A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 105
Aphorism.
THey think that Faith is an instrumental Page 299.efficient Cause of our Justification (which that properly it is not I have proved before) when if they understood that it justifieth but as à causa sine qua non, or Condition, they would easily yield that Works do so too.
Animadvers.
1. Do you think that neither Mr. Pemble, nor Calvin, nor any of all those eminent Divines whom you oppose, did unstand the nature and use of Faith in the point of Justification?
2. Let Faith be either an Instrument, as many term it (and I have before noted the reason, as I conceive it:) or a Condition, as you will have it (and I am not against it) yet Faith doth justifie as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction; by which indeed so apprehended, we are justified. Works do not concur with Faith in this act of apprehending Christ's Satisfaction; and therefore neither are they concurrent unto Justification.
Reply.
1. I confess you have me now at a disadvantage. I shall not easily rid my hands of this Platonick Argument, though the Logick of it may be well enough dealt with. If I say that Calvin, &c. knew not so much as I, it will seem Arrogancy: If I say they did know more in this, I seem to confess my self to err. But what if I speak freely what I think without dissembling, let it seem what it will? I think for the service Calvin and such others did the Church, and for the progress that Truth made by their endeavours, it was such, that I deserve not to be named the same day with them: I think also that Calvin brought in more New-Doctrines (new to those times) than I have done incomparably: I think also that he writes so moderately oft of this very point, that I think his judgment was in sense, in the main, the same with mine. Yet I think his apprehensions of the Doctrines now in dispute, and his expressions of them, were not so clear, distinct and orderly, but that some that come after may see further, and redress those oversights, which have occasioned quarrels since (when, as Dr. Stoughton saith, We differ but in words about Justification by Faith, not understanding each others meaning. Form of wholesom words.) And I will not be so ungrateful to God, for fear of seeming arrogant, as not to speak plainly, that I hope God hath shewed me somewhat further in this point, and some others, than Calvin hath taught or discovered. (And yet I think few of his nearer followers saw so much as he; but most depraved his Doctrine by out-going him, while they thought they did but imitate or vindicate him.) I hope when the Master-workman hath built the House, his Boy may say, without the imputation of Arrogancy, I have driven two or three pins which my Master oversaw.
But if this free Answer will not serve, I will answer as I have learned: I also will ask of you a Question or two. And when you have answered me, I will answer you.
1. Do you think that neither Clem. Roman. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clem. Alexand. Tatianus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Cyril, &c. nor any one Divine for a thousand years after Paul, did understand his Doctrine, or know how Faith justified, or how far Works did concur? And you cannot but know (that are a man of reading) that they give generally as much, and mostly more to Works than ever I did, and that they teach our Justification by Faith to be as by Condition, and not as by an Instrument (whatever forced scraps some may gather out of a line, against the full scope of the whole page or Book.)
2. Do you think that Calvin, Martyr, Chamier, &c. with the stream of great renowned Forreign Divines (specially the first Reformers) did none of them know what justifying Faith was? that which we think our Children should know by their Catechism? which we think is so near the foundation? And yet did these men take justifying Faith to be either Assurance or Perswasion of the pardon of a mans own sins in particular; and say, He that had not this Certainty or Perswasion, had no Faith; and even lay a mighty part of Doctrinal Reformation, and difference between us and the Papists in this? And yet almost all our English Divines (except Antinomians) and most others, do now generally disclaim that Doctrine as erroneous, and place justifying Faith in Affiance, Recumbency, Assent or Acceptance, &c. confessing that Assurance, yea, and that perswasion, to be a separable fruit. Was it the former or the present Divines that knew not what justifying Faith is? Indeed if this way of arguing were good, you might save all your other Arguments through your whole Animadversions, and carry all with this one Question: [Do you think I understand not the nature and use of Faith in Justification?] For I reverence your understanding as much as some of theirs at least.
2. But your next words indeed concern the heart of our Controversie; and if I mistake not, do discover the main part of your mistake, and withal do contradict themselves.
