A Treatise of Original Sin, To the reader 3
TO THE READER.
A Digreſsive Epiſtle concerning Justification by Faith alone, excluding the Conditionality of Works in that Act, either begun or continued. Tending to a friendly debate between a Reverend, Learned, and godly Brother, and my ſelf, in that Point.
THe Doctrine of Original ſinne, and Juſtification by Faith alone, are not altogether heterogeneous: Yea, Stapleton maketh the former the Mother, and the latter the Daughter, as they are avouched in the Proteſtant way. I ſhall therefore here take the occaſion to lay down ſeverall Propoſitions, that may conduce to the further diſcovery of the Contents of that amicable collation between my learned Brother and my ſelf in this particular. Not that my purpoſe is to vindicate thoſe Arguments I have formerly in a Treatiſe of Righteouſneſs, produced againſt conditionality of Works in the Act of Juſtification, from the Exceptions and Anſwers he hath pleaſed lately to give in unto them; for I ſhall venture their credit and ſtrength, (notwithſtanding all that he hath ſaid to the contrary) with the intelligent and impartiall Readers, till I am adviſed by the judicious and Learned, there is a neceſſity of reſcuing them from his aſſaults. The generation of Divines which ſhall ariſe, that knew Joſeph, who are aquainted with the Doctrine and Spirit of the firſt Reformers in this matter; they will not take up their perſwaſions from one or two Engliſh Writers, in this caſe. It is true, Ariſtole ſaith, lib. 1. Rhetor. cap. 11. that foreign and foreign, Contentions are pleaſant, and Conqeſt in them ſweet. But that is true, in reference to the Philoſophers and Oratours of old, who were animals of glory, and had a libidinous appetite after applauſe, foreign, being foreign, as Juſtin Martyr alludeth; and the Oratours ſo inſatiable after praiſe, that rather then want it, they would hire their Laudicenes to applaud them with a foreign. But in Theologicall conteſts, we ought to have more mortified and ſanctified hearts; for when we have watched over our ſouls with the greateſt diligence we can, yet we have cauſe to pray, that God would forgive us our Book-ſins, and preſerve us from looſing the comfortable ſenſe and enjoyment of Juſtification, while we diſpute about it. Not therefore from a ſpirit of contention or oppoſition to my learned Brother, whom I highly honour, but love to that precious and antient Truth, as I judge it to be, which through infirmity is oppoſed by him, happily inclined thereunto by his laudable Zeal againſt Antinomian dotages, I proceed to lay down ſeverall Propoſitions; which when I have done, my thoughts are to ſay, Ite miſſa eſt.
The Reformers in their firſt Conflicts with the Popiſh Adverſaries about Juſtification (among the controverſall Points therein) judged this none of the leaſt;Prop. 1. The Meanes or Manner how we are juſtified. Indeed, Juſtification being the heart (as it were) of Religion, a little prick therein is dangerous. It being the eye of Chriſtianity, a little diſeaſe is dangerous. It is eaſie erring, but dangerous in this point. Hence this Article did ſo reign in the hearts of thoſe Worthies, that they uſed all diligence to keep this Fountain pure, greatly fearing the poſterity to come, would be negligent herein. Now as for the meanes how we are juſtified; they did not only learn it out of the Scriptures, which peculiarly appropriate this to Faith, and not to any other particular grace; but experimentally and practically out of their own hearts; God ſuffering them to be greatly exerciſed, and tempted about his favour, and to be often in the deepes, not ſeeing the Sun for many daies, that ſo Juſtification by Faith alone, might be the more confirmed unto them, and they have the witneſs of this Doctrine in themſelves. And although it be true, that the Proteſtant Writers in this Controverſie, did chiefly militate againſt the merit and cauſality of Works in Juſtification then aſſerted by the Papiſts: Yet it is plain, that thereby alſo they did exclude their Conditionality alſo, as to the Act of Juſtification.Cathol. Refor. Controv. 