A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 115 – Aphorism 118
Aphorism.
IN Rom. 3. 28. & 4. 2, 3, 14, 15, 16. Gal. Page 308.2. 16. &. 3. 21, 22. Ephes. 2. 8, 9. Phil. 3. 8, 9. the Apostle's dispute is upon this Question, What is the Righteousness which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law, or by which we are justified as the proper Righteousness of that Law? And this he well concludeth is neither Works nor Faith, but the Righteousness which is by Faith, that is, Christ's Righteousness.
Animadvers.
1. If we be fully freed from the accusation of the Law, we are fully justified: For what can accuse or condemn us, if not the Law? therefore if the Righteousness of Christ be that which we must plead against the Accusation of the Law, then the Righteousness of Christ is that whereby we are fully justified. What need then of a twofold Righteousness, as that by which we must be justified, as you have said before? Faith indeed is required, that the Righteousness of Christ may be apprehended by us, and imputed to us, that we may be justified by it: But here Faith is no distinct Righteousness by which we are justified, but only the Condition required of us, that the Righteousness of Christ may be ours to Justification. And in this respect only are we said to be justified by Faith, because it apprehendeth Christ's Righteousness whereby we are justified.
Reply.
1. That you may be fully freed from the Condemnation of the Law, and so be fully justified, you must If any had rather say, that the general Obligation to Obedience is more properly said to be our very subjection, and a result of God's Relation to us, than the effect of any Law, and so that it is neither the Old-Covenant nor the New that causeth this general Obligation, and so that Faith in Christ is a duty of the New-Covenant only, because it is there only commanded in specie, I think he will speak more properly than either Mr. C. or I have here done.first perform the Condition of the New-Testament, or New-Law, and so be just quoad praestationem conditionis.
2. This Condition being imposed by a New-Law, backed with its Sanction, is therefore it self a Righteousness in the sense of that Law: For the fulfilling of the Conditions of a Law, is a real Righteousness in the sense of that Law, when the Question is, de Titulo ad praemium, vel de reatu poenae.
3. As Bradshaw well saith, Christ satisfied not for all that we should perform to the Law, but all that we should perform, and did not; (that is, for our sins) except this Condition of the New-Covenant. This Condition therefore (as before is shewed) is part of the Duty of the Old-Law (in the sense before opened) taken out and made a New-Law by conjunction with a New-Sanction (as Adam's Body from the Earth) and so imposed as of indispensible necessity, and the final neglect of it excepted from pardon. And so when-ever you call it [the Condition,] and deny the performance to be a Righteousness in sense of that Law, you contradict your self. Yet as the New-Law is but Lex Remedians, and so a subordinate Law; so is this Righteousness but a subordinate Righteousness, having the nature of a medium to the Righteousness of the Old Law: Neither of them alone, but both together, are Justitia universalis: But the Righteousness of the Old-Law, had it been performed by our selves, would have been Justitia universalis: And Christ's Righteousness imputed is nearest to it; for there is excepted out of it, only our own performance of the Condition of the New-Testament. As therefore the medium goes before the end, so we must have this personal Righteousness praestitae conditionis Novi-Testamenti, before we can have that which freeth us from the Law.
4. To your Question, I say, The Accuser of the Brethren can accuse you besides the Law: And the New-Law will accuse Unbelievers and Rebels against Christ, besides the Old Law: (The Words that I speak shall judg you, &c.) And you must have a Righteousness Evangelical of your own performance to plead against Satan's Accusation, that you are an Unbeliever, Hypocrite, Rebel; or else never be sententially justified.
Aphorism.
BƲt now St. James's question is, What is Ibid.the Condition of our Justification by this Righteousness of Christ, Whether Faith only, or Works also?
Animadvers.
St. James (that I see) doth not propound either expresly or implicitely any such Question, but only doth confute those that rely on such a Faith as is without Works. See James 2. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. The different state of the Question, as handled by St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and as handled by St. James in Chap. 2. is well expressed by Beza in Jac. 2. 14. Illic de causa questio est: hic vero de effectis: Illic à causa ad essecta descenditur, hic ab effectis ascenditur ad causam. Illic quaeritur quomodo Justificemur? hic quomodo justificati fuisse intelligamur: Illic excluduntur opera tanquam Justificationis causae: hic stabiliuntur tanquam Justificationis causae: hic stabiliuntur tanquam Justificationis effecta. Illic negantur opera praecedere Justificandos: hic dicuntur Justificatos consequi.
Reply.
