not, seeing he cannot be condemned. Else the Apostle had triumphed before the Victory, saying, Who shall lay any thing to the charge, etc. Who is he that condemneth? Rom. 8. 33, 34.  
3. The Apostle doth not only say, There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8. 1. but also, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Elect? v. 33. viz. when they are in Christ, and so justified. Which in effect is as much, as if it were said, There shall be no condemnation to such. But you grant, That other Texts speak as much, and that such neither now are, nor ever shall be under condemnation. Yet you say, That they would be to morrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. You mean (I suppose) if they did not renew the Act of Faith: but (I say, and you grant it) they who are once justified, though they sin daily, yea, and may lie long in sin, as David did, yet they shall renew the Act of Faith, and have the joy of God's Salvation restored unto them, as he prayed, Psal. 51. 12. Neither is there any intercision of Justification, though there may be a privation of the joy and comfort of it.  
To your Objections, I answer, Ad 1. He that is once justified, can contract no guilt so as to fall from his Justification. Besides, when I spoke of Justification being perfect, I only mean, That a Justified Person is justified, not in part only, but fully, i. e. from all sins which at present he is guilty of: not but that his Justification hath need to be renewed in respect of new sins; and so his Justification may be said to increase extensiuè, as extending to more and more sins, as they are increased more and more. But that in this respect we shall be more fully justified at the last Judgement than we are now, is but by accident, and not from the Nature or Essence of Justification.  
Ad 2. Justification per Sententiam Judicis, & Sententiam magis publicam, makes (as I said) but for the more full and perfect manifestation of it. 
De Justif. Disp. 7.  In die judicis (inquit Maccovius) Christus non ram justificaturus (N. B.) est credentes, quam declaraturus est ex optribus eorum, eos credidisse in hac vitâ, & justificatos fuisse. Thus undoubtedly is that to be understood in Acts 3. 19 For without question no sins shall then (at the last Judgement) be blotted out, which were not blotted out before: but the blotting of them out shall then more fully appear than before. 
De Libr. Apocryph. Prelect. 171.  In resurrectione à mortuis, (inquit Rainoldus noster) Christus, qui veniet judicatum vivos & mortuos, quemadmodum ipse pronunciat, ea quae ligaverint ipsius ministri, ligatum iri in coelis, ita quae prius in terrâ remissa fuerint, confirmabit ipse suâ sententiâ, ut remissa & deleta in aeternum, omnia nimirum fidelium & sanctorum peccata. Quare quaecunque, & quorumcunque peccata remissa fuerint in hoc seculo, etiam in futuro seculo remittentur, quoniam autem peccata non fuerint remissa in hoc seculo, non remittentur in futuro, nempe peccata hominum incredulorum & impiorum. Petrus, Act. 3. hoc locupletissimè confirmavit.— Resipiscite (inquit) ut deleantur peccata vestra, postquam venerint tempora refrigerationis, etc.— Nostri cum affirmant peccata non remitti in futuro seculo, sed in isto tantum, negant id quod astruunt Pontificii, peccata remissum iri in futuro seculo, quae in praesents non remittebantur. Nam Christus confirmabit sententiam suam, quam prius tulit, cum feret sententiam illam novissimam in ultimo judicio. Itaque peccata nulla tum remittentur, nisi quae quisque testimonio conscientiae suae hîc percipit remissa esse in presenti seculo.— Certè ipse (Bellarminus) agnovit, vel agnoscere potuit è verbis 
* Instit. lib. 3. c. 1. §. 7.  Calvini que citat, nos hoc judicio esse, praesertim in eo ipso loco Calvini quem citat, ubi dit Calvinus, Christum (Mat. 12. 32.) hâc partitione usum esse, quâ judicium complexus est, quod sentit in hac vitâ uniuscujusque conscientia, & postremum illud, quod palam (N. B.) in resurrectione feretur. For peccata futura, which you also here speak of, I have said enough in answer to the former Objection. And you may see much more to this purpose in the Account given to the Parliament by the Ministers which they sent to Oxford, p. 7, 8, 9  
Ad 3. Castigatory Punishment is no part of that Condemnation, from which we are freed by Justification, but a means to preserve us from falling into Condemnation, see 1 Cor. 11. 32.  
Ad 4. Though the continuance of our Justification here be conditional, viz. upon condition of the continuance of our Faith, yet the continuance of the Condition being certain, so also is the continuance of our Justification. There is not the like reason of Predestination, which is only a decreeing of what God will do for us; but God justifieth (as you say) pro praesenti; and whom he once justifieth, he will always justify; else the Apostle would not say, Whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rom. 8. 30. Though Means must be used, and Conditions performed for the continuation and consummation of our Justification; yet it being certain that the Means shall be used, and the Conditions performed, it is also certain that our Justification shall be continued and consummated.  
Here perhaps you may take hold of what I say, and object, It shall be consummated; therefore as yet it is not consummated.  
Answ. It is not (I grant) in respect of the full enjoyment of the Benefits belonging to Justified Persons: but it is already consummated; 
* Justificatio nullum locum relinquit condemnationi. Joh. 5. 24. Et vitam aeternam certò & immediate adjudicat. Ames. Medul. lib. 1. cap. 27. §. 23.  so that they have a full right to the enjoyment of those Benefits. Therefore the Apostle speaks as of a thing already done, Whom he justified, them he also glorified: see also Rom. 5. 1, 2.  
Ad 5. If by this, [the solemnising of all is wanting] you mean, That yet there wants the manifestation of our Justification, it hinders not but that our Justification is already perfect, though it be not so perfectly made manifest as hereafter it shall be. So if by [Marriage not solemnised] you mean a Marriage not publicly celebrated, I see not but that a Marriage privately celebrated may be in itself as perfect as the other. But it seems strange, that you should think, that we should scarce be called Justified now, but in reference to Justification at the last Judgement; when-as both Scripture and Divines usually speak of Justification as a thing that we are here actually partakers of. What you say of Mr. Lawson, as if he held, That Justification here is but a right to Justification hereafter, I much wonder at: His Reasons I know not, but if that be his Opinion, the whole current of Scripture, and the general consent of Divines (I think) is against him. Whereas you call the solemn pronouncing of Sentence at the last day, Sentential Justification, I should rather call it, Public Sentential Justification, or a public manifestation of the Sentence of Justification. For surely our Justification here is 
* See the Oxford account, p. 7. and Ames. Med. lib. 1. cap. 27.  Sentential. God doth now pronounce and sentence Believers Just and Righteous, though not in that clear and evident manner as he will at the Last Judgement. Neither do I think that our Divines commonly using the word [Justification] for Justification (as you say) by Sentence, do understand it of the Sentence at the last Day, but of the Sentence whereby God doth now justify those that believe.  
Perhaps you will say, Where is that Sentence?  
Answ. It is in the Scripture. But (you may say) The Scripture speaks only in general. Well, but if God in the Scripture say, That all that believe are justified, as Acts 13. 39 then consequently he saith, That you and I believing, are justified. And this Sentence God by his Spirit doth bring home to Believers in particular; though it is true, they have not that clear evidence and full assurance, as they shall have hereafter. So for Condemnation at the last day, I think it to be but a more solemn and public pronouncing of the Sentence, together with the immediate and full execution of it. For otherwise the Sentence is passed already, He that believeth not, is condemned already, John 3. 18. I do not deny, that Declarative Justification at the last Judgement, is properly Justification; only I think it is the same Justification which Believers here have, though it shall then be more fully manifested than now it is. That which you speak of Justification being more full at death than before, only shows that it is more full Extensiuè, as freeing from the guilt of more sins: but that is only per accidens; Justification in itself considered, was as perfect before: for it freed from all sin, and from all Condemnation, and the other doth no more.  
What the meaning of your Question was, 
50.  [If we be not one real Person with Christ, than one what?] I could not tell: but the words did seem to imply, That we must either be one real Person with Christ, or else we could not any way be one with him; whereas the Scripture is clear, that Believers are one with Christ, though that they are one real Person with him, is not to be admitted. Therefore I thought meet to answer as I did, viz. That we are one Spirit, as the Apostle expresseth it, 1 Cor. 6. 17. that is, spiritually one with Christ, as being partakers of one and the same Spirit with him. No doubt but further Queries may still be made: and who is able to clear all Difficulties that do occur in matters of this nature? Yet I see not why we should not content ourselves with those Similitudes and Resemblances, which the Scripture doth use to illustrate this Mystery, as of the Vine and Branches, Joh. 15. and of the Head and Members, Ephes. 5.  
To your next Section I need say no more than this, 
Ibid.  Non oportet litigare de verbis, cum de re constet.  
I have showed my meaning all along, 
Ibid. & 51.  viz. That Christ's Satisfaction, and not Faith, is properly that by which we are justified. Whereas you say, [We are justified by Faith itself, as the Condition, and not so by Christ] I can admit it only thus, That Faith is the Condition required of us, that so we may be justified by Christ. Otherwise I cannot yield, that the performing of the Condition required of us unto Justification, is properly that by which we are justified; but of that enough before. For the Habit and Act of Faith, I little doubt but that Habits and Acts are of a different nature. For Habits may be in us when we sleep, or otherwise do not act and exercise those Habits. I think also, that though acquired Habits follow Acts, yet infused Habits (such as Faith is) go before.  
2. The Act of Faith being the receiving of Christ, I see not how any can make the Act of Faith, but the Habit to be the Instrument of receiving Christ. And if any of our Divines say, That it is not the Habit of Faith, but the Act that doth justify; I think they mean, that Faith doth justify as acting, i. e. receiving Christ. So that they do not deny the Habit of Faith to justify, yea, they make it the instrumental cause of Justification; only they make the Act of Faith requisite unto Justification. The Similitude betwixt the Hand and Faith is to the purpose, though they differ as you say. No Similitude is to be set on the Rack: if it seem to illustrate that for which it is used, it is sufficient. But except you speak of the supernatural perfection of the Soul, I see not how Faith is the perfection of it. For the Soul hath its natural perfection without Faith, or any other Habit. Whereas you labour much to prove, that the Habit of Faith is not properly an Instrument, I think you trouble yourself to no purpose, though (I know) you have some end in it. But what if it be not an Instrument properly, if yet it may not unfitly be so termed? And for any thing I see, it may, even as generally Divines do so term it.  
Fides (saith Revet) est velut organum; 
Disp. de Fide Just. §. 17, 18.  & manus animae, quâ beneficia oblata acceptantur. And again, Videndum est quodnam sit animae organum hanc remissionem apprehendens— Id fidei exclusiuè tribuendum, etc.  
So Trelcatius Jun. 
Instit. lib. 2 de Justif.  Ex parte hominis, Justificationis passivae causa efficiens est ac dicitur reductiuè, tota est Instrumentalis, & Fides est, etc.  
Thus also Calvin, Fides Instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae. Inst. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7.  
And Wotton, 
De Recon. p. 1. l. 2. c. 18 Ibid. p. 2. l. 2. c. 6.  Ex efficientibus Justificationis causis reliqua est Fides, quam Instrumenti locum obtinere diximus. And again, Nec illud quidem cujusquam est momenti, quod Instrumenti nomine nusquam in Scriptures (Fides) insigniatur. Nam nec Causa esse dicitur, cujus tamen rationem obtinere, Theologi omnes confitentur.  
And Bellarmine, 
De Just. Habit. cap. 22.  saying, that Luther makes Faith Formalem causam Justificationis; Davenant answers, Instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem, etc.  
Pemble saith, [Faith doth justify Relatively and Instrumentally]. Of Justif. §. 2 chap. 1. p. 27.  
So Mr. Ball of Faith, chap. 10. pag. 135. [It is a cause only Instrumental, etc.]  
And of the Covenant, chap. 3. p. 19 [Faith is a necessary and lively Instrument of Justification, 
See Hemingius as here cited, p. 95.  etc. If it be demanded whose Instrument it is? It is the Instrument of the Soul, etc.]  
Mr. Blake's words (I think) do more nearly concern you. 
Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 80.  [And these things considered, I am truly sorry, that Faith should now be denied to have the office and place of an Instrument in our Justification; nay, scarce be allowed to be called the Instrument of receiving Christ that justifies us, 
Ibid. pag. 81.  etc.] And having cited Acts 18. 26. Ephes. 3. 17. & Gal. 3. 14. he saith, [These Scriptures speak of Faith as the Souls Instrument to receive Christ Jesus, etc.] See there much more to this purpose.  
I will add to these one more, 
Of Justif. c. 7. p. 90.  viz. J. Goodwin, who though in divers things he be cross and contrary to our Divines, yet in this, at least in words, he doth comply with them, professing to hold, That Faith doth justify instrumentally.  
If the propriety of Words must always be strictly examined, we shall scarce know how to speak: It is well if we can find words, whereby to express ourselves so as that others may understand (if they please) what we mean. All that our Divines mean, when they speak of Faith justifying Instrumentally, or as an Instrument, I suppose, is this, and so much also they usually express, That Faith doth not justify absolutely, or in respect of itself, but Relatively in respect of its Object, Christ and his Righteousness laid hold on and received by Faith. Neither should you (methinks) strive about the word [Receiving] how it should be the Act of Faith. It sufficeth, That the Scripture makes Believing in Christ, and Receiving of Christ, one and the same, John 1. 12. That which you say of our most famous Writers ordinarily laying the main stress of the Reformed Cause and Doctrine on a plain Error, did deserve to have been either further manifested, or quite concealed; to me it seems very injurious both to our most famous Writers, and also to the Reformed Cause and Doctrine.  
My meaning is, 
52.  That Faith justifieth, as it apprehendeth and receiveth Christ, whom the Gospel doth give for Righteousness to such as receive him, i. e. believe in him. And thus our Divines frequently express themselves.  
Luther, Fides justificat, quia apprehendit, & possidet illum thesaurum, scil. Christum presentem. Loc. Com. Class. 2. loc. 19 ex tom. 4. And again, Fides non tanquam opus justificat, sed ideò justificat, quia apprehendit misericordiam in Christo exhibitam. Ibid. ex tom. 1. in Gen.  
So Calvin, 
Inst. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7  Quod objicit (nempe Osiander) vim justificandi non inesse fidei ex seipsâ, sed quatenus Christum recipit, libenter admitto.— Fides instrumentum est duntaxat percipiendae justitiae.  
Thus also Hemingius, 
De Justif. pag. mihi 141.  Justificamur autem fide, non quod fides ea res sit, quâ justi sumus, sed quia est Instrumentum, quo Christum apprehendimus, & complectimur.  
Davenant, Hoc necessariò intelligendum est, 
De Just. Hab. cap. 28. Arg. & Ibid.  quatenus suum objectum apprehendit, & credenti applicat, nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ. And again, Quî igitur Fides apprehendit, & applicat nobis Christi justitiam? id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.  
Ames. Dolour ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, 
Contra Bell. Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 4 §. 5.  quia non habet (N. B.) vim applicandi nobis justitiam Christi. And again, Apprehensio justificationis per veram fiduciam, non est simpliciter per modum objecti, 
Ibid. §. 11.  sed per modum objecti (N. B.) nobis donati. Quod enim Deus donaverit fidelibus Christum, & omnia cum eo, Scriptura disertis verbis testatur, Rom. 8. 32. Hic tamen observandum est, accuratè loquendo, apprehensionem Christi & justitiae ejus, esse fidem justificantem, quia justificatio nostra exurgit ex apprehensione Christi, & apprehensio justificationis, ut possessionis nostrae praesentis, fructus est, & effectum apprehensionis prioris.  
Pemble, 
Of Justif. §. 2. ch. 3. pag. 61.  [We deny that Faith justifies us as it is a Work, etc. It justifies us only as the Condition required of us, and an Instrument of embracing Christ's Righteousness; nor can the contrary be proved].  
Mr. Ball, 
Of the Coven. chap. 3. pag. 19  [When Justification and Life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].  
Mr. Blake, [Faith as an Instrument receives Righteousness unto Justification]. Of the Coven. chap. 12. pag. 82.  
If you agree with me (as you say) in this particular, you will agree also with these whom I have cited, for I agree with them; their meaning and mine (so far as I can discern) is the same. See also Mr. Ball of Faith, Part 1. chap. 10. pag. 135.  
For the Twofold Righteousness, 
Ibid.  which you make necessary unto Justification, I think also I have said enough before. But seeing that in the place, on which I made the Animadversion, you mention it as a Reason why Faith must justify in a proper sense, and not Christ's Righteousness only, I cannot but observe how that acute and learned Man Mr. Pemble doth argue the quite contrary way, 
Of Justif. §. 2. cap. 2. pag. 39  viz. That Faith doth not justify, as taken properly, because than we should be justified by a Twofold Righteousness. [We are not justified (saith he) by two Righteousnesses existing in two divers Subjects; But if we be justified by the Work of Faith, we shall be justified partly by that Righteousness which is in us, viz. of Faith, and partly by the Righteousness of Christ without us]. 
Ibid. pag. 40.  And again, [We cannot be properly justified by both, for our own Faith, and Christ's obedience too. For if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith, what needs the imputation of Christ's Obedience to make us just? If for Christ's Righteousness we be perfectly justified, How can God account us perfectly just for our Faith?]  
1. If you do not oppose the Literal sense of Scripture to Figurative, 
Ibid. & 53.  I do not oppose you, but grant that Faith doth justify figuratively, viz. as apprehending Christ by whom we are justified.  
[In these places (saith Pemble) where it is said, 
Vbi supra.  Faith is imputed for Righteousness, the Phrase is to be expounded Metonymices, i. e. Christ's Righteousness believed on by Faith, is imputed to the Believer for Righteousness].  
A figurative sense may be a plain sense, yet it is not a proper sense; for surely Figurative and Proper are opposite one to the other.  
Distinguendum est (inquit Rivetus) inter has phrases, 
In Gen. Exer. 73.  quae etsi in unum sensum conveniunt, differunt nihilominùs in eo, quòduna est figurata, altera prop●ia. Figurata est, Fides imputatur ad justitiam. Propria est, Justitia imputatur credenti. Tum enim justitiae nomen ponitur directè pro e● justitia, cujus intuitu Deus erga nos placatus est, & pro justis habet. In primo autem Fidei tribuitur, quod ejus non est proprè sumptae. Nec enim est justitia, nec justitiae loco habetur, sed objectum ejus est justitia vera, quae per fidem nobis imputatur, ut pro nostra habeatur, quam credendo amplexi sumus. Haec si capere nolint aut veteratores Romani, aut Novatores Sociniani, sufficiat nobis Apostolos autores habere, qui operibus nostris, ergò fidei quâ opus, omnem justitiae laudem detrahunt, eamque in justitiâ, quae sine operibus nobis imputatur, constituunt. That the sense by me and others put on Scripture is forced, you affirm, but prove not.  
2. I acknowledge but one Righteousness by which we are justified, viz. the Righteousness of Christ through Faith imputed unto us; see Rom. 5. 18. Your Similitude makes against you. For our Hands and Teeth are but Instruments whereby we are fed: so our Faith is but an Instrument whereby we are justified. And mark here, how you can use the Comparison yourself, which yet you dislike when others use it. But doth the Scripture no where say, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? Doth not the Scripture call Christ our Righteousness? Jer. 23. 6. Doth it not say, That Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness to every one that believeth? Rom. 10. 4. Is not this as much as if it were said, That Christ or his Righteousness is imputed unto us for Righteousness? See also Rom. 5. 18, 19 and 2 Cor. 5. ult.  
What Mr. Gataker saith concerning this Point, not having the Book which I suppose you mean, (his Defence of Wotton) I cannot tell: What Wotton and J. Goodwin say, I see, but am not satisfied with it. Maccovius de Justif. in divers Disputations doth professedly oppose Wotton, and answers his Objections. If you had urged any of his, or the others Arguments, I should have taken them into consideration; but seeing you do not, it is enough (I think) to oppose their authority, with the Authority of others no way inferior unto them.  
