Justification Justified, Theses · Thesis 89 – Thesis 114
LXXXIX.
The most usual and general s…gni…ication of the word Faith, is as it is …ken for the Grace of Faith, or the Actings t…ereof, and there is no inconvenient sense aris…th from taking it so when Faith is spoken of as the Instrument of our Justification, Ergo. It ought to be so taken. Possibly in fifty places of the New Testament Faith is taken for the Grace of Faith, and in very few in any other sense. To be sure it is so taken in Heb. 11. where Faith is so much spoken of and defined, v. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, &c. v. 4. … Faith Abel offered to God, &c. Faith in that on Chapter is about sixteen or seventeen times taken for the Grace or Faith, and not for th… Gospel of Christ. Neither would any inconvenient construction arise if we take it as mean… of the grace of Faith when we are said to be justified by Faith Instrumentally, Ex. gr. Rom… 3.25. To be a propitiation through Faith in hi… Blood. Now, though the blood of Christ be the Seal of the New Covenant, yet certainly the Apostle intended not here to speak of that, but of the meanes, on our part, whereby we are made partakers of Christ's Redemption, and propitiation, Gal. 7.3. So Rom. 5.1. when the Apostle saith, being justified by Faith, we hav… Peace with God; why should not Faith be taken for the Grace of Faith correlative to it's object Jesus Christ? So Gal. 2.16. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, &c. i. e. by the grace of Faith, or by believing in Jesus Christ.
XC.
Should we take Faith for the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, in the places last mentioned, as a more unusual, so a more inconvenient, less congruous, and less probable sense would arise from thence, if not untrue, and absurd. Ex. gr. when the Apostle saith, Being justified by Faith, Rom. 5.1. We should read being justified by the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, against that might be objected that the Gospel justifieth no Man, unles… it be applyed by Faith, men may hear the Gospel, and yet never be justified, but they cannot believe the Gospel, with a true and lively Faith, and not be justified. So those words, Gal. 2.16. Knowing that a man is justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ, ought not to be understood of the Object of Faith, viz. the Gospel, but of the Grace of Faith, for could he have been justified by the Gospel only (or as the only Instrument of his justification) what need he have added, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified, &c. So 'tis most certain that Jesus Christ is not actually a propitiation for our sins, meerly through the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace, unless the Grace of Faith doth intervene actually to enteress us in his Sacrifice, and Satisfaction, and therefore it is inconvenient by Faith in his Blood, to understand the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace sealed with his Blood, &c.
There are two other Texts in Rom. 3. which would be very incommodiously applyed to the Gospel, where Faith is mentioned as the Instrument, or Condition of Justification, v. 22. Even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. Do not the latter words shew that the Grace of Faith, not the objectum quod of Faith, which is the Gospel, is there to be understood by Faith? To be sure in that latter clause Faith is spoken of as an Instrument, yea, as a condition of Justification. Now, the Gospel, though it is in external, remote Instrument of justifying a sinner, as it is the Instrument of Faith, or means of believing, yet Faith is the more immediate Instrument of the two, and a condition also, which the Gospe… cannot be said to be. Also from v. 26. we argue, that by Faith in the 25 verse, not the Gospel, but the Grace of Faith is meant, because the words are, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
XCI.
Faith is such an Instrument of Justification as upon which Justification doth always insue: For whosoever truly believeth in Jesus Christ, is, and shall be justified, but so is not the Gospel, or the Covenant of Grace: For the Gospel has been, and may be preached to thousands, who never did, nor ever will come to believe, &c. Now is it not more proper to attribute an effect to the immediate, and effectual cause, than to a cause that is more remote, and often ineffectual? and consequently our Justification, to the Grace of Faith, than to the object of Faith, viz. the Gospel? 'Tis harsh to say that we are justified by that (as namely by the Gospel) which we may have, and enjoy, and never be justified, and much easier to conceive how we may be said to be justified by that, (as namely by Faith) upon the having (and using) of which, we cannot but be justified.
