Of Justification, Part 2
Some other of Mr. Warners paſſages of moſt importance conſidered.
Pag. 385. MR. W. ſaith [It's worth the obſerving how to evade the Diſtinction of the Acts of faith, he ſaith that faith is one act in a moral ſenſe, as Taking a man to be my Prince, Teacher, Phyſitian, &c. and not in a phyſical ſence; for ſo it is many acts, &c.] And he confuteth me thus: [Here, Reader, ſee the wit or forgetfulneſs of the man, who to maintain his own ground, doth often conſider faith as Phyſically ſeated in the underſtanding and will; but when we aſſault him, will not allow us, any Phyſical, but a moral Acception of it.]
Anſwer A moſt groſs untruth! (and thats an Arguing that Faith needeth not) Your forgery is not only without ground, and contrary to my plain and frequent words, but contrary to the expreſs words that you draw your Obſervation from. I ſay faith Phyſically taken, is many acts; but morally taken it is one work: Hence you call out to the Reader to obſerve, that I will not allow you any Phyſical but a Moral Acception of it.] Is it fit to Diſpute with ſuch dealing as this? Do you think that I or any man of brains doth doubt whether faith be a Phyſical Act (except them of late that take it to be but a Paſſion and a Nominal action?) Surely all know that it is an Act in order of Nature, before it is a moral act. Actus moralis, is firſt actus Phyſicus. Though Moraliter actus, i. e. actus Reputativus, may be but a non-acting Phyſically: He that wilfully famiſheth his own child, doth kill him morally or reputatively, and ſo is moraliter agens, that is, Reputative. But he that cheriſheth him is an Agent natural and moral, that is, Ethical or Vertuous. I wonder what made you think me of ſuch an opinion that I have ſo much wrote againſt?
He next ſaith, that [Though by one moral act we receive divers benefits, yet we receive them to divers purpoſes.] Anſwer, True! But many ſuch paſſages of yours are to no purpoſe; and ſuch is this: impertinent to the buſineſs.
Page 391. He comes to my Diſtinction, where I ſay, that ex parte Chriſti he ſatiſfieth Juſtice as a Ranſom, and Teacheth us as our Maſter, and Ruleth us as our King, yet ex parte noſtri, it is but one and the ſame entire faith that is the condition of our Title to his ſeveral benefits: From hence he ingeniouſly gathereth that I ſay, [That faith hath but one reſpect to thoſe benefits, and is not diverſified by ſeveral acts; and deny the neceſſity of theſe diſtinct acts in reference to the ſeveral benefits of Chriſt.] Whereas I only maintained, that though the acts be Phyſically diſtinct, yet they are not diſtinct conditions of our Intereſt in the benefits, but the ſame entire faith is the one condition of them all. Hereupon he learnedly addreſſeth himſelf to prove that faith hath ſeveral acts. And he that thinketh it worth his time to tranſcribe and confute his Arguments, let him do it, for I do not.
Page 401. He thinks [We need not diſpute whether the Reception of Chriſt by faith, be moral or Phyſical: however it is not an improper, but proper reception.] Anſw. 1. It ſeems then we need not diſpute whether Chriſts body be every where, and whether mans faith do touch him and receive him naturally as the mouth doth the meat? 2. And whereas Recipere, in its firſt and proper ſignification was wont to be pati, now it is agere: And whereas conſent or Acceptance was wont to be called Receiving but Metonymically, now it is becoma a proper Reception.
Page 303.304. Reaſoning againſt me, he ſaith, [The neareſt formal Reaſon of a Believers Intereſt, is not Gods making it a condition, which is the remote reaſon thereof, but a Believers fulfilling the condition, &c.] Anſw. 1. Here he changeth the queſtion, from [What is the neareſt reaſon of ſaiths Intereſt] to [What is the neareſt reaſon of the Believers Intereſt.] To the firſt I ſay, [Its being made the condition of the Promiſe.] To the ſecond I ſay, [The Promiſe or grant it ſelf.] 2. He findeth a learned Confutation for me, viz. That it is not Gods making, but the fulfilling the condition that is the formal Reaſon. Anſw. Performance, that is, Believing maketh faith to be faith, and exiſt: but the Promiſe makes that the condition. I ſpoke de eſſe, and he de exiſtere: And yet I uſually ſay, that [The neareſt Reaſon of faiths intereſt in Juſtification, i…, as it is the condition of the Promiſes fulfilled] that I might joyn both. 3. Note that in this his Aſſertion he granteth me the ſum of all that I deſire. For if this be true, then it is not the Nature or the Inſtrumentality of faith that is the neareſt reaſon, as is uſually ſaid.
