Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. That Faith doth not justifie, as a condition required on our part to qualifie us for Justification.
IN regard that the main Point in difference between me and Mr. W. lyes at the bottom of this Answer, I shall make it appear we are not said to be Justified by Faith in a Scripture sence, because Faith is required of us as a passive condition, to qualifie us for justification in the sight of God.
§. 1. That Interpretation of the phrase, which gives no more to Faith in the businesse of our Justification, then to other works of sanctification, cannot be true; The reason is, because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith, and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification, Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2.16.3.11. But to interpret justification by faith meerly thus, That Faith is a condition to qu…lifie us for Justification, gives no more to Faith then to other works of sanctification, as to repentance, charity, and all other duties of new obedience; which Mr. W. and others of the same affirmation, make to be necessary antecedent conditions of Justification. Mr. B. includes all works of obedience to evangelical precepts, in the definition of Faith aThes. 70., in which sen…e, I presume, no Papist will deny that we are justified by Fai…h alone, taking it as he doth, for fides formata, or faith animated with charity and other good works. And therefore, Bellarm. bDe Justif. l. 1 c. 17.disputing against Justification by Faith alone, sayes, that if wee could be perswaded, that Faith doth justifie, impetrando, promerendo, & suo modo inchoando Justificationem (which is granted him, if Faith be an antecedent, federal condition, disposing us for it) then we would never deny that love, fear, hope, &c. did justifie as well as Faith. Dr. Hammond cPract. Cat. p. 28, 30.sayes expressely, That neither Paul nor James doe exclude or separate faithfull actions, or the acts of faith from Faith, or the condition of Justification, but absolutely require them as the onelyonly things by which we are justified: Which in another place dVindic. Cat. p. 8.he goes about to prove by this argument, That without which we are not justified, and by which, joyned with Faith we are justified, is not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith, or the condition of our Justification; but required together with Faith as the only things, by which, as by a condition, a man is justified. But without acts of Faith, or faithfull actions, we are not justified, and by them wee are justified, and not by Faith onelyonly. Therefore faithfull actions, or acts of Faith, are not by the Apostle excluded or separated from Faith, or the condition of our Justification; but required together with Faith, as the onelyonly things, by which, as by a condition, a man is justified. It is evident that he, and other abetters to this notion, attribute no more to Faith in our Justification then to other works of sanctification, Now this was witnessed against, as an unsound opinion, a pernicious error, and utterly repugnant to the sacred Scriptures, &c. eSee Testim. to the truth &c. p 4 & 15.by Mr. Cranford amongst the London Subscribers, Decemb. 14. 1647, and by Mr. W. himselfe (if I mistake not) amongst the Subscribers in other Counties. It seems (by Mr. W.) they were bewitched when they gave their hands unto that Testimony.
§. 2. That Interpretation of this phrase, which gives no more to Faith, then to workes of Nature, I meane such as may be found in naturall and unregenerate men, is not true: The Reason is, because a man may have such works, and yet not be justified. But to interpret Justification by Faith, that Faith is a necessary antecedent condition of our Justification, gives no more to Faith then to workes of Nature, as to sight of sin, legall sorrow, &c. which have been found in naturall, and unregenerate men, as in Cain, Saul, Judas, &c. I presume Mr. W. will say that these are necessary antecedent conditions in every one that is justified; for if these be conditions disposing us to Faith, and Faith a condition disposing us to Justification; then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification, for causae causae, est causa causati, if these legall works are conditions of Faith, they must be (according to Mr. Woodbridges Tenet) conditions of Justification, and consequently they are in eodem genere causae with Faith it selfe, quod erat demonstrandum.