Davenant, 
De Just. Habit. cap. 28. Arg. 8.  Scripturae, quae asserunt ipsam fidem nobis imputari ad justitiam, apertè indicant Christi justitiam credentibus imputari. Nam fides, qualitas in se considerata, non potest magis imputari ad justitiam, quam aliae qualitates ab eodem Spiritu infusae: sed hoc necessario intelligendum est, quatenus suum objectum apprehendit, & credenti applicat, nempe Christum cum salutiferâ ejus justitiâ. Among other Scriptures which he citys to this purpose, that is one, which you stand so much upon, [Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]. Ex hisce (inquit) nos colligimus, imputari credentibus Christi justitiam, quando illam verâ fide apprehendunt.  
And Bellarmine objecting, Ipsa fides imputatur ad justitiam: fides autem non est imputata Christi justitia, sed qualitas in nobis inhaerens. He answers, Frivola est Objectio: nam nihil usitatius, quam causae applicanti illud tribuere, quod propriè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit & applicat nobis justitiam Christi: id fidei ipsi tribuitur, quod reapse Christo debetur.  
So Ames. answering the very same words of Bellarmine, 
Contra Bellar.  saith, Fides imputatur ad justitiam, Rom. 4. 5. idem est cum eo quod dicitur, 
Tom. 4.  v. 6. Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus; 
Lib. 6.  & remittit peccata, v. 7. Fides autem ipsa absolutè considerata, 
cap. 1.  neque est justitia sine opere, neque remissio peccatorum: necesse est igitur, ut fides imputata relatiuè involvat suum objectum, id est, Christum fide apprehensùm.  
Bucan. Quomodo igitur fides dicitur in justitiam imputari? 
Loc. come. de Justif.  Non absolutè, sed relatiuè, etc. And having cited Rom. 3. 22, 25. he saith, 
Loc. 31.  Quibus locis Fidei voce (metonymià continentis pro re contentâ) Christus crucifixus intelligitur, 
Quaest 35.  sed fide apprehensus. Hoc sensu fides Abrahae imputata est ei ad justitiam, seu pro justitiâ, Rom. 4. 9 Et fides cuilibet credenti imputatur ad jùstitiam, i.e. Christus crucifixus apprehensus fide censetur nostra justitia; censetur, inquam, à Deo è tribunali suo sententiam justitiae pronunciante. Quemadmodum igitur manus, quae recipit the saurum donatum, non ditat, sed thesauras: sic nec fidei opus, vel actio nos justificat, sed ipse Christus, quem fide apprehendimus. Et hoc est, quod Theologi Orthodoxi dicunt, nos justificari fide correlatiuè, & ratione Objecti fidem imputari in justitiam. Quae asserto inde manifesta est, quod apud Paulum, Rom. 3. 27, 28. opponitur haec enuntiatio, Fide sumus justi, propositioni huic, Justificamur ex operibus, tanquam contradictoriae. Quarè ex naturà contradictionis perspicuum est, non justificari quemquam Fide in quantum est opus sive nostrum, sive Dei in nobis, sed in quantum Christi meritum includit.  
Rivet; 
In Gen.  Fides excludit seipsam, quà opus est. Vnum enim opus non justificat, 
Exer. 73.  nec quidem potest justificare. Redeundum ergo ad Controversiae statum, quo Fides statuitur justificare, non quatenus est opus, sive per se, sed relatiuè, quatenus significat applicationem justitiae Christi, i.e. non nostrae, 
Disput.  sed alienae. The same Author also saith thus, 
De Fide Justif. §. 19  Apostolus non distinguit inter Opera Legis, & Opera Fidei, sed in hoc negotio Fidem semper quibuslibet operibus opponit. Vnde etiam sequitur fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi.  
That we are justified by Faith, is without controversy, the Scripture being express for it: but when you say, That Faith properly taken doth justify, which the Scripture saith not, in this I descent from you. And also because you make Faith one Righteousness, by which we are justified, as indeed you must, if properly we be justified by it.  
Davenant urgeth from Rom. 5. 18. 
Vbi supra Arg. 11.  That there is unum tantùm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod ad justificationem vitae potest valere, nempe unius Christi obedientia. Whence he infers, Justificatio igitur vitae non redundat in nos ab ullâ qualitate in nobismet ipsis inherente, sed ab hâc justitiâ completâ Mediatoris nobis donatâ & imputatâ. Nostra justitia inherens non habet in se 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hoc est, perfectionem justitiae completam, & absolutam. Ergo non potest producere in nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
You mistake my Argument, and do not mind the Text which I alleged, viz. Acts 13. 39 By him all that believe are justified, etc. Therefore not only all that believe in Christ are justified, but it is by him that they are justified, i. e. by his Obedience, as it is expressed Rom. 5. 19 So that Christ's Obedience is that which is properly imputed for Righteousness, though it be so imputed only to those that believe; Faith to apprehend it, is required of us, that it may be imputed to us; and in that respect Faith is said to be imputed for Righteousness.  
1. The first Note seems to show thus much, That some may make Faith an Instrument of Justification, and yet deny that we are properly justified by it as by an Instrument: Though if this be granted, I see not what you gain by it. For (as I said in the Animadversion) they that make Faith an Instrument of Justification, when they deny that we are properly justified by Faith; they mean, That Faith is not the 
* Non est justitia, nec justitia loco habetur, etc. Rivet before cited.  Righteousness by which we are justified; and that we are therefore only said to be justified by Faith, because by Faith we receive the Righteousness of Christ, by which Righteousness properly we are justified. That this is the meaning of our Divines, appears by that which I have before alleged.  
2. Therefore who those be, of whom you speak, I do not know: However, I do not see that your Objections are of force. For Faith is not wholly excluded as to the Text, though it be so interpreted, as that by [Faith imputed] is meant Christ and his Righteousness, viz. 
* See Bucan before cited.  as apprehended by Faith; and I presume that they whom you tax, did so understand it. And this doth not exclude Faith, but include it. Your Question therefore seems captious, [If by Faith be meant Christ's Righteousness, than what word doth signify Faith?] For by Faith is not simply meant Christ's Righteousness, but as it is apprehended by Faith.  
3. Davenant's words, which I cited, are clearly to the purpose to which I cited them; neither do I see any thing in them, which argue him to have been of another mind than I am of. Whereas you add, [It seems he discerned the mistake of them, that affirm Christ's Active Righteousness as such to be our Righteousness]. I think your Scribe did mistake, and it should be, [he discerned not]. For therein indeed, in that Chapter, but not in the words which I cited, he differs both from you and me: But I was willing to let that pass, both because it is nothing to our present purpose; and also I like not to show my dissent from any eminent Writer, except I be forced to it.  
4. What you say you will allege out of Davenant against me, is to be considered when it is alleged. But here you profess yourself far from approving what he saith, viz. That Christ's Righteousness est formalis causa justificationis ex communi nostrorum sententiâ; You should say, Christ's Righteousness imputed to us: for so Davenant hath it in the words which I cited. And you should also consider how immediately before those words he explained himself about the formalis causa justificationis.  
For Bellarmine objecting, That though Christi obedientia sit meritoria causa justificationis nostrae, propter quam Deus nos justificat, yet Justitia inherens potest esse formalis, per quam justificati constituimur; and taxing Chemnitius for stating the question thus, Quid sit id, propter quod Deus hominem in gratiam recipiat, etc. 
De Just.  He answers, Sed immemorem se hîc praebet Jesuita, 
Habit.  qui eodem modo & ipse loquitur de Just. lib. 2. cap. 1. 
cap. 22.  [De Causâ formali, propter quam homo dicitur justus coram Deo, disserendum est]. Atque reverà in Justificatione talis causa formalis ponenda est, quae simul & meritoria esse possit. Nisi enim illam contineat dignitatem in se, propter quam homo ritè justificatus reputetur, nunquam erit formalis causa, per quam justificatus existat in conspectu Dei.  
And again, 
Ibid.  Vt itaque seponamus Philosophicas Speculationes de naturâ causae formalis, quando formalem causam quaerimus justificationis nostrae, quaerimus propter quod peccator in gratiam Dei recipitur, per quod immediatè Deo gratus, & ad vitam aeternam acceptus stat; cujus beneficio damnatoriam Legis sententiam evadere, denique quo inti possit, & debeat ad coelestis Judicis favorem & approbationem consequendam.  
And again, Quod igitur dicit Bellarminus, 
Ibid.  impossibile esse, 
cap. 24.  ut per justitiam Christi imputatam formaliter justi simus, 
ad 5.  si per formaliter intelligat inhaerenter, nugas agit, etc. Si autem per formalem causam intelligat illud ipsum, quod Deus intuetur quando quemvis peccatorem justificat, etc. dico hoc non esse inhaerentem ullam qualitatem, sed Christi obedientiam & justitiam credentibus gratuitâ Dei misericordiâ donatam atque imputatam. Impossibile quidem est, ut haec justitia, quae in Christo inhaeret, sit etiam nostra per modum inhaesionis; sed quando tanquam membra unimar Christo capiti, non est impossibile, ut nostra fiat per modum donationis, & salutiferae participationis: atque hic modus sufficit, ut in Justificatione formalis causae rationem, efficaciam, & similitudinem obtineat.  
Methinks all this should suffice to satisfy any ingenuous Man, and to cut off all occasion of quarrelling about the term, when there is so full and frequent explication of the meaning of it.  
So also Amesius having out of Contarenus distinguished of Righteousness, 
Contrae  and stated the Question about the formal cause of Justification, 
Bellar. tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. §. 1.  he saith, Hoc sensu nos negamus formalem causam absolutae (N. B.) nostrae justificationis esse justitiam in nobis inhaerentem.  
And again, 
Ibid.  Non aliâ ratione formaliter nos justos nominari, 
§. 22.  & esse dicimus imputata Christi justitià, quam quâ is cujus debitum ab altero solvitur nominatur & est ab illo debito liber & immunis; & quâ is cui procuratus est alterius favor aut gratia, nominatur & est alteri gratus. For that which you cite out of his Med. l. 1. c. 27. §. 12. I find there only these words, Christi igitur justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur, Phil. 3. 9 Those which you add are not in my Edition, 
Edit. 3. per Rob. Allotum Londini 1629.  viz. Quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur.  
However they are not repugnant to what I have cited, both from him and Davenant, because (as Davenant expressly notes) Causa formalis hîc etiam est meritoria. Alsted's words, as you cite them, [Christus est justitia mostra in sensu causal, none in sensu formali] carry no good sense, at least are not so accurate. For surely if Formalis Causa, then Sensus Formalis is also Sensus Causalis.  
You add, [So Rivet Disp. de Fide.] but you should also have noted the Section. Indeed §. 13. he saith, That Bellarmine doth affingere nobis sententiam de justitia Christi, 
College.  tanquam causâ formali. And elsewhere he saith, 
Controvers Disp. 34.  Forma justificationis consistit in justitiae Christi imputatione, propter quam nobis remittuntur peccata.  
So Treloatius, 
Instit. lib. 2.  Forma justificationis, Actiuè sumptae, est Actualis Justitiae Christi gratuita imputatio, quâ meritum & obedientia Christi nobis applicantur, vi communionis arctissimae, qua ille in nobis, & nos in illo.  
Dr. Jackson saith, 
Of Justifying Faith  That to demand what is the formal cause of Justification, 
Sect. 2. chap. 18.  is as if one should ask what is the Latin for Manus: and that it is the folly or knavery of our Adversaries to demand a formal Cause of the● Justification, who deny themselves to be formally just in the sight of God. [He alone (saith he) is formally just, who hath that form inherent in himself, by which he is denominated just, and so accepted of God: as Philosophers deny the Sun to be formally hot, because it hath no form of heat inherent in it, but only produceth heat in other Bodies].  
Thus there is difference among our Divines about the term, but they agree in the thing. Some would have no formal Cause of Justification at all; some would have such a Cause, but would not have Christ's Righteousness imputed, but the imputation of Christ's Righteousness to be it: yet both the one and the other do indeed hold the Righteousness of Christ to be the formal Cause of Justification, in that sense as Davenant and Ames do explain it.  
1. As Faith alone is the Condition of our Justification, 
54.  so also Faith alone as continued (though it is not continued alone) is the Condition of our Continued Justification.  
Neque etiam (saith Calvin) sic putemus commendari post gratuitam justificationem opera, 
Instit. lib. 3.  ut & ipsa in locum justificandi hominis posteà succedant, 
cap. 17. § 9  aut ejusmods officium cum Fide (N. B.) partiantur. Nisi enim perpetuò maneat solida Fidei justificatio, illorum immundities detegetur. Nihil autem absonum est, sic Fide hominem justificari, ut non ipse modo justus sit sed opera quoque ejus supra dignitatem justa censeantur.  
So Mr. Ball, 
Of Faith,  [Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, and then leave it to works, 
Part 2.  that we might attain the accomplishment by them, 
Chap. 4. p. 252, 253.  but it doth ever rest upon the Promise until we come to enjoy it].  
2. I know no accusation but of the Law of Works, though in case of unbelief and impenitency that Accusation be aggravated by the Law of Grace.  
Though Caluîn thinks not that Joh. 5. 45. [Do not think that I will accuse you to my Father; 
Calvin in Joh. 5. 45.  there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, etc.] too be to this purpose, as some do; yet he grants, That it is Legis proprièreos peragere infideles.  
To question whether he spoke of the Law of Works, were to question whether the Sun shineth at noonday. When any is accused to be an Infidel, or finally impenitent, or a sinner against the Holy Ghost, as it is a sin that he is accused of, so the Accusation is from the Law: but as Unbelief or Impenitency (for why you bring in the sin against the Holy Ghost, I do not know) doth import a want of the Condition required in the Gospel, so (as I have said before) it is no new accusation, but only a reinforcing of a former accusation; and so the refelling of this Accusation, by showing the fruits of Faith and Repentance, is not properly a justifying of ourselves by any thing in ourselves, but only a proving and manifesting that we are indeed justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  
3. The imperfection of our Faith and Obedience doth prove that it is no Righteousness by which we can be justified; consider always, that I speak of absolute and universal Justification.  
Si per se (saith Calvin) vel intrinsecâ, ut loquuntur, 
Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. §. 7.  virtute justificaret fides, ut est semper debilis & imperfecta, non efficeret hoe nisiex parte; sic manca esset justitia, quae frustulum salutis nobis conferret.  
So Davenant, 
De Instit.  Ad justificationem efficiendam non sufficit justitia suo quodam modo perfectae, 
Habit.  & aliqu● modo imperfecta; 
cap. 26.  sed necesse est eam esse legali modo perfectam, 
Arg. 3.  & omnibus suis numeris absolutam. And again, Nulla justitia coram Deo justificat, 
Ibid.  sed quae ad amussin Legis perfecta est: 
Arg. 4.  Sed nostra inhaerens non est talis, etc.  
Thus also Maccovius, 
De Justif.  Quod nobis imputatur ad justitiam, 
Disp. 11.  (nempe propriè & per se, seu respectu sui) i● debet esse perfectissimum, ut consistere possit cum judicio Dei, Rom. 2. 2. At Fides non est perfectissima, 1 Cor. 13. 9  
To me it seems not hard to be certain of the meaning of that place, 
Ibid.  Luke 7. 47. [Many sins are forgiven her, for she loved much]. It appears (as I noted) plainly enough by the Context, what the meaning is, viz. not that her love was the cause of the forgiveness of her sins, but the forgiveness of her sins the cause of her love: And you see how sharply Calvin (whose words I cited) censures those that interpret it otherwise.  
The Parable going before those words are so clear, 
In Lut. 7. 42.  That Maldonate is forced to say, Videtur ex hac parabolâ non fuisse colligendum, quod Christus colligit, multa peccata illi mulieri remitti, quia multum dilexisset, sed contrà proptereà eam multum dilexisse, quòd multa illi peccata remissa essent.— Quae res speciosam Calvino, & caeteris haereticis, errandi occasionem praebuit, negantibus huic mulieri propter praecedentia charitatis opera remissa peccata; illa verò verba, quoniam dilexit multum, sic interpretantibus, ut dictio illa quoniam, non causam, sed effectum, & consequentiam significet: quod utinam nemo Catholicorum secutus esset.  
And see how poorly and pitifully he comes off, viz. either thus, Vt Christum in versà parabolâ usum fuisse deceremus. q. d. Sicut ille dilexit multum, quia multum illi remissum fuerat; ita huic mulieri è contrario, quia dilexit multum, remissa sunt peccata multa. Or, which he rather inclines unto, thus, Quod Christus hoc loco rogat, Quis ergo eum plus diliget etsi futurum tempus est, tamen ex consuetudine loquendi vim praeteriti habere puto. q. d. Quem tu judicas, ex effectu conjecturam faciens, plus antè Dominum suum delexisse? Vtrùm illi magis amicum fuisse, cum amicitiae causâ faenerator debitum utrique remiserit? What straits was this acute Man driven to, because he was resolved to hold the Conclusion, and yet saw how ill it did suit with the Premises?  
1. What others, 
Ibid.  of whom you speak do, I know not; they may answer for themselves.  
2. I take affiance (which is a Believing in, or Relying on) to be an Act of Faith itself, the Act of Faith being as well Credere in, as simpliciter Credere. But internal Obedience or Love, (for these you make both one, though indeed Believing itself is inward Obedience as well as Love, the one being commanded as well as the other) is not the Act of Faith, though caused by Faith; not actus elicitus, though actus imperatus: therefore this is not so immediate a product of Faith as the other.  
3. I conceive Affiance to be a part of Justifying-Faith, and not only a Fruit of it. To believe in Christ, which is as much as to rely on him, and to have affiance in him, is requisite unto Justification. He that believeth on him is not condemned, John 3. 18.  
1. As Justification is begun upon sole Believing, 
Ibid.  so is it also continued and consummated. The Scripture (so far as I see) makes Justification simply and absolutely to depend on Faith, and not only in respect of the beginning of it: yet (it is true) Justification is neither begun, nor continued, nor consummated upon such a Believing as is not attended with other Duties. That this is the Uniform Doctrine of the prime Protestants, I showed by the confession of our greatest Adversary, to which you oppose nothing.  
2. Though some other things besides Faith must go before Justification, 
Multa ad justificationem requiruntur quae non justificant Ames. contra Bellar. tom. 4. l. 5. cap. 1. §. 1.  yet do they not therefore justify as well as Faith, it being only Faith that doth apprehend Christ, by whom so apprehended we are justified.  
Neque tamen haec fides (saith Wotton) spem, dilectionem, timorem, poenitentiam excludere censenda est, quasi ad eum, qui justificatus est, non pertinerent; sed haec omnia ab officio justificandi (N. B.) significantur penitùs excludi. Atque hoc quidem justificandi munus soli Fidei convenire, his rationibus ostendo. Quia solâ Fide rectà in Christum tendimus, 
De Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. c. 18.  ut per eum justificemur, & promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur. 2. Vbicunque Spiritus Sanctus disertis verbis loquitur de justificatione impii, ejusque causas ex hominis parte assignat, nullam ejusmodi causam assignat nisi fidem.  
But hear also Luther, 
Loc. Com.  who doth both thunder and lighten in this particular: 
Class. 2.  Cur insane Sophista, asseris dilectionem, 
Loc. 19 de Justif. ex Tom. 2. in Gen.  spem, & alias virtutes? Scio has esse insignia Dei dona, divinitùs mandata, per Spiritum Sanctum in nostris cordibus excitari & all. Scio fidem sine his donis non existere; sed nunc nobis quaestio est, quid cujusque proprium sit. Tenes manu varia seminae, non autem quaero ego, quae cum quibus conjuncta sint, sed quae cujusque propria virtus. Hîc apertè dic quid faciat Sola Fides, non cum quibus virtutibus conjuncta sit. Sola autem Fides apprehendit promissionem, credit promittenti Deo, Deo porrigenti aliquid admovet manum, & id accipit. Hoc proprium solius Fidei est; Charitas, Spes, Patientia habent alias materias, circa quas versantur; habent alios limits, intra quos consistunt. Non enim amplectuntur promissionem, sed mandata exequuntur; audiunt Deum mandantem, non audiunt Deum promittentem, ut Fides facit.  
In the next Section we are agreed. 
55.   
To this long Section I need not say much. 