XCII.
When we are said to be Justified by Faith, as Rom. 5.1. the Faith there spoken of, is not to be taken Metonymically, viz. the cause put for the effect, and Faith which is the root of good works, put for good works, which are the fruit of saving Faith.
XCIII.
Neither is Faith there taken Synecdochically as a part for the whole, or as one Virtue for all her inseperable companions, for which a Believer is accepted of a gracious God. Faith is not there taken as a complexive word, that includes Love, and Fear, and holy Obedience, and in Conjunction with all these doth produce Justification.
XCIV.
Thus some by giving the name of Faith to all sorts of Graces, yea and of good works, do hook, and hedge in the Popish Doctrine of Justification by works, under the wing of something called Faith (as the Quakers do under the name of Christ; telling us first, that Christ is the Light within them, and secondly, that to follow the Light within them, whereby they mean nothing else but doing of good works, in conformity to natural Light, will bring us to Heaven.)
XCV.
Those that cannot brook Justification by Faith alone, as the only Internal Instrumental cause, but would concern the whole of Gospel Obedience in the business of Justification, go this way to work, viz. they tell us, that God hath a double Court, one may be compared to our Kings Bench (a strict Tribunal of Justice) wherein the Offender is tryed according to Law: So when God proceeds against a sinner accordiag to the Covenant of works by the Law, there is no hope of Justification by works, because all have sinned, and the Law is to all a Ministry of Condemnation, and an instrument of death: For there is no mention of Repentance, or room for Reconciliation, in the first covenant of the Law. But God hath set up another Court, as it were of Chancery, where foreign, or a temperament of equity is admitted, where God by a new Covenant of Mercy moderateth the strictness of the the Law, and requires not exact, but sincere Obedience. And though St. Paul deny Justification to the works of the Law, yet he contradicts not St. James, who saith a man is justified by good works in Gods Court of Equity under the Gospel. And they observe, that though the Sts. do decline God's Judgment, where exact Justice keeps the Court, yet the Sts. often plead their own Righteousness before a Merciful God, who accepts their sincere endeavours, and acts of Obedience. The Socinians please themselves with this distinction who deny Ch ists Satisfaction, and consequently acknowledg no use of Faith in his bloud; for apprehending, or applying of Christs Righteousness for our Justification, and teach that a man is Justified by his operative Faith, and sincere Obedience, which God by the New Covenant of Grace, accepts unto righteousness, though it be not exactly conformable to the Rule of the Law. Others also who acknowledg the Righteousness of Christ purchased by his propitiatory Sacrifice, yet imbrace this distinction, and do think that Gospel obedience concurs with Faith unto our Justification; because God accepts even the defective services of his Children. And they imagin that St. Paul, and St. Peter may be accorded by taking Faith in a Figurative sense, when the former speaks of Justification by Faith, &c. Gattaker 66, 67.
XCVI.
The grounds they go upon for taking Faith for all Graces, yea for all good works, for the sum total of all Gospel-obedience, are very insufficient; as namely this for one: Because the word foreign signifies both Incredulity, and disobedience, and foreign is opposed to foreign John 3.36. Therefore Faith (they suppose) imports not only Belief, but also Obedience.
The strength of that Argument is meer weakness. For, 1. Though a word have two several significations it do's not follow that it is always to be taken in both, or that those two come all to one. 2. It follows not because foreign signifieth either unbelief, or disobedience, or both; that therefore the word foreign from which it comes, signifieth the two contrary things, being without the privative particle, for though it doth signifie to obey, yet no where to believe. 3. The word foreign signifieth pertinaciam non credendi etiam visis, & auditis idoneis documentis, q. d. Impersuasibilitatem Aestius ad, Rom. 11.30. foreign signifies more than foreign, viz. Qui non tantum non credit sed recta monentibus resistit. Therefore it will not follow that the word which is of a contrary signification, doth signifie Faith, and nothing else, but rather it should signifie an easiness of Believing, or of being perswaded, to own the Truths of the Gospel, &c. 4. Neither is there any word as is directly contrary to foreign & foreign viz. any such word as foreign, whereby Faith, or a Believer may be signified, &c. Therefore from the notation of these words, no Argument can be drawn that to believe, and to yield sincere Obedience to the whole Gospel are all one, or the same thing.
