production of the Effect under the chief Cause And so you may call Faith an Instrument Quest. But though Faith be not the Instrument of Justification may it not be called the Instrument of receiving Christ who Justifieth us Answ. I do not so much stick at this speech as at the former yet is it no proper or fit expression neither For 1. The Act of Faith which is it that justifieth is our Actuall receiving of Christ and therefore cannot be the Instrument of Receiving To say our Receiving is the Instrument of our Receiving is a hard saying 2. And the seed or habite of Faith cannot fitly be called an Instrument For 1. The sanctified faculty it self cannot be the souls Instrument it being the soul it self and not any thing really distinct from the soul nor really distinct from each other as Scotus D'Orbellis Scaliger c. D. Iackson Mr. Pemble think and Mr. Ball questions 2. The holinesse of the Faculties is not their Instrument For 1. It is nothing but themselves rectified and not a Being so distinct as may be called their Instrument 2. Who ever called Habits or Dispositions the souls Instruments The aptitude of a Cause to produce its effect cannot be called the Instrument of it you may as well call a mans Life his Instrument of Acting or the sharpnesse of a knife the knives Instrument as to call our holiness or habituall faith the Instrument of receiving Christ. To the sixth and last Question I Answ. Faith is plainly and undeniably the condition of our Justification The whole Tenour of the Gospell shews that And a condition is but a Causa sine quâ non or a medium or a necessary Antecedent Here by the way take notice that the same men that blame the advancing of Faith so high as to be our true Gospell Righteousnesse Posit 17. 20. and to be inputed in proper sence Posit 23. do yet when it comes to the triall ascribe far more to Faith then those they blame making it Gods Instrument in justifying 1. And so to have part of the honour of Gods own Act 2. And that from a reason intrinsecall to faith it self 3. And from a Reason that will make other Graces to be Instruments as well as Faith For Love doth truly receive Christ also 4. And worst of all from a Reason that will make man to be the Causa proxima of his own Justification For man is the Causa proxima of believing and receiving Christ and therefore not God but man is said to beleeve And yet these very men do send a Hue and Crie after the Tò credere for robbing Christ of the glory of Iustification when we make it but a poor improper Causa sine qua non And yet I say as before that in Morality yea and in Naturality some Causae sine qua non do deserve much of the honour but that Faith doth not so I have shewed in the 23. Position Some think that Faith may be some small low Impulsive Cause but I will not give it so much though if it be made a Procatarctick Objective Cause I shall not contend THESIS LVII IT is the Act of Faith which justifieth men at age and not the habit yet not as it is a good work or as it hath in it's self any excellency in it above other Graces But 1. In the neerest sence directly and properly as it is The fulfilling of the Condition of the New Convenant 2. In the remote and more improper sence as it is The receiving of Christ and his satisfactory Righteousnesse EXPLICATION 1. THat the habit of Faith doth not directly and properly justifie appeares from the tenour of the Covenant which is not He that disposed to beleeve shall be saved But he that believeth 2. That Faith doth not properly justifie through any excellency that it hath above other Graces or any more usefull property may appear thus 1. Then the praise would be due to Faith 2. Then love would contend for a share if not a priority 3. Then Faith would justifie though it had not been made the Condition of the Covenant Let those therefore take heed that make Faith to justifie meerely because it apprehendeth Christ which is its naturall effentiall property 3. That it is Faith in a proper sence that is said to justifie and not Christs Righteousnesse onely which it receiveth may appear thus 1. From the necessity of two-fold righteousness which I have before proved in reference to the two-fold Covenant 2. From the plain and constant Phrase of Scripture which saith He that beleeveth shall be justified and that we are justified by Faith and that faith is imputed for righteousnesse It had been as easie for the Holy Ghost to have said that Christ onely is imputed or his righteousnesse onely or Christ onely justifieth c. If he had so meant He is the most excusable in an error that is lead into it by the constant expresse phrase of Scripture 3. From the nature of the thing For the effect is ascribed to the severall Causes though not alike and in some sort to the Conditions Especially me-thinks they that would have Faith to be the Instrument of Iustification should not deny that we are properly justified by Faith as by an Instrument For it is as proper a speech to say our hand and our teeth feed us as to say our meet feedeth us 4. That Faith doth most directly and properly justifie as its the fulfilling of the Condition of the New Covenant appeareth thus 1 The new Covenant onely doth put the stamp of Gods Authority upon it in making it the Condition A two-fold stamp is necessary to make it a current medium of our Justification 1. Command 2. Promise Because God hath neither Commanded any other meanes 2. Nor promised Justification to any other therefore it is that this is the onely condition and so only thus Justifieth When I read this to be the tenour of the New Covenant Whosoever believeth shall be justified doth it not tell me plainly why Faith Justifieth even because it pleaseth the Law-giver