§. 3. 3 That by which we are justified, is the proper, efficient, meritorious cause of our Justification; but Faith considered as a meer passive condition, is not in the sence of our adversaries a proper, efficient, meritorious cause of Justification; therefore wee are not said to bee justified by Faith as a passive condition, or qualification required to make us capable of Justification. The assumption is granted by our opponents, at least verbo tenus, who doe therefore call it a meer sine qua non (which Logicians make to be causa ociosa & nihil efficiens fPhilip. apud …eckern. Log. p. 152.) and a passive condition to exclude it from all manner of causality in producing the effect; though for my own part, I look upon conditions in contracts and covenants, as proper, efficient, meritorious causes of the things covenanted, which do produce their effects, though not by their innate worth, yet by vertue of the compact and agreement made between the parties covenanting. But of this we shal have occasion to speak more by and by: It remains only that I should clear the major, that That by which we are justified is the proper▪ efficient, meritorious cause of our Justification; which appears 1. By the use of these Propositions, by, and through, in ordinary speech, which note that the thing to which they are attributed is either a meritorious, or instrumentall cause of the effect that follows; as when we say a Souldier was raised by his valor, it imports, that his valor was the meritorious cause of his preferment; and when we say a Tradesman lives by his Trade, our meaning is, that his Trade is the means or instrument by which he gets his living: So here in the case before us, when it is said a man is justified by Faith, it implyes, that Faith is either the meritorious, or instrumentall cause of his Justification; as if it be taken objectively, for Christ and his merits, it is the meritorious cause of our Justification in foro dei; or if it be taken properly for the act of believing, it is the instrumental cause of our Justification in foro conscientiae. 2. From the contrary phrase, as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by Works, and by the Law, without doubt his intent was to exclude Works from any causal influx into our Justification. Now that which he denies to Works, he ascribes to Faith, and therefore Justification by Faith, implies that Faith in his sense, hath a true causality, or proper efficiency in our Justification. 3 From other parallel phrases in holy Scripture, where we are said to be redeemed, justified, and saved, per Christum, per sanguinem, per mortem, per vulnera. All which doe signifie, That Christ, and his sufferings, are the true, proper, and meritorious cause of these benefits; and so it must bee understood, when wee are said to be Justified by Faith; and not that Faith is but a sine qua non, or meer cypher in our Justification: Faith objectively taken, is a proper meritorious cause of our Justification.
§. 4. 4 I shall make use of my adversaries weapon gNostra contranos dimicat armatura, Jer. ad. Johan. Hieros.of that very medium which Mr. W. last alledged page 8. That interpretation of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in the formall act of our Justification, is not true, because our Justification in respect of efficiency, is wholly attributed unto them, Rom. 8.33.4.6.8.3, 24. The internal moving cause, was his owne grace; and the onelyonly externall procuring cause is the death of Christ; there is no other efficient cause besides these: We can be no more said to justifie our selves, then that we created our selves. But to make Faith a condition morally disposing us to Justification, maks us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification.
1. We should not be justified freely by his grace, if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition (as Mr. Walker observes well) whensoever it is performed, makes the thing covenanted a due debt, which the promiser is bound to give, and then as he infers, Justification should not be of grace, but of debt, contrary to the Apostle, in Rom. 3. and 4.
2. If Faith were a condition morally disposing us for Justification, we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification; for the merits of Christ are not a physical, but a moral cause, which obtain their effect, by vertue of that Covenant which was made between him, and the Father; now by ascribing unto Faith a morall, causall influx in our Justification, we doe clearly put it in eodem genere causae with the blood of Christ, which I hope Mr. W. will better consider of, before he engageth too far in Mr. Baxters cause.
