Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Exceptions against our saying, [That Faith, or the act of believing, doth justifie no otherwise, then as it reveals, and evidenceth our Justification] are Answered.
THe first Charge which he brings against this Gloss (as he calls it,) is, That it is guilty of a contradiction to the Holy Ghost. It is well known (sayes he) that the Apostle in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, sets himself on purpose to assert the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in opposition to Works. The Question between him and the Jews, was not, Whether we are declared, to be justified by Faith or Works; but, whether we are justified by Faith or Works, in the sight of God, or before God: And he concludes, That it is by Faith, and not by Works, &c. Though all this be granted, yet it proves no contradiction to the Holy Ghost, in our Assertion: We acknowledge that the Question between the Apostle, and the Jews, was not about the declaring of our Justification; nor about the time when we are justified; no, nor about the condition, upon which we are justified; but concerning the matter of our Justification, or the Righteousness, whereby we are justified; or by which we are accounted righteous. Now the result of his dispute is, That we are justified by Faith, and not by Works; but then the Question will be, How Faith is to be taken, whether sensu proprio, or metonymico; whether we are to understand it of the Act, or of the Object of Faith? We have shewed before aSee c. 6. sect. 2., that the Apostle in his disputes about Justification in these fore-mentioned Epistles, where he opposeth Faith to Works, he takes Faith in a Tropical sense for the Object, and not the Act of Faith; for else there had been no ground for him to make any opposition at all, between Faith and Works; and in affirming, That we are justified by Faith, he had contradicted himself in saying, That we are not justified by Works; seeing Faith, or the Act of Believing, is a work of ours, no less then love. And therefore, it is evident, that the Apostle, when he concludes, That we are justified by Faith, and not by Works, understands by Faith, the Object thereof, to wit, Righteousness imputed, and not inherent bPaulus fidem accip…t, Rom. 4.…. non pro opere, sed pro objecto fidei— Nomine autem operum intellexit Apostolus, non solum externa bona opera à lege mandata, verùm omnes etiam in…rnas virtutes, & fidem ipsam …uatenus opus est quod dam intellectus & volun…atis, quod manifestum est cuiquam in ea Epistola (scil. ad Rom.) mediocriter exercitato. Zan…h. de Nat. Dei. l. 4. c. 2. Thes. 2.; which, by way of distinction and opposition to the other, he calls the Righteousness of God, because it is out of us, in Christ, God-man. The reason why the Apostle calls the Object by the name of the Act, Christs Righteousness by the name of Faith, (besides the elegancy of the Trope) is because Faith ascribes all unto Christ, it being an act of self-dereliction, a kinde of holy despair, a denying and renouncing of all fitness, and worthiness in our selves; a going unto Christ, looking towards him, and a roulling of our selves upon his Alsufficiency cNomen fidei & verbum credendi apertè docent, justitiam nobis aliundè advenire▪ & eam in nobis realiter non esse; sed tantùm ejus cognitionem, sensum & effecta; opu… enim fidei est ea quae extra nos sunt apprehendere— Hac igitur vel unica loquutio, per Fidem, seu Fide nos justificari, satis esse deberet ad evincenium, nos non justificari opere, aut virtute aliqua in nobis existente, c…qu… n… ips… fide, ut virtus & opus est, sed re quae ex… nos posita est. Favore scil. Dei & justitia Christi. Zanchius ubi supra.: So that in the Apostles sense, we deny not, That Faith justifieth in the sight of God; Faith (I say) taken objectively, to wit, For Christ and his Righteousness; it is for his Merits and Satisfaction alone, that we are accounted Just and Righteous, at Gods Tribunal. But if Faith be taken properly for the Act of Believing, we say indeed, That it onelyonly evidenceth that Justification which we have in Christ. Nor is this any contradiction to the Holy Ghost, who ascribes our Justification in the sight of God, to Chr…st alone.