4. Cap. 1. Hence Perkins (quantus vir?) ſaith, Fides eſt unicum & ſolum illud inſtrumentum, &c. Faith is the alone and only inſtrument, wrought by the Spirit of God in the heart of a man, whereby he layeth hold on Chriſt, applying his righteouſneſs to himſelf, which neither Hope or Charity, or any other grace can do. And whereas he had granted, in the enſuing Diſcourſe, that theſe graces were preſent at Jnſtification, but doing nothing to it, but Faith doth all: As the head is preſent to the eye when it ſeeth, yet it is the eye alone that ſeeth. Biſhop his Adverſary by ſcorn, calleth this a worthy piece of Philoſophy, and laboureth to invalidate it; but the learned Abbot his Defendant, is large in clearing of this Truth, diſtinguiſhing of a ſeparation, Reall and Mental; and that again into Negative and Privative, declaring that Faith, though not negatively conſidered, excluding other graces, yet privatively abſtracted from the conſideration of them, is ſaid to juſtifie; I would referre the Reader to thoſe ſolid and excellent Writers in this point. Perkins his Reaſon for Juſtification by Faith alone, is very pregnant, from Joh. 3. 14. where believing in Chriſt for eternal life, is compared to beholding of the Serpent that Moſes lifted up in the Wilderneſs. Now as it was meer ſeeing, and no working that did heal the wounded Iſraelite, ſo it is meer believing, and no other grace that maketh us partakers of this Spiritual Priviledge.Exam. Concil. Trid. de fide Juſtific. Chemnitius alſo giving Reaſons why the Proteſtants uſe the word ſolâ, of Faith in Juſtification, maketh one to be, that merits and dignity may be excluded from our works, and all attributed to grace only. But another ut oſtendatur medium ſeu organon applicationis, for not by Works, but Faith alone, is the Promiſe received. It is clear then, that our former Divines, though they principally aimed at the excluding of the merit of Works, yet did alſo thereby ſhut out their conditionality; becauſe they make Faith the only applicativum medium, and becauſe they deny other graces to have any ſuch receptive power. For when the Papiſts urge other graces, as Love, &c. they anſwer, that theſe do conſiſt in extramittendo, Faith in intus recipiendo. And laſtly, becauſe they make them only qualifications of the ſubjects, and the effects, or diſcoveries of true Faith; Inſomuch, that we never read in Scripture, or (as I know of) in any ſound Authour, that we are juſtified by repentance, or by love.
Neither is this Juſtification by Faith alone,Prop. 2. excluding the Conditionality of Works, to be applyed to our Juſtification at firſt only, but as continued; ſo that from firſt to laſt, we are juſtified all along by Faith. Although therefore, the learned Brother doth often fly to this Sanctuary (and if this fall to the ground, all his ſuperſtructure tumbleth with it) yet it is clear by Scripture, Juſtification begun and continued, is by Faith alone. Hence the Apoſtle, arguing in this very matter, brings that text: The juſt ſhall live by Faith, Gal. 3. 11. which belongs to the whole courſe of our life, reſpectively to Juſtification; and when the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 5. Being juſtified by Faith, we have peace with God. Would it not be irrationall, to limit it only to our Juſtification at firſt? Is not the righteouſneſs of God revealed from Faith to Faith? Rom. 1. 17. Not from Faith to Works:Sex. ſeſſiois. Antidot. See Calvin proving non minus Juſtitiae complementum, quam initium fidei tribuendum eſſe. So that our Juſtification is by Faith to Faith, not by Faith to Works.
If my judgment were for Juſtification by Works,Prop. 3. as a condition thereof, as well as Faith, I ſhould think it my duty, both in Preaching and Printing, as occaſion ſerveth, to perſwade the forbearing of the word Sola, when we ſay Faith Juſtifieth: For if God hath appointed Works, as well as Faith, how dare any man preſume to ſay Faith alone. And thus we muſt receive the moderating advice of Caſſander, who ſaith; Multis eruditis, & piis viris ſatius videtur & in concionibus popularibus vox illa (Sola) praetermittatur.