§. 5. That interpretation of this phrase which makes Works going before Justification, not onelyonly not sinful, but acceptable to God, and preparatory to the grace of Justification, without controversie is not according to the minde of the holy Ghost; For as much as the Scripture frequently declares, that no mans Works are acceptable to God before his person is accepted, and justified; the Tree must be good, or else the fruit cannot be good, hGen. 4.4. Inprimis ad Abel & postca ad munera propter cum; Deus non homines propter munera, sed munera propter homines acceptat. Paris cap. de meritis. Ideo dicitur 1 R. 8.52. oculi sunt a…erti ad preces servi, quia prius nos intuctur justificatos in Christo, quam preces exaudit. See Ains. not: on Lev. 3.5.Luke 6.43, 44. Mat. 12.33. Joh. 15.5. iNihil viriditatis habet ramus boni operis, nisi a radice processit, qui est Christus.That of Aug. is sufficiently known, Opera non precedunt justificandum, sed sequuntur justificatum; the old orthodox doctrine taught in these Churches here in England kArt. 13. & Rogers thereupon.was, that works before Justification are not pleasing unto God, neither doe they make men meet (i… do not qualifie, or morally dispose them) to receive grace; and we doubt not, but they have the nature of sin. I could muster up a legion of orthodox Writers to defend this Tenent, that no qualification, or act of ours before Justification doth prepare or dispose us for Justification. Nay the Councel of Trent lNihil eorum quae justificationem precedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur. Concil. Trident. Ses. 6. Can. 8.confesseth, that none of those things which precede Justification, whether it be Faith, or other Works, doe obtain the grace of Justification. But to interpret Justification by Faith, that Faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification, necessarily supposeth a Work, or Works before Justification, which have not the nature of sin, but are acceptable to God, and preparatory to grace, viz. the grace of Justification, which is most properly called Grace.mSee Down of Just. l. 3. c. 1. & 2.
§. 6. That interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involves a contradiction, is not to be admitted; but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification, implies a contradiction; Ergo, The proposition is undeniable, and the Assumption is to me as cleare; To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect, is a flat contradiction. Now that is active which is effective nEfficiens est unde pendet … effectus.which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect. A condition, though in the Logical notion of it, it hath not the least efficiency; and therefore Aristotle never reckoned this sine qua non, in the number of causes, yet in the use of the Jurists (as we are now speaking of it) it is a morall efficient cause, which is effective of that which is promised upon condition, Chamier hath well observed oTom. 3. l. P 5. c. 5. S. 2.That omnis conditio antecedens est effectiva, he that performes the least condition imaginable for having of any benefit, is active and passive in obtaining of it. We will look after no other instance then that which Mr. W. hath set before us: An offender against our Lawes that is saved by his Clergy, or by reading his Neck-verse, he is not passive, but active in saving of his life, he may properly be said to have saved himselfe, his reading being not onelyonly a physicall act, but a morall efficient cause, which makes that favourable law to take effect. To say he is passive, because he made not the Law, nor sits as Judge on the Bench to absolve himselfe, is but a shift to blinde the eyes of the simple, seeing that when more causes then one concur to an effect, the effect may be denominated from the lowest, that which doth least is an active efficient cause; nay in this case the Malefactor doth more in saving of his life, then either the Law or Judge; for though pro forma, he acknowledgeth the grace of the State, and the courtesie of the Judge unto him: yet as the Welch-man that was bid to cry God blesse the King, and the Judge, cryed, God blesse her father and mother who taught her to read, intimated he was more beholding to his reading then to the courtesie of the Judge, for else the Judge would have been severe enough, his mercy would have deserved but little thanks. I must needs tell my Old Friend, Non loquitur ut Clericus. We say such a man is Passive in saving his life, who is not required to read or perferm any other condition, but receives a pardon of meer Grace: In like manner he is Passive in his Justification, that doth nothing at all towards the procuring of i…; he that performs the least condition in order thereunto▪ is not onelyonly Physically, but Morally active in obtaining this priviledge. For though he did not make the Law, by, and according to which he is justified; nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution upon himself; yet he hath a subordinate, or less principal efficiency in producing the effect; nay, a learned man Mr. Kendal against Goodwin, cap. 4▪ 141.(whom I hope Mr. W. will not think more worthy to be derided, then disputed with) tells us, That he that performs conditions for Justification, doth more to his Justification, then God, who made onelyonly a conditional grant, notwithstanding which, he might have perished; but he by performing the condition, makes the grant to be absolute: And truly (sayes the same Author) whosoever makes Faith the condition of the New Covenant, in such a sense as perfect Obedience was the condition of the Old, cannot avoid it; but that man is justified chiefly by himself, and his own acts; not so much by Gods Grace in imputing Christs Righteousness, but more by his own Faith, which is his own act, though of Gods work. God by making his supposed gracious conditional promise, doth not justifie any man qIb. p. 140., for that makes no difference at all amongst persons: It remains therefore, that man must be said to justifie himself; for where there is a promise of a Reward made to all, upon condition of performing such a service, he that obtains the reward, gets it by his own service; without which, the promise would have brought him never a whit the nearer to the Reward. Thus a man justifies himself by believing, more a great deal, then God justifies him by his promulgation of the conditional promise, which would have left him in his old condition, had not he better provided for himself by believing, then God by promising: as in the old Covenant, it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world, just so in the new (if it be a conditional promise) it is not the promise that justifies a believer, but the believer himself.