§. 2. Next he calls it, A most unsound Assertion, That Faith doth evidence our Justification before Faith. Is the Apostles definition of Faith, Heb. 11.1. Faith is the evidence of things not seen; An unsound Assertion? Though some do ascribe more to Faith, then an Act of evidencing, yet I never met with any one before, that did totally deny this use thereof. All the knowledge that we have of our Justification, is onelyonly by Faith, seeing it cannot be discerned by Sence or Reason; either we have no evidence of our Justification, and consequently do live without hope; or, if we have, it is Faith that doth evidence it to our souls. Now let our Justification be when it will, if Faith doth evidence it, it will follow, That our Justification was before that Evidencing act of Faith; for actu… pendet ab objecto, the Object is before the Act. But I will not anticipate Mr. Woodbridges Reasons.
§. 3. If (sayes he) Faith doth evidence our Justification; it is either improperly, as an effect doth argue the cause, as laughing and crying, may he said to evidence reason in a Childe, &c. Or else properly; and thus either immediately and axiomatically or remotely and syllogistically.
(1) Faith doth not evidence Justification improperly, as the Effect doth argue the Cause. I shall readily grant him, that Faith doth not justifie evidentially, as a mark, sign, or token, but as a knowledge, and adherence unto Christ, our Justifier;Isa. 53.11. John 17.3. Phil. 3.10. as that Organ, or Instrument, whereby we look not upon our Faith, but upon Christ our Righteousness; and by the same Faith do cleave unto him. They that make Faith a condition of our Justification, use it but as a sign, or as an argument affected to prove, That a person is justified; seeing, that where one is, the other is also; where there is Faith, there is Justification; and for this cause innumerable other signs, and marks, are brought in to evidence this sign; which are more obscure and difficult to be known, then Faith it self, nay, which cannot be known to be effects of Blessedness, but by Faith; whereby poor souls, either walk in darkness, live in a doubting, and uncertain condition all their days; or else compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling, Isa. 50.10, 11.and walk in the light of their own fire; fetching their comfort, from Faith, and not by Faith, from Christ. Though I might fairly pass by this Branch of his Dilemma, it being none of my Tenent, and favored more by his own, then my opinion; yet I shall briefly give my fence of his Reasons, That Faith doth not evidence Justification as a sign.
§. 4. His first Reason is, because then Justification by Faith, would not necessarily be so much as Justification in our Consciences: A Christian may have Faith, and yet not have the evidence, that he himself is justified: Many Christians have that in them, which would prove them justified, whiles yet their Consciences do accuse and condemn them. To which I Answer, 1. That Mr. W. may be pleased to consider, how well this agrees with that passage of his, Pag. 15. Where he alledgeth the words of the Apostle, 1 John 3.20. to prove, That if our hearts do condemn us, God doth much more condemn us. 2. I should grant him, That if Faith did evidence our Justification, onelyonly as a sign, or some remote effect thereof, like other works of Sanctification, it would be but a dark and unsatisfying evidence. 3. Whereas he sayes, That doubting Christians have something in them, that would prove them justified; either it is something that precedes Faith, or something that follows Faith, or else Faith it self. First, Nothing that precedes Faith, doth prove a man justified; secondly, Nothing that follows Faith, is so apt to prove it, as Faith it self, because it is the first dforeign. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. …. Prosper. ad Dub. 8.of all Inherent Graces; it is by Faith, that we know our Love, Patience, &c. to be Fruits unto God; whereas some make doubting to be a sign of Faith, they may as well make darkness a sign of light, it being in its own nature contrary thereunto; and therefore it must be proved by Faith it self. 4. Though a true Christian may have a doubting, accusing Conscience (as doubtless there is flesh and corruption in their Consciences, as well as in their other faculties; and there is no sin, whereunto we have more, and stronger temptations, then to unbelief;) yet wheresoever there is Faith, there is some evidence of this Grace; as in the least spark of fire there is light, though not so much as in a flame: And the least twinkling Star gives us some light, though not enough to dispel the darkness, or to make it day: There are several degrees of Faith, there is foreign and foreign, a strong Faith, and a weak Faith. Now the least degree of Faith, carries some light, and evidence therewith; and according to the measure of Faith, is the evidence, and perswasion of our Justification.