Ibid.  For now that you explain yourself, there seems to be but little difference betwixt us. All that I aim at, is this, That Christ simply considered, is not the Object of Justifying Faith, but Christ as promised in the Gospel: so that to believe in Christ, doth imply a believing of the Promise, and that not only so as to assent unto it, but so also as to apply it. And therefore we often find in Scripture, That the Axiom or Proposition concerning Christ, is made the Object of Justifying and Saving Faith, see Rom. 10. 9 1 Joh. 5. 1. Acts 8. 37. Joh. 6. 69. And thus our Divines often speak of Faith justifying as apprehending the Promises.  
Sola Fides (saith Luther) apprehendit Promissionem. 
Locis paulò ante citatis.   
So Wotton; Solâ Fide Promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur.  
And Mr. Ball, 
Of the Coven. ch. 3. p. 19  [For Faith only doth behold and receive the Promises of Life and Mercy, etc. When therefore Justification and Life is said to be by Faith, it is manifestly signified, That Faith receiving the Promise, doth receive Righteousness and Life freely promised].  
But I willingly grant, That the Axiom, Proposition or Promise doth but serve to convey Christ unto us, and the apprehending and receiving of him, is the Faith by which we are justified. Only I say, it is Christ in the Promise, or Christ promised, who must be apprehended and received unto Justification.  
Fidei objectum quod (saith Ames.) vel materiale; 
Medul. l. 2. c. 5. §. 21.  est quicquid â Deo revelatur ac proponitur credendum, 
Ibid. §. 23, 24.  etc.— Hoc objectum est immediatè semper aliquod axioma vel enuntiatio sub ratione veri; sed illud, in quo principaliter terminatur Fides, de quo, & propter quod assensus praebetur illi axiomati per fidem, est Ens incomplexum sub ratione boni, Rom. 4. 21. Heb. 11. 13. Actus enim credentis non terminatur ad axioma, sed ad rem, fatentibus Scholasticorum clarissimis. Ratio est, quia non formamus axiomata, nisi ut per ea de rebus cognitionem habeamus. Principalis igitur terminus, in quem tendit actus credentis, est res ipsa, quae in axiomate praecipuè spectatur.  
All this I like well enough, save that he seems to make the Act of Faith exercised about an Axiom or Enunciation to be only Assent, as to that which is true; whereas sometimes it is also Apprehension and Receiving as of that which is good, though (its true) this Act of Faith is principally terminated in the thing, which the Axiom or Enunciation doth contain in it.  
1. I do not say, 
56, & 57  That the receiving of Christ as King is Fides quae justificat, though I grant it is Actus fidei quae justificat.  
2. I refer [quà] to [Justificât] q. d. [Faith which justifieth, doth receive Christ as King; yet this is not the Act of Faith, whereby it justifieth]. Or if you will, thus; Christ as King is the object of Faith, which justifieth, but not of Faith as it justifieth. Indeed Faith, which justifieth hath respect to the whole Word of God, yet only to the Word of Promise concerning Christ, and the Mercy of God in Christ, as it justifieth.  
Non tam quaeritur (inquit Ames.) quae aut quid sit Fides, 
Contrae Bellar.  quae justificat, quam quae sit ratio quâ proprè dicitur justificare. 
Tom. 4.  And presently after follow the words, which I cited in the Animadversions. 
Lib. 5.  Again, una & eadem (inquit) Fides est, 
c. 1. §. 1, 2.  quâ placemus Deo ad reconciliationem, 
Ibid.  & jam reconciliati dirigimur & sustentamur ad placendum ipsi in Obedientiâ nouâ. 
cap. 2. §. 1.  And again, Fidem illam, 
Ibid.  quae justificat, praesupponere, involvere, & infer concedimus fidem Historiae, 
§. 8.  atque etiam (in quibusdam olim) miraculorum; sed historiae ac miraculorum fidem saepè à justificatione separari palam est; Quamvis multa sint exercitia & objecta Fidei, non tamen justificans est, nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christo. Hinc omnes illi, quorum fides in eo capite (Heb. 11.) laudatur, collimabant ad promissionem illam miserecordiae in Christo.  
3. Where do I say, That the receiving of Christ as King doth justify, that you ask me in what sense it doth so? I say, Justifying Faith doth receive Christ as King, but not as justifying; or that Faith in that respect doth not justify.  
4. Faith as the Condition of Justification is the receiving of Christ as satisfying for us.  
5. If Christ's Satisfaction only be our Righteousness, by which we are justified; and Christ as Priest only made Satisfaction for us, then by receiving Christ as Priest only we are justified. This you might perceive was the meaning of the Argument, though I left out the word [only].  
And here also I have Mr. Blake agreeing with me, as (I think) in every point, wherein we differ, if he have occasion to treat of it. 
Of the Coven.  [It is true (saith he) that Faith accepts Christ as Lord as well as Saviour: but it is the acceptation of him as Saviour, 
c. 12. p. 79.  not as Lord, that justifies. Christ rules his People as a King, teacheth them as a Prophet, but makes atonement for them as a Priest, by giving himself in Sacrifice, his Blood for remission of Sins. These must be distinguished, but not divided: Faith hath an eye at all, the Blood of Christ, the Command of Christ, the Doctrine of Christ: but as it ties and fastens on his Blood, so it justifies. He is set out a propitiation through Faith in his Blood, Rom. 3. 24. not through Faith in his Command. It is the Blood of Christ that cleanseth from all sin, and not the Sovereignty of Christ. These confusions of the distinct parts of Christ's Mediatorship, and the several offices of Faith may not be suffered. Scripture assigns each its particular Place and Work. Sovereignty doth not cleanse, nor Blood command us: Faith in his Blood, not Faith yielding to his Sovereignty, doth justify us. There are several acts of Justifying-Faith, Heb. 11. but those are not acts of Justification. It is not Abraham's Obedience, Moses Self-denial, Gideon or Sampson's Valour, that was their Justification, but his Blood, who did enable them in these things by his Spirit].  
Your Similitude is not suitable; for a Woman receiving a Man for her Husband, may be enriched or dignified by him, though she never look at him as rich or honourable, but only as her Husband. But we must look at Christ as a Priest, and as making Satisfaction for us, that so we may be justified by him. For the Scripture doth set forth Christ unto us in that respect for our Justification; see Apoc. 1. 5. Heb. 9 26. 2 Cor. 5. ult. Rom. 8.34. where those words [It is Christ that died] show how Christ doth justify us, and free us from condemnation, viz. by dying, and so satisfying for our sins. That which follows of Christ's Resurrection, etc. seems (as to our Justification) but for our more full assurance of the benefit of Christ's Death, and for the effectual application of his Satisfaction, which he made for us by his Death, that so we may be justified by him.  
6. You grant, that Christ, not as King, but as Priest, doth justify us meritoriously and satisfactorily; and that is it which I urge, That Christ's Satisfaction, which as Priest he made for us, is that whereby, or for which we are justified. Now we speak of receiving Christ unto Justification, therefore we must consider him as satisfying for us, and so receive him as to that purpose, viz. our Justification; though (I grant) whole Christ, or Christ in respect of all his Offices must be received; neither may we think to have him as a Priest to satisfy for us, except we also have him as a Prophet to instruct us, and as a King to govern us. So I usually Preach and Teach.  

57  1. When you say, 
(p. 69.)  That I leave the Error in his Language, but not in his Sense, your words are ambiguous. For they may import, That I leave, i.e. relinquish and desert the Error the one way, but not the other. Or that I leave, i.e. let the Error abide and remain in his Language, but not in his Sense. This I take to be your meaning, for else you could not say (except ironically, which I do not suspect) that it is a fair Exposition, and that you like it. I have no reason to strive about another's words, especially not knowing how they are brought in: but I think meet to interpret words in the best sense that they will bear: neither do I yet see but those words which you tax as foully erroneous, may admit that fair interpretation which I made of them.  
2. Where Ames. hath those words, you do not show: But surely he there speaks de Fide Justificante quà tali. For otherwise he should neither agree with the Truth, nor with himself in saying, Christus est objectum adaequatum Fidei justificantis. The whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying-Faith, though not of Faith as Justifying; and so much is acknowledged by Amesius, as appears by his words before cited. Neither again doth he speak of Christ in all respects, but as Christ is the Propitiation for our sins, as is clear by that very place which you now take into consideration.  
Besides, I find Amesius to have such words as you mention, but withal to add such, as plainly to express what I say. 
Medul.  Christus (inquit) est adaequatum objectum Fidei, 
lib. 1. c. 27. §. 17.  quatenus (N. B.) Fides Justificat. Fides etiam non aliâ ratione justificat, nisi quatenus apprehendit illam justitiam, (N. B.) propter quam justificamur.  
1. The Text (1 John 4. 19) cannot (I think) be rightly understood but as I interpreted it. 
Ibid. & 58.  For v. 10, 11. the Apostle speaketh of God's great love manifested unto us, 
(p. 70.)  in giving his Son for us. And v. 19 he shows whence it is that we love God, viz. from hence, that God loved us first, i.e. we apprehending the Love of God to us, answer his love with love again. Amat non immerito, qui amatus sine merito, as Bernard speaketh. Yet we must first find and feel the love of God towards us, before we can love him for what he hath done for us.  
2. There is more than a bare assenting Act of Faith going before the Love, of which I speak.  
3. Embracing, which from Heb. 11. 13. I note to be the completing Act of Justifying-Faith, doth include or presuppose amorem desiderii; we can never sincerely embrace Christ, if we do not desire him: but amor delectationis, or complacentiae doth follow after embracing, viz. when the thing desired is enjoyed. All that you add, holds only in respect of the former kind, not in respect of the latter.  
1. There are divers kinds of Love, but I speak of that 
58.  Love which differs from Desire; and so did you seem to understand it, as I noted from your words, Aphorism, p. 267.  
2. Whereas you say, [There is no need of Faith to make it present, before it can be accepted and loved]; you cannot by Faith mean Assent, for that, you grant, doth go before Love and Acceptance. And if by Faith you mean Acceptance, surely there must be Acceptance, before a thing can be accepted, though in time these go together. But perhaps you only mean, That though Faith as an Assent, must go before in time, and as an Acceptance must go before in Nature, yet not so as to make a thing present. For you add, That God's Offer doth make it present. But though the Offer be present, yet the thing offered is not present, so as the Object of the Love of Complacency must be: for it must be present by way of Enjoyment, but the offer of a thing can only make it to be hoped for; so that the thing, though it be offered, yet until it be accepted, it is absent, because it is not enjoyed. The thing offered must be desirously, and in that respect lovingly accepted; but it must first be accepted, and then loved, so as to joy and delight in it.  
3. We look at Christ as enjoyed, when we love him with the Love of Complacency and Delight, of which Love I speak.  
Gaudium oritur ex hoc, 
Theolog.  (saith Raimundus de Sebundae) quòd aliqua res scit se habere id, 
Natur.  quod habet, & non ex hoc duntaxat, 
Tit. 95.  quod habet.  
There must both be the Having of a thing, and also the Knowing that we have it, that we may rejoice in it.  
4. As Assent must go before Acceptance, so must Acceptance go before that Love, of which I speak.  
1. I did not say, 
Ibid.  or think, that you thought so of all Love, viz. that it considereth its Object as present or enjoyed; for there is no distinguishing here of these, as I have showed before; the Object is not present, except it be enjoyed. You grant that Amor Complacentiae doth so consider its Object; and I thought you had meant that kind of Love, because you did distinguish Love from Desire. Therefore I said, [Love as you take it, considereth its Object as present and enjoyed] viz. Love as distinguished from Desire. I know not (I confess) what to make of Love, but either a Desire, if the Object be absent, or a Delight, if the Object be present.  
2. That which you say concerning Acceptance, Election, and Consent, is nothing to me, who do not inquire whether they be divers acts or no, but only show that they go before Enjoyment, and so differ from Love, as I take it, viz. Love of Complacency, which doth follow Enjoyment.  

59  I take the Love of Desire to go before Acceptance, and the Love of Complacency to follow after it. Although Amare & velle bonum be one and the same, yet this velle bonum vel est cum desiderio, si objectum absit, vel cum Complacentiâ, si adsit.  
Aquinas doth not satisfy me, 
Part 1.  when he saith, Nullus desiderat aliquid nisi bonum amatum neque aliquis gaudet nisi de bono amato; 
Quaest. 20.  if he mean, 
Art. 1.  that a thing is amatum prius 
* Nempe prius tempore, non naturâ.  quam desideratum. The very Desiderare (I think) is Amare, and so is Gaudere also; but the one is Amare quod abest, the other Amare quod adest. So you in the next Section say, [Desire is Love, and Complacency is Love].  
1. I did not doubt, 
Ibid.  much less deny that there is Amor Desiderii, as well as Amor Complacentiae; only I showed, that your words there must be meant of the former, in which sense I did not oppose you, but as it is taken in the other sense; and so you seemed to take it before, because you did expressly distinguish it from Desire.  
Neither is your second any thing against me.  
3. The Scripture is not so much to be interpreted according to the most comprehensive sense, as according to the most proper sense, viz. that which doth best agree with the Context and other places of Scripture.  
Your fourth containeth nothing but a Sarcasm very unworthily used of such a worthy Man as Calvin was.  
1. The places, 
Ibid.  which you allege (John 16. 27. and 14. 21.) do not prove, that Love, viz. our Love is an antecedent Condition of God's Love, and Christ's Love to us, so that we must first love God and Christ, before we can be reconciled unto God in Christ. For because we are reconciled unto God in Christ, therefore we love God and Christ, 1 John 4. 19 The meaning of those other places (as Calvin notes) is this, That they that love God, insculptum habent in cordibus Paterni ejus amoris restimonium: To which may be added, That God will still manifest his Love to them more and more.  
2. Not only Love, but Obedience also must go before Glorification; but it doth not therefore follow, That they must go before Justification, as yourself hold that Obedience doth not as we are at first justified. That there is any other Condition of Justification at last than at first, is more than I can find in Scripture.  
1. What some have answered, 
Ibid.  and what you have read in others I know not; you cite none whose Works are extant, but only Mr. Ball, and him at large, [On the Covenant] but where in that Book you do not show. I find there that he doth use the words [Instrument] and [Condition] promiscuously.  
[The Covenant of Grace (saith he) exacteth no other thing inherent in us, 
Of the Coven.  as a Cause (viz. instrumental) of Justification, or a Condition (N. B.) in respect of which we are justified, 
p. 65.  but Faith alone]. This is point-blank against that which you say of him. 
Ibid.  And again, [It is (saith he) the sole Instrumental or Conditional (N. B.) 'Cause required on our part to Justification].  
As I showed before in the Animadversions, ad pag. 243. our Divines say, Fides sola justificat, sed Fides quae justificat, non est sola: but they mean that Love and Obedience follow as the fruits and effects of Faith.  
Thus Stapleton somewhere (I cannot now cite the place) testifieth of them, saying, Omnes adunum Protestantes docent Fidem justifcantem esse vivam, & operantem per charitatem, atque alia bona opera.  
2. I grant, That Amor Concupiscentiae is prerequisite; if you will call it so, as I see not but you may, though Amor Concupiscentiae, is usually opposed to Amor Amicitiae, and so you speak of it, p. 58. And if you speak not of Amor Complacentiae, then neither do I speak against you. For of that do I speak, and had reason (I think) to understand you as speaking of it, because you spoke of Love as distinct from Desire. Perhaps you speak of it only in respect of its Generical Nature, abstracting from the consideration of either Desire or Complacency, which are the Species of it: but surely these two taking up the whole nature of Love, that Love which is not the one of these, must needs be the other. We accept or choose a thing, because we first Love, i.e. desire it, or (as we use to say) have a mind to it: and having accepted and chosen it, we further love it, so as to delight in it, except our Love turn into Hatred, as Amnon's unchaste Love did: but the very Accepting or Choosing of a thing is not (that I see) properly a Loving of it.  
3. I grant, that all Love doth not presuppose Acceptance, Consent, etc. the Love of Desire doth not; but the Love of Complacency doth. This is all that I have desired, and so much you have yielded.  
1. The distinction of Fides quae, 
Ibid.  and Fides quà, as it is frequently used by our Learned Writers, so it doth hold good notwithstanding any thing you have said, or (I suppose) can say against it.  
Quamvis hanc controversiam elevent, 
Disp. de Fide Just.  (saith Rivet, speaking of the Remonstrants) nec ciccum (ut loquuntur) interdiunt, an Fides quae est viva, 
§. 16.  an Fides quà est viva, ad justificationem requiratur, & Logicam tantùm pugnam esse velint, Logica tamen haec pugnarealem continet magni momenti. Siquis enim dicat, Christus qui homo est infinitus, & Christus quà homo est infinitus, nemo samis existimabit nihil differre has enuntiationes.  
I grant you more than you require, That not only Christ as Lord, but even the whole Word of God is the Object of Justifying Faith; but not therefore of Faith as Justifying. The Hand may receive both Meat and Money, yet it doth not enrich, as it receiveth Meat, nor feed as it receiveth Mony.  
2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness, (which I think you have ever affirmed, though you would also have another Righteousness of our own, and that unto Justification;) then I see not but that I may speak of Faith laying hold on and apprehending Christ's Satisfaction. For though the Satisfaction was made unto God, yet it was made for us; and in that respect we are to lay hold on it, and receive it, and not only to assent to the truth of it.  
You somewhere cite Bellarmine yielding unto us thus much, Imputari nobis Christi merita, quia nobis donata sunt, & possumus ea Deo Patri offerre pro peccatis nostris, quoniam Christus suscepit super se onus satisfaciendi pro nobis, nosque Deo Patri reconciliandi.  
Which words also Amosius doth cite, 
Contra Bellar.  and interpret to be as much as if he did say, Christi merita sunt nobis à Deo donata, 
Tom. 4. l. 6. c. 1. §. 22.  ut possimus ea pro nobis Deo offerre tanquam Satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris.  
It is Satisfactio Christi, though by Faith it becomes Nostra, 
(p. 72)  which we must offer Deo: but first we must by Faith receive it, before we can have any interest in it, to make such use of it. Faith justifieth (I grant) as a Condition, because it is required of us, that we may be partakers of Christ's Righteousness; but it is not Faith properly, but the Righteousness of Christ by which we are justified.  
Recte Contarenus (saith Ames.) in Tract. de Justif. Fide justificamur, 
Vbi supra lib. 5. c. 4.  non formaliter, sicut Albedo efficit parietem album, 
§. 12.  aut Sanitas hominem sanum; sed efficienter, sicut Linitio efficit parientem album, & Medicatio efficit sanum: sic, vel non dissimili ratione, Fides efficit hominem justum, & justificat.  
I like your Explication which you now make, 
Ibid. & 60.  and I think my labour well bestowed, as being the occasion of it. I perceive all that you mean is this, That the Covenant wherein God doth give Christ, is not of force to make Christ ours until we believe. This who can question, Christ being given to be ours only upon condition of believing? Yet Christ being so conditionally given in the Covenant, 
(p. 73▪)  upon our believing he is made ours by virtue of the Covenant: so that still I see not but that our believing doth immediately make Christ ours, there being nothing more to that end required of us, but to believe. But how will it follow, that God doth justify Men before they believe, when by his Covenant he doth not justify but upon condition of Believing? The Grant of a thing being Conditional, it cannot be actually obtained until the Condition be performed, though upon the performance of the Condition by virtue of the Grant there be actual enjoyment.  

6.  Whether the receiving of Christ as Priest, and the receiving of him as King be two distinct acts, doth little concern our purpose; 
(p. 73.)  yet I think the Acts may be distinct, though I deny not but Christ may be received at once in both respects: yet if he be, it is the receiving of him as Priest, not as King, that doth justify. I grant that the receiving of Christ in respect of any one Offi●● doth virtually include the receiving of him in respect of all his Offices: and he that doth not so receive Christ in respect of his Priestly Office, as to be ready to receive him also in respect of his Kingly Office, when Christ shall so be set forth unto him, doth not at all receive him: such a Faith is a false Faith, and cannot justify. Yet may there be a receiving of Christ as Priest without an express and direct receiving of him as King, though implicitly and by consequence he be received as such. Neither is it a false Knowledge, though it be an imperfect Knowledge to know Christ as a Priest, and not to know him as a King. And that Christ is sometimes propounded only as a Priest, i.e. with express mention only of his Priestly Office, seems clear and undeniable by divers places of Scripture; see John 1. 29, 36. and 3. 14, 15. and so other places which speak of Christ as suffering for us, not mentioning his Sovereignty over us, though that is there implied and expressed in other places. And though he be (as sometimes he is) expressly set forth at once both as Priest and King, and so must expressly be received at once in both respects; yet it hinders not, but that the receiving of Christ as Priest, and not the receiving of him as King, is that which justifieth. One may at once receive divers things, and yet those things not all serve for one and the same use, but one thing may serve for one use, and another thing for another use, all being, though in several respects, useful and necessary to be received.  