XCVII.
They who contend for Faith being a Complexive word, signifying all sorts of Graces, and the sum total of Gospel Obedience, and of all good works, do pretend that to the best of their understanding. St. Paul and St. James cannot be otherwise reconciled, and for that reason, they are induced to take Faith in so large a sense, as that it may include works, &c. Now, that Reason will easily fall to the ground if we can prove that St. Paul and St. James may be fairly accorded without it, as also that they two ought not to be so reconciled.
XCVIII.
The passages in which St. Paul and St. James seem to some to differ, toto Coelo are these. St. Paul saith, Rom. 3.28. We conclude that a man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law, and Rom. 4.2, 3. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what saith the Scripture, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for Righteousness. v. 4. Now, to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of Grace, but of Debt, v. 5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for Righteousness, v. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. Thus far St. Paul.
Then comes St. James, and saith, Jam. 2.20.24. But wilt thou know, O vain Man, that Faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our Father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his Son upon the Altar? Seest thou how Faith wrought with his Works, and by Works was his Faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness, and he was called the Friend of God, v. 25. Ye see then, how that by Works, a Man is justified, and not by Faith only. 25. Likewise also was not Rahab the Harlot justifi d by Works when she had received the Messengers, and had sent them another way? For as the Body without the Spirit is dead, so Faith without works is dead also.
XCIX.
We shall find there is no need to confound Faith and Works together, in order to reconciling these two Apostles. For though in words they seem to contradict each other, yet in very deed they do not, yea, cannot, because they do not speak ad idem, or circa idem, but of different manners. For St. Paul discourseth how our Persons are justified before God, but St. James, how our Faith must be justified before Men. Now, our Persons are justified by Faith, but our Faith by good works. They who say these two things, do not thwart one another, more, or less. Zanchy saith, Fides justificat hominem, opera justificant fidem.
C.
St. James his business is to prove that a bare Profession, or boasting of Faith, not accompanied with good works, can justifie no man, nor assure the World that his Faith is such as will justifie him before God. This I make appear from Jam. 2.14. What doth it profit my Brethren, if a Man say he hath Faith, and hath not Works? 2. Because he compareth it with a vain Ostentation of Charity, v. 15, 16, 17. If a Brother or Sister be naked and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, depart in peace, notwithstanding you give them not those things which are needful to the Body, what doth it profit? Even so Faith, if it have no Works, is dead being alone. 3. Because he compareth it with the Faith that Devils have, which being without Works is dead, v. 19. The Devils also believe, and tremble, v. 20. But wilt thou know, O vain Man, that Faith without Works is dead. 3. But that Faith accompanied with good works doth justifie both before God, and Men, he proveth by the Example of Abraham when he offered his Son, Gen. 22.12. who nevertheless was long before that time justified by Faith in the sight of God. Gen. 15.6. Therefore these words are not to be understood of his Justification to Eternal Life. Moreover, God saith to Abraham, Gen. 22.12. Now I know that thou fearest God. For by Faith, and good Works, both Internal, and External, we approve our selves, both to God, and Men. Then as for the following instance of Rahab, doubtless she is said to have been justified by Works, in the same way and manner that Abraham was, to shew, that not only the Jews which sprung from Abraham, but the truly believing Gentiles also, were justified after the same manner that he was.
CI.
