A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 145 – Aphorism 151
Aphorism.
THis Doctrine was offensive to Melancthon, Bucer, and other moderate Divines.
Animadvers.
What Doctrine? that of Justification by Faith without Works? Where do they take offence at it? Bellarmine (as I have noted before) doth cite Melancthon among others, as teaching that Faith alone doth justifie, though Faith, which justifieth, be not alone, but accompanied with good Works. And if Bucer had taught otherwise, Bellarmine would have been sure to have found it out, and to have told us of it. B. Davenant notes it as a calumny of the Papists, that none of our Writers, except Bucer and Chemnitius, do acknowledg any inherent Righteousness in those that are justified, Omnes (enim) agnoscimus (saith he) & clare profitemur Deum insundere hujusmodi justitiam in ipso actu justificandi; sed negamus sententiam Dei Justificantis ad hanc respicere tanquam ad causam, per quam homo Justificatus constituitur. Dav. de Just. Hab. c. 22. p. 312. If perhaps you mean that Melancthon, Bucer, and others, took offence at the Doctrine o… Illyricus, and some others, who accounted it Heresie to say, that Good-works are necessary to Salvation, as you say they did, page 329. I answer, It is one thing to say, that Good-works are necessary to Salvation; another thing to say, that they are necessary to Justification. For Justification must go before Good-works, such as are not only good in themselves, but also good as done by us: But Good-works must go before Salvation, I mean the full and perfect accomplishment of it.
Reply.
I mean the Doctrine of them that deny Obedience to be a Condition of Salvation, or of final Justification at Judgment, and so by denying the grounds of their necessity, bring men to wicked lives. I suppose in this speech the truth of Thesis 78. that our full Justification, and our Glorification, have on our part the same Conditions; and therefore for all you say, it is a denying both, or granting both consequentially, to deny or grant one. I doubt Illyrieus Doctrine was the same in sense with this: For he denied not Good-works to be necessary (as at large you may see in Schlusselburgius contra Majoristas;) but that they were necessary to Justification or Salvation, that is, he thought them (as you speak) necessary fruits of Faith; but not necessary means, (i. e. Conditions) of Salvation.
For Bucer, I suppose, you have read what passed between Rivet and Grotius about him. See also Colloq. Ratisbon. p. 302, 308, 313, 567. Illud solum in quaestione de Mercede bonorum operum controversum est, An sit in bonis operibus renatorum aliquod meritum condignum Mercede, quam eis Deus retribuit? Nam vitam aeternam reddi fidelibus bene operantibus, etiam Coronae & Mercedis loco, nos semper dedimus.
For Melanct. vid. Apolog. pro Confess. August. in Art. 20. & in Operum Tom. 2. loc. de Bonis Oper. Nova obedientia est necessaria, necessitate ordinis, causae, & effectûs: item necessitate debiti seu mandati. Item necessitate retinendae fidei—& vitandi poenas temporales & aeternas. Et in Epist. Lugd. edit. 1647. p. 453. he contends, that to speak exactly Agnitio peccatorum is not causa secunda Remissionis (that Mercy is the sole efficient nearest cause:) But it is causa sine qua non; and makes that to be his usual phrase. And that's as much as I; for that's a Condition of Remission. Vid. & Epist. 19. p. 455. & p. 438. Cordatus urbem, vicinas etiam Regiones, & ipsam aulam adversus me concitat, propterea quod in explicanda controversia Justificationis, dixi novam obedientiam necessariam esse ad salutem, &c. And page 446. he adviseth to preach the praises of Good-works rather in Sermons of Repentance, because he observed that many of ours would bear the same Doctrine there, which they would not in the point of Justification. See also Camerar. and Melch. Adamus in his Life.
Davenant's words cited, have nothing that I dislike (but only that Grace is said to be infused in ipso actu Justificandi, when the acts are of various natures: But I suppose he means, de tempore only. The rest is before oft replied to.
Aphorism.
WOrks (or a purpose to walk with Page 332.God) saith Mr. Ball on the Covenant, page 73.) do justifie, as the passive Qualification of the subject capable of Justification.
Animadvers.
