Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 56
THESIS LVI.
BY what hath been said, it is apparent, That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes. 1. The principall efficient Cause is God. 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant. 3. The Procatarctick Cause, (…o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself, speaking after the manner of men,) is fourfold. 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ. 2. The Intercession of Christ, and supplication of the sinner. 3. The necessity of the sinner. 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy. The first of these is the Meritorious Cause; the second the morall perswading Cause; the third is the Objective, and the fourth is the Occasion. 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none: If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter, I contend not. 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law, or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him. 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God, and of the Mediator, and the deliverance of the sinner. 5. The Causa sine quâ non; is both Christs Satisfaction, and the Faith of the justified.
EXPLICATION.
HEre it will be expected, that I answer to these Questions. 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause? 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause, and the Causa sine quâ non? 3. Why I make not Christs Righteousness the materiall Cause? 4. Why I make not the Imputation of it the formall Cause? 5. Why I make not Faith the Instrumentall Cause? 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine quâ non?
To the first Question: As a Lease or Deed of Gift is properly a mans Instrument in conveying the thing leased or given; and as the Kings Pardon under his Hand and Seal is his proper Iustrument of pardoning & justifying the Malefactor, so is the new Covenant Gods Instrument in this case, or, as it were, his Mouth, by which he pronounceth a beleever justified.
To the second Question: Christs Satisfaction hath severall ways of causing our Justification. 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause, I know few but Socinians that will deny. 2 That it is besides properly a Causa sine qua non, cannot be denyed by any that consider, that it removeth those great Impediments that hindered our Justification. And what if a man should say, that because impulsive and procatarcticall Causes have properly no place with God, that therefore the greatest part of the work of Christs Satisfaction is to be the Causa sine qua non principalis? But because my assigning no more to Christs Satisfaction but merit, and this improper causality, doth seem to some to be very injurious thereto; I desire them so long to lay by their prejudice & passion while they consider of this one thing, That we are not in this business considering which cause hath the preheminence, in regard of physicall production, but which in morall respect deserveth the highest commendation. In point of Morality the greatest praise is seldom due to the greatest naturall strength, or to the strongest naturall causation. In Physicks the efficient hath the greatest part of the glory; but in Morals the Meritorious Cause hath a singular share: As Diogenes said, Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam? plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium. The like may be said of some Causes sine qua non: That they deserve far greater praise in morall respect, then some that have a proper causality do. It is agreed, that removens impedimentum quâ talis, is Causa sine quâ non: And doth not the greatest part of a Phisitians skill lye there? That which taketh away the offending humor, and clenseth out the corruption, and removeth all hinderances, shall have the greatest share in the glory of the cure, of any artificiall cause. Suppose a man be condemned by Law for Treason, one payeth one thousand pound for his Pardon, and thereby procured it under the broad Seale; hereby he suspendeth, and afterward disableth the Law, as to the offender; This man is the efficient of those happy effects, from which the justification of the Traytor will follow: But as to his justification it self, he is but the Causa removens impedimenta, taking away the force of the Law, and the offence of Majesty, and whatsoever els did hinder the justification of the offender. And yet I think he deserveth more thanks then either the Laywer that justifieth him by Plea, or the Judge that justifies him by Sentence. So here; If you had rather: you may call it a necessary Antecedent. Or, if any man think fitter to call these Causes by another name, I much care not, so we agree concerning the nature of the thing.
To the third question. Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause, of an Act which hath no matter. If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness, though yet they speak improperly, yet farre neerer the truth, then to call it the Matter of our Justification.
To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form, is undenyable. The form gives the name: especially to Actions, that have no matter. Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts: And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying. Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition, nor among the Causes here, yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction, which must be made ours, or else we cannot be Justified by it. Though therefore, the Scripture do not speak of imputing Christs Righteousnesse or Satisfaction to us; yet if by Imputing, they mean no more but, [Bestowing it on us, so that we shall have the Justice, and other benefits of it as truely as if we had satisfied our selves,] in this sence I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness. But I beleeve that this Imputing, doth in order of nature, go before Justifying: And that the Righteousness so Imputed, is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous, and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us. It is a vaine thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the Causes of Justification, if we agree in the matter.
To the fifth Question. Perhaps I shall be blamed, as singular from all men, in denying Faith to be the Instrument of our Justification: But affectation of singularity leades me not to it. 1. If Faith be an Iustrument, it is the Instrument of God or man: Not of man: For man is not the principall efficient; he doth not justifie himself. 2. Not of God: For 1. It is not God that believeth; though its true, he is the first Cause of all Actions. 2. Man is the Causa secunda, between God and the Action: and so still man should be said to justifie himselfe. 3. For (as Aquinus) The Action of the principall Cause and of the Instrument is one Action: and who dare say, that Faith is so Gods Instrument? 4. The Instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the Principall cause by a proper Causalitie. And who dare say, that Faith hath such an influx into our Justification?
Object. But some would evade thus: It is (say they) a Passive Instrument not an Active.
To which I Answer. 1 Even Passive Instruments are said to help the Action of the principall Agent, (Keckerm. Logick pag. 131.) He that saith, Faith doth so, in my judgement, gives too much to it. 2. It is past my capacity to conceive of a Passive Morall Instrument. 3. How can the Act of Believing (which hath no other being, but to be an Act) be possibly a Passive Instrument? Doth this Act effect by suffering? Or can wise men have a grosser conceit of this. 4. I believe with Schibler, that there is no such thing at all as a passive Instrument. The examples that some produce (as Burgersdicius his Cultor & gladius) belong to Active Instrument. And the Examples that others bring, (as Keckermans Iurus instrumentum fabricationis, mensa & scamnum accubitus, terra ambulationis) are no Instruments: except you will call every Patient or Object, the Instrument of the Agent. The Instrument is an Efficient Cause. All efficiencie is by action; and that which doth not Act, doth not effect▪ Indeed, as some extend the use of the word instrument, you may call, almost, any thing an Instrument, which is any way conducible to the production of the Effect under the chief Cause; And so you may call Faith an Instrument.
Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification; may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us?
Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former: yet is it no proper or fit expression neither. For 1. The Act of Faith, (which is it that justifieth) is our Actuall receiving of Christ, and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving. To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving, is a hard saying. 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument. For, 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument; it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul: (nor really distinct from each other, as Scotus, D'Orbellis Scaliger, &c. D. Iackson, Mr. Pemble, think: and Mr. Ball questions.) 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument. For, 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified: and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument. 2. Who ever called Habits, or Dispositions, the souls Instruments? The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect, cannot be called the Instrument of it: you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife, the knives Instrument, as to call our holiness, or habituall faith, the Instrument of receiving Christ.
To the sixth and last Question, I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification. The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that. And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non; or a medium, or a necessary Antecedent. Here by the way take notice, that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high, as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse. Posit. 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence, Posit 23. do yet, when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith, then those they blame: making it Gods Instrument in justifying. 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act; 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self; 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith. For Love doth truly receive Christ also. 4. And worst of all, from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification. For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ, and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve. And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere, for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification, when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non. (And yet I say as before, that in Morality, yea, and in Naturality, some Causae sine qua non, do deserve much of the honour; but that Faith doth not so, I have shewed in the 23. Position.) Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause: but I will not give it so much: though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause, I shall not contend.