Page 200. He doth as ſolemnly call his Adverſarie ad partes, as if he were in good ſadneſs to tell him what is the cauſality of works is Juſtification: And falling to his enumeration, he tells us that [The particle A or Ab notes the peculiar cauſality of the efficient: the particle Ex notes the material cauſe: the particle P…r or By, the formal cauſe: the particle Propter, the final cauſe.] Anſw. I muſt erave pardon of the Reader while I ſuppoſe all this to be currant, that I may anſwer ad homin…m. And then 1. It ſeems faith is not the efficient cauſe, and therefore not the Inſtrumental cauſe: For A or ab is not affixed to it, in this buſineſs. 2. It ſeems then that faith is the formal cauſe of Juſtification, becauſe we are ſaid to be Juſtified foreign Rom. 3.22, 25, 30, & paſſim [By Faith] So that faith is come to higher promotion then to be an Inſtrumental efficient cauſe. 3. Hence it ſeems alſo that faith, even the ſame faith is [the material cauſe] too: For moſt certainly we are ſaid to be juſtified ex fide: foreign: Rom. 3.26, 30. Rom. 5.1 Gal. 2.16. & 3.8, 7, 5, 9, 22, 24. & 5.5. Jam. 2.24 Whether ex fide foreign do indeed expreſs an Inſtrumental efficient, I leave to conſideration: But ſure I am it fitly expreſſeth the Intereſt of a condition. And if Mr. W. will needs advance faith hereby to be the matter of our Righteouſneſs, it muſt be but of our ſubordinate particular Evangelical righteouſneſs, which conſiſteth in fulfilling the condition of Juſtification.
Chap. 5. pag. 29.30, 31. He ſpends a Chapter to open to us the meaning of [fides qua Juſtificat.] And proſeſſeth that it is the Carad controverſia; yea it was the remembrance of this diſtinction and the light he received by it that induced him to enter on this Diſcourſe; and that it is the baſis of his following exercitation. And what think you is the happy Light that deſerveth all this oſtentation? Why 1. On the Negative we are ſatisfied that he means not [What fides qua fides can do:] And then we are ſecure that he means nothing that can hurt his Adverſaries cauſe. 2. The Light then is all but this [That qua here is not taken Reduplicative, but ſpecificative, when by the particle qua or quatenus, there is ſome new or ſingular kind of Denomination added to the ſubject of the Propoſition: as when we ſay, man as a reaſonable creature feeleth: In this latter ſence (ſaith he) I believe the particle qua or quatenus is taken, when we do not ſay, faith as faith, but faith as Juſtifying, viz. as a Grace deſigned to this act or operation of Juſtifying, looks on Chriſt as Saviour.]
Anſw. This Chapter was worth the obſerving. For if this be the Baſis of all the Exercitation, and the Light that Generated all the reſt, the diſpatch of this may ſerve for all. It ſeems by his words he had look't into Reebe's Diſtinctions in the end of Caſtaneus, and meeing with Reduplicative and specificative, admired the diſtinction as ſome rare Diſcovery: and this pregnant fruitful Diſtinction begot a Volume, before it was half underſtood it ſelf. Had he but read the large Schemes for explaining Qua or Quatenus in others, its like it would have either begot a larger Volume, or by informing or confounding him, have prevented this. Firſt, he diſowneth the Reduplicative ſence; and then owneth the specificative. But 1. He ſeeth not, it ſeems, the inſufficiency of this diſtinction; 2. Nor the meaning of it; 3. Nor could well apply it to the ſubject in hand. Of the firſt I ſhall ſpeak anon. The ſecond appeareth by his Deſcription, his Inſtance, and his Application. He deſcribeth it to be [When there is ſome new or ſingular kind of Denomination added to the ſubject of the Propoſition.] 1. And why may it not be added alſo to the Predicate, as well as it may Reduplicatively? as Motus eſt actus mobilis quatenus eſt mobile.
