Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

Treat. 220. Neither is the question about the necessity of holiness, &c. — Only the question is upon what account these are required in justified persons; whether in some causality, or concurrence as faith is, only not with such a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, so that we may say, justifying Repentance, justifying Law, (Love, it should be) as well as justifying faith? This is positively and vehemently affirmed by some: but certainly those Arguments and Reasons they bring are too weak to gainsay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines.

Treat. 220. Neither is the question about the necessity of holiness, &c. — Only the question is upon what account these are required in justified persons; whether in some causality, or concurrence as faith is, only not with such a degree of excellency? Whether good works be required as well as faith, so that we may say, justifying Repentance, justifying Law, (Love, it should be) as well as justifying faith? This is positively and vehmently affirmed by some: but certainly those Arguments and Reasons they bring are too weak to gainsay the Torrent of the Orthodox Divines.

Answ. Upon the reading of this, I complained of hard measure in the Preface to my confession: to which you reply somewhat in your Preface to Sermons on John 17. I shall recite the reasons of my complaint. First, I did both at large in private writings to your self, and publicly to the world, profess that I took neither faith nor works for any causes at all of our Justification; was it just then to make this the state of the Question, and say I positively and vehemently affirmed it? (for you deny not that it is me that you mean, and I know it by passages here agreeable to your private letters) Secondly, I never once imagined the difference between faith and holy obedience ⟨p. 97⟩or sanctification, to lie (in order to Justification) in the degree of excellency. I never to my remembrance so thought, or wrote, or spoke. But the difference I laid here, first, That (as to actual obedience, yea and Repentance) faith hath a peculiar aptitude to this office, as being a Receptive act, and fitted to the object, as that object is fitted to our necessity. Secondly, That (as to assent, desire of Christ, love to Christ offered, accepting him as Teacher, and Lord) they are essential acts of faith, and so differ not at all, as they are by many supposed to do. Nay, I rather expected that some should have charged me with preferring Holiness before faith in excellency, while I made faith but the seed, and holiness as the fruit; faith to be but the covenanting, and Obedience the performance of what we consented to; and in a word, while I made perfect holiness the end of faith, because the end is better then the means: And I was glad when I found you saying the like, Vindic. Legis, Lect. 4. pag. 45. [13. Holiness and Godliness inherent, is the end of Faith and Justification.] But little did I think to have been charged, and that by you, for making the difference to lie in faiths higher degree of excellency, and only in that. Thirdly, I never owned the phrase of [justifying Repentance, justifying Love.] nor ever said that we may as well use these as [justifying faith] And when none of these things were ever said or written by me, ought you to have left on record to Generations, that [this is positively and vehemently affirmed.] On the consideration of this dealing, I must say again, O what is man, and what a sad case were we in, if the best of men were our Judges!