A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 129 – Aphorism 138
Aphorism.
BƲt clearly Luke, who speaketh of two Pag. 315.Cups (which the other do not) doth apply and subjoyn these words, [I will drink no more of the fruit of, &c.] to the Cup which was before the sacramental.
Animadvers.
By this Reason Bellarmine would prove that we have no more certainty from the Scripture, that Wine was in the sacramental Cup, than that Water was in it. But Jansenius doth well refute those that apply those words, Matth. 26. 29. & Mark 14. 25. to the first Cup which Luke mentioneth: At istud non patitur ordo ho…um Erangelistarum (saith he) cum enim nullius alterius Calicis fecerit mentionem praeterquam sacri, quando dicitur, ex hoc gemmine, nullus alius calix intelligi potest ab iis demonstratus, quando hujus meminerunt. Jansen. Conc. cap. 131. sub finem. And therefore whereas Luke brings in those words, before he speaks of the Institution of the Sacrament, Austin (and after him Jansenius) doth well expound it by an Anticipation, the words being brought in not in their due order, which Matthew and Mark observed. Suppose Luke had never written his Gospel; How could any have once imagined that the words, [I will drink no more, &c.] as rela…ed by Matthew and Mark, could be referred to any other Cup than that of the Sacrament, no other Cup besides being mentioned by them. But though Matthew and Mark had not written, the words as they are in Luke, might be taken as related by Anticipation; it being no unusual thing in Scripture, to relate things or words out of that order in which they were done or spoken.
Reply.
1. As to my purpose, it is of no great moment in which sense we take: For if Christ did receive the Sacrament of his Supper, it is certain it was but that his example, joyned to his words, might be the Institution, and not to the ends that we take it; no more than he was baptized for incorporation into himself, burying with himself, remission of sins, &c. which are our ends.
2. I say, as Calvin, Facile solvitur hic nodus, quia ad rem parum interest quo temporis momento hoc Christus dixerit. Nam huc tantum spectant Evangelistae, admonitos fuisse discipulos tam de propinqua Magistri sui morte, quam de nova & coelesti vitâ, &c. Yea, why not as Paraeus, Nihil vero impedit, quin bis idem repetiverit de utro{que} poculo: quia neutrum cum illis amplius erat bibiturus. Or, as Piscator: Sed nihil est absurdi, si statuamus eadem verba bis dicta esse, s…mel quidem de poculo paschali, deinde iterum de poculo coenae novae: vel certè verbae illa alieno l…c… vel à Luca vel à Matthaeo esse narrata. Indeed I wholly comply with Piscator's modesty, in judging it uncertain, though men may cast in this or that conjecture. But yet I take it to be most probable, that the words belong only to the Pascal Cup, as Grotius and many more think: And that there is no Anticipation in Luke, because Luke reporting the whole more fully than the rest, and adding that of the Paschal-Cup, which the other omitted, it is more likely he should be most exact in this: (Though I know not only Austin, but more of the Ancients, thought Christ received the Sacrament, as Pelargus in loc. shews of some.)
3. Your Supposition, (if Luke had never written) might alter the matter were it true: And if Matthew and Mark had never written, if you would have taken the liberty to dislocate that of Luke under the pretence of a never-proved Anticipation, you would have been bolder than I durst be.
Aphorism.
TO conclude, it is most clear in Scripture, Pag. 317.and beyond all dispute, that our actual, most proper compleat Justification at the great Judgment, will be according to our Works, &c.
Animadvers.
1. This you oft repeat, and so must I this: That our Justification at the great Judgment, is but the full manifestation of that Justification which we have now through Faith.
2. Works shall then be enquired of but as fruits of Faith, by which Faith, and not by Works, we are now justified, and shall then fully a pear to be justified.
Reply.
1. It is such a Manifestation of our Righteousness by the Judg, as is the properest Justification; Apello tetum mundum jurisconsultorum & Theologorum Reformatorum. We maintain that the word is to be taken in sensu forensi against the Papists.