You say that you are of my mind in all this, 
Ibid.  yet you seem to differ from me, in that you make Affiance a Fruit of Acceptance, 
(74.)  which you make the very Act of Faith by which we are justified; whereas I taking Affiance for Recumbency, and for that which is meant by Believing in Christ, and Embracing him, make it to be the very Justifying Act of Faith. That Believing in Christ doth principally import Assent I cannot see: to Believe indeed doth seem principally to import Assent; but to Believe in, seems principally to import Affiance.  
Credere in Christum (as Ferus saith well) est certâ, 
In Joh. 6. 29.  firmâ, & stabili fiduciâ Christum, omniaque ejus bona complecti, eisque toto cord, totâ, animâ, totisque viribus inhaerere.  
So Wotton; 
De Reconcil. part 1. lib. 2. c. 14.  Quid est in Christum credere? An id solummodo; credere vera esse, quae Christus loquitur? At quid opus erat Spiritus Sancto tam novum & insolens verbum usurpare, presertim obscurum etiam, & à vulgi intelligentiâ remotum? Quod rectè & clarè dici potuit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id Spiritus Sanctus novo more dicendi, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, voluit obscurare? Nam hic certè loquendi modus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, totus est à Spiritu Sancto illi proprius, nec ullumè Gracis autorem agnoscit, ne illos quidem LXX Interpretes, qui Hebraea Biblia Grace reddiderunt, à quibus Apostoli & Evangelista multa in Scriptis suis, quod ipsum loquendi modum attinet, crebrò mutuentur. Quamobrem plus quam verisimile videtur Spiritum Sanctum quum novo loquendi more uta●ur, quem fiduciam significare perspicuum est, aliud quoddam praeter communem vocis significationem proponere voluisse.  
I find that Seneca doth use the Latin Pharase, 
In Ludo de morte  Hunc sinquit) Deum quis colet? quis credet in eum? Where [Credet in eum] is as much as [fiduciam in eo colloca●it]. 
Claudii Caesaris.  And so the Phrase of [Believing in] used in the New Testament, seems to import as much as the Phrases of [Trusting in] and [staying on] used in the Old Testament, as namely, Isa. 50. 10. See Mr. Ball of Faith, part 1. chap. 3. p. 24, etc.  
So far as I can judge, your success is not answerable to 
61.  your desire. But if you did not intend to infer such a conclusion from your earnest seeking the Lord's Direction on your Knees, 
(74.)  I know not to what purpose you did speak of it. For if it were only to show the sincerity of your desire, What is your Cause advantaged, though that be granted, as I know not why any should question it?  
What is that which you say is yielded? 
Ibid.  That Faith doth not justify, as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the whole Covenant? Yet you make Justifying-Faith, as such, to be the Condition of the whole Covenant. For you make it to include Obedience: and what doth the Covenant require more than Faith and Obedience?  
2. Of Justification begun, and Justification continued and consummated by sentence at Judgement, I have spoken before, not is there need here to say any more of it.  
1. No doubt the Holy Ghost means as he speaks: 
Ibid.  But what of that? Doth he speak so as you interpret him?  
2. Though our Divines in expounding the words of St. James, express themselves diversely, yet they agree in the Matter, viz. That Works do not concur with Faith unto Justification.  
Mr. Ball speaking of those words, 
Of the Coven.  [Faith is imputed unto Righteousness] saith, 
p. 64.  [This Passage is diversely interpreted by Orthodox Divines, all aiming at the same Truth, and meeting in the Main, being rather several Expressions of the same Truth, than different Interpretations].  
Then he shows three several ways where by those words are interpreted, which differ as much as these Interpretations which you mention. They that say, That the Apostle speaketh of Justification coram Deo, by Works, understand a Working-Faith: They that expound it of Justification coram Hominibus, take the meaning to be, That by Works a Man doth appear to be justified. They that understand it of the Justification of the Person, make the sense the same with those first mentioned: and they that say it is meant of the Justification of a Man's Faith, agree with those in the second place, making Works to prove the sincerity of Faith, and so to manifest a Man's Justification.  
3. Are not those words [Hoc est Corpus meum] as express words of Scripture, as those which you allege? Though words be never so express, yet not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to be considered.  
4. James might well and solidly prove by Works done many years after, that the Faith of Abraham, whereby he was justified, was a Working-Faith, of a Working Nature, a Faith fruitful in good Works, his Faith bringing forth such fruit in due season, and so showing itself by Works when occasion did require. Abraham (no doubt) had many other Works, whereby his Faith did appear, yet the Apostle thought meet to instance in that Work, which was most remarkable; and by which his Faith did manifest itself in a more especial manner.  
Hoc facinus (saith chrysostom) tanto praestantius erat cateris omnibus, 
In 2 Cor. 1  ut illa cum hoc collata nihil esseviderentur. 
Hom. 3.   
What your Parenthesis doth mean (Legal Justificatiion I mean) I do not well understand. But how doth James speak of Justification as Continued, and not as Begun? Is his meaning this, That a Man is indeed at first justified by Faith only, but both Faith and Works together do continue his Justification? So you understand it: but surely James doth neither speak, nor mean so. For by Faith alone without Works, in his sense, a Man never was, never can be justified. This is clear by his whole Discourse, for he calls him a vain Man that relies on such a Faith, and calls it a dead Faith, etc. So that when a Man is first justified, it is by a Working Faith: not that Faith must necessarily produce Works at the first, but it is (as I said) of a Working Nature, of such a Nature as to produce Works when they are required; which is the same with what you say out of Grotius: and this doth answer all that you object against the Interpretation which I stand for. Who can doubt but Abraham was justified long before he offered up Isaac, the Scripture being express for it? But how then? Therefore this Work could be no Condition of that Justification which was passed.  
Answ. No indeed, that Work was not, nor could be; but Faith apt to show itself by that Work, or any other, when required, and consequently a Working Faith might be, and was the Condition of that Justification. Grotius, whom you cite, giving you such a hint of it, I wonder that you could not observe this. James and Paul may well enough be reconciled, though both of them speak of Justification as Begun. For James doth not require Works otherwise than as Fruits of Faith, to be brought forth in time convenient: and Paul doth not exclude Works in that sense.  
[Every observant Reader (saith Dr. Jackson) may furnish himself with plenty of Arguments all demonstrative, 
Of Justifying.  that Works taken as St. James meant, 
Faith, §. 2. chap. 17.  not for the Act or Operation only, but either for the Act, or promptitude to it, are necessary to Justification, etc.]  
And again, 
Ibid.  [Faith virtually includes the same mind in us that was in Christ, a readiness to do Works of every kind, which notwithstanding are not Associates of Faith in the business of Justification].  
And thus he reconcileth the two Apostles, who in this Point seem to differ, 
Ibid.  [St. James affirming we are justified by Works, and not by Faith only, speaks of the Passive Qualification in the Subject, or Party to be justified, or made capable of absolute Approbation, or final Absolation. This qualification supposed, St. Paul speaks of the Application of the Sentence, or of the ground of the Plea for Absolution: the one (by his Doctrine) must be conceived, and the other sought for only by Faith. The immediate and only cause of both he still contends not to be in us, but without us: and for this reason, when he affirms that we are justified by Faith alone, he considers not Faith as it is a part of our qualification inherent, or the foundation of other Graces, but as it includes the Correlative Term, or Immediate Cause of Justification, whereunto it alone hath peculiar reference, and continual aspect. This is that which in other terms some have delivered, Fides justificat relative, non 
* Not that Faithhath no efficiency at all in Justifying, but that it is not the Meritorious Cause of Justification.  effective, aut formaliter, etc.]  
Take a few words more from this Author, (Ibid.) [The Apostle levels his whole Discourse to this Poin● maintained by us, That seeing Righteousness was imputed to Abraham by Faith, and not through Works, none after him should in this life at any time, (N. B.) whether before or after the infusion of Grace, or Inherent Righteousness, presume to seek or hope for like approbation from God otherwise than only by Faith].  
How I exclude Love, I have showed, even as you do, viz. Love of Complacency, which you grant doth follow Acceptance, that Act of Faith by which we are justified. And when I say that Protestants generally deny Faith, which is without Works to justify, ●mean Faith which is without works when God doth call for them. You might easily have perceived this to be my meaning by what I said out of Cajetan de fide non sterili, sed faecunda operibus. A Tree is not said to be barren, except it doth not bring forth Fruit when the Season doth require.  
5. I showed you what I take to be meant Jam. 2. 23. when it is said, [And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness]; viz. That by Abraham's readiness to obey God in offering up Isaac, the truth of that Scripture did clearly appear, it was then most manifest, That Abraham believed God indeed, and that his Faith was a true Justifying-Faith, it being operative, and showing forth itself so evidently by Works of Obedience, when they were required of him; so that the Scripture did well and truly say of him, That he believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness.  
Cajetan doth explicate it (methinks) very well. 
In Loc.  Adverte (saith he) prudens Lector, quòd Jacobus non sentit fidem absque operibus mortuam esse, etc. Sed sentit fidem sine operibus, id est, renuentem operati, esse mortuam, esse vanam, & non justificantèm. Er rectè sentit, quonianis, quae non est paruta operari, mo●tua est. Suâpte enim naturâ operatur per dilectionem, ut Paulus dicit. Quodergo Jacobus affert verba, Gen. 15. [Credidit Abraham Deo, etc.] ad hoc affert, quodcredidit paratus operari. Er propereà dic●, quoth in opere oblationes filit impleta, inquam, est Scriptura loquens de fide Abrahae parata operari. Impleta, inquam, est quoad executionem maximi operis, ad quod parata erit fides Abrahae.  
〈◊〉 And though you make light of this interpretation of James, 
In Loc.  as if it were nothing against you; yet Calvin doubted not to say, Nodo insolubili constrictos teneo, quicunque justitiam Abrahae coram Deo imputatam fingunt, quia immolavit filium Isaac, qui nondum natus erat, quum Spiritus Sanctus pronunciat justum fuisse Abraham. Itaque necessario restat, ut aliqu●d posterius notari discamus. Quomodo igitur Jacobus id fuisse impletum dicit? Nempe oftendere vult, qualis illa futrit fides, quae justificavit Abraham, non otiosa scilicet, out evanida, sed quae illum Deo reddidit obsequentem; sicut etiam Heb. 11. 8. habetur.  
Calvin (it seems) never dreamt of being justified one way at first, 
* He is express against it. Instit. l. 3. c. 17. § 9  and another way afterwards. I would not have you put him off with a taunt, as you did before. Parcius ista tamen, etc.  
But let Mr. Blake also be heard speak, 
Of the Coven. c. 12. 79, 80  [James indeed (saith he) saith that Abraham was justified by Works, when he had offered Isaac his Son on the Altar, Jam. 2. 21. But either there we must understand a Working-Faith with Piscator, Bareus, Pemble, etc. and confess that Paul and James handle two distinct Questions, the one, Whether Faith alone justifies without Works? which he concludes in the Affirmative. The other, What Faith justifies, whether a Working-Faith only, and not a Faith that is dead & idle? Or else I know not how to make sense of the Apostle, who strait infers from Abraham's Justification by the offer of his Son; And the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness. How otherwise do these accord? He was justified by Works, and the Scripture was fulfilled, that saith, He was justified by Faith? Neither can I reconcile what he saith, if this be denied, with the whole current of the Gospel].  
And he adds a little after, [Alderman Works before or after Conversion, are inherent in us, or wrought by us, are excluded from Justification].  
Your Interpretations, viz. [Abraham believed, i. e. believed and obeyed]. Or, [Yet the Scripture was fulfilled, etc. For Faith did justify him, but not only Faith] are so uncouth and incongruous, that I wonder how you could persuade yourself, much more think to persuade others to embrace them. Paul citys those words to prove that Abraham was justified only by believing, and that Justification is by Faith only: And shall we admit of such an interpretation, [Faith doth justify, but not only?] Or [Abraham was justified by Believing and Obeying?] What is this else but to make the Scripture a nose of wax, and to wrest it which way we please? Yea; What is it else but to make the Scripture plainly to contradict it self? And yet (forsooth) you pretend to stand upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the plain words of Scripture. But Paul (you say) speaks of Justification as Begun; and that (you grant) is by Faith only? Well, and for proof of his Doctrine (say I) he allegeth the words of Moses concerning Abraham. Must not those words than be understood of the same Justification? Will you say with Bellarmine, that Paul speaking of the first Justification, doth fetch a proof from the second? As on the other side, he saith, that James, speaking of the second Justification, doth fetch a proof from the first? This is Caelum Terrae miscere, & Mare Caelo.  
6. For my interpretation of Jam. 2. 22. I did not only affirm it to be so, but also showed where the same phrase is so used, viz. 2 Cor. 12. 9 And I find that Orthodox Writers do parallel those places, and interpret the one by the other.  
Thus Camero; Fides (inquit) dicitur perfici operibue, 
Myroth. ad Jac. 2. 22.  quia Fides, dum producit opera, ostenait quam sit perfecta: ut 2 Cor. 12. 9 Virtus Christ dicitur perfict in infirmitatibus, quia tum scilicet se maximè exerit, & prodit.  
And so Maccovius; Fides fuit perfecta ex operibus, 
De Justif.  quomodo virtus Christi perficitur in infirmitate, 
Disp. 10.  2 Cor. 12. 9 quia in ea se exerit: consimili ratione Fides perfici per opera dicitur, quia per ea se prodit.  
Generally I find the words thus expounded by those that either comment upon them, or have occasion to treat of them.  
Dicitur ex operibus (saith Calvin) fuisse perfecta, 
In Loc.  non quòd inde suam perfectionem accipiat, sed quòd vera esse inde comprobetur.  
So Beza; Hoc igitur (inquit) ad declarationem quoque pertinet. 
In Loc.  Fides enim eo perfectior dicitur, 
Perfecta, i.e. perfectius cognita. Tremell. ad  quo pleniùs perspecta est, ac cognita, & quo efficaciùs vires suas exerit quae prius non ita apparebant.  
Fulke doth cite Beda thus expounding it; [His Faith was perfected by his Deeds, that is, by perfect execution of Works it was proved to be in his Heart]. 
Loc.   
Thus also Lud, de Dieu, Quatenus bona opera vitam fidei, 
In Loc.  ejusque vim, efficaciam, sinceritatem produnt, adeoque eam illustrant & exornant, rectè dicuntur persectio Fider.  
And so Polanus; 
Symphon.  Fides justificans perficitur ex bonis operibus, 
Cathol.  non quoad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu essentiam & constitutionem suam, 
Cap. 36.  sed quatenus per ea firmatur, manifestatur, comprobatur; 
Thesi 2.  sicut res aliqua tum fieri dicitur, quum patefit.  
And he citys the Interlineary Gloss upon Jam. 2. Per opera fides est augmentata & comprobata. 
Fides dicitur perfici per opera, quia per ease prodit Rivet.   
And Lyra; Et ex operibus fides consummata est. Habitus enim firmatur & manifestatur per opera. Et similiter magnitudo fidei Abrahae apparuit ex ejus obedientiae offerendo filium, propter quod dictum fuit sibi 〈◊〉 Domino; 
Disp. de Fide Justif. § 20.  Nunc cognori, etc.  
Thus also Mr. Ball, [Faith is perfected by Works, not that the Nature of Faith receiveth compliment or perfection from Works, 
Of Faith, Part 1. c. 4. p. 44.  but because it doth declare and manifest itself by Love and good Works, and is esteemed so much the more perfect, as the Works produced are the more excellent].  
To illustrate this, 
Animad. pag. 54.  I used also the Similitude of a Tree, the goodness of whose Fruit doth but manifest the goodness of it; 
Where I also cited Dr Preston thus expounding it, and using this similitude to illustrate it.  and so the power of Faith doth but appear by its fruits, viz. Works. You say that Faith is really perfected by Works, as a Tree is by bearing fruit. But (as our Saviour saith) a Tree is known by his Fruit. The Fruit doth not make the Tree good, but only show it to be so. And this very Similitude have Learned Divines used to this purpose.  
Beza immediately after the words before cited adds, Vt si dicatur alicujus arboris bonitas tum fuisse perfecta, quum optimum aliquem frractum edidit. Nam quia de causa judicamus ex effectus, videtur quodammodo ca●s● vis vel minu●, vel augeri ex effectorum proportione. Sed hoc ex effectis intelligitur quidem, & astimatur, non autem emanat.  
So Mr. Ball, 
Vbi supra.  [How then saith the Apostle that Faith is perfected by Works? As we judge of the Cause by the Effects, and by the proportion of the Effects the efficacy and force of the Cause may seem to be increased or diminished. Every thing is acknowledged to be perfect, when it worketh, and is esteemed so much the more perfect, by how much the more it worketh: As we say the goodness of a Tree is perfect, when it hath brought forth some excellent good Fruit. Thus Philosophers teach, That the Form is not perfect, when it is considered as the first Act, but when it is taken as the second Act; for by working it putteth forth its force, and declareth itself. And so Faith is perfected by Works, etc.] as before cited.  
You say also, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as a Covenant or Promise is by Performance. But the Performance doth only manifest the perfection of a Covenant or Promise. It is a perfect Covenant or Promise, as soon as it is made, if it be made sincerely and without guile, though it appears more fully to be so when it is performed. Again you say, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as it hath naturam medii, viz. Conditionis, to the Continuation and Consummation of Justification. But you have not yet proved, That there is any other Condition of Justification as Continued and Consummated, than of Justification as Begun.  
Apprehensio illa fidei habet fluxum suum continuum, 
In Gen. 15 Exercit. 73.  etc. (saith Rivet) Quod continuum beneficium fide apprehensum, si secundam Justificationem appellare velint adversarii, imò tertiam, quartam, quintam, & millesimam, non repugnamus, dummodo constet nullâ alia ratione (N. B.) nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus, quam câ, quâ semel justificati fuimus à precedentibus.  
St. James doth not speak of Works perfecting Faith more to the continuing and consummating of Justification, than to the beginning of it. For (which must ever be remembered) he speaks of Faith as apta nata operari: and such a Faith is requisite, that we may be justified as well at first as afterward. Otherwise Works neither at first nor afterward do concur with Faith to our Justification.  
[A preparation or promptitude of Heart (saith Mr. Ball) to good Works, 
Of Faith, Part 1. c. 4. p. 57  is an effect of Faith as immediate as Justification].  
And again, 
Ib. Part 2. c. 4. p. 253.  [Faith doth not begin to apprehend Life, and leave the accomplishment to Works, but doth rest upon the Promise of Life until we come to enjoy it].  
Yet again you say, That Faith is really perfected by Works, as Works are a part of that necessary Matter (not necessary at the first moment of Believing, but necessary afterward, when we are called to it) whereby we are justified against the Charge of non-performance of the New-Covenants Condition, even against the Charge of being an Unbeliever or an Hypocrite. But all this proves not that Works give any perfection to Faith, but only that they show the perfection, i.e. the sincerity, force, and efficacy of it. Works may manifest a Man to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite: but it is his Faith, which being unfeigned, doth indeed make him to be no Unbeliever or Hypocrite. All therefore that you have said, makes nothing against my interpretation of those words, Jam. 2. 22. [And by Works was Faith made perfect].  
