A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 75 – Aphorism 77
Aphorism.
THe act of Faith (which is it that justifieth) Page 222.is our actual receiving of Christ, and therefore cannot be the Instrument of receiving.
Animadvers.
1. The act of Faith doth justifie, not in respect of it self as it is our act, though so it …e requisite, but in respect of its Object, viz. Christ; whom Faith acting, doth receive, even as it is the gift that doth enrich, though not except i… be received.
2. The act of the hand is the actual receiving a gift; Is not the hand therefore the Instrument whereby the gift is received? and consequently whereby one is enriched?
Yet I shall not be unwilling to yield unto you, that to speak exactl…, Faith may better be called a Condition, than an Instrument of our Justification. But because it is as a hand to receive Christ (for to receive him, and to believe in him a…e …e same, John 1. 12.) and the hand is foreign, a prime Instrument: therefore (I conceive it is) that Faith is usually called an Instrument. Besides, your self observes, page 221. that some so extend the use of the word [Instrument,] as that any thing almost may be called an Instrument, viz. which is requisite, but yet is less principal in the action.
Reply.
1. We are not justified by the act of Faith absolutely, or as the meritorious Cause, or the matter of our principal Legal Righteousness; if that be it that you mean by, [in respect of it self:] Nor are we justified by Christ as a Performer of the G… spel-Conditions for us, or a Satisfier for final non performance. Christ hath his own work, and Faith hath its own office in our Justification. We are justified by Faith it self, as the Condition, and not so by Christ.
Here I give you notice, that though the act of Faith be most directly the Condition, yet I think the habit is so intimately included in the true, serious, intense act, and is so little different in nature from it, that even the habit may be also called the Condition, and we be said to be justified by it. And indeed I think that the Scripture, when it speaks of being justified by Faith, doth in the word [Faith] include both act and habit. And I am conceited, that they less differ in their nature (an act and an habit of the Soul) than many Philosophers think: especially this would be evident, if Scotus were in the right, that intellectio & volitio compleated, which we call immanent Acts, are not in the predicament of Action, but of Quality, in the same species as Habits: Or if some others opinion be true, that Habits are but in the intellect the Species or Images deeply imprinted, and in the Will either none (besides the intellectual) or only a continued action, though sometimes so imperfect and obscure, that it is not perceived or felt, as being less vigorous and express than other actions which then are felt. Sure I am, if other men be no wiser than I, their apprehensions of the true nature of Habits, with their difference from Powers and Acts, is not so clear as may embolden a man with confidence, to reject Habits from being the Condition, and so having a hand with the act in our Justification. And whether it can truly be said, that the Habit is required only for the act, and not for it self, I cannot tell: I rather think otherwise. This I write, partly in Explication, and partly in Recantation of some things before delivered on this point, Thes. 57. which I think my self bound to do on more through Consideration.
2. In your second note: 1. You quite forget what you were to prove: It was not that the Habit of Faith is the Instrument, but the Act: For that is the common Doctrine, and that which I was there opposing. The act of the Hand, and and not the Hand, is it that you should prove the Instrument. You will not get all to confess, that the act of Faith is not the Instrument of receiving Christ, nor yet of Justification. 2. And if the Habit were granted to be the Instrument of receiving Christ, yet could it with no fitness be said, in the sense of our Divines, that Faith justifieth as an Instrument, because they say, It is not the habit of Faith that justifieth, but the act: And you say, It is not the Act that is the Instrument, but the Habit; therefore it plainly follows, that (according to this Doctrine) Faith cannot justifie as an Instrument. 3. I do not think that the Habit is properly the Souls Instrument. It is nothing but the Perfection of the Faculty; and its Perfection is too near to it self, to be properly its Instrument. Though in some sort we may say, that the inferiour Powers are the Wills Instruments in imperate Acts; yet I do not think that the elicite Acts (such as are the acts of Faith) are performed by Instruments, except we may call the Body, the Spirits animal or vital, the Souls Instruments: (For though the Soul be inorganical, and depend not on the Body subjectivè & efficienter, yet I think it doth objectivè & occasionaliter, as Heereboord explains it (Disput. Philos. 43. §. 6. p. 615.) If we must not allow the Soul exterior organs, as efficients of its elicite Acts, I think we should have better grounds before we assert these intrinsick organs. We must make no unnecessary Composition in the Soul. Your similitude therefore of [the Hand enriching] is not to the purpose: For the hand is an integral part of the man, but no essential, and therefore may be called his Instrument: But Faith in the Habit, is the Perfection of his most essential part: And we think it not proper to say, that the soundness or perfection of the Brain or Heart are their Instruments. Or if it might be so said of the Body, yet must we be more cautelous in ascribing Divisions, Compositions and Instrumentality to the Soul. If any thing therefore (according to your similitude of a Hand) must be called the Instrument of receiving Christ, it must be that part of the Soul which receiveth him: But the Soul receiveth him not by parts, but intirely: The receiving Faculties are the Understanding (introductorily) and the Will (perfectively:) And to say that these are our Instruments of receiving, is to say, that the Soul is the Soul's Instrument, or Man's Instrument. If the meaning be, that the Soul is God's Instrument, I confess so some Philosophers and Divines usually say of all second Causes, that they are the Instruments of God the first Cause: But I know this is not your meaning, and therefore it might seem injurious or unnecessary to load it with the absurdities which follow it in our case.