But you leave out the words which Mr. Ball immediately addeth to explain himself the better; viz. [Or as the Qualification of that Faith that justifieth, or as they testifie and give proof that Faith is lively: But Faith alone justifieth, as it embraceth the free promise of free forgiveness in Jesus Christ. And in the very same page, Mr. Ball hath these words, which are as express against you as may be: [So that we may conclude from this passage of holy Writ, that Abraham was justified by Faith alone: But this his Faith though alone in the act of Justification, no other Grace working with it, was not alone in existence, did not lie dead in him, as a dormant and idle Quality.
Reply.
1. I left out all the rest of his Book too: But the Reader may see all at pleasure.
2. Doth that you add gain-say what I cited? If not, take it in as favourable a sense to you as the words will bear.
3. I allow also of the explicatory terms (as you judg them to be) which you add.
4. But I never undertook to shew, that Mr. Ball and I were just of a judgment in this point: But only that he gives as much as I do to Works (and more;) but more than I do to Faith. He yieldeth both Faith and Works to be the Condition of Justification (which is the thing that you deny;) but he affirmeth Faith to be moreover the instrumental Cause of Justification (which you will not own any more than I.) Lest you think I wrong him, see page 20. [A disposition to Good-works is necessary to Justification, being the Qualification of an active and lively Faith: Good-works of all sorts are necessary to our continuance in the state of Justification, and so to our final Absolution, if God give opportunity. But they are not the cause of, but only a precedent Qualification or Condition to final forgiveness, and to eternal bliss. If then, when we speak of the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace, by [Condition] we understand whatsoever is required on our part, as precedent, concomitant, or subsequent to Justification; Repentance, Faith and Obedience are all Conditions: But if by [Condition] we understand what is required on our part as the cause of the good promised, though only instrumental; Faith or Belief in the promises of free-mercy, is the only Condition.
So page 21. [This walking in the Light, as he is in the Light, is that Qualification whereby we become immediately capable of Christ's Righteousness, or actual Participants of his Propitiation, which is the sole immediate cause of our Justification, taken for remission of sins, or actual approbation with God.] This is more than I say.
Aphorism.
See Calvin on Luke 1. 6.
Animadvers.
I can see nothing there for you; but something against you, [Justi ergo & irreprehensibiles censentur quoniam tota vita testatur eos Justitiae addictos esse, &c. Sed quia à perfectione longe distat pium eorum studium, non potest sine venia placere Deo. Quare justitia quae in illis laudatur, à gratuita Dei indulgentia pendet; qua fit, ut quod reliquum est, in ipsis injustitiae, non imputet. Sic exponere necesse est quicquid de hominum justitia in Scripturis habetur, ut remissionem peccatorum non evertat; cui non aliter innititur, quam suo fundamento aedificium. Here Calvin, 1. Denies personal Righteousness to be perfect, and such, as without pardoning mercy can please God. 2. He makes this personal Righteousness to follow Justification, and to relie upon it, as a building doth on its foundation: Therefore according to Calvin in this place (for his judgment in this point is otherwise well known) personal Righteousness is not that whereby we are justified.
Reply.
I own all that which you judg against me. And to your Observations, 1. So do I deny personal Righteousness to be materially perfect, and in divers other respects mentioned in the Aphorism. All that Calvin drives at is, that it is a Righteousness that stands with sin and pardon, which who dare deny? But did Calvin deny the Metaphysical perfection of Being, as to the Relation of [Righteous,] or yet the Relation of [praestitor conditionis novae Legis,] whereon it is grounded?
2. So do I say, that this Righteousness follows Justification, and receives much of its force from it, (that the person be reconciled:) But yet may it not go before it quoad continuationem & sententiam judicis? Calvin maintaineth a true personal Righteousness, consisting with necessity of pardon of sin, and so do I. His main Caution is, that we feign not any Righteousness inconsistent with pardon; and that who doth not abhor? Your Conclusion therefore is merely your own.
Aphorism.
THe common Assertion, that [Good-works Ibid.do follow Justification, and not go before it,] must be thus understood, or it is false; viz. Actual Obedience goeth not before the first moment of Justification, &c.