§. 7. Mr. W. may as well call the Blood of Christ a Passive condition in our Justification, because it did not make the Law, nor pronounce the sentence of Absolution; let the indifferent Reader consider, whether this be not (I will not say a childish, but) an impertinent answer, which draws his former Concession quite aside from the matter now under debate; for the question is not, whether man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification; but whether he hath any causal influx in producing the effect; or whether before Justification, he can, or doth perform any condition, to which God hath infallibly promised this Grace? Which (if granted) will conclude, That he is not Passive, but Active in his Justification; when our Protestant Divines say, That a man is Passive in his first Conversion: Their meaning is, That he can perform no condition at all, to which God hath inseparably annexed the Grace of Conversion: So Cameron rCam. Tom. 3 p 569.expresseth their sense and meaning, Vocatio nullam poscit in objecto conditionem; For though a man before conversion do perform many natural acts, which have a remote tendency to this effect, as Hearing, Reading, Meditating, &c. yet for all we say, He is Passive therein, because these are not such conditions, to which God hath promised saving Grace: So though a man doth never so many natural acts, or duties, whereunto God hath not immediately promised this priviledge, he is but Passive for all in his Justification; but if he do perform any condition, to which Justification is promised, then he is active, and consequently may be said to justifie himself.
§. 8. But says Mr. W. We do no more justifie our selves, then we do glorifie our selves, it is God alone doth both, and we are Passive in both, Pag 8. And again, It is God that glorifies us, and not we our selves; yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we believe, Pag. 10.
First, I shall readily grant him, that we do neither justifie, nor glorifie our selves; seeing that we obtain neither of these benefits by our own works: From the very beginning, to the end of our Salvation, nothing is primarily or causally Active, but Free-grace sReynolds on Hos. 14. Serm. 4. sect. 18.; all that we receive from God is gift, and not debt: Glory it self is not wages, but Grace. For though it be called The recompence of Reward, Heb. 11.27. yet that is not to be understood in a proper sense, as when the Reward is for the Work, which may be two ways. First, When the work is proportionable to the wages, as when a Laborer receives a shilling for a days work, here the work doth deserve the wages, because the work doth him that payes the wages as much good, as the wages doth the worker. Now surely, no reward can come from the Creator to the Creature in this way, b…cause no man can do any work that is profitable unto God, Psal. 16.2. Job 22.3. & 35.8. Rom. 11 35. The very Papists will not say, that Glory is a reward in this sense. Works (saith Bishop Gardner Answer to G. …oy, fol. 20. b.) do not deserve Salvation, as a Workman deserveth his wages for his labor. Secondly, When the work is not answerable to the wages, but yet the wages is due by promise upon the performance of it; as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an hours labor, though the work be not worth it, yet is it a due debt, and he may challenge it as such, because it was promised him: In this sense, neither is Glory a Reward; for under the New Covenant, Blessedness is not to him that worketh, but to him that worketh not, Rom. 4.5. We are saved by grace, and not by works, Tit. 3.5. Eph. 2.5, 8. And saith the Apostle, If by grace, then it is no more of works, Rom. …1.6. But when Glory is called a Reward, we are to understand it improperly, as when a thing is called a Reward onelyonly by way of Analogy and Resemblance, because it comes after, and in the place of the work; as the nights rest may be called the Reward of the days labor, because it succeeds it. Thus is that of the Apostle to be taken▪ 2 Thes. 1.7. And thus the Heir inheriting his Fathers Lands, hath a Recompence or Reward of all the labor and service he hath