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…

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 ⟨p. 192⟩the Condition, (not only proving our Faith to be sound, but themselves being in the Obligation as well as Faith, and justifying in the same kind of causality or procurement as Faith, though not in equality with it) I prove thus: 1. When it is said that we are Justified by Works the word By, implieth more then an Idle concomitancy: If they only stood by, while Faith doth all, it could not be said, that we are Justified by Works.

If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith, and lesse principally as working, then I should not differ from him, only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more fafe and more propert; 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 businesse of Justifying? or whether they are onely Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance? The ground of the mistake lyeth 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 Instrumentall 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 quanon, or condition, they would easily yeeld, 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 justifie as equall parts of the condition: For faith is the principall. But that they justifie as the secondary lesse-principall part of