2. To be [a fruit of Faith] so considered, is not to be medium ad ullum finem. But sure Obedience is medium ad finem, and so enquired after. Either there is some end and reason why the fruits of Faith are enquired after, or else it is an unreasonable action (which who dare imagine?) Will you say with the Antinomians, that the end is only to manifest Faith ut signa? 1. You granted more before, that they are via ad regnum: And what Divine doth not grant, that Obedience is the Condition of Salvation? Why then should you not yield, that as Conditions, they are enquired after? 2. Luke's phrase, [Because thou hast been faithful in a very little, &c.] must signifie at least a Conditionality, which is causa sine qua non; and not a mere sign. 3. The whole Context shews, that Obedience is enquired after, as the Ratio sententiae, and not only as signs of something else, which is the sole Reason. 4. The uses pretended for this enquiring after mere signs, are frivolous. The business of Judgment is to enquire of the cause, and to sentence the person accordingly; and the connexion of the Sentence to this Obedience, by the terms [Therefore] and [Because,] shews unquestionably, that it is ipsa causa that is here spoken of, and not signa de Causa. I take [Cause] in Law-sense now, and speak not de Causa Logica.
Aphorism.
SEE Matth. 25. 21, 23, &c. And Page 319.most plain is that from the mouth of the Judg himself, &c. Matth. 25. 34, 35.
Animadvers.
What was said immediately before, doth answer what is here objected.
Reply.
And the former Reply satisfies me to that Answer. I only add my desire, that besides all the other Texts you would try, whether these following speak only of Signs, and not Conditions, Rom. 2. 5, 6, 7, 10. Acts 10. 35. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Rev. 14. 13. 1 John 3. 7. Matth. 7. 24. & 21. 22, 23. John 16. 27. [The Father hath loved you, because ye have loved me, &c.] 2 Cor. 5. 10. [according to that he hath done,] plainly signifieth causam & non evidentiam, Phil. 4. 17. Luke 11. 28. 1 Tim. 6. 18, 19. 1 Cor. 9. 24, 25, 26, 27. Matth. 11. 12. Luke 13. 24. Phil. 2. 12. John 14. 21. James 1. 12. & 2. 5. 1 Cor. 2. 9. & 16. 22. Prov. 8. 17, 21. Matth. 10. 37, 38. Hebr. 11. 26. & 10. 35. 2 Thess. 1. 6. Matth. 5. 12, 46. & 6. 1, 2. & 5. 16. & 10. 41, 42. Luke 6. 35. 1 Cor. 3. 8, 14. 1 Cor. 9. 17. Col. 2. 18. & 3. 23, 24. Matth. 6. 4, 6, 18. & 16. 27. Prov. 28. 13. Hebr. 5. 9. Isa. 1. 16, 17, 18, 19. Hebr. 12. 14. Psal. 91. 9, 14. 2 Chron. 34. 27. 1 John 3. 22, 23. Whatsoever we ask we reeeive (and so Remission) because we keep his Commandments, &c. Gen. 22. 16, &c.
Aphorism.
THat this is not to discover the sincerity Page 320.of their Faith, is as evident, &c.
Animadvers.
This is not so evident, but that there is need of more proof than yet I see brought for it.
Reply.
1. I pray you well weigh the forecited Texts, whether or no one of them prove, that Obedience doth more to our Salvation, than signifie the truth of our Faith.
2. I come newly from writing very many Arguments to prove this to another Brother, which I am loth to repeat.
Aphorism.
THe very phrases of the Text import as much, Ibid.Matth. 25. 21, 23. Well done good and faithful Servant, &c. Matth. 25. 34, 35. For I was hungry, &c. and in the rest, According to their Works.
Animadvers.
1. We must not so much follow the sound of words, as weigh the sense of them.
2. We must not take one place of Scripture barely by it self, but compare one place with another.
3. The Papists (you know) make use of these and the like Scriptures, to prove the Merit of Good works. You will say, They make nothing for Merit.
4. Neither truly do they (for ought I see) for Justification by our own personal Righteousness; or to prove that Works concur with Faith to Justification, as being part of that Condition which the Gospel doth require of us.
5. That we may be justified.
6. The Scriptures alledged only shew, how they must be qualified, who shall be admitted to the actual enjoyment of the heavenly Inheritance. Well done good and faithful Servant, &c. enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.
7. It is not said, By this thou art justified.
8. And for the particle [For,] you are not ignorant I suppose what Ames. doth answer Bellarmine: Enim rationalem vim habet consequentiae, sed non causalem consequentis respectu. Ames. in Bell. l. 7. c. 2. ad 3. For those Scriptures that speak of rendring to men according to their Works, they make nothing for Justification by Works, no more than they make for the Merit of them.