7. Yourself deny necessitatem praesentiae operum in respect of our being justified at first. And for the Conducibility of Works to the effect of Justification, James speaketh not of it, but only shows, that Justifying Faith is not without Works, viz. when God doth call for them. He shows that Justifying-Faith is a Working-Faith, a Faith ready to Work when occasion doth require: But that Works do therefore conduce unto Justification as well as Faith, he doth not show, neither doth this any way follow upon the other. A Working-Faith is the Condition of Justification, i.e. Faith which is of such a nature as to bring forth the Fruit of good Works in due season; yet are we not therefore justified by Works as well as by Faith. For we are justified by Faith only apprehending Christ and his Righteousness; though the same Faith that doth this, will also produce good Works, as Abraham's Faith did. 
Fides sola justificat, quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum, & unica facultas, in nobis quâ recipimus justitiam, Christi.  That Works do justify the Faith, but not the Person, though I use not to speak so, yet I think may be said without any implication of Contradiction. It is true, Justificatio causae est etiam Justificatio personae, non simpliciter & absolutè, sed quoad istam causam: but they that use that distinction mean (I think) only this, that Works show Faith to be sound and good, yet it is Faith and not Works, by which a Man is simply and absolutely justified. Do not (I pray) here lay hold on the word [absolutely]; it is referred to the word [justified] not to the word [Faith]. I do not say, That Faith absolutely considered doth justify: no, it doth justify as it is considered relatively; 
Bucan.  Faith, i.e. Christ apprehended by Faith, 
Loc. 31. ad quast. 37.  is that whereby we are absolutely justified. Though Works may justify against the Accusation of being a final non-performer of the Condition (so I would say, not Conditions, in respect of the Justification of which we speak) of the New Covenant; yet do they not therefore simply and absolutely justify, but only against that Accusation, showing that a Man did perform the Condition, viz. believe, and so is simply and absolutely justified, not by Works (which do but only declare him to be so) but by Faith, as the Condition or Instrument (for I will use the terms promiscuously as others do) of Justification. Faith doth not justify as Working, i.e. as bringing forth the Fruit of good Works; yourself deny this in respect of our Justification at first: yet Faith doth not justify, except it be of a Working-Nature, i.e. of such a Nature as to work when God calls for it. More than this cannot be inferred from Jam. 24. as is clear by the Context.  
1. All Works, if good, are Works of the Law, viz. 
63.  the Moral Law, which (as I said in the Animadversions) is the eternal Rule of Righteousness. And of that Law the Apostle speaks, when he excludes Works from Justification, as appears by his Reasons which he useth for proof of his Assertion, Rom. 3. 20. Gal. 3. 10.  
Evangelii (inquit Maccovius) nulla sunt opera bona distincta à Lege formaliter. 
Thes.  Adversarii cum urgentur, 
Theolog.  ex operibus legis non justificari hominem, 
Part 1.  admittunt hoc, 
Disp. 16.  & dicunt, ita quidem esse, sed non proinde non justificari operibus Evangelii. Hinc distinguunt inter opera Legis & Evangelii. Sed si obtineat hac distinctio, tum utique dabuntur etiam peccata, quae committuntur 
* Nempe Solam, & non etiam in Doctrinam Legis.  in Doctrinam Evangelii: Non ergo erit adaequar●a definitio peccati, quam dat Spiritus Sanctus, 1 Joh. 3. 4. quòd peccatum sit Legis transgressio— At Evangelium distinguitur à Lege. Certè; interim Evangelii Doctrinae praecipitur Lege. Nam Deus postulat, ut Evangelio credamus, etc.  
So Pemble, 
Of Justif.  [Nor yet (saith he) hath this Distinction (viz. Works of the Law, 
Sect. 2.  and Works of the Gospel) any ground in Scripture, 
Chap. 2.  or in Reason. For both tell us, 
§. 2.  That the Works commanded in the Law, and Works commanded in the Gospel, are one and the same for the substance of them. What Work can be named, that is enjoined us in the New Testament, which is not commanded us in that summary Precept of the Moral Law, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul, etc. What is there against the Gospel, which is not a transgression of the Law?— You will say, It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answer, Yea, it doth. For that which commands us in general to believe whatever God shall propose unto us, commands us also to believe in Christ, as soon as God shall make known that it is his Will we should believe in him. The Gospel discovers to us the Object, the Law commands us the obedience of believing it].  
The Moral Law may be said to be a part of the New Covenant, as it requireth that they which have believed, be careful to maintain good works, Tit. 3. 8, 14. and to walk circumspectly (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuratè, 
Ad Loc.  i. e. quam proximè ad Legis Dei praecepta, as Beza doth well expound it), Ephes. 5. 15. But this is far, and very far too from proving Works to have a co-interest with Faith in the effect of justifying. For your Reasons why the Apostle doth not exclude all Works absolutely from Justification, I see no strength in them; and therefore I answer;  
Ad 1. That which you call Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief, is indeed Justification against the Accusation of Transgressing the whole Law. For that Accusation being only made void by Faith, where there is final Unbelief, there that Accusation hath its full force. Besides, though the Accusation of final Unbelief may be proved to be false by Works, yet Works upon this account do no otherwise justify, than by manifesting a Man's Faith, by which Faith indeed, and not by Works he is justified.  
Ad 2. So also that Justification which James speaketh of, is against a true Charge, and the same with Remission of sins, as well as that which Paul doth speak of. For can they that have but a dead Faith, be justified against a true Charge and have their sins remitted? Surely it must be a Living and a Working Faith, such as James doth require, can work that Effect. Justification against a false Accusation, is but such a Justification as the worst of Men and the Devils themselves are capable of.  
Nemo enim iniquus adco, 
De Justif. c. 3. §. 11.  (as Bradshaw speaketh) aut injustus dari potest, qui falsò accusari, & consequenter etiam eatenus merito justificari non possit.  
Indeed Justification against the Accusation of final Unbelief, is by consequence a Justification against all Accusations, because Faith is the Condition and Instrument of Universal Justification. But hence it follows that we are justified universally by Faith, and not by Works, which are only an Argument à posteriori of Faith, and so of Justification.  
Ad 3. All Works that have a co-interest with Faith in Justification, are Competitors with Christ, or Copartners with him; so that Justification must be partly by the Righteousness of Christ through Faith, and partly by Works.  
Ad 4. As the Righteousness of Christ is freely given or imputed at first upon condition of Faith, so is the free gift and imputation of it still continued upon the same condition of Faith; which Faith both when Justification is first begun, and when it is continued, must be a Working-Faith, i. e. ready to work as occasion doth require. If our Divines affirm, That the Apostle speaking against Justification by Works, means in point of merit, (as you say you could bring multitudes of them to this purpose) surely it is, because they know no other Justification by Works, but that which doth presuppose Works to be meritorious.  
Hear one whom I (and so I presume you also) take for a good Divine, 
Of the Coven. c. 12. p. 80.  viz. Mr. Blake, [This Justification (saith he) wrought freely by Grace through Faith, Rom. 3. 24. is no way consistent with Justification by Works. And what the Apostle speaks of Election, we may well apply to Justification: the same medium equally proves the truth of both; If by Grace, than it is no more of Works, otherwise Grace were no more Grace: But if it be of Works, than it is no more of Grace, otherwise Works were no more Works, Rom. 11. 6.]  
Calvin also useth this Argument to confute those who would have Works to concur with Faith unto Justification, that then we should have somewhat to boast of, which is not to be admitted. 
Instit. l. 3. c. 11. §. 13.  Sed quoniam (inquit) bona pars hominum justitiam ex fide & operibus compositam imaginatur, praemonstremus id quoque, sic inter se differre fidei operumque justitiam, ut altera stante necessariò altera evertatur. Dicit Apostolus se omnia pro stercoribus reputasse, ut Christum lucrifaceret, etc. (Phil. 3. 8, 9) Vides & contrariorum esse hîc comparationem, & indicari propriam justitiam oportere pro derelicto haberi ab eo, qui velit Christi justitiam obtinere.— Id ipsum quoque ostendit, cum negat per Legem excludi gloriationem nostram, sed per fidem. Vnde sequitur, quantisper manet quantulacunque operum justitia, manere nobis nonnullam gloriandi materiam. Jam si fides omnem gloriationem excludit, cum justitiâ fidei sociari nullo pacto justitia operum potest. In hunc sensum tam clarè loquitur quarto cap. ad Rom. ut nullum cavillis aut tergiversationibus locum relinquat. St operibus, inquit, justificatus est Abraham, habet gloriam. Subjungit, atque non habet gloriam apud Deum. Consequens ergo est, non justificatum esse operibus. Ponit deinde alterum argumentum à contrariis. Quum rependitur operibus merces, id fit ex debito, non ex gratiâ. Fidei autem tribuitur justitia secundum gratiam. Ergo id non est ex meritis operum. Valeat igitur eorum somnium, (N. B.) qui justitiam ex fide & operibus conflatam comminiscuntur.  
Who those multitudes of Divines be of whom you speak, I cannot tell, because you name none; but I think that few or none of them will be found of your mind, viz. That Paul doth only exclude Works from Justification in point of merit; as if Justification might be by Works in some other respect, so as that no merit thereby is presupposed. So far as I observe, our Divines note this as one main Argument, whereby the Apostle doth wholly exclude Works from Justification, because otherwise the merit of Works could not be denied, which yet is to be exploded.  
Thus the Centurists among many other Arguments, 
Cent. 1.  whereby the Apostles (they say) prove Justification to be by Faith alone, 
lib. 2. c. 4.  note this for one; 
Col. 257.  Non est gloriandum in nobis, 
Arg. 26.  sed in Domino. Ergo non ex operibus, sed gratis justificamur, ne quis glorietur, Ephes. 2. 1 Cor. 1.  
Ad 5. All good Works (as I have showed before) and consequently those whereby we perform obedience to the Redeemer, are works of the Law, it being the Rule to which they must be conformed. But it is Faith in the Redeemer, not Obedience to the Redeemer, by which we are justified, though Justifying-Faith must, and will show itself by Obedience.  
Ad 6. All Works that have an agency in Justification, are meritorious, and so make the Reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace. Now to your Answers to my Arguments in oppositum I reply; And for the first thus; If Abraham's Gospel-Works did justify him otherwise than by evidencing his Faith, whereby he was justified, if they be made to have a co-interest with Faith in his Justification, than they are set in Competition or Copartnership with Christ's Righteousness.  
That no Work of the Gospel doth justify; 
Of Justif. §. 2. ch. 2. §. 2.  Mr. Pemble proveth by this, That every Work of the Gospel, is a Work of the Law also; and therefore the Apostle denying that a Man is justified by the Works of the Law, 
See Rivet as cited pag. 145.  doth consequently deny that he is justified by the Works of the Gospel. That Works do justify as Conditions under Christ, is repugnant to what yourself hold in respect of Justification as begun: and I see not, that the Scripture shows us any other Condition of Justification afterward than at first.  
2. My Conclusion, That Abraham was not justified by Works, but by Faith, is not against Jam. 2. 21. no more than Paul's Doctrine Rom. 3. & 4. is. For I mean, as Paul doth, That Abraham's Works did not concur with his Faith to his Justification: but James meant only, That Abraham's Faith was not such as some presume of a dead idle Faith, but a living working Faith; and that his Works did manifest his Faith to be such as whereby he was justified.  
Cum obtulisset (inquit Bucanus) Abraham Isaac filium suum super altar, 
Lo●. Com.  ex operibus justificatus est, 
Loc. 3● ad quaest. 39  hoc est, compertus est fuisse justificatus per fidem, idque ex operibus tanquam testimoniis Justificationis. Et sic homo operibus justificatur, id est, comprobatur esse illa persona, quae Christi obedientiâ justificatur, ex vitae sanctificatione quae tanquam effectus illam sequitur, & de illa testatur. Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsonum operibus. Nam sunt duo principia, unum existentiae, alterum cognitionis. Ità fides principium existentiae facit, ut simus justi. Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt, ut cognoscamur justi. Ideo Dominus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fidei, quod incurret in oculos omnium creaturarum, Mat. 25. Venite benedicti, etc.  
For the second; 1. The Apostle Rom. 4. 4. speaketh without any distinction, To him that worketh, etc. Now (as you know) non est distinguendum, ubi lex non distinguit.  
2. If Works justify, than they must be meritorious. The Apostle doth not simply deny a Reward to belong of Grace to him that worketh, but to him that worketh so as to be justified by his Works. Such an one having no need of remission of sins, because his Works do justify him, (which they cannot do if they be imperfect, and so he need pardon) he is said to receive the Reward, not of Grace, but of Debt.  
3. Faith as a 
* Fides non justificat quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi. Rivet. Disput. de Fide Justif. Sect. 19  Work is excluded from Justification, only it justifieth as an Instrument or Hand receiving Christ and his Righteousness. Or (which is to the same effect) Faith doth not justify, as it is a Duty, which if we perform not we sin; but as a Condition upon which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us for our Justification. You are not to be blamed for making use o● Bellarmine's Argument, (for so indeed it is, not his Answer) but for not taking notice how our Divines do answer it. See Ames. contra. Bellar. tom. 4. lib. 5. cap 4. ad 6. Love, 
Fides sola justificat, quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum, & unica facultas in nobis, quâ recipimus justitiam Christi. Bucan. Loc. 31. ad quaest. 37.  Hope, and Obedience are not Instruments of receiving Christ, as Faith is; neither doth the Scripture make them Conditions of Justification, as it doth Faith.  
For the Third; 1. Neither doth James speak of any other Justification.  
2. The imperfection of Faith proves that none are justified by it, as a Work or Duty, but only as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness; See Calv. Instit. lib. 3. cap. 11. §. 7. And Pemble of Justif. Sect. 2. chap. 2. pag. 38.  
3. No more do the greatest Transgressor's need pardon for that wherein they do not transgress.  
4. Works as Works either justify by way of merit, or not at all: But Faith doth not justify as a Work or Duty required of us, but as an Instrument receiving Christ, or (if you will) a Condition whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified; See Pemble of Justif. §. 2. chap. 1. pag. 24.  
The Exclusion (viz. of Works from being concurrent 
64.  with Faith unto Justification) is not only Mr. Pemble's, but generally all Protestants, and indeed Paul's and the Scriptures: and to take in Works (in that sense) is as Mr. Blake before cited truly saith, against the whole current of the Gospel.  
1. To deny the Scripture to mean as you interpret it, 
Ibid. & 65.  is not to deny it to mean as it speaketh. Whether the Reasons which I alleged against your interpretation of St. James be forced, let others judge.  
2. It avails your cause nothing to prove, That James by working doth mean Works indeed. I presume Mr. Pemble would not deny that, but his meaning (I conceive) was, That Works are only spoken of as Fruits of Justifying Faith, and are only said to justify, because they are (as Dr. Jackson speaketh) a passive qualification in the Subject or Party to be justified.  
[Hence (saith he also) is the seeming inconvenience of St. James his Causal form of Speech (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) easily answered. 
Of Justifying Faith, §. 2. ch. 17. § 7.  For the immediate and principal cause proposed, it is usual to attribute a kind of causality to the qualification of the Subject, though only requisite as a mere passive disposition, without which the principal or sole Agent shall want his efficacy].  
All that St. James intended is this, That Justifying Faith is of a Working-nature, and not such a Faith as some rely on, viz. barren and without Works. Now for your Reasons, I answer, Ad 1. You speak of the unprofitableness of bare Faith, i. e. (say you) Assent. But quorsum hoc? You know that Protestants make Faith to justify, not as it is a bare Assent, but as it is a Receiving of Christ, and a Recumbency on him.  
Fides haec justificans (saith Ames.) non est illa generalis, 
Medulla. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 15, 16.  quâ in intellectu assensum praebemus veritati in Sacris literis revelatae, etc. Fides igitur illa propriè dicitur justificans, quâ incumbimus in Christum ad remissionem peccatorum, & salutem. And this Faith they hold not barren; but fruitful in good Works; though not Works, but Faith itself (apprehending and applying Christ) be it, whereby we are justified.  
Id fidei exclusiuè tribuendum ex eo constat, 
Disp. de Fide Just. §. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. de  quod sola est fides, quae Dco promittenti credit, quae sola acquiescit in gratuitâ promissione Dei in Christo, & remissionem peccatorum apprehendit, etc. Vnde etiam sequitur, Fidem non justificare, quatenus est opus justitiae, sed quatenus apprehendit justitiam Christi, etc. Nec Jacobus dissentit à Paulo, quamvis alio modo loquendi utatur, ut redarguat eos, qui seipsos fallebant inani fidei justificationem tribuentes, quam probat non esse veram 〈◊〉 exemplo Charitatis, quae nullam vim habet, si tota sit in verbis, c. 2. 16. Operibus autem justificari apud Jacobum, idem est, quod apud Paulum, 1 Tim. 3. 16. justificari spiritu, i. e. Vi spiritus dare sui experimentum, quomodo experimentum dedit Abraham fidei suae, offerendo filium suum: & homo probatus fit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tentatione, Jac. 1. 12. quae probatio non facit ut res sit, sed per experientiam docet rem esse. Vnde etiam fides dicitur perfici per opera, quia per ea se prodit. Ergo cum Paulo vult Jacobus, hominem justificari fide, sed uterque eâ, quae sui experimentum dat per opera: etsi neuter vult opera esse justificationis causas, aut ad justitiam coram Deo accepta●i, quorum primum volunt Pontificii, alterum Sociniani & Remonstrantes. Concludimus cum Apostolo, & colligimus, fide justificari hominem absque operibus Legis, Rom. 3. 28. sub quibus comprehendimus quaelibet opera, quae secundum Legem fiunt, etiam à sanctis & fide●ibus. Cum enim inter Legem factorum sive operum, & Legem fidei distinguat Apostolus, ibid. v. 27. si ex operibus justificemur, Legis operum & fidei distinctio 〈◊〉 vana, & Argumentum ex eâ deductum pro fidei justificatione nut abit; quod absurdum ut vitemus, scientes non justificari hominem ex operibus Legis, sed tantum per fidem Jesu Christi; etiam nos in Jesum Christians credimus, ut justificemur ex fide Jesu Christi, non ex oper●●s Legis, Gal. 2. 22. Sed cum eodem Apostolo fidum esse hunc sermonem affirmamus studendum esse ●is, qui credideruat Deo, ut bona opera tueantur, Tit. 3. 8. ut purificemus nos ab omni inquinamento, etc. 2. Cor. 7. 1. quod cum fiat de die in diem, 2 Cor. 4. 16. quamdiù caro concupiscit adversus Spiritum, etc. Gal. 5. 17: in eo non possumus coram Deo justificari. Name in justificando partialem justitiam Deus non respicit, sed perfectâm & plenam, quia Lex maledicit omnibus, qui non permanebunt in omnibus quae praecipit, Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10.  
I have been the larger in citing this Author, both because he is eminent, and also doth speak so fully to the Point, and doth meet with many of your Opinions.  
But to proceed, It is Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, which St. James opposeth one to the other, viz. Faith which is a bare Assent, and without Works, such a Faith as the Devils have, and Faith which is moreover an embracing of Christ, and the mercy of God in Christ, and is attended with Works as the Fruits and Effects of it, as the Faith of Abraham and Rahab was. Though therefore he concludes, That Faith cannot save him that hath not Works, yet i● follows not that Works concur with Faith unto Justification, but only that a Justifying Faith will show itself by Works.  
Ad 2. It is granted, That Faith which is no more than a bare Assent, is neither Justifying nor Saving: But what of this? Is there no other Faith than Assent? Do not you yourself make Acceptance, which is more than Assent, the completing Act of Justifying Faith? And how can you say, That there is the same force ascribed to Works as to Faith, when you make Justification at first to be by Faith without Works? Indeed Works are requisite in their place, but not as having the like force with Faith unto Justification, (show any Orthodox Writer that doth hold so) though as necessary Fruits of that Faith, by which we are justified. Say not that you speak of Justification as continued, for Works, as St. James doth speak of them, are as necessary unto Justification at first as afterward, viz. a promptitude and readiness to do good Works: if this be wanting, it is no Justifying Faith, but (as St. James calls it) a dead Faith; altogether vain and unprofitable.  