§. 5. Secondly, He urgeth, If Faith did evidence Justification, as an effect of it, then we might as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification, as to be justified by our Faith. I see no absurdity at all, to say, That Faith is from Justification causally, and Justification by Faith evidentially: That Grace which justifies us, is the Cause and Fountain of all good things whatsoever, both of Spiritual and Temporal Blessings, and more especially of Faith, 2 Pet. 1.1. Phil. 1.29. Yet doth it not follow, That [We must invert the order of the Gospel, and instead of saying, Believe, and thou shalt be justified; we must say hence forward, Thou art justified, therefore believe.] (1) Because it is not the priviledge of all men, to whom we Preach, but onelyonly of the Elect of God: And (2) because we know not, who are justified, no more then who are elected; though Faith be an effect, or sign of Election, yet it doth not follow, that we must say to any, Thou art elected, therefore believe. (3) When the cause is not notior effectu, we must ascend from the effect to the cause, as in the present case.
§. 6. Thirdly, He loads it with this seeming absurdity, That then it will unavoidably follow, That we are justified by works, as well as by Faith; for works are an effect of Justification, as well as Faith. (1) It follows unavoidably from his own opinion: For if Faith be taken in a proper sence, for the Act of Believing, it follows, That we are justified by a work of our own; or, if Faith be the condition of Justification, it will follow likewise, That we are no more justified by Faith, then by other works, as Repentance, Charity, &c. Which Mr. W. and others of his strain *Dr. Hammond ▪ Mr. Baxter., do make the conditions of their supposed Justification; so that he is like to father the Childe, which he hath sought to lay at our doors. (2) It is not denied, That Works do declare, and evidence our Justification; where the Apostle denies our Justification to be by Works, he speaks of our real and formal Justification in the sight of God, which he affirms, is by Faith, scil. Objectively taken, and not of the declaring or evidencing of our Justification; which Saint James in his Epistle attributes to Works, in reference to men; and other Scriptures to Faith, in reference to the Conscience of the person justified, Romans 1.17. Galatians 2.16. (3) Though works be the effect of justification as well as faith, yet it will no follow, that works do evidence our justificationas well as faith doth. (1) Because every effect is not apt to evidence its cause; especially when the same effect may proceed from severall causes; as smoak is not so certaine an evidence of fire as light and heat is; because steems and mists are so like to smoak; so works do not evidence our justification so clearly and certainly … Faith doth, because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality, &c. as those Heathens have performed. (2) Because every effect doth not evidence to every faculty a like, but this to one, and that to another; as for instance, forme, or Physiognomy doth evidence a man to sence, but yet reason requires another manner of evidence; so conscience requires a better evidence of our justification then works can give: Work… do evidence it in the judgement of charity, and before men; but they do not evidence it in the judgement of infallibility, or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires; conscience will need a better evidence then works can give. Paul could plead his works before men, 2 Cor. 1.12. which yet he never mentions in the pleas of his conscience towards God, and that which conscience dares not plead before God, can bee no good evidence unto conscience.
§. 7. The other horn of his Dilemma will be frayd as easily as the former. Faith (saith he) doth not evidence justification properly; for then it must doe it either immediately, and Axiomatically, as it is an assent to this Proposition, [I am justified] or else remotely and syllogistically, by drawing a particular conclusion of our own justification, out of generall propositions. But Faith doth not evidence our justification Axiomatically, &c. For (1) There is no such thing written, the Scripture doth no where say, Thou Paul, thou Peter, or thou Thomas art justified; Ergo, Justification cannot be evidenced by Faith immediately.