9. Indeed they may seem to make more for the latter than for the former; because we must first be justified, before we can do Good-works; but we must first do Good-works before we can enjoy Heaven.
Reply.
1. I will weigh the sense, as signified by the words, but not forge a sense which the words import not.
2. It is many hundred Texts that perswade me, and not one only.
3. Is the word [Merit] in any one Text?
4. For that I will not take my Faith on the best mans judgment, seeing what wonders Prejudice can do.
5. You know the Question that now directly I was on, was …nly about Works procurement of Salvation, and Justification at Judgment thereupon.
6. Do they indeed only shew, [How they must be qualified,] and not [why,] or the tendency of those Qualifications to the end? Review those cited.
7. A man would think that you would be satisfied, if the Scripture did but say, [By this thou art justified:] And yet James doth say, [We are justified by Works, and not by Faith only;] and yet you are never the more satisfied. In sensu forensi, [according to Works] is equivalent to [by Works.]
8. If Ames. by [causalem consequentis,] mean a proper cause, I say so too: But to interpret it of a mere Consequentia * Logica, makes it next non-sense. For But what is the Ratio consequentiae.Christ doth not speak this by way of Argumentation; but by way of Sentence. And all Judgment is past upon the justice or injustice of the Cause, as the Ratio sententiae. There was never Judg expressed Rationem sententiae in plainer terms than Christ there doth. At least, methinks, the phrase in Luke 19. 17. should force you to confess this: Because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority, &c. If no plainness of speech will serve, it is in vain to cite Scripture. See also Vers. 27.
9. Your seeming Argument for Merit, I have already overthrown, by subverting the grounds of it, here again recited.
Aphorism.
CAn any more be said of Faith, than that Ibid.we are justified and judged to life, both [for] it, and according to it?
Animadvers.
1. I do not know how so much may be said of Faith, as that we are justified [for] it, though so much may be said; (for so much the Scripture saith) that we are justified by it.
2. [For] notes the formal or the meritorious Cause. [By] notes only the Instrument or the Condition.
3. The Scripture doth not shew that we are justified [by] Works, much less [for] them.
4. Though it shew that we must be judged, and receive our reward according to them.
5. It seems strange that you should so confound secundum and propter, when-as Gregory so long ago so clearly distinguished them: Aliud est secundum opera reddere, & aliud propter ipsa opera reddere. Greg. in 7. poen. Psal. sive in Psal. 143. 8.
Reply.
1. I do not mean or say, that we are justified Constitutivè [for] Faith, as a Cause: nor that Faith is Causa Regnandi: But that God giveth this (our Faith and Obedience) as the reason of his absolving or justifying Sentence. And I offer you no other proof than the very express words of Scripture: [For I was hungry;] and, [Because thou hast been faithful.] And in Abraham's case in the very example that James brings to prove Justification by Works, it is said, [Because thou hast done this, and hast not spared, &c.] The reason why this is Ratio judicii, is because, Lex est norma judicis: & quicquid Lex Conditionem praemii constituit, hoc ipsum est Ratio praemii adjudicandi. The same thing may be Causa sententiae, which is but Conditio praemii adjudicati. Justitia causae est ratio Justificationis per sententiam judicis: Ideo enim hominem Justificat quia justus est: hoc est, quia causa ejus controversa justa est. Sed tamen haec causa consistere potest in nudae Conditionis praestatione, quae rei adjudicatae causa propriè dicta, non est.
2. [For] notes other causes than the formal or meritorious. But indeed it is not [for] but [by] which we express a constitutive causation, whether formal or material.In our case it noteth, Rationem sententiae, quae est quasi causa impulsiva: Ʋt omnis justitia causae est causa impulsiva judici ut reum absolvat.
3. I marvel you say that the Scripture sheweth not that we are justified by Works; when you read Christ saying [By thy words shalt thou be justified, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned; and James 2. 24. A man is justified by Works, &c.]
4. [According to them,] is all one in sensu forensi, as [by] them.
5. I suppose by [propter] Gregory meant a meritorious propter, and so I agree with him. I never mentioned propter: The [For] that I speak of is [enim,] and not [propter.] It is Matthews [foreign,] and Luke's [foreign] 19. 17.
Aphorism.