Ad 3. That Faith without Works is a hardening of Unbelievers, I grant: sed quid tum postea? Do therefore Works justify as well as Faith? But I do not think that St. James brings in (chap. 2. 18.) an Unbeliever so speaking. For how should an Unbeliever (a professed Unbeliever, we mean; for you use to distinguish betwixt an Unbeliever and an Hypocrite) speak of his Faith, saying, [And I will show thee my Faith?]  
Calvin doth far better interpret it, 
In Loc.  saying, Jacobus dicit, promptum fore piis sanctè viventibus, excutere hypocritis talem jactantiam, quâ inflati sunt.  
Ad 4. The Devils have a true Belief, i. e. a true Assent; but there is more than Assent in Justifying Faith, even that Faith whereby we are justified at first, as yourself do hold. And you confess also that Faith doth justify at first without Works; yet (say I) not except it be of a Working-nature, i.e. ready to Work, when Works are required: and otherwise than as Fruits of Justifying Faith Works do not justify neither at first nor afterward.  
Ad 5. Faith without Works is dead, as to the effect of Justification, even altogether unprofitable, i. e. Faith renuens operari, or which is not parata operari, as Cajet an doth well express it. 
In Jac. 2.  But this is nothing to prove a Co-interest of Works with Faith in point of Justification; it only proves, That Justifying Faith is of a working Nature. Whereas you add, [Still here the opposite part on one side is Faith and Works, and on the other side Faith without Works]; this doth nothing hinder, but that the opposition is (as I said) betwixt Faith and Faith, i. e. several kinds of Faith, whereof the one is accompanied with Works, and the other not; the one is operative and fruitful, the other idle & barren. That Abraham was justified not only by that Faith that did work, but also by Works, is more than St. James doth say, and is directly contradictory to what St. Paul saith. Indeed it is more than you can say, without your distinction of Justification Begun and Continued; which distinction St. James never thought of. For surely Justification cannot be at first by a dead and unprofitable Faith, as he affirms that to be, which is without Works. That in Jam. 2. 22. cannot be meant that Faith by Works is made perfect, as accomplishing its ends, but only as thereby declared and manifested to be perfect. The end of Faith is to justify; and yourself say, That Faith at first doth justify without Works: so that in your Opinion Faith without Works is perfect, accomplishing its end in justifying at first. But in St. James his sense Faith doth not, cannot at all justify without Works, i. e. if it be not ready to work: and in that respect Works do perfect Faith, i. e. they make the perfection of Faith to appear: but of that enough before.  
Ad 6. And so of that also in Jam. 2. 23. enough hath been said already. That Faith alone is the Condition of the Initiation; but Faith and Obedience of the Confirmation, Continuation, and Consummation of Justification, you often say, but never prove. Sure I am James doth exclude Faith, which is without Works, viz. when God doth call for them, from the very Initiation of Justification. For he makes such a Faith as unprofitable as the Faith of Devils, who surely are so far from Justification, that they have not so much as the initiation of it.  
Ad 7. You can never make more of that Conclusion Jam. 2. 24. than that a Man is justified by a Working Faith, or by a Faith which produceth Works, and so by his Works appears to be justified. The words if taken without any qualification, are against yourself, who will have a Man justified at first by Faith without Works. If you will distinguish of Justification as at first, and as afterward, to make the Apostle agree with your meaning, though indeed it will not serve: Shall not others have leave to explain the Apostle so, as to make him agree not only with them, but also with himself, and the whole current of the Gospel? The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there imports no more than if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as appears by the whole series of the Discourse, and more particularly by ●▪ 17. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [by itself] i. e. alone without the concomitancy of Works, as the Fruits of it. Beza renders it per se; Tremellius out of the Syriack Sola: the Vulgar Latin hath in semetipsa, which Cajetan corrects, saying, pro per se, and that he expounds, hoc est sola. Wherein I suppose he followed Erasmus, whose Annotation on the place is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. per se, hoc est, sola.  
Ad 8. Rahab was justified by Works so as Abraham was, and all must be, even when they are first justified, viz. by a Faith prompt and ready to work when occasion doth require.  
Ad 9 Our Divines by Faith understand a Sound and Orthodox Belief, i. e. Assent; and such is the Faith of the Devils spoken of Jam. 2. 19 such a Faith may be without Works, and so is dead, i.e. unprofitable: but that is not the Justifying Faith which our Divines do speak of, (as I have showed before) who hold that Faith alone doth justify without Works, though withal they hold that Faith which doth justify is not alone without Works, viz. when God doth call for them; and this is all that St. James urgeth. Your own Analysis doth evince no more than this, save that now and then you put a wrong gloss upon the Text, and ever and anon come in with your distinction betwixt the Initiation and the Continuation of Justification, quite besides, yea and against St. James his meaning, as (I think) I have sufficiently demonstrated.  
Oecumenius a Greek Scholiast doth expound St. James, 
In Jac. 2.  and reconcile him with St. Paul, after the same manner as I and others do; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sometimes (he saith) Faith is taken for a bare Assent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so the Devils believe: Sometimes it notes also a disposition joined with assent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. James (he saith) considereth Faith in the former sense, St. Paul in the latter. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
To conclude, It is not Faith as working that doth justify, but Faith as apprehending Christ and his Righteousness: Yet that Faith which doth apprehend Christ and his Righteousness, and so doth justify, is a Working Faith. Yourself grant that Works are not necessary quoad praesentiam, in respect of Justification as begun: and that they are necessary quoad effectum justificationis, in respect of Justification as continued, is more (I presume) than ever will be proved.  
1. I let pass those things which you speak of Calvin, 
65, etc.  because I see nothing but bare words. As for Clemens Rom. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and the rest, who for 1000 years after Paul (you say) give as much to Works as you ever did, or more, and make Faith to justify as a Condition, and 
* To make Faith to be a Condition, is not to deny it to be an Instrument: Our Divines sometimes term it the one way, sometimes the other, as I have before showed.  not as an Instrument, whatever forced scraps some may gather out of a Line against the full scope of the whole Page or Book; I wish you had cited some Books, or Pages, or but Scraps, as you call them, whereby to make good what you say, I am not of such Reading, much less of such Memory, as to give an account of so many Authors. Some of them either wholly or in part I have read, but I do not remember where they do ex professo treat of Justification, and therefore I do not marvel if they do not speak so accurately of it.  
But for the Opinion of the Ancient Writers in this Point, I shall refer you unto some who were much better versed in ●●em than I am, viz. Fulk on Jam. 2. 4. Davenant de Justit. Habit. cap. 25. where he answereth Bellarmine's Allegations, and cap. 29. where he produceth his own.  
And Eckhard Compend. Theolog. Lib. 2. cap. 3. who allegeth chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Cyril, Austin and Bernard, as holding Christ's Righteousness to be imputed into us for our Justification. And he allegeth Ambrose, Hierome, Athanasius, Clemens Alex▪ Origen, Nazianzen, chrysostom, Basil, Theodoret, Hesychius, Primasius, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, Sedulius, M●xentius, Theodulus, Fortunatus, Victor▪ Mar. and Bernard, as testifying that we are justified by Faith alone without Works; and yet he saith he doth but aliquot ex vetusta anti●●● eaten tesiamonia, quod ad hanc rem spectat, delibare.  
Beda, omitted by Eckhard, 
De Statu & Success. etc. cap. 2. pag. 46.  is cited by B. Usher as writing on Psal. 77. thus, Per justitiam factorum nullus salvabetur, sed per solam justitiam fides.  
To your other Query concerning Calvin▪ P. Martyr, etc. I answer in the words of Amesius, 
Contra Bell. tom. 4 lib. 5. c. 2. §. 22.  Fides specialis misericordia duplici ratione sic vocatur. 1. Quâ Christum apprehendit, vel innititur ipsi ad specialem misericordiam per ipsum apprehendendam. 2. Qua misericordia specialem jam donatam apprehendit: priore sensu justifi●ationem antecedit, posteriore sensu sequitur justificatio●em. Sed quia una & eadem est fides, quae misericordiam Dei in Christo specialiter applicat apprehendendo, & applicationem illam jam factam certam reddit, & perfectio vel consolatio ejus in h●c certitudine apparet, quam etiam hosts gratis precipuè impugnant, idcircò per istam certitudinem (quae tamen quoad sensum à fide potest ad tempus separari) fides justifican● solet à multis describe.  
And again, 
Medul. l. 1. c. 27. §. 19  Fides ista justificans suâ naturâ producit, atque adeò conjunctam secum habet specîal●m ac certam persuasionem de gratiâ ac misericordiâ Dei i● Christo. Vnde etiam per istam persuasionem fides justificans non malè soepè describitur ab Orthodoxis, prefertim cum impugnant generalem illam fidem, cui omnia tribuunt Pontificii. Sed 1. ista persuasio quoad sensum ipsius non semper adest.— 2. Varii sunt gradus hujus persuasionis, etc.  
2. By Apprehending, I do not mean bare Assent, but Embracing, or Receiving, or Applying.  
Amesius citys and approves these words of Contarenus; 
Contra Bellar. loco proximè citato.  Accipimus justificationem per fidem. Hanc acceptationem Thomas in 3. appellat applicationem, inquien● passionem Christi esse veluti Medicinam communem, quam quisque sibi applicat per fidem & Sacramenta: Protestants appellant apprebensionem, non eâ significatione, qua pertinet a● cognitionem intellectus, sed qua illud dicimur apprehendere, quo pervenimus, & quod post motum nostrum attingimus.  
I think that although Justifying-Faith doth receive Christ entirely, yet as Justifying it receiveth him only in respect of his Satisfaction, which is the Righteousness by which we are justified. There is no danger in this Doctrine, so long as People are taught withal, that they must not look to have Christ as a Priest satisfying for them, except they also have him as a King reigning over them. Neither doth it seem to me any gross conceit, That apprehending or applying of Christ's Satisfaction, or of Christ as satisfying for us, is that act of Faith whereby we are justified. Your Similitude doth not suit; because a Husband cannot be offered to a Woman in several respects, as Christ may be unto a Sinner. I do not conceive Faith to justify modo Physico, or merely because it is of that nature to apprehend Christ and his Righteousness: If it were not for the Promise of the Gospel, this Act of Faith would not avail. As suppose the Devils should apprehend the Righteousness of Christ, yet should they not be justified, because the Promise of the Gospel doth not belong unto them. Yet this apprehending of Christ and his Righteousness being the Physical Act of Faith, and withal made the Condition of Justification, in that the Gospel doth promise Justification unto those that apprehend Christ and his Righteousness; I see not but I may well say, That Faith doth justify us, apprehending Christ and his Righteousness, this being it which the Gospel doth require unto Justification. Faith as apprehending Christ being the Condition of Justification, it is all one to say, Faith doth justify as apprehending Christ, and Faith doth justify as the Condition required unto Justification. Whereas therefore you prove, That Faith or Acceptance of Christ simply considered in itself doth not justify; it is nothing to me, who do not ascribe any thing to Faith in order to Justification as it is considered simply in itself, but as it being of such a nature is in that respect required of us, to that end that we may be justified. And thus (I think) do others mean, when they say, That Faith doth justify as apprehending Christ, and his Righteousness: they do not (I suppose) exclude, but include the requiring of Faith in this respect as a Condition of Justification.  
Pemble having said, [We are justified by Faith, i.e. by the Righteousness of Christ, 
Of Justif. §. 2. c. 1. p. 27.  the benefit whereof unto our justification we are made partakers of by Faith, as the only Grace which accepts of the Promise, and gives us assurance of the Performance]. He adds a little after, [He that looked on Christ believing in him, may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith, not for the worth, and by the efficacy of that Act of his, but as it is the Condition of the Promise of Grace, that must necessarily go before the Performance of it unto us; upon our obedience whereunto, God is pleased of his free Grace to justify us].  
But still notwithstanding all you say, my Argument remains good; [Works concur not with Faith in apprehending Christ, therefore they concur not with it in justifying]. The Consequence is good, because Faith as apprehending Christ is made the Condition of Justification. For this is that which Believing in, or on Christ, doth import, which is put as equivalent to the receiving of Christ, Joh. 1. 12. That Repentance and Obedience do concur with Faith in being Conditions of Contitinued and Consummate Justification, you only affirm, but do not prove. Indeed Repentance as taken for an acknowledgement of, and sorrow for sin, is requisite unto Justification at first. For how should we ever look unto Christ as suffering for our sins, except we be sensible of them, and humbled for them. Yet it is Faith apprehending Christ, which in the Covenant is made the Condition of our Justification, as that whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, by which we are justified. It is neither Repentance, nor Obedience, though Repentance (in the sense beforementioned) must go before this Justifying-Faith, and so before Justification; and obedience must follow after.  
Penitentia (saith Ames.) quatenus est legalis humiliatio antecedit quidem justificationem, 
Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 4. §. 5.  ut dispositio ex ordine praerequisita, sed non ut causa. Resipiscentia Evangelica vel notat conversionem totam, cujus primaria pars est fides, ut Act. 11. & Ezech. 18. vel est ipsa fides justificantis, atque adeo ipsius justificationis effectum, qualis fuit poenitentia illa ad salutem, 2 Cor. 7. 10. Quotunque modo accipiatur, dolour ac detestatio peccati non potest esse causa justificans, quia (N. B.) non habet vim applicandi nobis just 〈◊〉 Christi. Acquisitio talis boni non consistit in aversatione mali. Resipisientia & fides differentia hac indigitatur, Act. 20. 21. Resipiscentia in Deum, & fides in Dominum Nostrum jesum Christum. See also Mr. Ball of the Coven. c. 3. p. 18, 19  
1. You need not trouble yourself to prove, 
69, etc.  That by Works are meant Works. For surely a working Faith, or a Faith bringing forth the Fruit of Works, doth imply Works. But the Question is, Whether Works concur with Faith in justifying, or only are inseparable Attendants, and necessary Fruits of that Faith which justifieth. You hold the former, yet only in respect of continued and consummate Justification: I hold the latter in respect of Justification begun, continued, and consummate. Whether of us hath more ground from Scripture, let it be judged by what hath been said about it.  
But 1. whereas you say, That Works are still opposed to Faith without Works, or Faith alone, and not to this or that sort of Faith: I have showed before from Oecumenius (not to speak of our late Writers) that there is one sort of Faith that is with Works, or of a working Disposition, and such is Faith truly apprehending Christ: and another sort of Faith, that is without Works, viz. a bare Assent: and that St. James doth oppose these two sorts of Faith one to the other, teaching that we are justified by the former, not by the latter.  
2. You say, [It is not only Faith alone without a working disposition, but Faith alone without Works themselves when there is opportunity]; yet yourself deny not only the efficacy, but even the presence of Works to be requisite, when we are at first justified: and St. James denies Faith alone (so as he doth speak of it) to have any force at all to justify, as being dead and unprofitable. Therefore you must needs grant, That it is Faith alone, without a working Disposition of which St. James speaketh. Besides, if there be a working Disposition, there will be Works themselves when there is opportunity. But all this doth only prove, That Justifying Faith is of a working Disposition, and produceth Works themselves when opportunity is offered: That Works do at any time concur with Faith unto Justification, it no way proveth.  
3. Surely a disposition to feed the hungry, is accepted of God, when there is no opportunity to do the thing itself. And so a Disposition to work may be enough to prove Faith to be of a right stamp, though Works themselves be requisite when there is opportunity: and still I must put you in mind, that yourself requires no more than a disposition to work, when we are first justified.  
4. What you can infer from Jam. 2. 13. I do not see. He that expects mercy from God, must show mercy to his Neighbour. Doth it therefore follow, that Works of Mercy justify as well as Faith? No, but that Justifying Faith must and will show itself by Works of Mercy.  
5. A real Faith being but a bare Assent, as in the Devils, cannot justify or save. Who opposeth this? Or whom doth it oppose? So, that the same Faith is justifying and saving, I think all will yield: yet is there more required unto Salvation, as taken for the accomplishment of it, than unto Justification.  
6. Who makes James v. 18. to speak such nonsense as you tell of? Do they, who say his meaning is, That Faith is pretended in vain, if it do not show itself by Works, as occasion doth require? And what more can any gather from v. 20, 22, 24, 26? You might save your labour of proving, That by Works are meant Works; you should prove that Works are spoken of as concurring with Faith, and as having a co-interest with it in the effect of justifying, and not only as Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. This is that which they mean, who say that James doth speak of a working Faith, i.e. a Faith ready to work, and so actually working, when God doth require it, not as if instead of [Works] it were good sense always to put [a working Faith]. Such sophistry doth not become us.  
7. That James doth assert the necessity of Works, as fruits of Justifying Faith, is ever granted: that he doth assert the necessity of them as concurrent with Faith unto Justification, is never proved. Works are therefore necessary to prove Faith to be such as God requires unto Justification.  
Against this first you say, James doth make Works or Working necessary to justify; I say, he doth not, but only drives at this, That none must think to be justified by Faith, except it be a working Faith, as Abraham's and Rahab's was. You say, [The Soul doth not truly signify the Body to be alive]. But the word Jam. 2. 26. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Breath, which is but an effect of Life, and not a cause of it.  
[Thus (saith Pemble) the comparison is exact; 
Of Grace and Faith, pag. 240.  As the Body without Breath is dead, so is Faith without Works].  
So Downam; 
Appendix to the Doctrine of the Certainty of Salvation.  [Neither doth St. James compare Works to the Soul, but to the Breath, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (derived of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Breath) doth properly signify, etc. So that the meaning of St. James is, As the Body without Breath is dead, even so Faith without Works (which are as it were the breathing of a lively Faith) is dead].  
But if by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there be meant the Soul, as 1 Cor. 6. ult. I hope you will not so understand it, as to compare Faith to the Body, and Works to the Soul, as if Works were the Soul of Faith, and so did give Life unto it: whereas indeed Faith doth produce Works, and Works do but evidence Faith, and the lively power of it.  
[The Apostle (saith Fulk) in this Similitude doth not make Faith the Body, 
On Jam. 2. ult.  and Works the Soul; but Works the Argument of the Life and Soul of Faith, which is trust in God, etc.]  
2. God (you say) needs no Signs. Well, but God (say I) requiring such a Faith, whereof Works are Signs, as Fruits and Effects of it, we must look to the signs of our Faith, to find it such as God requires of us to our Justification. Maccovius (it seems) met with the Objection; 
De Justif. Disp. 10. ubi plura in hanc rem videre licet.  At Deo non est opus experimento. Resp. Hoc sane verum est: at non proinde sequitur homines non praebere sui experimentum Deo.  
3. Faith may be real, and yet not justifying. A real Assent, yea and Consent, if limited, so as to exclude Christ's dominion over us, is not that Faith which your Opposers plead for.  
4. The New Testament doth make a working Faith, yet not Faith as working the Condition of Justification. I wonder how you can stumble at this, when as you constantly hold, That we are justified at first by Faith without Works: yet surely that Faith whereby we are justified at first, is a working Faith, i.e. of a working Nature, and will, when there is opportunity, show itself by Works. That working therefore is together with Faith the Condition of Justification, is more than your own Principles will admit, without that distinction of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued, of which though you make much use, yet I see little ground for it. Now for Dr. Preston's words, which I cited, I think they are clear enough against you.  
For first he saith, That Faith alone justifieth and maketh Works only Concomitants or Fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. You limit it to Justification as begun, but he speaks of Justification simply considered, and not as begun only.  
2. He speaks indeed of a double Justification, but not as you do, nor to that intent to bring in a double Righteousness as requisite unto Justification. All that he intends is this, That we are justified only by Faith, according to Paul's Doctrine; yet (as James teacheth) our Faith must appear to be a true Justifying Faith by Works, otherwise it is but a false and feigned Faith, as it pretendeth to be Justifying, and he that pretendeth it, is a Hypocrite. His words without doing violence unto them, can have no other sense put upon them. When any one is accused of being but a seeming Believer, or a mere Believer without Obedience, take Believing merely as it is the Condition of Justification by the Covenant, it is but (as I have often said) the making good this Accusation, That he is a Transgressor of the Law, and to be condemned by the Law for the transgression of it, and so much the more in that he neglected the benefit offered in the New Covenant. So that in this case to justify a Man by his Faith and Works, is but indeed to plead that he is justified by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto him through Faith, which Faith is proved to be sound and good by his Works.  
