Aphorisms of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…Aphorismes of justification, with their explication annexed wherein also is opened the nature of…

I Answer, I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak; nor force the Scripture; nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words, without apparent necessity: But here is not the least necessity: There being not the least inconvenience, that I Know of, in affirming Justification by Works, in the fore-explained sense. Men seldom are bold with Scripture, in forcing it; But they are first bold with Conscience enforcing it. If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest. But when it is the very scope of a Chapter, in plain and frequent expressions, no whit dissonant from any other Scripture; I think he that may so wrest it, as to make it unsay what it saith, may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary: what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax? If Saint James speak it so oft over and over; that Justification is by works, and not by Faith only, I will see more cause before I deny it; or say, he means a Working Faith.

I Answer, I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak; nor force the Scripture; nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words, without apparent necessity: But here is not the least necessitie: There being not the least inconvenience, that I Know of, in affirming Justification by Works, in the fore-explained sence. Men seldom are bold with Scripture, in forcing it; But they are first bold with Conscience inforcing it. If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture, I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest. But when it is the very scope of a Chapter, in plain and frequent expressions, no whit dissonant from any other Scripture; I think he that may so wrest it, as to make it unsay what it saith, may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary: what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax? If Saint Iames speak it so oft over and over; that Justification is by works, and not by Faith onely, I will see more cause before I deny it; or say, he meanes a Working Faith.

If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith, and less principally as working, then I should not differ from him, only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more safe and more proper; But he understandeth it according to that common assertion and exposition, that Fides solum justificat, non autem fides sola: Faith alone justifieth, but not that faith which is alone. The question therefore is, Whether Works do concur with Faith (as part of the Condition) in the very business of Justifying? or whether they are only Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance? The ground of the mistake lieth here: They first ascribe to much to Faith; and then because that nimium which they give to Faith is not found agreeable to Works, therefore they conclude, that we are not justified by works at all. They think that Faith is an Instrumental efficient cause of Justification (which that properly it is not, I have proved before:) when if they understood that it justifieth but as a Causa sine qua non, or condition, they would easily yield, that Works do so too. I will not say therefore that Works do effectually produce our Justification (For faith doth not so: Nor that they justify as equal parts of the condition: For faith is the principal. But that they justify as the secondary less-principal part of