Mr. W. here mistakes the nature of true justifying Faith, who (it seems) conceives it to be a bare intellectuall assent to the truth of a Proposition;See Down. of Just. l. 6. c. 5. sect. 3. and Downs nature of Justification p. 10. (such as Devils and Reprobates may attaine unto) contrary to all Orthodox Divines, who doe place Faith more in the Will then in the Understanding. Justifying Faith essentially include. 1. An assent of the understanding to the truth of the Scriptures, revealing the sole-sufficiency of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners, and the non-imputation of sin; as also the will and command of God, that all men should beleeve in him alone for life and salvation. 2, a Fiduciall adherence and reliance of the will upon the same Christ, the understanding being made effectually to assent and subscribe to the fore-mentioned propositions, sub ratione veri, the will is also powerfully drawne to accept, imbrace, and adhere unto Christ sub natione boni. Our Divines fDr. Iackson o… Faith, c· 9· an… Down… ut sup. Scientia affectiva Gerson,doe include both these acts in the definition of Faith making it to be fiducialis assensus, or assensus cum gustu: such an assent unto the truths of the Gospell, as that withall, the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same; and thereupon …esteth, and relieth upon Christ for all the benefits of his death. They make the principall act of Faith to be the reliance of the heart or wil upon Jesus Christ, and therefore they determine, that the object of Justifying Faith is not a Proposition or Axiom, but Christ, & the mercy of God in ChristgProprium objectum fidei justificantis est Christus, vel misericordia Dei in Christo, non propositio vel axioma, Amesius Bellar. Enerv. tom. 4. l. 5. c. …. sect. 22. Actus credentis non terminatur ad axioma, sed ad rem, fa…entibus s…olasticorum clarissimis, &c. Ames. medul. Theol. l. 2. c. 5. sect. 24. on whom, whosoever rests and roules himselfe, upon the call of the Gospel, hath a certain evidence of his Interest in Christ, and in all the treasures of righteousnesse and remission that are in him; according to the degree of his affiance, or his taste of sweetnesse in Christ, is his evidence or assurance of his owne interest and propriety in him; There is no sense that doth apprehend its object with more certainty then that of Tasting; as he that tastes hony, knows both the sweetnesse thereof, and that he himselfe injoyes it; So he that tastes the sweetnesse of the Gospell Promises, and of that precious Grace which is therein revealed, knows his interest and propriety therein. It is observed of Jonathan, 1 Sam. 14.27. When he tasted a little hony, his eyes were inlightned; and the Psalmist exhorts us to taste and see how good the Lord is. The soule that tastes, i. e. beleeves the Gospell, and the goodnesse of God therein revealed to sinners, sees and knowes his interest therein; for all manner of sweetnesse, is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing that causeth it, unto which, the nearer our interest is, the greater is the sweetnesse which we find in it: The Soul cannot taste any reall sweetnesse in Christ, and the Gospel, but must needs have some evidence of his interest, propriety, and title to him. Now because (as Dr. Ames observes) by this act of Faith, wherewith we rest and rely upon Christ, proposed to us in the Gospell, we doe immediately attaine to the assurance of this Truth [that my sins in particular are pardoned by Jesus Christ,] therefore some have seemed to speake as if this Proposition, [I am Justified, my sins are forgiven me] were the proper object of Justifying Faith. I shall not stand to defend this Expression, though the Doctor doth highly approve of it hSicut Contar enus optimè observavit. Ames. Bellar. Enervat. ubi sup.; Nor will I quarrell with Mr. W. about his Expression, though I conceive his terme, Axiomatical is somewhat too narrow; for Faith may be said to evidence our Justification immediately, though it doth it not. Axiomatically, but Organically, to wit, as it is the organ or Instrument whereby we doe apprehend and adhere unto Christ, by whom we are justified in the sight of God; the latter term is more adequate to the nature of Faith, which is not only the assent of the Mind, but the adhesion of the Will to the object beleeved. But I shall yeeld him his term, and do say, that Faith may be said to evidence our Justification Axiomatically, yet not by assenting to that which is not revealed; but by assenting to, and withall, tasting and relishing, those indefinite and general Propositions, Invitations, and Promises, that are held forth to us in the Gospell, which by a secret and inscrutable worke of the Holy Spirit, are applyed and made particular to the soule of a true beleever iSee D. …ckson of Faith sect▪ 1. c. 9 n. 4. p. 147. The Spirit makes the general Call particular &c. Shep. Sound beleever. p. 222., for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them. So that Mr. Woodbridges exclamation against a carnall, presumptuous, and soule-damning Faith, is altogether impertinent, seeing we doe not say, that a man is justified by his assent to written, and therefore, much lesse to unwritten verities: If Justifying Faith were no more then an Axiomaticall assent (as Mr. W. seems to intimate it is) I see no reason, why all they, that have such a Faith, as Devils and Reprobates, who beleeve with an historical assent, should not be justified; this is really, the carnall, presumptuous, damning Faith of the world.
