A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 79 – Aphorism 84
Aphorism.
ESpecially methinks, they that would have Ibid.Faith to be the Instrument of Justification, should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith, as by an Instrument.
Animadvers.
1. They that make Faith the Instrument of Justification, understand it so, as that Faith is a Condition requisite to Justification. B. Davenant de Just. habit. c. 22. p. 312. saith, Luther doth always acknowledg Faith instrumentalem causam Justificationis; yet de Just. Act. c. 30. p. 387. he saith, that to believe, requiritur u… conditio praevia.
2. They that make Faith the Instrument of Justification, so deny that we are properly justified by Faith, as they deny Faith to be that Righteousness whereby we are justified: and hold, that we are said to be justified by Faith, because by it we are made partakers of Christ's Righteousness, which is the formal cause of our Justification. Thus B. Davenant, de Just. habit. c. 22. p. 312. At inquit Bellarminus, Lutheri sententia est formalem causam Justificationis esse fidem. Resp. instrumentalem semper agnoscit, non autem formalem, nisi quatenus sub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehensum; q. d. Christi obedientiam fide apprehensam esse causam formalem Justificationis nostrae non latuit hoc ipsos Papistas: Nam Vasquez scribit, Quando apud Lutherum fides asseritur esse justitia nostra formalis, ideo fides appellatur justitia, quia per eam apprehendimus Christi justitiam, qua Justificamur. Secundum sententiam illorum commemorat qui Christi obedientiam & justitiam nobis imputatam statuunt esse formalem causam Justificationis. At haec communis est nostrorum omnium sententia: Ne{que} quod ad ipsam rem attinet, quisquam è nostris aliter aut sensit aut scripsit. I do the rather ci…e the words of this Reverend and Learned Author, because I find him highly prized by you, and that not without good cause, as I suppose.
Reply.
1. Your first note is little to the matter.
2. Your second is too favourable an Interpretation, as to those men that by their express voluminous contradictions do confute you: Do they not maintain, that the Scripture by [Faith imputed,] means [Christ's Righteousness is imputed?] and do they not thereby exclude [Faith] wholly, as to the sense of that Text? My Question was not, Whether it were Faith in this or another sense? but, Whether it were Faith at all in any sense? or, Whether it were Christ's Righteousness only which Faith apprehendeth, and not at all Faith it self. Now if they do therefore exclude Faith, because they think the words, [impute for Righteousness,] would else make it our Righteousness; then they do exclude it wholly as to that Text? For if by [Faith,] be meant [Christ's Righteousness,] then what word doth signifie [Faith?] What ground soever they go on, it is evidently an unsound and forced Interpretation.
3. The words of Davenant which you cite, and divers others of his shew, that he was not of your mind or mine about the Righteousness imputed. It seems he discerned not the mistake of them that affirm the active Righteousness formally as such, to be our Righteousness.
4. I do highly reverence Davenant, and shall anon give you enough of his for the main point in question (about Works:) But far am I from owning this Doctrine which he makes to be communis nostrorum sententia; Christi justitia in Justificatione fidelibus imputatur, quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur, Ames. Medul. l. 1. c. 27. §. 12. So Alsted, Distinc. Theol, c. 23. Christus est justitia nostra in sensu causali non in sensu formali. So Reve…. Disp. de side.viz. That Christ's Righteousness is formalis causa Justificationis. I hold it to be causa efficiens meritoria, quae est quasi materialis; but not formalis. For if you speak of constitutive Justification active, that is formally actio Dei justificantis, viz. Donatio justitiae, called by Divines, Imputation. If you speak of constitutive passive Justification, it is nothing but the Relation of [Justified,] or [Righteousness,] or [non obligatus ad poenam,] and [non condemnandus:] And Christ's own Relation of [non condemnandus,] or [just] is not formally made ours; though materially it is. Accidents perish, if removed from their subject. If you speak of Justification sententially, surely none can imagine that the Righteousness of Christ is the form of that. But yet perhaps Davenant speaking less cautelously, might mean by [Form,] the same thing that I do by [matter, or merit.]
