Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 68
THESIS LXVIII.
NOr is Christs person considered as such, or for it self, the object of this Faith: But the person of Christ as cloathed with his Office and Authority is this Object.
EXPLICATION.
I Put all these together, as ayming at one scope: & I shall now explain them distinctly. (To the 65.) First, that Faith is not taken for any one single Act, I prove thus. 1. If it were but one single Act (I mean specifically, not numerically) then it could not (according to the common opinion of Philosophers) be the Act of the whole Soul: But Faith must be the Act of the whole Soul; or else part of the Soul would receive Christ, and part would not; and part▪ of it would entertain him, and part not. Some think the soul is as the body, which hath a hand to receive things in the name, and for the use of the whole. But it is not so, Christ is not onelyonly taken into the hand: But as the blood and spirits, which are received into every living part. (Though I intend not the comparison should reach to the manner of receiving.) Neither is the soul so divisible into parts, as the body is; and therefore hath not severall parts for severall offices. 2. The most of our accurate studious Divines of late, doe take Faith to be seated in both faculties, Understanding and Will: But if so; according to the common Philosophie, it cannot be any one single Act.
Neither Secondly, is it in various Acts of one single faculty: For, 1. It will (in my judgement) never be proved, that the soul hath faculties which are really distinct from it self, or from each other. These Faculties are but the soul it self, able to doe thus and thus from its naturall being. Vide Scaliger Exercit. 107. Sect. 3. Understanding and Willing are its immediate Acts: And perhaps those very Acts, are more diversified or distinct in their objects, then in themselves. The souls apprehension of an objects as true, we call Understanding; in regard of its Metaphysicall Truth, it is a simple apprehension; as we receive this Truth upon the word of another, it is Assent and Beliefe; as this Object is considered as Good, our motion toward it, is called, Willing; if absent, Desiring, Hoping; if present, Complacency, Joying; when we Will a thing as Good, any thing strongly, and apprehend its Goodnesse any thing cleerely, this we call Love, &c. But whether all these be really distinct kinds of Acts of the Soul, is very doubtfull: Much more, whether they proceed from distinct Faculties. As I am not of my Lord Brook's minde concerning the Unity of all things: So neither would I unnecessarily admit of any division: especially in so spirituall and perfect a piece as the Sould; knowing how much of Perfection lyeth in Unity; and remembring the Pythagorean curse of the Number Two, because it was the first that durst depart from Unity: & frustra fit per plura &c. 2. But if it were proved that the Souls Faculties are really distinct; yet both these Faculties are capable of receiving Christ; and Christ is an Object suited to both: and then what doubt is it whether Faith be in both?
1. For the Will no man will question it, that it is capable of receiving Christ; and Christ a suitable Object for it.
2. And for the Understanding, it doth as much incline to Truth, as the Will to Goodness; and as truely receive its Object under the notion of True, as the Will doth receive its Object as Good. If you would see it proved fully, That Assent is an Essentiall part of justifying Faith, read Dr. Downame of Iustification, on that Subject: and his Appendix to the Covenant of Grace, in Answer to Mr. Pemble: Where though his Argument will not reach their intended scope, to prove that Assent is the onelyonly proper Act of justifying Faith, yet they do conclude, that it is a reall part. And he well confuteth his opposer, though he do not well confirm that his own opinion.
3. Consider further, that Christ doth not treat of Faith, in sensu Physico sed morali & Politico, not as a Naturall Philosopher, but as a Law-giver to his Church. Now in Politicks, we doe not take the names of Actions in so narrow and strict a sense, as in Physicks and Logicke. If a Town doe agree to take or receive such a man for their Mayor; or a Kingdome take or receive such a one as their King: The words [Take, or Receive] here doe not note any one single Act of soul or body alone; but a compound, as it were, of Actions; which yet do all take their name from the Principall, which is [Consent.]
To the 66. That Christ as a Saviour onelyonly, or in respect of his Priestly Office onelyonly, is not the Object of justifying Faith; but that Faith doth as really and immediatly Receive him as King; and in so doing, Justifie: this I prove thus.