His whole Dispute is against those that rely on Faith alone without Works. But how did they rely on Faith? As their Legal Righteousness, instead of Christ's Satisfaction? I trow not, nor will you say so. It was therefore as the Condition of the New-Covenant that they relied on it; or else I pray tell me how, and under what notion? And therefore James's scope must needs be, to prove that Faith alone is not the Condition: [Can Faith save him? A man is justified by Works, and not by Faith only, &c.] I am loth to stand to open the …kes in Beza's words. To his first difference. 1. Paulus non loquitur de fide ut de causa Justificationis (non enim est causa) nec ut de causâ operum: (hoc enim nihil esset ad rem suam) Jacobus quaerit de fidei effectis, sed not quâ effecta. Ad differentiam secundam idem dicendum est. Ad tertiam, Jacobus non quaerit tantum quomodo Justificati fuisse intelligamur: Sed quomodo, vel quibus mediis Justificamur quoad confirmationem, continuationem & quoad sententiam, nec non quomodo salvemur. Ad quartam, Ʋt Paulus excludit opera ut Justificationis causa, ita & ego: Stabiliuntur autem à Jacobo non tantum ut Justificationis effecta sed etiam ut conditiones & media: Effecti (enim) ut effecti nulla est necessitas moralis ad finem: Sed opera hic stabiliuntur ut necessaria ad Justificationem, Vers. 22, 23, 24, 26. & salutem, Vers. 14. Ad quintam, Et ego opera Justificationis initium praecedere pernego: Sed Jacobus non tantum dicit opera Justificationem consequi, sed ad Justificationem ulteriorem, & salutem esse necessaria.
Aphorism.
PAul doth either in express words, or in Page 309.the sence and scope of his speech, only exclude the Works of the Law; that is, the fulfilling the Conditions of the Law our selves: But never the fulfilling of the Gospel-Conditions, that we may have part in Christ.
Animadvers.
Paul doth absolutely exclude Works from Justification, as I proved before. Though sometimes he mentions the Works of the Law, yet not so as if by some other Works we might and should be justified. For indeed, all Works, if good, are Works of the Law, i. e. Works which the Law doth require: And to be justified by Works (of what sort soever) as Works, is to be justified by the Law. And therefore to the Righteousness which is of the Law, Paul opposeth the Righteousness which is of Faith, Rom. 10. 5, 6. even as he opposeth Working to Believing, Rom. 4. 5. So that to be justified by the Law, and to be justified by Works (any Works, whatsoever they be) is one and the same thing, and contradistinct to being justified by Faith or Believing. Though therefore believing be working, yet we are not justified by believing, as it is working, so as to rest in that Work, as a Work for Justification: But we are justified by believing, in that thereby we are made partakers of the Righteousness of Christ, which is the only Righteousness whereby we are justified.
2. It is most sure, Paul doth not exclude that fulfilling of the Gospel-Conditions, that we may have part in Christ; viz. that so in Christ we may have Righteousness, and by that Righteousness may be justified; which by any Righteousness of out own, out of Christ, we cannot be. Paul so excludes Works, that he sets up Faith; and he so sets up Faith, that he sets up Christ, as him by whose Righteousness, through Faith imputed to us, we are justified. By him all that believe are justified, Acts 13. 39. And so much you acknowledg presently after, saying, [Paul doth by the word Faith] especially direct your thoughts to Christ believed in. For to be justified by Christ, and to be justified by receiving Christ, is with him all one.
Reply.
1. All Works are not the fulfilling the Old-Laws Condition, nor performed with such a conceit.
2. To be justified by the New-Law, against the Accusation of Ʋnbelief or Rebellion against Christ that bought us, by our Faith and Obedience, is not to be justified by the Law of Works against the Accusation of being Sinners.
3. You are fain your self to distinguish between quod opus, and qua opus, lest Faith be shut out: and I need no more to keep in obedience to Christ. For when you should have told us what the [qua] is in which Faith is included, you say, [In that thereby we are made partakers of Christ's, &c.] But either you mean (by this dark equivocal) quâ apprehensio, that is, quo fides, vel qua conditio naturalis (which I have at large confuted in another Brother's Notes;) or you mean qua conditio as you must, or none:) And so say I of Obedience: It doth continue our title to Christ as a Condition which Faith begun. 2. The rest I assent to.
Aphorism.
ANd when he doth mention Faith as the Condition, Ibid.he alway implieth Obedience to Christ; therefore [Believing] and [obeying the Gospel] are put for the two Summaries of the whole Condition.
Animadvers.
When he mentioneth Faith as the Condition of our Justification, he doth not imply Obedience as that which must concur with Faith to Justification, though he imply it as a fruit of that Faith whereby we are justified. They that have believed, must be careful to maintain good Works, Tit. 3. 8.
Reply.
He implieth Obedience, not as concurrent with Faith in our first Justification, but in the Continuance and Consummation. He implieth Obedience in requiring Faith as truly, as he that subjecteth himself to a Prince, doth imply future Obedience in his engagement to obey.