Animadvers.
By this which you here grant it follows, that Justification is by Faith alone, without Works; though they also will follow in their time and order.
Reply.
True: If you mean it of external Works, and of the beginning of Justification. Do you need to tell me of a Consequence, which I so oft professedly maintain, as if it followed against my mind? But as this excludes not Repentance, Love to Christ, &c. from our first Justification; so nor outward Works from the continued and sentential Justification at Judgment, as Conditions of both.
Aphorism.
BƲt yet it is as true, 1. That the taking Christ Ibid.for our Lord, and so delivering up our selves to his Government (which is the subjection of the heart, and resolution for further Obedience, and indeed an essential part of Faith) doth in order of nature go before our first Justification.
Animadvers.
1. Viz. As the Qualification of that Faith which justifie…, as Mr. Ball in the place before cited speaks.
2. But Christ as having satisfied for our sins, is received by us unto Justification.
3. Faith which justifieth, doth receive Christ in respect of all his Offices: But Faith justifieth as it receiveth Christ as a Priest, making satisfaction for us; by which Satisfaction laid hold on by Faith, and so imputed to us, we are justified.
Reply.
1. I yield to your first from Mr. Ball (as to those acts that are not essential;) but have proved already, that the Qualification of Faith is part of the Condition, and so it hath the necessity-moral of a Condition (as current English money in a Bond:) And not only a natural necessity (as it is necessary an entire man have two hands, &c.) The Condition is, not only that we Believe, but that we affectionately believe, &c.
2. I yet see no reason to think, Taking Christ as King to be less essential to justifying Faith, than taking him as Priest. Your second Proposition is true, but nothing against me.
3. And the same I say of the next, [Faith justifieth as it receiveth Christ as Priest,] except you add [only.]
4. That which mars all your discourse is, 1. The confounding two Questions, What justifieth ex parte objecti? and what ex parte actus nostri? It is Christ's Satisfaction, and not his Kingship that justifieth meritoriously; it is Christ as Advocate that justifies Apologetically; it is Christ as Judg that justifies Sententially: As it is Christ (and the Father in him) that per novum foedus, justifieth Constitutively efficienter. But ex parte actus, Faith justifieth quatenus conditio istius foederis: And that Faith which is the Condition, is the receiving our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer entirely.
2. You are brought to confess, that Faith is the Condition of Justification (and I think that it justifies qua conditio praestita) and yet you seem to retain a notion in your mind, as if it justified qua fides in its natural Capacity: As if the Ratio materialis vel Aptitudinalis, were nearer the effect than the Formalis.
Aphorism.
THat actual Obedience, as part of the Ibid. 2.Condition, doth in order of nature go before our Justification as continued and confirmed.
Animadvers.
Justification is not continued nor confirmed, without actual Obedience; yet Justification is continued by the continuance of Faith, though this continuance of Faith, and so of Justification, be not without the co-existence of actual Obedience, which Obedience doth make for the confirmation of Faith, and so of our Justification, as being a proof and evidence of that Faith by which we are justified.
Reply.
Here is nothing against me: For want of the word [Only] after [Continuance of Faith:] Which if you meant, I have given my Reasons against it before, and am ready to do it much more fully, as being a point that I am confident in.
Aphorism.
3. THat perseverance in faithful Page 313.Obedience, doth both in nature and time go before our full, compleat and final Justification; and that as a part of the Condition of obtaining it: If we walk in the Light, &c. 1 John 1. 7. Isa. 1. 16, 17. Ezek. 33. 14, 15, 16. & 18. 21, 22.
Animadvers.
Our Justification (as I have often noted before) is full here, though it be not fully manifested till hereafter. The places of Scripture which you alledg, speak of Justification as it is here obtained; and they shew who are justified, not by what they are justified.
Reply.
1. I have oft enough told you, that this is your great errour: As if Justification were only unius generis, and sentential were none.
2. If those Texts speak but de nudis signis, any Antinomian may as well say the like of any Text you shall bring for Faith's justifying. I know they speak not of Causes, but they speak plainly of Conditions.