§. 8. His second reason against Faiths ev…dencing our Justification Axiomatically, is nothing to the purpose [The Faith (saith he) by which we are justified, is the Faith which the Apostles and Ministers of the Gospel are to preach to the whole world, and to presse it upon their consciences. Act. 20.21.13.38.39. But we cannot presse upon every man in the world to beleeve that he is Justified, &c.] Seeing we do not presse every man to beleeve that he is justified, though (according to our commission given us from Christ) we do presse all men to beleeve kRhetorf. Exer. Apol. ex. 2. c. 2▪ p. 228., 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowlege that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of Sinners; that they themselves are such, and that it is impossible for them to escape the curse by any other means. 2. Amplexu, vel motu voluntatis, to accept, embrace, and cleave unto Jesus Christ, being infinitely better for them, then all the world besides. By this it will appear, what little reason. Mr. W. hath to charge us with pressing men to believe a lie, seeing we require no mans assent to any thing, which is not true. We do not press every man to believe, That he is justified, but to believe, that there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification, and to relie upon him, and him alone, for this Benefit.
§. 9. So that there will be no need for Mr. Eyre to retract his Sermons as falshoods, which he hath formerly preached against Universal Redemption: For though the command of believing be to be pressed upon all men (in that manner as hath been shewn) yet it will not follow, that Christ died for all men. It seems Mr. W. is offended at those Sermons of mine, since he hath had a smack of Mr. B. notions, That Christ died conditionally for all men; yea, for the Reprobates themselves; which though it be countenanced with the names of Cameron, Testardus, and Amyraldus, & of some others, who are of great note amongst our own; yet (may I have leave to speak my minde) I conceive it to be very unsound: For 1. To say that Christ died for any, upon an impossible condition, is to say, That he died in vain, at least so far, or in respect of them, which the Apostle looks upon, as a gross absurdity, Gal. 2.21. 2. For whom Christ died, he without doubt purchased Faith, and all necessary good things. This the Apostle accounts unquestionable, Rom. 8.32. He that spared not his own Son, but gave him to death for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? What is Mr. Woodbridges Judgement in this point, I cannot tell, nor doth it much matter that I should enquire. I need not inform him what advantage they that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sence, do make of his Doctrine of a Conditional Justification, impetrated by the death of Christ: It is the onelyonly foreign that they have to shelter their heads withal; when they are pressed, That if Christ died for all, then all shall be saved, because it must needs be, that Christ must have the purchases of his death, John 11.42. Isa. 53.11. No (say they lDr. Ham. Vind. of Pract. Cat p. 3, & 4. Quare etsi …emo credidisset futurum, tamen fu…sse, ut finis mortis Christi constaret, omnino credimus— Christus exauditur semper, sive salvantur, sive no…, quia orat cum ann xae sidei conditio…e. Corvin. in Mol. c. 27. sect. 1. & 4. Vid. c. 28. sect. 24.) it will not follow, because some do not perform the condition required on their parts. [These two Propositions, Christ redeemed all men, and yet the impenitent, unbelieving, and reprobate World, shall never be saved by him, may be easily reconciled; because the benefits of Christs death are given upon condition, not absolutely; and therefore they that do not perform the condition, shall never be saved by his death.] It were easie to shew that this salvability, or conditional Salvation, is the very Corner Stone in the Remonstrants building.