done for his Father; although he did not his service to that end, neither doth the enjoyment of that inheritance hang upon that condition. In this sense, Eternal L…fe and Glory may be called the Reward of our Works, because it is a consequent of them; not that our works have any influence, either Physical or Moral to obtain it: All things being given us, in, and for Christ alone, Rom. 8.32. Eph. 1.3. And therefore it is called by the Apostle A reward of Inheritance, Col. 3.24. Which comes to us not by working, but by inheritance, as we are the heirs of God, and joynt heirs with Christ. If Glory were a Reward in a proper sense, we might properly be said to save and glorifie our selves, because we concurred to the Production of this effect; but Mr. W. sayes well, It is God that glorifies us; Eternal Life is called his gift in opposition to wages, Rom. 6.23. 2 Tim. 4.8. It is solely the effect of Gods grace, and Christs purchase; though God doth glorifie us after working, y…t not for any of those works which we have wrought, though by the help and assistance of his own Spirit.
§. 9. But yet secondly, Though God doth not glorifie us before we believe, yet it will not follow, that he doth not justifie us before we believe. For first, if we take Justification pro volitione Dei, for the Will of God not to punish, he cannot but know, there is not the same reason of an immanent act of God, which is Eternal, and of a transient act which is in time; or secondly, if we take it pro re volita, as it is the fruit and effect of Christs death, it will not follow, that because we have not Glorification before believing, we have not Justification: For though all the Blessings of the Covenant are given us freely, and not upon conditions performed by us, yet God hath his order and method in bestowing of them: He first gives us Grace imputed, then Grace inherent, and afterwards Eternal Glory. And thus some Benefits of the Covenant are by some (though improperly) made conditions of the rest, because they are first enjoyed.
§. 10. That which Mr. W. addes, Pag. 10. and wisheth may be seriously considered, hath been considered already, more then once. If (saith he) Justification by Faith, must be understood of Justification in our Consciences, then is not the word Justification taken properly for a Justification before God in all the Scriptures; from the beginning to the end, we read of no Justification in Scripture, but by Faith or Works. Mr. E. (sayes he) when the Scripture speaks of Justification by Works, understands it of Justification before men; when it speaks of Justification by Faith, he understands it of Justification in our Consciences: Now neither of these is Justification in the sight of God, and verily neither of them of much worth in the Apostles judgement, 1 Cor. 4.3. The Antinomians may read out their eyes, before they produce us one Text, &c.] Had he reported my Judgement truly, there had been no room for this Exception. I have said indeed (and by all that Mr. W. hath said against it, I see no reason to change my minde) that when the Scripture attributeth our Justification to Works (as in the Epistle of James) it is to be understood of our Justification before men; when it ascribes it to Faith, Faith is taken either properly, or metonymically; if it be taken properly for the act of Believing, then it is to be understood of our Justification before God, terminated in our Consciences, or as it is revealed and evidenced, to our selves. Justification in Conscience, is Justification before God, as an Acquittance in the heart of the Creditor, and in a Paper is one and the same; this manifested, and the other secret. He that is justified in his Conscience, is justified before God; and Faith apprehends that, which doth not onelyonly justifie us in our Consciences but before God: Or if Faith be taken metonymically for its object, then Justification by Faith is Justification before God; for it is Justification by the Merits of Christ, to whom alone, without works, or conditions performed by us, the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God; Rom. 3.24. Ephes. 1.7. and in many other such places.