WOrks are not then considered as a mere Ibid.sign, whereby God doth discern mens Faith: For he seeth it immediately, and needs no sign.
Animadvers.
1. By this Reason you may as well null all the judicial proceedings described.
2. Yet I grant that Works are then considered as a part of the Condition: But not the Condition requisite to Justification, though of the Condition requisite to Glorification, and complete Salvation.
Reply.
1. If you had proved that all the judicial proceeding is upon mere signs, and the ipsa causae justitia is not meddled with, then you might have better expected I should receive your affirmation.
2. But why do you then null them all your self, by yielding in the very next words, that Works are part of the Condition of Glorification, and so not mere signs.
3. Is it not an easie truth, that in that they are the Conditions of Glorification, they must needs be the reason of justifying that man who is accused to be Reus poenae, and to have no right to Glorification.
Aphorism.
IT seemeth that Christ doth call them Righteous, Page 322.in reference to this personal Evangelical Righteousness mentioned in their justifying Sentence, vers. 46. [the Righteous into Life Eternal.
Animadvers.
1. I do not see why those words should be called the justifying Sentence: They rather shew how the Sentence before pronounced should be executed.
2. Be it so that they are called Righteous, in reference to a personal Evangelical Righteousness; yet it doth not follow that this personal Evangelical Righteousness is such, as that they are justified by it.
Reply.
1. You strangely misunderstand my words, contrary to the plain sence of them, which is this, [Christ in Vers. 46. doth call them Righteous, in reference to this personal Evangelical Righteousness mentioned in their justifying Sentence in the former Verses, viz. [I was hungry, and ye, &c.] It is not Vers. 46. which I call the Sentence.
2. The whole scope of the Text shews, that they are justified by Love and Obedience, ut per conditionem praestitam probatam: The reading all that Chapter satisfies me so fully in that, that all the Arguments in the World, I think, will never make me question it.
Aphorism.
DOth not the contrary Doctrine needlesly Page 324.constrain men to wrest most plain and frequent expressions of Scripture?
Animadvers.
I see no expressions of Scripture that we are forced to wrest, by denying Works to justifie as well as Faith: But on the other side, to assert this is (so far as I can see) very repugnant to the Scripture.
Reply.
1. Your expressions may somewhat advantage your cause, in that the sound of the words, [Justification by Works] is harsh to them that hear not the words explained. I do no not use that phrase; but rather say thus, that [our Justification is continued and consummate by Sentence at Judgment, not only by Faith, but by Love, Hope, Repentance, sincere Obedience to the Redeemer, and God in him, as secondary parts of the Conditions of the New-Covenant.] James and Paul took not Works in the same sense. Paul meant by Works, opera meritoria operarii, or done with a conceit of Merit; such as make the reward to be not of Grace, but of Debt: James meant none such, but onelyonly Obedience to God-Redeemer. If you demand my proof (as some have done) I give it you: The Works that James speaks of are necessary to Justification, or (teipso fatente) to Salvation: But the Works that Paul speaks of, no Christian must dare to think of performing; viz. Such as make the reward to be of Debt, and not of Grace. Now to deny Justification by Obedience, in the sense explained, forceth men to wrest multitudes of plain Scripture-Texts: Review them and judg.
Aphorism.
DOth it not uphold that dangerous Pillar of Ibid.Antinomian Doctrine, that we must not work or perform duty for Life and Salvation, but only from Life and Salvation?
Animadvers.
It is one thing to work for Life and Salvation, that is, the bliss and happiness of the Life to come; another thing to work for Justification, or that we may be justified: The Scriptures teach us as well to deny this, as to assert the other.
Reply.
Speaking of Meritorious or Legal working, I yield that Scripture is against the conceit of it: But of working in our sense, I reply, 1. Shew me ubi Lex ita distinguit? 2. Did not I before attempt to prove, that Salvation and Justification at Judgment have the same Conditions? and I did not discern that you plainly denied it, else I should there have further proved it. 3. Devise if you can, any way to justifie a man that is accused to be Reus poenae, and his title to the Reward denied, but by justifying his title, and proving that he hath fulfilled the Condition, or is pardoned for non-fulfilling. For not-fulfilling the Conditions of the first Law, we must plead Pardon or Satisfaction made: But for not fulfilling the Conditions of the second Covenant there is no pardon: It is therefore the fulfilling them it self that must so justifie.