A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 86 – Aphorism 87
Aphorism.
TO the 66. that Christ as a Saviour Page 255.only, or in respect of his Priestly Office only, is not the object of justifying Faith, but that Faith doth as really and immediately receive him as King, and in so doing justifie: This I prove thus, &c.
Animadvers.
1. The Arguments which you use, prove only thus much, that Christ must be received as well in respect of his Kingly, as in respect of his Priestly Office; But not that we are justified by the one, as well as by the other. Still we must distinguish inter fidem quae Justificat, & fidem quâ Justificat. Observandum est (saith Amesius) nos non restringere fidem illam quae Justificat, sed tantum qua Justificat, ad permissionem misericordiae. Ames. in Bellar. Ener. l. 5. c. 1.
2. If Christ's Satisfaction be our Righteousness whereby we are justified, and Christ as Priest satisfied for us; then by receiving him as Priest, we are justified: Though it's true, none can indeed receive him as Priest, except they receive him as King also.
Reply.
1. I think the Arguments used, if rightly taken, prove more than you say. But because I come newly from manifesting their forms and vigour, to two or or three other Learned Animadverters, I shall not attempt it again on this short invitation.
2. You confess I have proved the receiving Christ as King, to be the fides quae Justificat: And then it belongs to you to prove the exclusion of it in this Consideration: Scripture saith, We are justified by faith: You confess, it is by this faith, or this act: If therefore you say moreover, It is by this, but not as such, you must prove the exclusion of that respect; for ubi Lex nec distinguit nec limitat, non est distinguendum vel limitandum. He therefore that affirms the Distinction or Limitation, must prove it. Which I despair of seeing well done here.
3. I reverence those Learned Divines, that use to distinguish of the fides quae, and the fides quâ: But indeed, I am past doubt, that it is here a useless distinction, and only built on a begging of the Question. The word [qua] respecteth either [Justificat,] or, [fides.] Fides quâ Justificat, tantum Justificat: Ita enim loquimur non quid sit, sed quid producit. If you refer [qua] to [fides,] so as to mean, Fides quâ Christi sacerdotis apprehensio Justificat, & tantum quâ talis: Then, 1. This is inconveniently expressed, to say [qua Justificat,] instead of [quâ Christum apprehendit.] 2. And it is a begging of the Question. It supposeth, that [haec fides, vel hic fidei actus qua talis, & non qua conditio formaliter Justificat,] which I deny: Yea, and it supposeth that solus hic actus Justificat, which is also denied.
4. I would you would shew me, in what sense or respect it is, that the receiving of Christ as King doth justifie. You say, it is the fides quae Justificat: And then it is certainly a justifying act: Now if it do justifie, and yet not qua talis, as such as it is, then as what? It is not the same act most say, as the receiving Christ as Priest: Will you say, [The receiving Christ as King] doth justifie, as it is the receiving him as Priest? that were to say, [by doing that which it doth not,] according to the common judgment. Of this read what I have written at large against Mr. Warner, about the Object of justifying Faith.But if you mean, that it is the same Habit, which performeth both Acts, and only one of the Acts justifie: I say, you should then call the Habit only, and that one Act, the fides quae; and not that act which is not the fides quae (in your esteem.)
5. The [quâ] should signifie the formal Reason of its interest in the work of Justifying. But that (I think I have proved, and shall do) is not its nature, as it is this Act or that (that is but its Aptitude to this Office) but its being the Condition of Justification, which God hath instituted, and man performed. If therefore it justifie not qua fides, vel quâ hic actus, but quâ conditio praestita, then every Act must justifie, which is such a Condition: For à quatenus ad omne valet argumentum.
6. Your own Argument I grant wholly [If Christ as Priest satisfied. &c.] But all you conclude is, that [therefore by receiving him as Priest we are justified.] But who denieth it? You left out ly [only:] Which had you put in, I had denied the Consequence with that addition. It is such another Argument as this: If a man only as rich, do enrich his wife; and only as honourable, do honour her; and only as merciful and potent, doth deliver her from danger: then the Act on her part which enricheth her, is only the receiving him as a rich man; and not as an honourable man, nor as a husband only: And the Act which dignifieth her, is only the receiving him as honourable. No such matter! But the receiving him as a Husband (though she never look to his riches or honour) is that Act on her part, which giveth right to his riches, honour and all: And then these benefits are but consequential thereto.
7. Let me therefore here once for all (that you may understand my meaning) tell you, That when we say [Faith justifies in this respect, and not in that,] distinguendum est: Either we speak ex parte objecti only, in what respect the Object received doth justifie; or else ex parte actus nostri, in what respect our Act of Faith justifieth: And so I affirm ex parte objecti (I speak not de objecto formaliter, sed materialiter in se) that Christ received, doth not justifie (satisfactorily and meritoriously) as King, but as Priest: (Though yet sententialiter & ut efficiens principalis, he justifies as King.) But if the Question be, Ex parte actus nostri? I say, it is not our receiving Christ as Priest only, nor as King, but as the Mediator-God-man, to be our Head, Husband, Lord and Saviour that justifieth, as being the Condition on which Justification is given us: And so receiving him as King, hath as near a hand in it, as receiving him as Priest; (for this is that part of the Condition which the World most sticks at.) As in the forementioned similitude ex parte objecti, the husbands dignity doth not enrich the wife, nor his riches ennoble her: But ex parte actus, as to the Condition on her part, it is undivided as to the essential Matrimonial respects, viz. [That she take the man to be her husband, to be loved, obeyed, and faithfully cleave to him only:] But the respect to his riches and honour in marrying him, is not that which gives her title to them; (that is, but collaterally requisite, if at all,) but her first having right in him, whose they are.
Aphorism.
IF Mr. Cotton say, as the Lord Brook Page 259.represents him, That Faith can be nothing else but a laying hold of that Promise which God hath made, it is a foul errour, &c.
Animadvers.
I presume Mr. Cotton by [Promise,] meant the [Promise at containing Christ in it,] and that he spake of Faith as justifying. Quamvis multa sint exercitia & objecta fidei, non tamen Justificans est, nisi prout respicit misericordiam Dei in Christe. Ames. Bell. Enerv. l. 5. c. 2. ad 8.
Reply.
I like your fair Exposition; whereby you leave the Errour, as being in his language, and not in his sense. For as Christ is, saith Ames. Objectum adaequatum fidei Justificantis, so [nothing else but] is too palpable an exclusion in all appearance: And no exact man in defining, should either exclude, or but imply the adequate object of that Act which he defineth. But I truly love charitable Interpretation, and only endeavour to keep the ill sense out of credit, and not so Reverend a man.