§. 10. This passage puts me in minde of two absurdities which Mr. J. Woodbridge, my Antagonists Brother, (who a while after came and preached over his Brothers Arguments, with some small Additions) charged upon our Doctrine. The first was, That it doth necessarily infer Universal Redemption. Will it follow, That because the Elect are justified in for… Dei, before they believe; therefore all men are redeemed, and justified? One may as well reason, Some men were elected before they believed, Ergo All men were elected. Perhaps he will say, we cannot press or exhort every man to believe, That he is justified, unless all men are justified: There is no more necessity, that we should press every man to believe that he is justified, then, that he is elected: This is pitifully inconsequent. The second was, That it raseth the Foundation of all actions, tending to the gathering and reforming of Churches; why should any be excluded from Church Ordinances, if they are justified? (1) I must tell him, That I cannot think him an hearty friend to the gathering and reforming of Churches, who deserted a Congregation in New England, whereof he was Pastor, to become a Parish Parson in the Old; and not onelyonly so, but hath stood to maintaine that Parishes are true Churches mIn a Sermon at an irregular Ordination in Sarum, where Ministers are ordained, not fixed to any Church; and some an hundred miles distant from the place of their Ministery.. It is like Barford in Old England, is (if not a purer Church) yet a better Parsonage then Andover in the New. We are not much beholding to New England for such Reformers. (2) If we may judge of a mans principles by his practise, we should then believe, that he himself holds Universal Justification, at least, within the bounds of his own Parish; for, as I am informed, he makes no distinction at all in this behalf. I am ashamed to hear men to talk of Reformation, who tread Antipodes to it; especially, when they have liberty to follow the dictates of their Consciences. But (3) I had thought he had known, that de occultis non judicat ecclesia; and that Election and Justification, are not the rule of admitting persons into Church Communion, but their found Profession, and suitable Conversation. A Reprobate, or unjustified person, may lawfully be admitted into, and an Elect person may as lawfully be excluded out of a Church. I dare not say, That the excommunicated person at Corinth, and others under that censure, were not justified: The evidence we have of mens Justification, is but the judgement of rational charity, and not of infallibility. But enough of this, I shall return again to his Brother B. W. who I suppose will not own such irrational consequences.
§. 11. The other part of his contradiction, is, [That Faith cannot evidence Justification Syllogistically; to wit, By the discourse of Conscience after this, or the like manner, He that believeth, is justified, but I believe, Ergo, I am justified. Now (says Mr. W. magisterially enough) I affirm, that it is impossible for a man, by Faith, to evidence syllogistically, that he is justified before Faith.] Though I honor him highly, I cannot rest satisfied with his foreign; but, what Reason doth he bring for his confident affirmation? [1. Because there cannot be found a medium before Faith it self.] Ans. Nor is it needful there should. (1) It is sufficient, that Faith itself is the medium; as thus, He that believeth, was justified before Faith; but I do believe, Ergo. The Major is proved, because his sins were laid on Christ, and thereby non-imputed to him. (2) To imagine any other medium before Faith, is frivolous; for that were to require, that Faith should evidence before Faith had a being. (3) Why may not Faith be a medium to evidence our Justification before Faith, as well as our Election before Faith? Seeing the same word which affirms, That all Believers were elected before the Foundations of the World, affirms also, That the Elect without exception are discharged, and acquitted of their sins, Rom. 8.33. Shall we reason thus, Our Election cannot be evidenced before Faith. Ergo, We were not elected before Faith? Mr. Woodbridges Arguing makes as much against evidencing Election before Faith, as against the evidencing of our Justification before Faith: [Because there is no sort of persons, of whom ELECTION can be affirmed universally, but onelyonly such as do believe; seeing all the world is distributed into Believers, and unbelievers; but ELECTION cannot be affirmed of unbelievers universally.] It proves indeed, That neither Election, nor Justification, are evident to us, before we believe; it doth not prove, That by Faith we cannot evidence syllogistically, that we were both elected and justified, before we did believe. As for that mad Syllogism (as he calls it) which follows; All unbelievers are justified, but I am an unbeliever, Ergo. It is the off-spring of his own brain, hatcht on purpose to make the matter ridiculous: But we must excuse the luxuriousness of his wit, seeing Nullum est magnum ingenium sine mixtura insaniae. His other Syllogism, which he hath framed, to evidence Justification by Election, as thus, All the Elect are justified. But I am elected; Ergo: was framed in the same mould. A meer man of clouts, which he himself created, to shew his valor in beating of him. We do not teach men to evidence Justification by Election, but both Election and Justification by their Faith, proceeding from the Effect to the Cause, as we needs must, when the Effect is more evident then the Cause. Though I like not the Argument, yet by his leave, the Major is so far from being utterly false, that it is justified by the express Testimony of the Apostle, Rom. 8.33. But this is besides the purpose. That miserable circle into which he pretends the poor, restless, doubting soul is conjured by our Doctrine, is but a vertigo, and whimsie in his own Pericrany. We do neither bid men evidence their Justification by their Election, nor their Election by their Justification; but both Election, and Justification, by a stedfast adherence and reliance upon Jesus Christ; and from thence, to reason out our particular interest in these Blessed Priviledges, as we do the Being of Causes, by the proper Effects which flow from them.