I can grant, Prop. 4.that we are juſtified by Faith, as it is an inſtrument appointed by God, and as it is a condition; provided the conditionality of it be limited to the receptive Office of Faith, and Gods deſignment thereunto: But it cannot be an inſtrument applying, and a condition in the ſenſe, my Reverend Brother contends for. When we ſay, Faith Juſtifieth as an applying meanes, then Chriſt and his Grace, is conſidered as donum oblatum; Faith being the hand that receiveth this Treaſure. But when it Juſtifieth as a condition, in the ſenſe aſſerted, it muſt be conſidered ut opus praestitum; whereby the Covenant is made good to us, which maketh two diſtinct kindes of Juſtification; which latter differeth from the Popiſh way only, ut magis & minus. They make Works merits and Cauſes: he Conditions, whereas not only cauſality, but conditionality, doth overthrow the alone Juſtification by Faith, and introduceth another way of Juſtification, then by application alone. Or if the learned Brother, will make Works a condition of Juſtification, when Faith alone doth begin and continue it, he will be neceſſarily involved in a contradiction. In what a ſenſe I make Faith a Paſſive Inſtrument (but ſupernatural) I have in my former Treatiſe clearly explained, and ſo need not repeat it here again.
It is no Contradiction to exclude Works form a Conditionality, Prop. 5.as to the Act of Juſtification, and yet to affirm them requiſite neceſsarily in the Subject Justified. I wonder at the wilfulneſs in ſome, who accuſe them as a contradiction, when Proteſtant Writers do a thouſand times over illuſtrate this, by divers Similitudes. Becauſe Repentance is required as well as Faith, muſt their office and work be confounded? Muſt all they be Conditions? Certainly, it's not Repentance, but Faith, that receiveth the pardon: Yet Repentance qualifieth the Subject, and denoteth it capable of it▪ Is Sanctification a Condition of Juſtification, becauſe they are inſeparable one from another?
That diſtinction of Faith juſtifying, Prop. 6.quae viva, but not quâ viva, which IS lively and working, but not AS lively and working; is not trifling as the Remonstrants ſay, nor is there any cheat in it. Moſt of the Fundamentals of Religion, are diſtinguiſhed from confining errours, by ſuch diſtinctions. If a man ſay, Chriſtus qui Deus mortuus eſt, ſaith true; but if he ſhould ſay, Quâ Deus, would he not ſpeak blaſphemy? And this I bring in the rather, becauſe there are ſome who affect, and glory in a moderating way, thinking the Papiſts and Proteſtants do not ſo Fundamentally differ in the Point of Juſtification, but that they may be reconciled; whereas our learned Worthies, at firſt declared, that if the Romaniſts and we differed in no other point but this, this were enough to have no Communion with them. Spalatenſis, one of the unhappy Catholique Moderators; writing of the Proteſtants, who affirm, that Faith alone Juſtifieth, yet ſuch a Faith as is lively, and worketh by love, ſo that although Faith Juſtifieth, yet other graces are preſent, though not proximely attingent of Juſtification, Ecce (ſaith he) Formalitates Theologicas; adding that the Romaniſts may grant to the Reformed, that the diſpoſitions to Juſtification are not merits. And again, the Reformed grant to the Romaniſts, that by theſe diſpoſitions, being joyned with Faith, Juſtification is acquired not from merit, but Divine mercy alone. It is true, he declareth his own notion, how Faith Juſtifieth alone, viz. Abſque neceſsitate ullius alterius humanae poſitivae actionis, non tamen abſque negativâ illa diſpoſitione non faciendi quicquam quod ſit á Deo vetitum. But in the protract of his Diſcourſe, he maketh our differences herein to be pura quaedam metaphyſicalia ad ſalutem nihil neceſsaria, Spalat. de Repub. Eccl. lib. 7. cap 11.