1. I see you are very tenacious of your Opinion: but if you will not forsake your Opinion till you see better Arguments to draw you from it, marvel not if others will not embrace your Opinion till they see better Arguments to draw them to it. But to the Matter; Methinks you might easily see the meaning of this, that Abraham's first Justification could not be by Faith, which was without Works, i.e. by Faith, which was not of a working Nature.  
Thus in that very page (52.) I explained myself, saying, [Faith if it be alone without Works, i.e. renuens operari, &c. cannot justify].  
2. Do not you see that your Answer is to no purpose in limiting the words of the Apostle to Continued and Consummate Justification, whereas he doth utterly exclude Faith, which is without Works, or which is not of a working Disposition, from being able to justify, as being a Faith that is dead and unprofitable?  
That which you so slight, 
In Jac. 2. 23.  as if it were indignus vindice nodus, Calvin (a Man as likely to see into the Apostle's meaning as another) calls nodum insolubilem, as I have before noted. That more Conditions are required unto Justification afterward than at first, is more than I can find, and more (I am persuaded) than will ever be proved. Did Paul when he speaketh so much of Justification by Faith without Works, viz. as concurring with Faith unto Justification, mean that we are so justified indeed to day, but not so to morrow, or some time after? All his Arguments show the contrary. Yea, doth he not prove from Gen. 15. 6. that Abraham was justified only by Believing, when as yet that was not the beginning of his Justification? So when James saith, That we are not justified by Faith, which is without Works, such a Faith being dead, and no better than the Faith of Devils; was his meaning this, That hereafter indeed we cannot be so justified, but yet at present we may? If you be of this mind, Non equidem invideo, miror màgis.  
3. Of the sense of James his Discourse enough before. And for v. 17. I think it might easily let you see that he speaketh not (as you suppose) only of Continued and Consummate Justification, but of Inchoated also, and consequently that he cannot be interpreted otherwise than thus, That Faith which doth not show itself by Works, is dead, ineffectual, and of no force to justify, either at first or afterward, as not being that Faith which is required unto Justification, viz. a working Faith, or Faith which is of a working Nature. I have noted before what Oecumenius (one that was long before either Calvin or Luther) saith upon that very Verse, as also how in the judgement of the Syriack Interpreter, and other Learned Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is to be understood.  
1. Though Faith may be true and real without Works, 
Ibid.  yet a living Faith it is not; for a living Faith is operative, so that, a working Faith, and a non-working Faith are of different Natures, this being but a bare and naked Assent, but the other an apprehending of Christ, and a receiving of him. I little doubt but the Faith of Devils, and the Faith of Men who are justified (even at first, when you say Works are not requisite in respect of their presence with Faith, though that Faith (say I) is of a working Disposition), differ much in their very Nature.  
2. If you will be true to your own Principles, you cannot say, That Works make Faith alive, or that Faith is not alive without Works as actually present, though you consider Faith merely as a Condition of Justification, seeing you hold Faith to be alive in that respect, when we are first justified, though there be no Works present with it. And though, as there must be a promptitude to Works at first, so there must be Works themselves in due season; yet that Works do afterward concur with Faith unto Justification, is more than yet I see, or (I presume) ever shall see proved.  
3. Therefore my Argument stands good against you, until you can make it appear, That Faith alone without the Copartnership of Works, is the Condition of Justification at first, but Faith and Works together of Justification afterward. I have showed some Reasons against it, but I can see none for it. Your Similitude of a Fine, etc. is no proof. Similitudes may illustrate something, but they prove nothing.  
1. You said, 
Ibid.  [The Apostle saith, That Faith did Work in and with his Works]; whereas the Apostle using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not speak of working in, but only of working with.  
2. Of what validity that distinction is (of Justification Inchoated, and Justification Continued and Consummate) you have not yet showed.  
3. What Calvin's Opinion otherwise was, is not to the purpose. I only alleged his Exposition of those words, Fides cooperata est operibus suis; and I think his Exposition is genuine.  
So also Mr. Manton; 
On Jam. 2. 22.  [That sense which I prefer, (saith he) is, That his Faith rested not in a naked bart Profession, but was operative, it had its efficacy and influence upon his Works, coworking with all other Graces: it doth not only exert, and put forth itself in acts of Believing, but also in working].  
Beza renders it, Administra fuit operum ejus, and expounds it, Efficax & foecunda bonorum operum.  
1. I showed before how not only Piscator and Pemble, 
Ibid. & 73.  but many others both before and after them, interpret those words, [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 other 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, etc.] why may it not be said, speaking of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, 
De Justif. lib. 1. c. 16.  (though it was little to his purpose); Cognit to apprehensiva praeexigitur quidem ad fidem, sed non est ipsa propriè fides.  
The other two Acts, viz. Persuasion 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 R●vet much commends) fides est. 
Vigner. de Satisfact.  Deo sic ●●dinante, ut non alii illius participes sint, 
Christi inter opera Rivet.  quam qui eam sincerâ fide amplectuntur, non ita tamen ut ipsa fides ratione sui nos Deo gratos faciat & acceptos, s●d rvatione objecti, 
Disp. 13.  quod apprehendit, & cujus meritum nobis applicat, & perfectam obedientiam.  
So Rivet himself saith; 
De Fide Justif. Disp. 10.  Fides non justificat, quaetenus est opus justitia, 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 ●●dinante, (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 Am●sius) non absolute consideratum, 
Medul. l. 1. c. 27. §. 14.  quo sensu Christus etiam est causa ipsius vocationis, sed propter Christum fide àpprehensum.  
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; 
Of the Coven. c. 6. p. 65.  [The Third Exposition is, That when Faith is imputed for Righteousness, it i● 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 sin● freely given of God. And therefore to say, Faith justifieth, and Faith is imputed for Righteousness, are phrases equivalent. For Faith justifieth not by its merit or dignity, but as an Instrument, and correlatively, that is, the merit of Christ apprehended and received by Faith, justifieth, not Faith, whereby it is apprehended and received, unless it be by an improper speech, whereby the Act of the Object, by reason of the near and strict connexion betwixt them, is given to the Instrument].  
3. What you have said before about Works perfecting Faith, hath been considered. Though Faith may save without manifestation, yet not except it be of that nature, as to manifest 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, than 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 sol● fide rectà in Christum tendim●, & promissiones Dei de justificatione amplectimur. De Reconcil. Part 1. lib. 2. cap. 18.  
Amesius saith; Dolour ac detestatio peccati non potest ●sse 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) sola justificat, quia ipsa est unicum instrumentum, & unica facultas in nobis, quâ recipimus justitiam Christi. Loc. 31. ad Q●●st. 37.  
Thus also Mr. Ball; 
Of the Coven. chap. 3. p. 18, 19  [By Repentance we know ourselves, we feel ourselves, we hunger and thirst after Grace; but the hand which we stretch forth to receive it, is Faith alone, etc.] 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 appear 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 no where said, That Repentance is imputed unto us for Righteousness, as it is said of Faith. Repentance in some sense is precedaneous to Justification, Justifying Faith doth presuppose Repentance; yet Faith and not Repentance i● 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, 
Ib. & 74.  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 Rivetus) si dicamus, 
In Gen. 15. Exer. 83.  in qu●libet verae fidei actu imputari justitiam credenti. Etsi enim justificatio sit actus momentaneus, cujus nunquam planè amittitur effectus in piis, qui semel justificat● sunt, indigent nihilominùs renovatione sensus justificationis suae, qui sensus fit per fidem, & tunc dicitur etiam fides imputar● ad justitiam. Nam apprehensio ill● fides habet fluxum suum continuum secundùm plus & minus; praesertim cum fidelis, & si justificatus, subinde in peccata incidat, propter quae opus etiam habet remissione peccatorum. Quod continuum beneficirum fide apprehensum, si secundam justificationem appellare vel●●t adversarii, imò tertiam, qua●tam, quintam, & millesimam, non repugnabimus, dummodo constet, null● alià ratione nos justificari à peccatis sequentibus, quam 〈◊〉, qu● semel justificati futmus à praecedentibus.  
Works therefore do not concur with Faith unto Justification no more afterward than at first.  
3. Your reasons whereby you endeavour to confute this Assertion, [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 force.  
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 
* How Repentance is requisite unto Justification, and yet doth not justify, was showed before.  Repentance only requisite to the Continuation of Justification, and not also to the Inchoation of it?  
Ad 3. We are not to measure God's Covenant by Humane Covenants. God's Covenant doth reach further than to Justification; and more may be requisite for the enjoyment of those benefits which belong unto Justified Persons, than is requisite unto Justification.  

74.  Your Similitudes are no Proofs; and you still suppose 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. Yourself 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 be 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, 
Ibid.  which he committed after his first Justification by his Works? Credat Jud●●●: 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) 
* Vide Calvin. Instit. l. 3. c. 14 §. 11.  he was justified.  
2. You do but still affirm, without any proof at all, That Abraham's Justification 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 Judgement, I have said enough before.  
Bucan having said, 
Loc. 31. ad quaest. 39  that Abraham was Justified operibus, tanquam testimontis Justificatienis; Adds, Quomodo etiam Deus dicitur in extremo illo die justificaturus electos suos ex ipsorum operibus.  
And again; Fides principium existentiae, facit ut simus justi; Opera autem ut principium cognitionis faciunt, ut cognoscamur justi. Ideò Deus in extremo die proponet principium cognitionis justitiae fides, 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, 
Ibid. & 75.  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 than it suffereth the Law to have its force, and to inflict 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 the Righteousness by which we are justified.  
That which you think to be most clear, 
De Satisfact. Christi, inter Opera Riveti Disp. 13. §. 61.  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 but 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 others 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 be 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, etc.] 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 doth accuse any of not performing the Condition of the Gospel, he doth 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. 308.) you say, That Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 2, 3, 14, 15, 16. Paul concludeth, that neither 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.  

75.  1. They against whom James disputed, relied on Faith 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; Vtri potius assentiendum? Quid dico Beza? Quis enim istud non dicit? Sed hominum authoritate nolo te obruere, rationes antè allatae expendantur.  
3. Affirms tanthùm, non probas, Opera à Jacobo stabiliri ut Justificationis Conditiones & Media. Effecti ut effecti potest esse necessitas ad veritatem causae comprobandam, nec aliâ ratione operum necessitas à Jacobo stabilitur; neque enim ad justificationem procurandam, sed ad eam duntaxat comprobandam, tanquam Justificantis Fidei fructus, Opera ut necessaria stabiliuntur, ut anteâ ex ipsâ Apostoli Argumentatione ostensum est.  
4. Nec Beza, nec alius quisquam (quòd sciam) distinctionem istam de Justificatione Inchoatâ, & Justificatione Continuatâ, quasi sc. alia hujus, alia illius esset conditio, perspectam habuit. Hujus inventionis gloriam ego equidem tibi non invideo.  
1. Certain it is, 
Ibid.  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 sins?  
3. Who doth not so distinguish of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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? Yourself 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, 
Ibid.  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, etc.] 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, 
Ibid. & 76.  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 any thing to do in our Justification at first, yet surely Works must follow as Fruits of that Faith whereby we are at first justified.  
2. For the Texts alleged, that Mat. 12. 37. [By thy words thou shalt be justified, etc.] is as plain you say as [We are justified by Faith]. But if it be so plain, it may seem wonderful, that Bellarmine should never make use of it, when he labours to prove, That Faith alone doth not 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 every thing that may but seem to make for them. Yet it seems some of our Romish Adversaries have laid hold on those words.  
But hear how Calvin doth censure them for it; 
Ad Mat. 12. 37.  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, 
Multa requiruntur? ad Justificationem quae non justificant Ames. loco ante citato.  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 ergò fidem nostram adjuvat Baptismus, (inquit Calvinus) ut remissionem peccatorum percipiat 〈◊〉 solo Christi sanguine, Lavacrum animae vocatur. Ita ablutio, cujus meminit Lucas, non causam designat; sed ad sensum Pauli refertur, qui symbolo accepto, peccata suae esse expiata (N. B.) melius cognovit.— Cum testimonium haberet Paulus gratiae Dei, jam illi remissa erant peccata. Non igitur Baptismo demum ablutus est, sed novam gratiae, quam adeptus erat, confirmationem accepit.  
That Paul's sins were but incompleatly washed away by Faith until he was baptised, your Similitudes (which are too often your only proofs) do not prove. Yea, a King's 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, 
76, & 77.  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 Judgement) 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 Judgement, I have told you my mind before, and you might sufficiently understand it by the Animadversions.  
When you prove, 1. that Justification at Judgement is a Justification distinct from Justification here, and not only a manifestation of it.  
2. That Justification at Judgement 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 Judgement. 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; 
Loc. 31. quaest. 46.  An perficitur justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ? In Justificatione quemadmodum judicamur, & reputamur à Deo justi, ita etiam adjudicamur vitae aeternae. Ratione igitur decreti divini, 
Non impediunt vitii originalis residui maculae illae, quin etiam in hâc vitâ perfecta sit justificatio. Quae reverâ nec intenditur, nec remittitur, rem ipsam quod attinet. Ga●aker. contra Gomarum. p. 26, 27.  & sententiae ipsius de vitâ aternâ prolatae à Deo judice; item ratione justitiae, quam imputat nobis Judex Coelestis, jam perfecta est justificatio nostra in hâc vitâ, nisi quòd in alterâ magis patefacienda (N. B.) si● ac revelanda eadem illa justitia imputata, & arctiûs etiam nobis applicanda. Ea tamen tota perficitur in hac vitâ, in quâ potest homo dici plenè perfectéque justificatus. Filii Dei sumus (ergo justificati) sed nondum patefactum est quid erimus, 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 vitâ 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 Judgement 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 Judgement, 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 Judgement 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, 
Ibid.  viz. at the Last Judgement, 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. 
Ibid.  I grant here more than you desire, viz. That not only to morrow there will be Condemnation to him that shall not sincerely obey, but even to day there is condemnation to him; his Faith being not prompt and ready to bring forth the Fruit of Obedience, is not such as doth 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 Abraham 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 if 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 Judgement a declaring of a Righteousness in question? 
Ibid.  The Word of God (the tru● 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 Judgement, is more than I see either Scripture or Reason for. He shall then be judged himself, and that in some sort by the Saints, 1 Cor. 6. 3. He shall then have little courage to accuse the Saints, though now he doth it.  
Yet I question also whether Satan do at any time directly put up unto God any Accusations against the Saints. He seems to be called the Accuser of the Brethren, Apoc. 12. 10. because by his Instruments he is ever 
* See Mr. Mede on the place.  traducing and slandering them. He is said to accuse them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before God, or in the sight of God; not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto God, as the unjust Steward was accused to his Master, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luk. 16. 1. That in Joh 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 Judgement, 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 everywhere confess.  
1. What mean you by those words, 
Ibid. & 78.  [Doth Obedience get 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 Declaratiuè: 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 unsufficient 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, 
78.  That we are justified by a Personal Righteousness, I shall think that such are soon satisfied.  
1. When we speak of Justification, 
Ibid.  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 showed before: And if he had, I take the Authority of Calvin and Davenant (whom I cited, and to whom many others might be added) to be of more force against it, than the 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, 
On Jaw. 2. 24.  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: 
Ad Loc.  sed aequè & istud verum ac certum, omnes qui justificantur vocari à Domino, ut dignè 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 maximè accusatori optandum est, habes confitentem 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, 
Colleg.  that Opera sequuntur Justificationem, sed praecedunt Glorificationem; 
Controvers. Disp. 36.  the words were cited more at large before.  
So Amesius; 
Contra Bellar. tom. 4. l. 6. c. 6. in initio.  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, 〈◊〉 Conditiones Salutis nostrae, ●si per bona opera intelligamus exactè bona, & quae Legis rigori respondeant: si etiam per Conditiones salutis intelligamus Conditiones foederis, quibus recipimur in favorem Dei, & add jus (N. B.) aeternae vitae. Haec enim pendent ex solâ 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 quâ 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, 
Of the Coven. c. 6. p. 70.  (for that is no cause at all) but an Instrumental Cause, etc.]  
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, 
Of the Coven. c. 3. p. 20.  [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 is 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; 
Ibid. p. 19  [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 Amesius when Bellarmine objected; 
Contra Bell. tom. 4 lib. 5. c. 4. ad 11.  Sacramenta promissiones applicant, & nostras faciunt! non ergo per modum instruments applicantis fides sola justificat.  
He answers; Sola tamen ex its, 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 refert, quia sicut Sacramenta quamvis aliquo sensu possint dici instrumenta nostra, quatenus per illa tanquam per media assequimur finem nostrum, propriè tamen sunt instrumenta Dei: sic etiam Fides, quamvis possit vocari instrumentum Dei, quia Deus justificat nos ex fide & per fidem, Rom. 3. 20. propriè tamen est instrumentum nostrum. Deus nos baptizat, & 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.  

79.  1. The non-fulfilling of the Condition of the New-Covenant 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 reinforcing 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 Gild 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 everywhere I deny.  
1. If it be not much (as you say) to your purpose; 
Ibid.  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 henceforth, etc.] 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 Saviour, 
Of the Sabbath, Part 2. c. 6. p. 227.  and that the Apostle had not written his Epistle to the Ephesians, etc.]  
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, etc.] 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] necessariò 
Contra Bellar.  refertur ad illud, 
Tom. 3. l. 4. c. 1.  quod precedentibus verbis fuit eodem pronomine demonstratum, [Hoc est sanguis meus].  
Though Matthew and Mark had not written, 
§. 48.  yet it had been no such boldness to suppose Luke to relate some words out of that order wherein they were spoken, such Anticipations (as I said, and you do not gainsay it) being usual in the Scripture.  
Thus again Amesius; 
Ibid.  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 actione intelligi benedictionem & Consecrationem Sacramentalem concedit Bellarminus, cap. 10. etc.  
1. It is such a Justification, 
Ibid. & 80.  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], is Vox, praetereà nihil. Why do you allege none of them? Juris consultos enim in hâc causà minùs moror. But and if we maintain the word [Justification] is taken in sensu forensi; What of that? May it not yet nevertheless be as I suppose it is, viz. That Justification at the Last Judgement is only a full manifestation of that Justification which we have here, and not (as you affirm) our actual, most proper and complete Justification, as if here our Justification were but potential, less proper and incomplete?  
Amesius handling this Point, saith, 
Medul. lib. 1. c. 27. §. 7.  Justificatio est sententiae pronuntiatio, & non physicam aliquam aut realem commutationem denotat in S. literis, sed forensem aut moralem illam, quae in Sententiae pronuntiatione & reputatione consistit.  
Yet he hath nothing at all (that I see) of Justification at the Great Judgement; much less that it is the actual, most proper and complete Justification.  
He saith moreover; 
Ibid. §. 9  Sententia haec fuit; 1. in ment Dei quasi concepta per modum decreti justificandi. 2. Fuit in Christo capite nostro à mortuis jam resurgente pronuntiata. 3. Virtualiter pronuntiatur ex primâ illa relatione, quae ex fide ingeneratâ exurgit. 4. Expressè pronunciatur per Spiritum Dei testantem Spiritibus nostris reconciliationem nostram cum Deo.— In hoc testimonio Spirit●s non tam propriè ipsa justificatio consistit, quam actualis anteâ concessae perceptio, per actum fidei quasi reflexum.  
But as for the pronouncing of this Sentence at the Last Judgement, he doth not so much as make any mention of it. Neither doth Calvin (that I find) in his Institutions, though he treat at large of Justification, and that in sensu forensi, speak any thing of Justification at the Last Judgement; nor indeed any that I meet with, except it be on the by, as Bucanus and Maccovius, who agree with me, as I have showed before.  
2. If the Fruits of Faith be inquired after, That so Faith may appear true and genuine, such as doth indeed receive Christ, and so justify; Is not this a sufficient reason why they are inquired after? But in that which follows about via ad Regnum, etc. you are quite extra viam. You forget that we are now about Justification; or at least that I do not make the Condition of Justification and of Salvation every way the same as you sometimes do. This may suffice for your two first Objections.  