It is as true that the Reconciling of St. Paul, and St. James ought not to be attempted by making Faith, and good works one, and the same thing; as that it is possible to reconcile them otherwise: I say, it is most certain that we ought not to attempt the Reconciling of those two Apostles, by saying that we are justified both by Faith, and by good Works, or that Faith is the same with all Gospel Obedience, because there is a very great strem, and torrent of Scripture running to the contrary, and expresly excluding good works from having any hand in our Justification. Read at large Rom. 3.20. Rom. 4.6. Eph. 2 8, 9. Titus 3.5. 2 Cor. 5.19. 2 Tim. 1.9. 2 Cor. 5.21. 1 Cor. 1.30. Jer. 23.6. Rom. 3.24, 25. Rom. 5.18, 19. Gal. 2.16. Rom. 4.5. Rom. 5.28.
CII.
No Man is, or can be justified either by works done before Regeneration, nor by works done by him after Regeneration, neither by the works of the Ceremonial Law, nor by the works of the Moral Law, nor by Evangelical Obedience (as such) nor by Faith, or the foreign credere, as it is a work: I say, by none of all these, nor yet by all these together, can any Man be justified in the sight of God; no, not so much as Instrumentally, much less by these as the Material, or Formal Cause of his Justification, or as the matter of his Righteousness before God, &c. Because the Scripture excludes all sorts of works, considered as such, from our having any hand in the Justification of a sinner, and puts that upon Faith alone, and upon that but as an Instrument, or hand whereby we receive that Righteousness of Christ which alone doth, and which only can justifie us.
CIII.
That the works of the Ceremonial Law do not, or cannot concur to the justifying of a sinner, need not to be proved amongst Christians now adayes, sith that Law is well known to have been long since not only dead, but deadly. If ye now be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing. Whether tends the Epistle to the Galatians, but to encounter with those as would make a medley of Judaism, and Christianism, and urged a necessity of the Ceremonial Law upon the Gentile Converts? Against those he proves that neither Jews, nor Gentiles, are justified by the Covenant made in Horeb, but by Faith in Christ, according to the Covenant made with Abraham 430 years before the Law, Gal. 3.8, 17. And therefore now to seek Righteousness by the works of the Law is to fall from the grace of Christ. Gattak. 74.
CIV.
Neither can Men be justified by works of what sort, or Law, soever done in an unregenerate estate. The reason is plain, because such works cannot please God. They that are in the flesh cannot please God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Moreover, the Papists themselves do grant that men are not justified by works done before, but only after their Regeneration.
CV.
No man is or can be justified by the works of the Moral Law, or by works done in observance of the ten Commandments. For St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans deals with those who insisted more upon their obedience to the Moral Law, (though they did not exclude the observance of the Ceremonial) and they would fain establish a righteousness upon their own works performed out of obedience to Gods Commands, Rom. 9.31, 32. & 10.3.
CVI.
That when Paul excludeth Works from any hand in our Justification, he intendeth as well those of the Moral, as the Ceremonial Law: I prove thus, yea that he argueth principally against works done in conformity to the Moral Law, that they have no power to justifie us. For 1. He treateth of the Law by which sinners shall be judged, which is the Moral Law, Rom. 2.12. 2 Of the Law that was written in the hearts of the Heathen, yea of all men, v. 14. and that the Ceremonial Law never was, but the Moral. 3. Of that Law which forbad Adultery, and Sacriledge, and by the breaking of which, the Jews dishonored God▪ (who were strict in observing the Ceremonial Law) and was not that the Moral Law? v. 22, 23. 4. Of the Law by which is the knowledg of sin, Rom. 3.20. now do's not that Moral Law make the greatest discovery of sin? was it not by the Moral Law that Paul knew Concupiscence to be sin, which otherwise he had not known? now the Apostle denies Justification to be by the works of that Law which discoverth sin. 5. He denies Justification by the works of the Law, which he went about not to abolish, but to establish, Rom. 3.31. That must needs be the Moral Law, for the Ceremonial Law he labored to abolish, and to establish only the Moral. 6. He treats of that Law which hath said, Thou shalt not Covet, Rom. 7.7. and is not that the purport of the tenth Commandment? 7. Of that Law which curseth every one that continueth not in all that is written therein to do it, Gal. 3.10. and that was the Moral Law, witness Deut. 27.26. For there (whence these words Gal. 3. are quoted) Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them, doth bring up the arrear of the Curses from Mount Ebal, beginning v. 15. Cursed be he that maketh any graven Image, &c. If the Law therefore there mentioned be spoken of as a Covenant of Works to them that are under the Law, it must needs be meant of the Moral Law, for the Ceremonial Law was never any part of the Covenant of Works made with Adam in Paradise; for it was not then extant, yea it was a kind of Typical Gospel. 8. Of that Law which is fulfilled in this, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self, Rom. 13.8, 9. By all these passages it appeareth, that it is the Moral Law of which St. Paul chiefly treateth, denying that it is possible for any man to be justified by the works thereof.