Aphorism.
THe bare act of believing, is not the Page 235.only Condition of the New-Covenant, but several other duties are also parts of that Condition, &c.
Animadvers.
I know no reason to deny this: But the New-Covenant containeth more in it than Justification; and therefore it follows not, that all other things which make up the Condition of the New-Covenant, must go before Justification, as the Condition requisite for the obtaining of it. Good-works and obedience follow after Justification, as the fruits of that Faith by which we are justified. They which have believed (and so are justified) must be careful to maintain good-works. Tit. 3. 8. Ʋtcun{que} bona opera, quae sunt mandata in L…g… requirantur necessario à Justificatis, ut fructus Sancrificationis & officia gratitudinis, tamen siquis ea exigat ut …au… Justificationis, Christum ac fidem evacuat. Daven. de Justit. act. cap. 30. p. 394. And besides, that we must first believe, and so be justified, before that we can do Good-works, our Good-works at the best are imperfect, and therefore we cannot be justified by them, Psal. 130. 3, 4. & 143. 2.
Reply.
1. There is none of this against any thing that I say, except the last sentence. But it follows not, that because Obedience followeth Justification-begun, that therefore it is no Condition of its continuance; or that therefore it is no Condition of sentential Justification at Judgment.
2. I easily grant, that Faith or Works are no causes of our Justification (which Davenant meant) from the Accusation of the Law of Works; but eo nomine, because it is the Condition constituted by a New-Law, it must be the subjectum primum of our Justification, when the case is, Whether that Condition be performed? Will you tell me how you look to be justified, if the Devil accuse you to be an Infidel, a finally impenitent person, a sinner against the Holy Ghost, &c. even as if you were accused of being a Traytor to the State, by pleading your own Innocency, Righteousness, or Not-guiltiness.
3. The Imperfection of our Faith and Obedience, will prove that it cannot be our universal or legal Righteousness; but not that it is not our performance of the Gospel Condition, and so our justitia praestitae Conditionis.
Aphorism.
THat Love, and sincere Obedience, and Page 236.works of Love, are also parts of the Condition, appeareth in these Scriptures, Luke 7. 47. (though I know Mr. Pink's Interpretation of this) &c.
Animadvers.
Mr. Pink's Interpretation (as I remember, for I have not his Book by me now, though I have read it long ago) is this, that when it is said, Luke 7. 47. Her sins which are many are forgiven, for she loved much: The particle for imports as much as therefore. His meaning is, that her loving much was not the cause why many sins were forgiven her; but this, that many sins were forgiven her, was the cause that she loved much. And that this is the true and genuine meaning of the words (though there be no necessity of expounding for by therefore) appears by those which follow immediately after; But to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little, viz. in comparison of him to whom much is forgiven. So also the Parable propounded by our Saviour, v. 41. &c. doth clearly shew the import of those words objected. Mr. Pink's Interpretation therefore for the substance of it, is right and good, and in effect the same with Calvin's, Caeterum hic dilectio non dicitur esse veniae causa, sed posterius signum, ut prius admonu…, saith he upon the place. And at v. 41. Mirum est pleros{que} interpretes tam crasse hallucinatos esse, quasi haec multer ventam lachrimis, unctione, & osculis pedumpro merita sit. Nam argumentum quo ut…tur Christus, non à causa, sed ab effectu sumptum est: quia & prius ordine est beneficium accipere, quam habere gratiam; & causa mutus amor…s hic not atur gratuua remissio. Vid. etiam Bezam ad locum. Et Ames. in Bellarm. Enerv. §. 1. c. 4. ad 4.
Reply.