2. There are many new kinds of Denominations that will not ſerve for your specificative Quatenus. The inſtance you give is, [as when we ſay man as a Reaſonable creature faileth]. This was but an unhappy Tranſlation of [Homo quatenus animal eſt ſenſibilis] and its true in the Latine▪ how falſe ſoever in the Engliſh. For the Application, 1. You ſay [you [Believe] its thus taken. As if you did but Believe, and not know your own meaning in the Baſis of your Exercitation. 2. Your Specificative Quatenus is Cauſal, or ſignifieth the Reaſon of the thing, either of the Predication or the thing predicate: But ſo cannot your Baſis hold good. For faith doth not look on Chriſt as a Saviour (as you pleaſe Metaphorically to ſpeak) becauſe it Juſtifieth: for its Nature is before the effect, and therefore cannot the effect be given as the cauſe of it; (unleſs it were the final cauſe, of which anon.)
Qua or quatenus properly and according to the common uſe ſignifieth the proper reaſon of the thing or predication; and is appliable only to that which is ſpoken foreign. As to the terms, ſometimes there is a Reduplication of the ſame term, ſometimes that reduplication is of the matter, but in other terms, as in a definition, or ſynominal words, or it is implyed: ſometimes it is the terms of the Predicate or Attribute that is Reduplicate; ſometimes it is without a Reduplication: And then ſometimes it giveth a Reaſon from an Eſſential Part: ſometime from the Generical Nature; ſometime from the Specifick Nature: ſometime from an Accident: and thoſe are divers: ſometime from a Quality: ſometime from Quantity: ſometime from Relation; and that is multifarious: If we ſhould run into all the ſences of this Term which Mr. W. doth lap up in the word [Specificative] the words might exceed the profit. And its to be noted that uſually the term is reſpective as to ſome other thing excluded which is contradiſtinct: & ſo we give ſometimes a more Remote and General, & ſometime a neerer and more ſpecial Reaſon by Qua or quatenus. As if you mix a purging Electuary in your Drink, I ſay that Purgeth quatenus medicated, which is to exclude the Drink from being Purgative. If I ſpeak of the Electuary, I may ſay that it purgeth quatenus Diagridiate, to exclude many other Ingredients from being Purgative. But if I ſpeak of the Diagridium, I may ſay that it Purgeth as having an Elective faculty, &c. to exclude other Reaſons of its operation.
Now for the opening of the matter in hand, let us try certain Propoſitions that may be ſuppoſed to be laid down concerning Faith.
[1. Faith as faith juſtifieth] This is True, taken laxely, for the excluding of [faith as a meer Phyſical act, or meritorious &c.] but it is falſe ſtrictly taken, as ſignifying the formal or neareſt reaſon.
So [2. Fades in Chriſtum qua talis Juſtificat] that is, haec ſides in ſpecie] is true, taken Laxely and materially to exclude all other Faith: q. d. It is not faith in Peter or Paul, but faith in Chriſt as ſuch that is the matter deputed, to be the condition of Juſtification. But its falſe taken ſtrictly, deratione formali.
3. So [This faith as it is an Apprehenſion or Acceptance of Chriſt, juſtifieth.] Its true, Materialiter & Remotius, Laxly: but falſe formaliter & ſtricte de ratione proxima. For this is the ſame in other terms with the ſecond.
So [4. Faith juſtifieth as an Inſtrumental effitient cauſe of our Juſtification.] Its falſe in every tolerable ſence.
So [5. Faith juſtifieth as an Inſtrument of receiving Chriſt.] Its true, 1. taking the word [Inſtrument] Metaphorically, and meaning only the Nature of this faith, which is [to Believe in and Accept Chriſt.] 2. and taking Quatenus remotely, laxely and materially only, q.d. Faith is the Elected matter of the condition (or is choſen to be the condition of Juſtification) for this Aptitude, as, or becauſe it is a Reception or Acceptance of Chriſt. But its falſe, 1. Taking an [Inſtrument] ſtrictly and Logically. 2. and ſpeaking de ratione formali.
So [6. Faith as a believing in Chriſts ſacrifice, juſtifieth.] Its true, Laxly, Materialiter & partialiter: that is, This act of faith is part of the matter of the condition. But its falſe, formaliter de ratione proxima.
So [7. Faith juſtifieth only as it is a Believing in Chriſts ſacrifice or Righteouſneſs.] Its falſe both de materia & de ratione formali.