To the Third and Fourth, I answer in the words of that Reverend and Learned Davenant; 
De Justit. Habit. cap. 32. ad Object. 9  Particula [Enim] non semper rei causam denotat, sed illationis consequentiam, sive ab effecto, sive à causà, sive à signo, seu undecunque petitam;— Sic quando Christus dicit electis, Venite benedicti, etc. Esurivienim, etc. particula illa non cum causa salutis, sed cum signo causae connectitur. 
Maccovius de Justific. Disp. 10. Justificatur quis ex operibus apud Deum non justificatione causae, sed justificatione effecti & signi.  Nam illa bona opera, quae ibi recensentur, sunt signa verae fidei, adoptionis, insitionis in Christum, praedestinationis ac favoris divini, quae sunt verae causae salutis.  
You are therefore too free and forward in saying, That the Uses pretended for this enquiring after more Signs are frivolous. What though the business at Judgement be to inquire of the Cause, and to sentence accordingly? May not the Cause (take it in the Law-sense) be made to appear by Signs, even as the Cause (in the Logical-sense) doth appear by the Effect, and the Tree by the Fruit? That Obedience is ipsa Causa, de quâ quaeritur, the terms [Therefore] and [Because] do not prove, no more than the term [For]. And here I may with better reason say than you did, Appello totum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum.  
But here I must mind you of one thing, which (it seems) you do not observe, viz. That those terms which you build upon, [Because] and [Therefore] are neither in the Original, nor any Translation (that I know) except the Vulgar Latin, which hath Quia.  
Bellarmine urging these Particles, Amesius answers, Mat. 25. 21, 23. Nulla particula reperitur nisi in Versione non probanda. Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. lib. 7. cap. 2. ad 3.  
1. You cite abundance of Texts, but to what purpose? 
80.  You would have me try whether they speak only of Signs, or or Conditions. Conditions of what do you mean? Of Justification? That you are to prove: but 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, etc. 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 docu●t 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], 
In Loc.  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, 
Ibid.  dum Christum diligimus, quia pignus habemus paternae ejus dilectionis, etc.  
That in 2 Cor. 5. 10. [according to, etc.] avails your Cause nothing. For may not Works be considered at the Last Judgement, 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, etc.]  
I say with Calvin; 
In Loc.  Non intelligit fundatam esse in operibus nostris or andi fiduciam; sed in hoc tantùm insistit, non posteà fide disiungi pietatem, & sincerum Dei cultum. Nec absurdum videri debet, quod particulam Causalem (N. B.) usurpet, utcunque de causâ 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, 
Ibid.  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. 
Ibid.   
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 Judgement, 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 nonsense] is over-broad; If you had said, That you could see no good sense in it, 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 further than you would have them, even to make Obedience and Works the only Condition of Justification at Judgement.  
Ad 9 Where you performed that, I know not: But however your Work was not 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 Judgement: but for the overthrowing of that, I need say no more till you say more in defence of it.  

81.  The Texts which you allege speak only of Obedience: and so if you will think to prove by them, That Obedience 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 Texts 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, than (I think) Causa Sententiae must be also Causae 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, 
Ibid.  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 consequens Justitiae Christi nobis per Fidem imputatae, qua simpliciter & absolutè 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, 
Ibid.  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 torum Mundum Theologorum Reformatorum.  
1. Your Aphorisms tend to prove Justification by Works, 
Ibid. & 82.  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 Justification, 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, 
Vbi (inquit) Sunt opera, illis debitum praemium expenditur quod datur fidei, gratuitum est. Calvin. Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. §. 18. vide ibid. plura.  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 Declaratirè, 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 showed 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 Judgement 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 Gild, but only leaves a Man in the old Gild, with an aggravation of it, he having no benefit of the Gospel to free him from his Gild, 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, 
Ibid.  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 Judgement. 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, ejùsque 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 any more 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, 
Instit. l 3. c. 14. §. 11.  quam quae illic (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 Judgement.  
6. When you say, [Condemnation is not perfect, if any at all, till the Last Judgement], you do in effect question whether there be any Justification till then. For if no Condemnation, than no Justification. But Condemnation 
* I speak of the Reprobate, who neither do, nor ever shall believe.  (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 showed before) and yet Justification at Judgement 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 plenè publicéque sit revelanda. I speak also of an Authoritative Manifestation; and therefore your Instance of a Woman manifesting a Felony, etc. is not to the purpose.  
Obedience as a Fruit of Faith is necessary, both necessitate 
83.  pracepti, 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) than 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; 
Ibid.  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 against 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 to day by Faith without Works, and of being unjustified to morrow, or 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 be (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; 
Contra Bellar.  Fides vera potest 〈…〉 separar●.  
Amesius answers; 
Tom. 4. lib. 5. c. 4. ad 8.  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, 
Ibid. cap. 3. §. 6.  ut respicit praecepta operum faciendorum, sed solummodò ut respicit promissionem gratiae.  
So Dr. Prideaux; Fides sola justificat, non ration● existentia, 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 coworking with it, was not alone in existence, did not lie dead in him, as a dormant and idle quality.— 
* Those words you allege afterwards, but they are little to your purpose.  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 Amesius 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, 
Ibid. & 84.  (i. e. assent unto) Christ's Priestly Office, as is his Kingly, than 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, fac lè 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 Rabbis 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.  
Amesius showeth, 
Contra Bellar.  That Bellarmine in that very place which you cite, doth contradict himself, whiles he is over-earnest to contradict Protestants; 
Tom. 4. lib 6. c. 1. ad 22.  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, 
Lect. 5.  Sed ita imputari nobis Christi justitiam, 
De Justif. §. 11.  ut per eam formaliter justi nominemur, & simus, id nos cum rectâ ratione pugnare contendimus; as if this were the Opinion of Protestants.  
At quis unquam è nostris (saith the Doctor) no● per justitiam Christi imputatam, formaliter justificari asseruit?  
But see how and in what sense he doth disclaim that Opinion; Anon formam quam libet inhaerentem, qu● formaliter justi denominemur, semper explosimus?  
In this sense also Davenant doth reject it; Quod dicit Bellarminus, impossibile 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, 
Vbi supra.  so Dr. Prideaux speaks the very same thing, saying, Justificamur per justitiam Christi, non personae, quâ ipse est vestitus, sed meriti, quâ suos vestit, 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 justified before we take Christ as Lord, is not to be justified 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 irrefragably 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.  

84.  1. You should not only suppose, but prove, that the excluding of Obedience from Justification (as copartner with Faith in justifying) is a Scandal given, and an Error.  
2. If it were not Paul's design to advance Faith above Love, etc. in point of Justification, what then means his so frequent asserting Faith to be that whereby we are justified, and his never-mentioning Love, etc. to that purpose?  
3. Yourself acknowledge an aptitude in Faith to justify as apprehending Christ, and I acknowledge, that besides this God hath appointed Faith for that purpose, in respect of its aptitude, making choice of it rather than of any other Grace.  
I have also oft enough considered what you have said. 
Ibid.   
Justificatio (saith Davenant) purgat, & abluit à reatu & poenâ speccati, idque uno momento, & perfectè, De Justit. Habit. cap. 23. ad Arg. 4.  
Though Justification 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, etc. 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 Judgement, as God's Vicegerent, he will publicly pronounce Sentence.  
I see nothing against me, 
Ibid. & 85.  but that still you run upon this Supposition, That there is the same Condition of Salvation, and of Justification at Judgement, whereas I suppose that Works are a Condition of Salvation, as full and complete, but not so of Justification at Judgement, 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 be 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 justificatione 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, 
De Justif. lib. 1. c. 14.  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, Chemnitius, ea potissimum causâ nos infusâ & inhaerente justitiâ justificari non posse contendunt, quòd illa in nobis ita imperfectu sit, ut in Dei conspectum, quum ad judicandum candum 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, 
Cent. 1. lib. 2. c. 4. Col. 253, etc.  Hominem solâ fide absque operibus Legis justificari; Among which the 23d is this; Duae sunt tantum viae ad salutem, & nulla est tertia, etc. 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 per fidem est, gratis propter opeera Christi, donat justitiam & vitam credentibus. Qui ergò vult per opera salvari propria, is alteram viam tollit; & è contrà, qui vult per fidem salvari gratis, is non potest per opera sua justificari. 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 nouâ obedientiâ seu bonis operibus justificatorum; 
Ibid. Col. 279, etc.  and he goes through the several Commandments, 
Ibid. Col. 283, etc.  and brings in a Catalogue of Good Works which are required in every Commandment.  
Though he sometimes only expresseth these Reasons, 
Ibid. Col. 279.  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 Neighbour, and to give testimony of their Faith?  
But sometimes he speaks more expressly to this purpose, 
Ibid. Col. 349, etc.  saying, jis qui fidae gratis acceperunt remissionem peccatorum, Apostoli etiam de novitate vitae concionantur, & poenas comminantur rurses seize peccatis sine poenitentiâ polluentibus.  
And among other places he allegeth that Phil. 2. Cum timore & tremore vestram ipsorum salutem 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 citys that 1 Joh. 2. Manete in eo, ut cum apparuerit, fiduciam habeamus, & non pudefiamus in adventu ejus: And that 1 Thess. 5. Ipsi planè scitis, quòd dies ille Domini, ut fur in nocte, ita venturus sit: Cum enim dixerint, Pax & tuta omnia, tunc repentinus eis ingruet interitus, sicut dolor partus mulieri praegnanti, etc. Proinde ne dormiamus, etc.  
And for the next reason he brings in this; Poenae ater●● impoenitentium, citing Rom. 2. Juxta duritiam tuam, & cor poeniterenescium, colligis tibi ipsi iram in die irae, quo patefiet justum judicium Dei, etc. Ventura est indignatio, ira, afflictio, & anxietas adversus omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum, etc.  
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 any thing 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 ipsa 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, & clarè 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; 
Tom. 1. loc. de bonis Oper.  Planè & clarè dico, Obedientia nostra, hoc est, justitia bonae conscientiae seu operum, quae Deus nobis percepit, necessariò sequi reconciliationem debet.  
But here he saith no more for Works than generally Protestant's do; he is far from making them concurrent with Faith unto Justification.  
Again; 
Ibid. de Vocab. Fid.  Sed nos (inquit) sciamus suum locum esse justitiae operum, longè verò aliâ consolatione opus esse in quaere●●● reconciliatione.  
And again; 
Ibid.  Cum ●citur, fide just ●fi●amur, non aliud dicetur, quam quod propter Filium Dei accipimus remissionem peccatorum, & reputamur justi. Et quia oportet apprehendi hoc beneficium dicitur fide, i. e. fiducia misericordiae promissae propter Christum. Intell●gatur ergo propositio correlatiuè, Fide sumus justi, i. e. per misericordiam propter Filium Dei sumus justi seu accepti.  
And he allegeth Basil, 
Tom. 2. de Eccles. p. 133.  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, quòd solâ fiduciâ misericordiae propter Christum promissae justi sumus.— Haec est. (inquit Basiliûs) perfecta & integra gloriatio in Deo, quando ne quidem propter justitiam suam aliquis offertur, sed agnoscit sibi deesse veram justitiam, fide autem solâ in Christum justificari, etc.  
Bucer also commends Melancthon for saying; 
In Praefat. Exerrat. Epistolae ad Rom.  Sola fide justificamur, solius misericordiae fiduciâ justi pronuntiamur.  
And presently he adds; Nemini siquidem pio dubium esse potest, quin per solam Dei misericordiam, propiérque unius Christi meritum, ac nulla omninò nostra quamlibet sancta opera, & germanissimos Spiritus fructus, nos justificemur, hoc est, à Deo justi pronuntiemur.  
1. I am sorry to see you so bend 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. 
Of the Coven. p. 70.  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 Concauses in Justification, seeing Faith attributes all to Freegrace, and Works challenge to themselves. And a little before that again he saith, 
Ibid. p. 69.  [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 Concauses, we find nothing in Scripture]. As he makes Faith to be more than a bare Condition, if by [Condition] be meant only Causa sine qu● 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 Concauses, 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, 
Of the Coven. p. 70.  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 free-forgiveness in Jesus Christ: and therefore if Faith justify in this respect, (as Mr. Ball saith it 
* And p. 71. he proves it, because in Scripture every where Faith in Christ, in the Lord Jesus, or the Blood of Christ, is said to justify, not Faith in other Promises, threatenings, or Commandments.  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, 
Of the Coven. p. 21.  and so are justified and absolved. [The Faith that is lively (saith he) to embrace Mercy, is ever conjoined with an unfeigned purpose to walk in all wellpleasing, 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 virtually 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, 
* Of the Coven. p. 73.  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, etc.] 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, 
Ibid.  but have need of pardon for the imperfection of it, than there is no being justified by it. This very reason Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and Chemnitius 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, Amesius, 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 quam continuationem, & Sententiam Judicis (nempe in ultimo Judicio) enough hath been said before. Neither Calvin, nor any of our famous Divines, (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 showed 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. Quid commerita est Fides (inquit Maccovius) in progressu vitae, ut tantum non possit, quantum in initio? Ergone ingenium fides mutaverit, etc. 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. Show that either Calvin, of 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 Amesius 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, 
De Fide & Just.  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 Justificatione, fatetur Pighii sententiam non dissentire à Lutheranorum sententiâ, quod attinet ad causam formalem Justificationes, sed solùm quantum ad causam apprehensivum, quam Lutherani solam fidem, Pighius dilectionem potius quam fidem esse definite. 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 is not that whereby we are justified. What colour 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 Judgement: yet it follows not that Justification as continued and consummated at Judgement, 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 Judgement, except we have Works to testify and give proof that our Faith is lively, as Mr. Ball before cited doth express 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 believe 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 that Faith which justifieth, as the taking of him for Priest, yet not to Faith as it 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 justifieth meritoriously, than (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 showed 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 influence 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 Judgement a distinct kind of Justification, or any more than a declaration and manifestation of our present Justification. 2. For the Texts which you alleged, you do not answer what I objected. You alleged them to prove, That we are justified completely and finally at the Last Judgement, 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 to those words in the end of the Animadversion, [They show who are justified, not by what they are justified]; but that which you say, is of 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 justifying 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, it is meant in respect of the Object, viz. Christ and his Righteousness, which is indeed that by which we are justified, though it must be apprehended by Faith, that we may be justified by it? Where is now the totus mund●s Theologorum Reformatorum, which sometime you spoke of? My acquaintance in this kind is not 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, etc. Atqui Fides ex parte nostrâ hanc justitiam sic a Deo imputatam, apprehendit solummodo & applicat; quia neque Charitati, vel spei, vel alteri habitui hoc munus competat. And again, Justificat primò Deus Pater admittendo, & imputando. 2. Deus Filius, Satisfaciendo, & advocatum agendo. 3. Spiritus Sanctus revelando & obsignando. 4. Fides apprehendendo & applicando. 5. Opera, manifestando & declarando. And again, Animadvertere potuit Bertius, nos non proprtè justificationem fidei attribuere, sed metalepticè, quàtenus 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 showed 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, than 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 quam causae applicanti illud tribuere, quod propriè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit, & applicat nobis justitiam Christi, id fidei 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 Devenant tell you, that it is not Causa applicans, but res applicata; not Fides, but Christus fide apprehensus that doth justify? Faith than 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 any thing 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. Vbi dicitur fidem Abrahae imputatam esse id justitiam, gathers, nihil esse aliud nostram justitiam (nempe quâ justificamur) quam fidem in Christum, id est, (N. B.) Christi justitiam Christi fide apprehensam. Against this he objects, Apostolus dicit ipsam fidem imputari ad justitiam: fides autem non est justitia Christi, etc. To this Davenant answers, Sed frivota est haec objectio. Nam nihil usitatius quam causae applicanti, etc. Your Objection is the very same in effect with Bellarmine's; so that if Davenants words be any thing against Bellarmine, they are as much against you. And truly as you put off the words of Davenant, so you might with the same ease 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 any thing for you, as when you bid see Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. and nothing against you, as here 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 receive him, is that which justifieth: 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 Causa sine quâ non, to me is clear; it is Causa applicans, as Davenant in the words even now cited doth call it. 2. To contend much about Faith's Instrumentality, I do not like; I mean in respect of the word [Instrumentality], so that we agree in the matter, yet as our best Divines have used the word, I see not but it is convenient to be used. 3. I grant that it is a material question, Whether it be the receiving of Christ only 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 Ordinance, or Relative 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 clear as afterward; neither indeed do you seem to speak so clearly of it in your Aphorisms. 2. How pertinent those Testimonies which you speak of are, I cannot tell; but truly as you cited Calvin on Luk. 1. 6. it is no hard matter to cite many. 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 sanè res habet: quis negat? Sed num ideò bonis operibus aeq●è ac fide justificamur? Adverte, quaeso ipsa authoris tui verba. [Bona opera sunt necessaria justificatis], non justificandis. Name (ut scitè Augustinus) [Bona opera sequuntur justificatum, 
De fide & operibus, cap. 14.  non pracedu●t 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 iis certè verbis quae citasti. Jubes autem legere sequentia; lego igitur, [Facile est hujusmodi opera multa (praesertim interna) commemorare sine quibus justificatio nunquam fuit ab ullo mortalium obtenta, nunquam obtinebitur]. Sedne hîc quidem dicit opera ista pariter ac fidem justificari. Ea enim, quae ad justificationem requiruntur, cum i●s quae justificant, 
Contra Bellar. Tom. 4. l. 5. c. 5. §. 1.  confundi non debent, ut benè monet Amesius. Quin & ipse Davenantius latum discrimen facit inter Fidem & Opera, cum Fidem ideò justificare dicat, quod justitiam Christi apprehendat, ac nobis applicet. 
De Justit. Hab. cap. 24. Arg. 8.  Id enim Fidei peculiare est, nec Operibus ullo modo tribui potest. Ex Davenantii igitur sententia, non partim fide, partin operibus, sed fide solâ 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 obtinendam 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 ideò ei tribui, quod proximè & immediat● pertinet ad rem applicatam; Fidem nempe dici justificare, cum propriè justitia Christi fide apprehensa justificet; id quod ego mordicusteneo. Ad 3. De retinendo scilicet, & conservando Justificationis statu, anteà satis responsum est. Id nunc dico Davenantium nec in principio Justificationis, nec in progressu ejus vim virtutémque justificandi operibus juxta ac Fidei tribuere, etiamsi dicat bona opera ad Justificationis Statum retinendum & conservandum esse necessaria; id quod ego libenter agnosco. Cum enim in ipso Justificationis exordio Fidem operibus gravidam esse oporteat, procedente demum Justificatione Fidem opera parere necesse est. Ad 4. Dico te extra oleas vagari, cum ego de Conditione Justificationis loquar, atqui istiusmodi quidem Conditione, quâ justificari dicimur, tu autem opponis mihi authorem deoperibus 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 your 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 showed) makes Faith to justify as apprehending and applying Christ's Righteousness, which surely Works cannot do. 
De Justit. Act. cap. 32.  He saith also, Opera sequuntur Justificationem, & praecedunt Glorificationem, being not acquainted (it seems) with your distinction of Justification as Inchoated, and as Consummate at Judgement, 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Yet you stick not to brand them, as making Man his own Justifier and Pardoner. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; 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 Saviour'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 Faith an Instrument of Justification, deny this any more than you, who make both Faith and Works Conditions of it?  
Yea, some will have that Monstrum horrendum, and firstborn of Abominations (as they phrase it) to be laid at your own door. 
Mr. Kendal against Mr. Goodwin, cap. 4. p. 140.  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 Instrument 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 found 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. Now to your Reasons why this is to set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Id fidei 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. the full enjoyment of it, viz. Glorification. I have frequently expressed myself to this effect, That 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 Foedere (scil. Evangelico, saith Davenant, De Justit. Actual. cap. 30. pag. mihi 396.) ad obtinendam reconciliationem, justificationem, atque aeternam vitam, non alia requiritur Conditiò, quam verae & vivae fidei. Presently after he explains himself thus; Justificatio igitur, & jus (N. B.) ad aeternam 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 quâ 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 Complete) 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 proximè 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 therefore in that respect hath been pleased to make choice of it 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.  
FINIS.