You grant that Faith is a Condition, and (elswhere) that it justifieth as a Condition; yet you say, it Justifieth, as it apprehendeth Christ's Satisfaction, by which indeed so apprehended, we are justified. But,
1. If by [Apprehending,] you mean [Acceptance,] and not mere Assent to the truth of the Gospel revealing Christ's Satisfaction, I then say, that this is a very great mistake: For it is Christ himself, and not his Satisfaction, that is the adequate Object of the compleat act of justifying Faith, that is, the Wills act: It is Christ himself that is offered to us to be our Head, Husband, Lord, Saviour, and by accepting him, the Covenant is made, and we are united to him: And this Ʋnion is the first effect of this Faith, and then Justification in order of nature follows as a benefit: As the Honours and Dowry go with the person in Marriage. Not that there needs another act of Faith to justifie us, after that the first hath united us to Christ. No: It is one act of Faith which is uniting, justifying, adopting, &c. they are several relative effects resulting from the Covenant-grant, upon our first believing (which is the Condition.) It is to God that Christ's Satisfaction is given, and to us Christ himself, and the fruits of it: It is too gross a conceit, that only the apprehension of Satisfaction it self, or Righteousness either, should be the justifying Act: As if you should say, A Womans apprehension of her Husbands Riches, is it that makes her rich, when it is her Consent to have the man. And a dangerous Doctrine this is to be preached to our sensual people, who are contented to have Christ's Satisfaction (as you speak) or Righteousness, but not himself in the state he is offered: This turns mens thoughts from Christ himself, with whom they must first close in Marriage-Covenant, before they shall have any Righteousness by his Satisfaction.
2. You seem to conceive that Faith justifieth modo Physico, & non Politico vel Morali: That as a man that takes money in his hand, doth thereby physically receive it, so he that takes Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness, doth physically receive it. Which is too gross. For, 1. The Question is of our obtaining Right, and not Possession: And no physical Apprehension as such, gives Right. 2. Recipere est pati, sed credere est agere; ergo credere est tantum reoeptio imputativa. 3. Christ's Satisfaction or Righteousness is not an Object capable of our physical Reception. 4. Yet a physical Reception of Righteousness there is, imperfectly called so, even as all Relations are received; and which is nothing but Justificari, Passive Justification: But this follows Faith. Gredere & Justificari non sunt idem: Credimus enim ad Justificationem.
3. The Controversie between us must lie here: Whether the formalis vel proxima ratio of Faith's interest in our Justification, be its Apprehensive Nature, or its Office of Conditionality? The Nature of Faith it self? or that it is the Condition to which the free Donor hath annexed Justification? For Apprehendere Christum I confess to be the Nature of Faith. Now I say (and say more confidently than ever, having tried the strength of many against it) that Apprehendere vel Acceptare Christum being ipsa sidei essentia, is but the matter that hath interest, and not the ratio formalis of Faith's interest in our Justification. It is but the aptitudo ad officium, and the Conditionality (if I may so call it) is the Office it self. That Faith which doth accept Christ, doth justifie, and materialiter thereby: But not as it accepteth Christ. The word [As, quatenus] should strictly speak only the formal Reason: And so Faith justifieth only as a Condition, appointed thereto by God. But if any should extend it improperly to the ratio aptitudinalis, then I would yield to them, that Faith justifies as it accepteth Christ. For no other way of Participation was so fitted to the nature of the Recipient and Receptum.
1. The Nature of Faith it self (which is acceptare Christum) goes in order of Nature before its Conditionality: It is therefore apparent, that the act is but the materia apta, and the Conditionality is the superadded formalis ratio.
2. If Faith as Faith, justifie, that is, as acceptatio Christi, then omnis acceptatio, & sola, & semper; then the Consequence would proceed directly and necessarily ex se [I have accepted Christ, therefore I am justified:] But that it will not do. For, 1. He is ours, as given directly; that is, the efficient cause of our right to him. Had we taken him, or performed that same act which we call Apprehension without Gift, it had conveyed no right. 2. And (if you say, that, at least, omnis apprehensio Christi dati doth justifie qua apprehensio;) I must add, That if Christ had been given by an absolute Promise or Gift, our apprehension of him would not have justified; but we should have been justified before it, or without it. As if a man by Testament give his Lands to his Son that is a thousand miles distant, and knows nothing of it, the right is his before his knowledg or consent, though he may afterward dispossess himself of it when he will. If a King will confer any Honour on a man absent, or an Infant, he may do it, and they partake of the Honour, without their own knowledg or consent. And when they do know and consent, that gives not the Honour or Title which they had before. If God had pleased to say, [I will give my Son and his Righteousness to such Infants, Ideots, Indians, though they never hear of him; or absolutely to say, [I will pardon all their sins,] they had been justified and pardoned thereby without Faith: If the Promise were not conditional (expresly or implicitely) no mans Faith could justifie him. As it belongeth to the Legislator per praeceptum constituere Debitum officii, and without Precept (natural or superadded) duty, would be no duty: So it belongs to the Legislator or Donor, as Dominus praemii (and in our case Dominus praemiati) to institute the Conditions on which it shall be obtained; and therefore it is not from the essential nature of the act of Faith it self. The benefit to be received was wholly God's before the giving; therefore it cannot be conveyed any way, but by the mere signification of God's will: What way is then to alienate a Propriety freely, or to confer right to a benefit on another, but by signifying the Donors will? that is, by giving, selling, &c. Now therefore no act of ours can confer to us the right to anothers benefits; that were to give them to our selves before we have them. All that our act can do, is to be the Condition of the Gift; that is, an act which it pleaseth the Donor so to require of us, if we will have his Gift, that he will suspend his Donation thereon; so that when we perform it, we shall have it, and not without it. Seeing therefore that the Will of the Donor as Donor, doth all in Alienation of his own, or in conveying right to his benefits; therefore no act of the Receivers as an act, or such an act directly, can do it: For from his Will must the Receivers act have its most immediate formal interest: Now the Natura fidei apprehensiva, is not from God as Legislator of the New-Law or Testament, and as Donor of Christ and Justification; but from God as Creator or Producer of that Act in the Soul, or by it. But the constituting the Condition is God's act as Donor of that very Benefit, or as Legislator. That which I mainly therefore insist on is this: Call Faith an Instrument, or an Apprehension, or what you will, as long as you mean but the nature of the Act or Habit, it doth not justifie proprie & proxime qua talis, that is, but the materia apta; but the formalis ratio of its justifying interest, is quá conditio foederis: And therefore whatsoever is such a Condition of Justification doth justifie.