§. 12. His next Argument against Faiths evidencing Justification syllogistically, if it be put into the scale of an impartial Judgement, will appear as light as the former. It runs thus, [If we are said to be justified by Faith, because Faith doth evidence Justification syllogistically, then we may be said to be justified by Sence and Reason, as well as by Faith, which is absurd.] This Consequence indeed is very absurd; for the conclusion is of Faith, and so adjudged by the Schools, if the Major be of Faith; else this conclusion (I shall rise again from the dead,) were not of Faith, because it is inferred, partly by Sence and Reason, as thus, All men shall rise again, I am a man; Ergo, I shall rise again. Here the Major onelyonly is of Faith, the Minor is of Sence; and yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith, and not of Sence. So in this Syllogism, He that believes, is justified; But I do believe, Ergo, I am justified. Though the Assumption be an act of Sence, or spiritual Experience, yet the Conclusion is an act of Faith, because the Major is of Faith: For though in both these Deductions, Sence and Reason are made use of, yet they are but subfervient Instruments, and not the Authors of the Conclusion.
§. 13. Mr. W. hath added a third Argument, to prove, That Justification by Faith▪ is not meerly a Justification in our Consciences, which, I question not, will prove as unsuccessful as the rest. But, by the way, I cannot chuse but take notice, that his spirit of contradiction is somewhat allayed: For hitherto he hath contended, That Justification by Faith, is not in any sence, a Justification in Conscience; now he tells us, it is not meerly a Justification in Conscience; and if this will satisfie him, it is like we shall agree; for, before we have shewn, that when Faith is objectively taken, Justification by Faith is Justification by Christ, and in the sight of God, and not onelyonly in the Conscience. And therefore his suggestion in the Minor Proposition, That we interpret the phrase of Justification by Faith, meerly of Justification in Conscience, is false and groundless. But let us weigh the force of his Argument a little more distinctly; the sum of it then, is this, Justification by Faith is not Justification in our Consciences; for then we should be concurrent Causes with God, in the formal act of our Justification: The formal act of pronouncing us just, must be attributed unto us, which the Scripture attributes unto God alone, making us but passive therein, Rom. 8.33. & 4.6, 8. To which I answer, That the pronouncing of us just, is not the formal act of Justification, but the imputing of Righteousness, and the non-imputing of sin, which is the act of God alone; whereas the pronouncing of us just and righteous, is in Scripture attributed to others besides God, and yet no robbery is done to God: As for instance, the Minister of Christ pronounceth the Word of Grace, and Forgiveness, and therefore is said to remit and forgive sin, Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, Joh. 20.23. Is he therefore joyned with God in the formal act of Justification? Yet all Protestants grant him the office of pronouncing Remission, though they deny him the power of giving Real Remission, which would make him arrogate that, which is peculiar unto God: So, though we say, That Faith doth declare and reveal to our Consciences, the sentence of Absolution; yet we do not thereby derogate from God, or attribute that to Faith, which belongs to God. We grant, that, as to our Justification in the sight of God, (which is properly Justification) we are meerly Passive, we contribute nothing at all, either Physically, or Morally, by way of Merit or Motive, That God should account us righteous, and not impute to us our sins. This work was done without us, and for us, by Christ with his Father nSee Heilder. on 51. Psal. Lect. 128. p. 604.; it hath no other cause, but the Grace of God, and the Merit of Christ. He, and he alone, purged, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Revel. 1.5. Heb 1.3. Now in regard of our Passiveness in this act of our Justification, we say, That Faith hath no hand at all in procuring, obtaining, and instating us in this Grace; for if we did any thing, though never so little, in order to this end, we were not Passive, but Active: Yet we say, That as this gracious sentence of our Justification, is revealed and terminated in our own Consciences, so Faith hath an Instrumental efficacy; we are therein foreign agents with God, 2 Cor. 6.1. And the Spirit foreign beareth witness with our spirits, Rom. 8.16. And therefore, though we are no where exhorted to justifie, or to make our selves righteous in the sight of God; yet we are oftentimes bid to grow in Faith, and to press forward to more assurance in believing our peace, and reconciliation with God, 2 Pet. 1.5. & 3.18. Rom. 5.1.oPacem babeamus. Vulg. & Syr.