1. The Gospell doth not reveale Christs Offices as separated: But as they are revealed, so they must be believed.
2. Neither doth it Offer Christ in his Priestly Office onelyonly, as separated from his Kingly: though it may sometime presse our Acceptance of him in one respect, and sometime in another: But as he is offered, so must he be received.
3. Scripture no where tyeth Justification to the receipt of him as our Priest onelyonly, therefore we must not doe so.
4. How commonly doth Scripture joyn his Offices together, calling him usually, Our Lord and Saviour Iesus Christ?
5. If we receive him not as King, we receive him not as an entire Saviour: For he saveth us, not onelyonly by dying for us, but also by reducing us really into communion with God, and guiding us by his Laws, and protecting and perfecting us by his Government, and subduing our enemies.
6. His Kingly Office is a true part of his entire Office of Mediatorship: Now the sincerity of Acts in Morall respects, lyeth in their true suitableness to the nature of their Objects: As God is not truely loved, except he be loved entirely: so neither is Christ truely received, if you receive him not entirely. It is a lame, partiall Faith, and no true Faith, that taketh Christ onelyonly in the Notion of a deliverer from guilt and punishment, without any accepting of him, as our Lord and Governour. Though I beleeve that the hope of being pardoned & saved is the first thing that moveth men to receive Christ, yet do they, being so moved, receive him as their Lord also, or else they doe not receive him sincerely.
7. The exalting of his Kingly Office, is as principall an end of his dying, & of his becomming Mediatour, as is the saving of us, and the exalting of his Priestly Office. See the second Psal. and Rom. 14. 9. To this end he both dyed, rose and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead, and the living. And therefore the receiving of him as Priest alone, is not like to be the Condition of our Justification. So that if Christ put both into the Condition, we must not separate what he hath joyned. But the main ground of their Error, who think otherwise, is this: They think Acceptance of the mercy offered, doth make it ours immediately in a naturall way, as the accepting of a thing from men; And so as if he that accepted pardon, should have it, and he that accepted sanctitie should have it, &c. But Christ (as I have shewed) establisheth his Offices and Authority, before he bestow his mercies; and though Accepting be the proper condition, yet doth it not conferre the title to us, as it is an accepting primarily, but as it is the Covenants Condition: If we should take possession when we have no title in Law, God would quickly challenge us for our bold usurpation, and deale with us, as with him that intruded without the Wedding garment; There is more adoe then come in: and sit down, and take what we have a mind to: God hath put all his Sons Offices into the Condition, to be received and submitted to: either all or none, must be accepted: And if All be in the Condition, then the receiving of all must needs Justifie upon the grounds that I have laid down before.
To the 67. That the promises or benefits are not the immediate proper object of Justifying Faith, is evident from the gorunds already layd down: As also from the constant language of the Gospell, which maketh Faith to lie in receiving, believing in him, and in his name, &c. still making Christ himself the immediate object. Therefore if Mr Cotton say as the Lord Brook represents him, That Faith can be nothing but a laying hold of that promise which God hath made; (in his Tract. of Truth and Vni. pag. 152.) it is a foul error in so weighty a point; as is also his other, of Faith justifying and saving only declaratively. Indeed that first less principall Act of Faith, which we call Assent, hath the truth of the Gospell revelation for its neerest and most immediate object; but (I think, by the leave of those who contradict) not its onelyonly nor chief object: The truth of the proposition is but a means to the apprehending of the truth of the thing proposed; nor the truth of the history, but a glass to shew us the truth of the Acts which it relateth. So that even the Understanding it self doth apprehend the person and offices of Christ in their Metaphisicall Verity, by means of its apprehension of the Logicall and Morall verity of the Relation: and though the truth of the Word be the neerest object of Assent, yet the truth of Christs person, nature and offices is the more principall: Or if about these, it may not have the name of Assent, yet shall it have the same nature still.
To the 68. I think none will contradict it, and therefore there need nothing be said.