3. Besides, it must be considered, that Faith is not a proper natural receiving, but a moral imputative receiving only. It is indeed a physical Act, but not a physical Reception. For, 1. Credere est agere, sed recipere est pati: ergo credere non est recipere, sensu physico & proprio. 2. The Object is not naturaliter receptible by our Faith: For, 1. If you say it is Christ's Satisfaction that is the Object. I answer, 1. That it was given to God, and not to us; it being God, and not we that was to be satisfied: It is only given to us in its fruits or benefits procured thereby, and not in it self. 2. If it were, yet it is not physically receptible. 2. If you say, It is [Righteousness] as ours, procured by Christ's Satisfaction: I say, Righteousness is a Relation, and not physically receptible agendo vel apprehendendo. 3. If you say that Christ himself is the Object; who knows not that our Faith doth not physically receive Christ himself? So that it's undeniable, that Faith is actio physica, sed receptio tantum moralis vel imputativa: And therefore (if all were granted, that before is gainsaid) the Habit of Faith could be no other Instrument of receiving, but moral or imputative.
4. Lastly, Let it be considered also, that the proper justifying Faith is not the direct receiving of Righteousness, but the receiving of Christ himself, as he is offered to us in the Gospel; that so Righteousness and other benefits may follow thereupon. So that it is but remotely, that justifying Faith receiveth Righteousness: So that as it is unmeet to say, that a Womans Habit of consenting, is the Instrument of enriching her, because she marrieth a man that is rich; so much more is it here. Indeed it is a phrase that containeth a whole heap of Metaphors and Metonymies in it.
But what need I contest any further with you, who are of the same judgment as I, and yield so willingly to all that I desire; that is, [That to speak exactly, Faith may better be called a Condition, than an Instrument of our Justification:] Why then do you except against my Exceptions against the improper phrase? If it satisfie you that I bear with the phrase, acknowledging itself improper (which I think is all you desire) then you may be satisfied in the words of mine you last cite: For I love not word-quarrels. But if you think, that I should have overlooked that impropriety, and not have gain-said it: I answer, indeed so I willingly would, but for these Reasons which forbid me: 1. Our Divines ordinarily use the phrase, as if it were exact and proper in their strictest Disputes. 2. They make the Instrumentality of Faith to Justification, the common refuge against many Objections, and the inlet of other mistakes. 3. They are impatient with any that deny it. 4. But that which chiefly moved me was, that they make this a main Fundamental difference between us and the Papists, as if for this one thing (if you joyn also their denial of the Imputation of Christ's personal active Righteousness, as our formaliter, & non tantum meritorie) which you and I deny as well as the Papists, and so doth every Divine save one, that hath yet afforded me their Animadversions; and what that one doth, I know not:) I say, as if for denying this, they were certainly damned. I confess it deeply troubleth me to read so ordinarily in our most famous Writers, so much of the Reformed Cause to be laid on a plain Errour. 5. And when Papists read this in ours Writings, it so hardeneth them in their Religion, that they think presently, that all the rest of our Doctrine is like this, and they cast away all in prejudice, and insult over us, and cleave the faster to all the rest of their Errours, to their souls hazard. Judg impartially, Whether these Reasons were not sufficient to constrain me to find fault with this phrase of Instrumentality? 1. Specially if you do but add, that it is no phrase of the Holy Ghost, but of man's devising; and therefore I know not why I should in such a case be so tender of it.
Aphorism.
LEt those therefore take heed, who make Page 226.Faith to justifie, merely because it apprehendeth Christ, which is its natural, essential property.
Animadvers.
I think few or none make Faith to justifie, merely because it apprehendeth Christ; but because it apprehendeth Christ as he is held out and offered in the Gospel for Righteousness to every one that believeth; and in this, as yet, I see no danger.
Reply.
1. I would they meant as well as you charitably interpret, or understood their own meaning as well as you would have them.
2. Your meaning can be no other than this, according to the proper importance of your words, that [Faith justifieth quoad rationem formalem, because the Gospel giveth Christ to Believers, that is, on Condition of believing; and quoad rationem materialem vel aptitudinalem, because Faith is the acceptance of Christ:] If this be not your meaning, I neither understand it, nor perceive how your words are explicatory.
Aphorism.
THat it is Faith in a proper sense, and not Ibid.Christ's Righteousness only, may appear thus: 1. From a necessity of a twofold Righteousness, which I have before proved from the twofold Covenant.
Animadvers.
I think I have before disproved that which you say concerning this twofold Righteousness; neither can I as yet see any nocessity, nor indeed congruity of it. One Righteousness, viz. that of Christ imputed to us, is sufficient to justifie us; and therefore to make Faith, which is only requisite to that end, that Christ's Righteousness may be imputed to us, a distinct Righteousness whereby we are justified, to me seems very incongruous.
Reply.
Enough of this already, I think.