So [8. Faith as Juſtifying is only a Believing in, or Accepting Chriſt as our Ranſom] Here is darkneſs, and either nonſence or falſe doctrine. 1. [As Juſtifying] ſignifieth either [as a juſtifying efficient cauſe] 2. Or [as the merit or matter of our Righteouſneſs.] 3. Or [as the means i. e. condition of our Righteouſneſs, of which Juſtification is a conſequent and final cauſe.] In the firſt ſenſe it is every way falſe. In the ſecond ſenſe it is every way falſe, ſpeaking of our Univerſal Righteouſneſs. In the third ſenſe, if ſpoken laxely de materia, its falſe, becauſe of the excluſive [Only.] And if ſpoken de ratione formalivel proxima, 1. Its prepoſterous to put the Conſequent before the Antecedent, if you ſpeak de ordine exequendi: 2. And it is falſe: For [qua Juſtificans] ſpeaketh of Juſtification as the conſequent, or as an act, and not of the Nature of Faith it ſelf. And therefore [qua Juſtificans] faith is nothing (much leſs that act alone.) For it is not de eſſe fidei that the term ſpeaks, but of the conſequent; So that the [Fides qua juſtificans eſt] what ever act you mention, is abſurd and unſound: For as non juſtificat quatenus eſt, it a non eſt quatenus Juſtificat, its Eſſence being pre-ſuppoſed. But if you ſpeak de ordine Intentionis, viz. [Faith as elected a means or condition of Juſtification is only a Believing in Chriſts ſacrifice.] then Laxely & Materially it would be True, if it were not for the [only.] But becauſe of that it is falſe, both de materia & de ratione formali. The nature of it is before its Office.
So [9. Faith as deſigned to this act or operation of Juſtifying, looks on Chriſt as a Saviour.] This is Mr. Ws. Aſſertion. But 1. juſtifying is not an act or operation of faith; but of God on the Believer. 2. But if you mean but conſtituting it the condition of Juſtification, then 1. the wrong end is ſet firſt: For it doth not look at Chriſt, as its made the condition; but its made the condition, becauſe being an Accepting of Chriſt, its Apt for that Office. So that Materially and Laxely, its thus true; (a Saviour, comprehendeth Chriſts Kingly and Prophetical Offices, and everlaſting Prieſthood in Heaven) But this is nothing to the formal Reaſon of its Intereſt in Juſtification.
But leſt you think that [qua Juſtificans] hath no proper place, I further inſtance [9. Faith as juſtifying is diſtinst from faith as entitling to Heaven, or other promiſed mercies.] This is true (ſuppoſing Juſtification and the ſaid Title to Glory to differ.) But this is but a denomination of the ſame faith from its divers conſequents. As my lighting a candle being one action is Actioilluminans (ut cauſa moralis,) & calefaciens; & quailluminans non eſt calefaciens. So a womans marrying a Prince, is an Honouring, enriching act: and qua honouring, it is not enriching. But its the ſame entire undivided act or Antecedent Means, or Condition, that is thus variouſly denominated from ſeveral Benefits. And thus Relations may give divers denominations to the ſame perſon; the ſame man may, be conſidered as a Father, as a Phyſitian, as a Subject, &c.
So 10. FAITH WHICH IS AN EFFECTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF and AFFIANCE IN CHRIST AS CHRIST, was CHOSEN and ORDAINED by God the Condition of Juſtification and Life, becauſe his Wiſdom ſaw it fit for that Office, and that fitneſs lyeth in its respect to the Object and Gods ends (ſuppoſing we may aſſign Reaſons or cauſes of Gods Will.) By this faith (ſo conſtituted the Condition) we are actually JUSTIFIED AS TIS THE PERFORMED CONDITION OF GODS PROMISE.] This is the plain Truth in few and eaſie words.
By what is ſaid you may ſee that when they ſay [faith as Juſtifying] is this or that, it is both prepoſterous, and the [qua] as diſtinct from the [quae] de ratione formali, cauſally ſpoken, is plainly falſe: But in other caſes, Laxely and Materially, the [qua] ſignifieth the ſame as the [quae] with the excluſion of other matter. And when they have raiſed never ſo great a duſt, the Queſtion is but this: Whether we are juſtified by Believing in Chriſt as Chriſt, or only in Chriſt as a Ranſom] (and yet as a Ranſom and as dying he purchaſeth Sanctification as well as Juſtification.) Or. [Whether faith in Chriſt as Chriſt, or only faith in Chriſt as Purchaſing Juſtification, be the condition of our Juſtification.]
Reader, Having ſhewed the darkneſs of that Light that cauſed Mr. Ws. Exercitation, and overthrown its Baſis, I ſhall put thee to no further trouble.