§. 14. This Concession of Mr. W. [That a man is wholly Passive in his Justification,] gave occasion, to the first Argument I offered to his consideration, it being, as I conceive, a flat contradiction to the cheif scope, and intendment of his Sermon, which was to derive to Faith, at least, a Federal or Moral causality in our Justification. I am sorry I should have so much cause to complain of his injurious dealing, not onelyonly in that unworthy language he is pleased to give me, but in casting my Argument into another form, then that, wherein I proposed it. In his report it runs thus [If we were altogether Passive in being justified, then we are justified before we believe.] In which form, I confess it is obnoxious to more exceptions then one; for besides the Grammatical part, which is very harsh, the Logical consequence may be justly blamed: Though the consequent be true, yet it is not a true consequence, it is not rightly inferred from the Antecedent: Though we are Passive in our Justification, yet it doth not follow from thence, That we were justified before we believed. A man is Passive in the first act of his Conversion, yet it were absurd to conclude; therefore a man was converted before he had a Being, or ever heard of the Gospel. But the Argument, as I proposed it, was as followeth. If we are wholly passive in our Justification, then our Faith doth not concur to the obtaining of it, or we are not justified by the act of Faith in the sight of God. But (according to you) we are wholly Passive in our Justification, Ergo, Faith doth not concur unto our Justification, or we are not justified by the act of Faith. His Answer hereunto I could not very well heed, by reason of my distance from him, and the rudeness of some people (who do go for Professors) that stood about me; but as I conceived, it was to this effect, That Faith doth necessarily concur to the Application of this Priviledge; whereunto I replied, But the Application of this Benefit is not Justification; the one being Gods act, the other ours. His Answer in Print, we are sure, is authentick; let us see therefore, how well he hath now quitted himself from the guilt of this contradiction. 1. He calls the Argument A childish Exception, a peece of witchery, and wonders it should proceed out of my mouth. I must confess, I cannot but wonder to hear such language from a civil man, much more from a Minister, and more especially from one, who hath sometimes owed me more respect; let the prudent judge, whether there be any ground for this hideous clamor. 2. He shapes some kinde of answer to the Sequel, That though Faith be a formal, vital act of the soul in genere Physico; yet the use of it in Justification, is but to qualifie us passively, that we may be morally capable of being justified by God. And again, Faith is required on our part; which though Physically it be an act, yet Morally it is but a Passive condition, by which we are made capable of being justified, according to the Order and Constitution of God. Now here 1. I shall desire the Reader to observe how much Mr. W. is beholding to a Popish Tenent (opposed by all our Protestant Writers) to support his cause, which is, That Faith goes before Justification, to dispose us for it Concil. Trid. …ess. 6. c…n. 6. &c …. Bellar. de just. … 1, c. 12. &c., &c. Bellarmine Chamier Panst. …. 3. l 22. c. 8. Ames Bel. ener. …. 4. l. 5. c. 4.undertakes to prove that Faith doth not justifie alone; because there are other things, to wit, fear, hope, love, penitency, a desire of the Sacraments, and a purpose of amendment of life: all which (sayes the Jesuite) doe prepare and dispose a man for Justification as well as Faith. Against whom all our Protestant Divines Willet contr. 19. …. 991. Down. of Justif. l. 6. c. 7 …. 10. Pemble …ind. fid. c. 4.which my little Library hath obtained, do unanimously affirme, That Faith doth not dispose, or prepare us for Just…fication; Now were they all bewitched as well as we, who would not subscribe to this Popish Dictate? 2. I shall leave it to the Reader to judge, whether my Argument, or his Answer doth deserve this censure, when he hath weighed the reasons I shall give, That Faith cannot be said to Justifie by way of disposition, or as a passive condition, morally disposing us for Justification.