ſed Galaticamur planè fratres, as Tertullian of old. There is a propenſity in all to Galatize, to joyn Faith and Works under ſome notion or other, as to our Juſtification; whereas the Apoſtle maketh an immediatie oppoſition between them; not in the perſon Juſtified, but as to the manner of Juſtification. The learned Brother alledgeth a place out of Doctor Twiſſe, in the title page, with a ſignall accent upon it. The words are (Verum in diverſo genere ad juſtitiam Dei refertur Chriſti ſatisfactio, & fides noſtra; Chriſti ſatiſfactio ad eandem refertur per modum meriti & condignitatis; noſtra verò fides ad eandem refertur per modum congruae diſpoſitionis.) Who would not think by this paſſage, thus barely quoted, that the Doctor was ſpeaking of Juſtification, that Chriſts ſatisfaction is meritorious of it, and our Faith a congruous diſpoſition to it. But my Brothers overſight is very great in this allegation; for the learned Twiſſe is there ſpeaking, of Gods Juſtice and Mercy, tempered together in Election; taken terminativè, as it effectually comprehends Salvation. Therefore he ſaid before,Vindic. Grat. lib. 1. pars tertia. vol. Mai. pag. 218. Electionem ad ſalutem non fieri ſine intuitu miſeriae noſtrae & ſatisfactionis Chriſti, & fidei noſtrae, & reſipiſcentiae, &c. So that his words oppoſe Doctor Hammond, and Mr Pierce, with others who odiouſly charge the Calviniſts, as if they held irreſpective Decrees in Election and Reprobation, either to ſinne or holineſs: Whereas the excellent Doctor ſheweth, that Salvation, the terminus of Election, is not accompliſhed without the ſatisfaction of Chriſt, and our Faith and Repentance, as fit diſpoſitions to Salvation; he doth not ſay to Juſtification.
The Doctrine of Juſtification hath been greatly polluted of old, Prop. 7.by Platonicall and Ariſtoteticall Philoſophy: and we must take heed we do not defile it in a new way, by running to the Civil Law, and deductions from it. What are Bartolus and Baldus in this point? As Juſtification is a mercy wholly revealed in Scripture, and ſupernaturally vouchſafed, ſo the Words and Phraſes are obſerved by the Learned, to be peculiar; as, foreign. So that the Scripture expreſſions being compared together, will beſt diſcover the manner how we are juſtified; for it is wholly at Gods appointment, what way he will take therein, and from them we ſhall only diſcover a righteouſneſs of Faith; not of Love, or any other particular grace. It was the ruine of Socinus; to conclude of the Truths of Divinity, according to principles of the Civil Law, this made him deny Chriſts ſatisfaction.
The Diſcourſe of the Apoſtle James concerning Juſtification by Works,Prop. 8. doth not at all patrocinate the Reverend Brothers Opinion. For firſt, It is to be obſerved, that the Apoſtle doth not mention any particular grace, but Works in the generall, as externally and viſibly practiſed. Had the Apoſtle ſaid, Abraham was juſtified not only by Faith, but love, then there had been ſome colour for his Aſſertion. And ſecondly, The expreſſions uſed by the Apoſtle concerning Juſtification by Works, comply not with a conditio ſine quâ non: For ver. 26. he ſaith, As the body without the ſpirit is dead, ſo is faith without Works. Is the ſoul a conditio ſine quâ non of life? Again, ver. 22. By Abrahams Works, his Faith was made perfect; and his Works did foreign with his Faith. Doth a condition ſine quâ non foreign? I urge not this as owning the Papiſts Expoſitions of Cauſality of Works and Merit, only they make not for a conditio ſine quâ non. We muſt take Juſtification and Faith in another ſenſe, then the Papiſts do. When the learned Brother, explicateth that paſſage of the Apoſtle, Faith is dead being alone, after this manner: That Faith is dead, as to the uſe and purpoſe of Juſtifying; for in it ſelf, it hath life according to its quality ſtill.Aphoriſmes of Juſtification pag. 300. Adding afterwards, that (Works make Faith alive, as to the attainment of its end of Juſtification.) Can this be applyed to a conditio ſine quâ non? But the Diſcourſe ſwelleth too big: I have done what I thought ſufficient in this matter. The good Spirit of the Lord ſo lead us into his Truth, that we may ſerve him with one heart, and one way; and wherein we have not yet attained, reveal ſuch Truths unto us.