CVII.
Yea no man can be justified by Evangelical Works, or by sincere obedience to the Gospel. I do not well know how to distinguish betwixt obedience to the Moral Law, and obedience to the Gospel, sith the Moral Law, or ten Commandments, are the Rule of a Gospel Conversation. And indeed the Moral Law was published from Mount Sinai, and written in Tables of Stone, some hundreds of yea s after the publication of the Gospel; and as it could not disanul the Gospel, so was it added as a clearer, and more legibly written Rule, to those that were under the Gospel, when the characters of the Innate Law were scarce to be read. Moreover, If the grace of God which bringeth Salvation (whereby is meant the Gospel) teacheth us to live Righteously, soberly and Godly in this world, do not the ten Commandments teach the same?
CVIII.
But whereas Faith and Repentance are commonly called by the name of Gospel-duties (as Ʋnbelief, and Impenitency by the name of Sins against the Gospel) for this reason it may be, viz. because the Moral Law whilst it was in the nature, and quality of a meer Covenant of Works, as to Adam in Paradise, commanded no such thing as that which we call Faith, and Repentance, and by the New Covenant only these two great Duties are discovered, and imposed, I say admitting some distinction betwixt the Moral Law, and the Law of the Gospel, upon the account aforesaid, no man is, or can be justified by obedience to the Gospel, or by Evangelical Works in that acceptation, that is, by his Repentance, nor yet by his Faith, or foreign credere, as it is a Work, but meerly as it is an Instrument whereby we receive Christ, and his Righteousness.
CIX.
We are not, nor cannot be justified by Evangelical Works, Evangelically performed, viz. from a principal of true Grace, and Spiritual life (and not meerly of nature, and free will) therefore not by any works whatsoever, much less by those Evangelical works which are so only for the matter of them, as external Repentance, or sorrow for sin, that is short of Godly sorrow never more to be repented of, or Common Faith, short of the Faith of Gods Elect. Was not Abrahams Obedience in following God's call out of his Country in Circumcising himself, & his Family, and in offering his only Son Isaac, an evident fruit of his Faith? (as we are told, Heb. 11. By Faith Abraham did so, & so) therefore they must needs be Evangelical works, Evangelically performed, or good works, both for matter, and manner. And yet St. Paul teacheth (for all this) that Abraham was so justified by Faith, that his Obedience had no influence upon his Justification, Rom. 3.2. If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory, but not before God, which is an Elliptick speech amounting to thus much. But Abraham hath not whereof to glory before God, v. 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness, &c. See also v. 4, & 5. See also Gal. 3.6, 7, 8, 9. If these Heroick Acts of Obedience came not into account for absolving Abraham from the guilt of sin, but his Faith on him that justifieth the ungodly, was imputed to him for Righteousness, and indeed long before the Sacrificing of his Son, then the works of Gospel Obedience ought not to he crowded with Faith into the means of our Justification. Gattak. 76. Who knows not that David was a R…generate Man, a Man after God's own heart, which fulfilled all his will, Acts 13.22? And yet David himself did not expect the blessedness of Justification (or Salvation) upon account of his own works, or Gospel Obedience, Rom. 4.6. Even as David describeth the Blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth Righteousness without works. v. 7. Saying, Blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven, &c. Plainly intimating that God is reconciled to the World of true Believers, not imputing their transgressions to them, because he imputes unto them the Righteousness of Christ, which needs not our works to assist it, but requires our Faith to receive it.
