Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 24 – Thesis 25
THESIS XXIV.
THis personall Gospell Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness; and so far we may admit the doctrine of personall Perfection.
EXPLICATION.
OUr Righteousness may be considered, either in regard of the matter and the acts denominated righteous, or else in respect of the form which gives them that denomination: Also our Faculties and Actions are considerable, either in regard of their Being, or of their Quality.
1. The perfection of the Being of our Faculties or Acts is nothing to our present purpose, as falling under a physicall consideration only.
2. In regard of their Quality they may be called perfect or imperfect in severall sences.
1 As Perfection is taken for the transcendentall perfection of Being so they are perfect.
2. And as it is taken for the compleat number of all parts, it is perfect.
3. But as it is taken for that which is perfect, Efficienter or Participaliter, that is, for a work that is finished for the Author, so our holiness is still imperfect here.
4. And as it is taken for accidentall perction, (so called in Metaphysicks, when it wants nothing which beyond the Essence, is also requisite to the integrity, ornament and well being of it,) so our holiness is here imperfect.
5. As perfection is taken, pro sanitate, for soundness, so our holiness is imperfect.
6. And as it is taken, pro maturitate, for ripeness, so it is imperfect.
7. In respect of the admixture of contrary qualities, our holiness is imperfect.
8. But whether all this imperfection be privative and sinfull, or meerly negative; and only our misery, whether it be a privation, physicall or morall, is a question that will be cleared, when I come to shew the extent of the Commands or Rule.
But not any of these kinds of perfection is that which I mean in the Position: Holiness is a quality, & may be intended and remitted, in creased & decreased; but it is the relative consideration of these qualities of our faculties and acts, as they are compared with the Rule of the new Covenant; & so it is not the perfection of our holiness that we enquire after, but of our righteousness; which righteousness is not a quality as holiness is, but the modification of our acts as to the Rule, which is not varyed, secundum majus & minus: See Schibl. Metaph. li. 2, c. 9. Tit. 7. Art. 2. Therefore our Divines usually say, That our Justification is perfect, though our Sanctification be not; and then I am sure our Righteousness must be perfect.
A two-fold perfection is here implyed. 1. A Metaphysical Perfection of Being. 2. A Perfection of Sufficiency in order to its end.
1. The being of our Righteousness formally consisting in our relative conformity to the rule, either it must be perfect, or not at all. He that is not perfectly innocent in the very point that he is accused, is not innocent truly, but guilty. Sincerity is usually said to be our Gospel-Perfection: not as it is accepted in stead of perfection, but as it is truly so; for sincere Faith is our conformity to the Rule of Perfection, viz. the new Covenant as it is a Covenant; yet as it is sincere Faith, it is only materially our Righteousness and Perfection, but formally as it is relatively our conformity to the said Rule.
2. Our Righteousness is perfect as in its Being, so also in order to its end. The end is, to be the condition of our Justification, &c. This end it shall perfectly attain. The Tenor of the new Covenant is not, Believe in the highest degree, and you shall be justified; But believe sincerely, and you shall be justified; so that our Righteousness 1. formally considered, in relation to the condition of the new Covenant, is perfect or none. 2. But considered materially as it is holiness, either in reference to the degree it should attain, or the degree which it shall attain, or in reference to the excellent object which it is excercised about, or in reference to the old Covenant, or the directive, (and in some sence) the preceptive part of the new Covenant; in all these respects it is imperfect.
I speak not all this while of that perfection in Christs Satisfaction, which is also our perfect Righteousness, because few will question the perfection of that.
THESIS XXV.
YEt is it an improper speech of some Divines, That Christ first justifieth our persons, and then our duties and actions: And except by [justifying] they mean, his esteeming them to be a fulfilling of the Gospell Conditions, and so unjust, it is unsound and dangerous, as well as improper.
EXPLICATION.
1. IT is improper in the best sence: 1. Because it is contrary to the Scripture use of the word [Iustifying]: which is the acquitting of us from the charge of breaking the Law, and not from the charge of violating the new Covenant, 2, It is against the nature of the thing; seeing Justification (as you shall see anon) implyeth Accusation; but the esteeming of a righteous action to be as it is, doth not imply any accusation. 3. This speech, joyning Justification of Persons and Actions together, doth seem to intimate the same kinde of justification of both, and so doth tend to seduce the hearers to a dangerous error. 2. For if it be understood in the worst sence, it will overthrow the Righteousness of Christ imputed, and the whole scope of the Gospell, and will set up the doctrine of Justification by Works. For if God do justifie our Works from any legall Accusation, (as he doth our persons,) then it will follow, That our Works are just and consequently we are to be justified by them. There is no room for Scripture-justification where our own Works are not first acknowledged unjustifiable: because there is no place for Satisfaction and Justification thereby from another, where we plead the Justification of our own Works in respect of the same Law. Justification of Works is a sufficient ground for Iustification by Works: seeing the justness of his dispositions and actions is the ground of denominating the person just, and that according to the primary and most proper kinde of Righteousness as is expressed in the distinction of it, pag. 98, 99.