I mentioned that Text among many more, not relying on that only or chiefly; and therefore added those words, not meaning thereby to deny Mr. Pink's Interpretation: But q. d. yet I know Mr. Pink hath otherwise interpreted this, and much may be said for each sense. It is hard to be certain of the mind of the Holy Ghost, where the words will bear both senses. I remembred his Arguments, as well as his words; and I remember much that may be said against them. For my part, I determine it not: Let every one abound in his own sense, I see no reason to stand to dispute it.
Aphorism.
THis preferring of Christ above all Page 240, 241.in Judgment, Will and Affection, is in my judgment the very essential property of true Faith, differencing it from all false Faith, and so an essential part of it: I know this is like to seem strange, &c.
Animadvers.
1. I know not why this should seem strange, if it be rightly understood. You say a little after, [Affiance, and sincere Obedience, and works of Love, are the necessary, immediate, inseparable products of Faith:] So the Apostle saith, That saith worketh through love, Gal. 5. 6.
2. Indeed I do not see how sincere Obedience, and works of Love, are the immediate products of Faith, as Affiance is. But, to let that pass; that they are the products of Faith, who will deny?
3. Yet are we not therefore justified by them, as well as by Faith, as it apprehendeth Christ and his Righteousness, as you seem to intend.
Reply.
1. If you knew how sharply I am dealt with for that passage, you would think my prognostick failed not, though you know not why any should think it strange.
2. As Affiance directly follows the Acceptance of Christ, as one to be trusted in; so internal Obedience directly followeth accepting of Christ, as King to rule us.
3. I there meddle not with your induced Consequence of Justification. But this follows: If it be a sufficient reason to exclude internal Obedience or Love to Christ, from being any of the Condition of Justification (as continued and sentential) because they are but fruits of the principal justifying Faith, then it would be a good reason to exclude Affiance. But it is confessed to be no good reason to exclude Affiance; therefore, &c. Again, if Affiance be but a fruit of the principal act of justifying Faith, and yet justifie it self, then it is not any one act only that justifieth: But, &c. therefore, &c.
Aphorism.
WHen we are said to be justified by Page 243.Faith only, &c. all those forementioned duties are implied or included.
Animadvers.
They are all implied or included as accompanying Faith, or proceeding from Faith, but not as concurring with Faith to Justification. Bellarmin confesseth …t Calvin hath these words: S…la sides est quae Justificat se… sides tantum qua Justificat non est sola: sicut calor solis s… est qui calefacit, ipse tamen non est solus, sed cum sp…ndore. And the same also he saith is taught by Melancton, Bren…ius, Chemnitius, &c. Bell. de Just. l. 1. c. 14.
Reply.
1. They are implied as Conditional to the Continuation and Consummation of that Justification, which is begun upon sole believing. As Marriage-fidelity is implied as conditional of the Continuance of that Womans interest in her Husband, and his riches and honours, which she first received upon mere accepting him or Marriage. For Marriage contains the promise of that after-fidelity: And sure the promise implieth the performance as necessary to follow. So is our Faith and accepting of Christ for Saviour and Lord, which containeth our Covenant to trust and obey him.
2. And some of them are implied as part of the first Condition, as Repentance, knowledg of Christ, love to Christ, desire after Christ, highly esteeming him, &c. My Reasons for this, and how far Faith is, or is not alone in justifying, follow after.
Aphorism.
TThis being well considered, will direct Page 247.you where to find the very formal Being and Nature of Faith, &c.
Animadvers.
The Nature of Faith, I think is fully set forth, Heb. 11. 13. in these words, These all died in saith, having not received the Promises (i. e. the things promised) but saw them afar off, and were perswaded of them, and embraced them. These words shew, that three things concur to make up Faith: 1. Knowledg; They saw the Promises, though afar off. 2. Assent; They were perswaded of them. 3. Application; They embraced them.
Reply.
This is the same that I constantly affirm: Only by [Application,] I doubt not you mean the act of the Will, Consent, Acceptance, Election, the same that Embracement in the Text is, and not that which some old great Divines call Application, viz. A believing that our own sins are pardoned. I am glad you see the inconvenience of making one single act only to justifie, or the act of one faculty only.