Read further what David saith, Psal. 143.2. and what St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 4.4.
CX.
That sincere Obedience to the Gospel, and Good works; the Companions and effects of Faith, are not intended by the word Faith, and involved therein, when we are said to be justified by Faith, as an Instrument (or Instrumentally) is evident, because then the Apostle's conclusion would run thus, Rom. 3.27, 28. Boasting is excluded not by the Law of Works, but by the Law of Faith. Whereby we mean Obedience, and good Works. Therefore we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith, that is, by Obedience, and Good Works, without the works of the Law. Can we imagine that the Apostle who excludes not only obedience to the Moral Law (of which he speaks principally, as hath been proved at large) but also the Obedience of Abraham (which was an Evangelical self-denial) from the power, or ground of Justification, and opposes the way of Faith to the way of Works in order to Justification, did mean by Faith, good Works, and intended that we should expound Faith by Obedience? Who sees not a violence offered to the Apostle's words, when they are thus distorted from their genuine signification to a Figurative sense? And who sees not that such a way of Arguing appears to be very absurd and self-contradicting?
CXI.
To say that Works are excluded from Justification not as Works, or pieces of Gospel Obedience, but as supposed by some to be meritorious, is a poor evasion that has no truth in it. Because Faith is affirm'd to be a cause of Justification, or to concur to Justification, in that sense that Works are denied so to do; but Faith is not affirmed to be the meritorious cause of Justification. Therefore Works are not in that sense denied to be the cause of Justification, when they are opposed to Faith. Works are plainly denyed to be the cause of Justification in that sense that Faith is asserted so to be. Rom. 3.28. Therefore we conclude a man is justified by Faith without the deeds of the Law. But a man is not there said, or intended, to be justified by Faith as a meritorious cause. Therefore works are not there excluded from Justification, as pretended to be meritorious causes thereof.
CXII.
To be justified by Works, and by Merits, seem in the Apostle's sense to be one, and the same thing. Therefore if we are not justified by merits, neither are we justified by works. The Apostle seems plainly to assert that if our Justification were by works, we might plead merit, that it would not be of grace but of debt, Rom. 4.4. To him that worketh is the reward reckoned not of grace, but of debt. Therefore they that deny Justification by merit, ought to deny Justification by works also. For one, according to St. Paul, would necessarily follow upon the other.
CXIII.
To say that good works, if they were owned as one cause of Justification, could not pretend to any thing of merit, or meritoriousness, because they cannot be performed but by grace, and strength received from God, who must work all our works in us, and for us, is to say nothing to the purpose. For if that were true, Adam could not have merited at God's hand had he stood in the state of Innocency, because it was God made man righteous, even the first Man, and who indued him with that habitual Grace, and assisted him with that Divine concourse, which was sufficient to have continued him in that holy, and happy estate in which he was created, and to have advanced him to a better (as is generally held.) But do not the generality of our Divines grant that Adam by well using, or improving that stock of Grace which he had received from God, might have merited at God's hands, if not in the strictest sense, yet in a sense sufficiently safe, proper, and allowable?
CXIV.
If God would have rewarded▪ Adam not of Grace, but of Debt, in case he had persisted in his innocency, then Adam, according to St. Paul, might have been said to have merited his reward, in as much as he should have had it upon the account not of believing, but of working, Rom. 4.4. For said he, To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt. Now to be rewarded as of debt, and not of grace, is to be rewarded upon the account of Merit; or of what God is pleased to own for such.