One while the Condition was not the same as now it is, and yet it then justified. The World before Christ was not bound to believe that this Jesus was the Christ, that he was born of a Virgin, crucified, dead, buried, risen, &c. but only that Christ who should come, should do thus (and it may seem that the Disciples before Christ's Resurrection, believed not that neither:) But if we believe not that this Jesus is he, we shall die in our sins. Faith cannot therefore justifie proximè & formaliter ex natura actus, when it hath been so changed; and yet whatsoever was the Condition, still justified.
Besides, you contradict this your self, by acknowledging that Faith justifieth as a Condition of Justification. For then certainly it cannot justifie proximè, as it is apprehensio, that is, qua fides. For, 1. The Conditionality cannot be the matter and the nature of the Act, the super-added form, but contrary. For the Conditionality supposeth the nature of the Act, and not, the nature of the Act supposes it to be the Condition. 2. It is not possible that both should be proximae vel formalis rationes: It must be but one. 3. It is impossible, if Faith be a Condition, but that it should justifie quâ conditio; and it is impossible, if it justifie as a Condition, but that should be its nearest Reason. To say, [the Sun is causa efficiens of Light, and yet that it produceth not Light qua causa efficiens, or yet that there is some nearer Reason; were not so absurd as to say, Faith is a Condition, and yet either justifieth not quâ conditio, or yet hath some more formal Reason. But I have by so many Arguments lately to another Brother, confuted this Opinion, [that Faith justifies ex natura actus, viz. ut apprehensio Christi, vel ut fides, & ut conditio naturalis, & non ut conditio moralis] that I must now thus dismiss it.
If you say, that you do not mean, that Faith as Fai…h, or ex natura actus justifieth, but ex natura objecti. I answer, 1. Our Question is not, Whether Christ justifie? if that be it, we are agreed: I do not think when you say, Faith is an Apprehension of Christ, or a Condition, that you mean [Christ justifies as an Apprehension of Christ, or a Condition:] The Question is therefore of Faith's interest, and not of Christ's. 2. The Object gives not a justifying force to the act. 3. The root still of all the mistakes lieth, in having thoughts of this moral Conveyance of Right, as if it were a physical Communication of some Substance or Quality. The receiving of fire burns my hand ex naturâ objecti, and my act of Approximation, or taking it into my hand, is conditio naturalis (impropriè dicta conditio:) But in conveying Rights (as in Marriage, Testaments, and all Contracts, &c.) the Right must be first conveyed by moral means, before the Object can put forth its power. Christ is not yours, because he is Christ, nor yours because you apprehend him (speaking of the nearest Reason;) but yours, because God hath given him; and yours upon believing, rather than on any other terms, because God hath given him to you, if you believe, rather than on other terms. If God had said, some other act should be the Condition, it should have justified, as truly Faith now doth.
And therefore for your Argument, [Works concur not with Faith in apprehinding; therefore neither in justifying.] I deny your Consequence, having first denied your ground: For, sides non quà fides justificat, sed quà conditio praestita. And I argue contrarily, Repentance and Obedience to the Lord that bought us, do concur with Faith in being Conditions of continued and consummate Justification, therefore they concur in justifying. (Yet I had rather say, [We are justified by Faith,] as signifying only a Conditionality, and being a Scripture-phase; than that [Faith justifieth,] as importing more a Causality, and being no Scripture-phrase.)