§. 11. But (says Mr. W.) Justification before men, and in our Consciences, are neither of them of much worth in the Apostles Judgement, 1 Cor. 4 3.] 1. I wish that Justification with men, were of less account with Mr. W. He best knows, whether Conscience of vindicating the truth, or popular affectation, put him upon this engagement. I am sure, the former would not have tempted him to those incivilities he hath offered unto me and others, whom (I doubt not) but God will know by other names, then he is pleased to cast upon us. If the later, or a desire of ingratiating himself with some of my Opposers, did spur him forward, though he hath Justification before men (which yet I assure him is not Universal, no not amongst many that do wish him well) I dare say, he is not justified in the Court of Conscience, and if our heart, &c. 1 Joh. 3.20. 2. But doth the Apostle account neither of these Justifications much worth? Let Mr. W. judge in what account he had Justification before men, by what he sayes, 2 Cor. 1.12. 1 Cor. 9.15. And Justification in Conscience, by those blessed Effects he ascribes unto it, Rom. 5.1, 23. see 1 John. 3.21. 3. It is true, 1 Cor. 43. he sayes, That he cares not to be judged of mans judgement, or of mans day vV…d. Vorst. Para…. & … dat. Annot.. The meaning is, That he did not regard the sinister Judgements and Censures of carnal Christians, who praise and dispraise upon light and trivial inducements, like them Chap. 1. v. 12. Yea, (sayes he) I judge not my self, q. d. I am not solicitous, nor do I enter into consideration what degree of honor or esteem I am worthy of, amongst, or above my fellows. Now, what is this to the purpose? What is this to the Justification of his person in the Court of Conscience by Faith, or the Justification of his Faith and Sincerity towards men by Works? I must needs say (with a very worthy Divine xMr. Owen against Baxter,p …1.) That no small portion of favor consists in a Sence and Knowledge of the kindness of God in its actings, terminated upon the Conscience; however Mr W. is pleased to value it.
§. 12. In his next Passage he gives us a Youthful Frolick, to shew his gallantry, like Mr. Baxters challenge yAphor. p. 93., Let the Antinomians shew one Scripture which speaks of Justification from Eternity. The Antinomians (saith he, the Anti-Papists, and Anti-Arminians, he means) may read their eyes out, before they produce us one Text for any other Justification in Scripture, which is not by Faith, or Works. (1) Though the Antinomians are so blinde, that they cannot finde one Text for this purpose, yet he himself is such a quick-sighted Linceus, that he hath discovered more then one: For Pag. 23. he tells us of a threefold Justification, and yet neither of them is by Faith or Works. I hope he hath not read out his eyes to finde them out. (2) In what sence the Scripture asserts Justification before Faith or Works, hath been shewn before; but (3) (if I may be so bold) I would ask how long the Anti-Gospellers may read before they produce one plain Text for any of those Dictates, they would thrust upon us, That Justification doth in no sence precede the act of Faith; that Christ purchased onelyonly a conditional, not an absolute Justification for Gods Elect; that our Evangelical Righteousness by which we are justified is in our selves; that the tenor of the New Covenant is, If thou believe, &c. That God hath made a Covenant with Christ, that none should have any benefit by his death, till they do believe. Cum multis aliis quae nunc, &c.
§. 13. Mr. W. thinks he hath sufficiently cleared the coast of this Exception [That Faith in a proper sence is said to justifie, in respect of its evidencing property, or because it declares and applies to our Consciences, that perfect Justification which we have in Christ.] But by his leave, it is like to be a bone for him to pick, till the Index Expurgatorius hath rased out those Scriptures which ascribe our Justification unto Christ alone. For my own part, I see no such cause he hath to triumph, unless it be in the dejection of those feeble consequences, which he himself hath devised to make our Doctrine odious, which we have shewn before, are as remote from our principles, as the East is from the West. I confess, neither he, nor I, are competent Judges in our own cause; let the Godly Reader judge between us, and hold fast that which comes nearest to the Analogy of Faith. I shall now address my self to s…an the force of those Arguments he hath brought to prove; That the Elect are not justified in the sight of God before they believe.