and Covenant-maker to put Faith into the Covenant as its condition 2. What have we else to shew at Gods barr for our Justification but the New Covenant The Authority and Legality of it must bear us out It is upon point of Law that we are condemned and it must be by Law that we must be Justified Therefore we were condemned because the Law which we break did threaten death to our sin If we had committed the same Act and not under a Law that had threatned it with death we might not have dyed So therefore are we Justified because the New Law doth promise Iustification to our faith If we had performed the same Act under the first Covenant it would not have Iustified As the formall Reason why sin condemneth is because the Law hath concluded it in its threatning so the formall Reason why Faith justifieth is because the New Law of Covenant hath concluded
place Hab. 2. 4. Sop. 649. in the true Gain God doth as it were keep a double Court one of justice the other of Mercy In the Court of justice he gives judgment by the Law accuseth every man that continueth not in all things c. In this Court nothing can stand but the Passion and Righteousnesse of Christ and for the best works that we can doe we may not look for any acceptation or reward but use the plea of David Enter not into iudgement with thy servant O Lord for no flesh shall be justified in thy sight Now in the Court of Grace and Mercy God hath to deall with his own children that stand before him justified and reconciled by Christ and the obedience of such he accepteth in this Court and mercifully regardeth though imperfect for christ Perkins Vol. 1. pag. 124. On the Creed Christ as he is set forth in Word and Sacraments is the object of Faith Faith apprehendeth whole Christ. pag. 125. First it apprehendeth the very body and blood of Christ and then in the second place the vertue and benefits Whereas some are of an opinion that faith is an affiance or confidence that seemes to be otherwise for it is a fruit of Faith That Faith is so large as to contain very many acts see Zanchy on Eph. 1. in loco communi de fide That Word and Sacraments are the instruments of Justification on Gods part Zanchy affirmes on Ephes. 1. loco communi de justificatione That the form of Righteousnesse is conformity to the Law he teacheth on Phil. 1. 11. That there is a necessity of a two-fold Righteousnesse one imputed the other inherent Zanchy ibid freq Dr. Willet on Rom. 2. contr 3. 7. Good workes are required as a condition in those which are to be saved not as a meritorious cause of their salvation The meaning of this sentence the doors of the law shall be justified is the same God will approve justifie reward them that do the works of the Law whether Jew or Gentile Yet it followeth not that a man is therefore justified by the works of the Law But God approveth and rewardeth the workers not the hearers and professours So here the Apostle treateth not of the cause of justification which is faith without the works of the law But of the difference between such as shall be justified and such as are not Faïus They onely which have a lively Faith which worketh and keepeth the Law in part and supplyeth the rest which is wanting in themselves by the perfect obedience of Christ they shall be justified not those which onely professe the Law and keep it not The Apostle then here sheweth who shall be justified not for what By these words it is evident that Dr. Willet and Faius acknowledge sincere obedience to be a condition of justification or of those that shall be justified though not a cause as they say I think mistakingly Faith is Dr. Davenant Animadversions on Gods love to mankind p. 385. 386. The Doctrine of Predestination permitteth no man to perswade himself that his salvation is certain before he finde that he is truly converted truly faithfull truly sanctified Because you will perhaps hear Mr. Owen before Grotius see Mr. Ball on Covenant p 290. There is a two-fold payment of debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation and this ipso facto freeth from punishment whether it be paid by the debtor himself or by his surety Another of a thing not altogether the same which is in the Obligation so that some act of the Creditor or Governour must come unto it which is called remission in which case deliverance doth not follow ipso facto upon the satisfaction and of this kind is the satisfaction of Christ. Thus this great learned holy Divine as almost England ever bred doth go on even in Grotius his own words translated betwixt whom had he been living and Mr. Owen would have been but impar congressus Ball on Covenant p. 240. As these false Teachers 2 Pet. 2. 1. were called into the Covenant accepted the condition beleeved in Christ for a time rejoyced in him and brought forth some fruit so we confesse they were bought by the blood of Christ because all these were fruits of Christs Death whereof they were made partakers As in the Parable Mat. 18. 25. the Lord is said to remit to his servant a 1000 talents when he desired him viz. Inchoately or upon condition which was not confirmed because he did not forgive his fellow-servant So the false Prophets are bought by the bloud of Christ in a sort as they beleeved in Christ. We read of Apostates who had bin enlightned c. Heb. 6. 5 6 7. and did revolt from the Faith To these men their sins were remitted in a sort in this world and in a sort they were bought with the blood of Christ but inchoately onely and as they tasted the word of life Had they eaten the word of life had they soundly and truly beleeved in Christ they had received perfect and consummate remission of sins both in this world and in the world to come they had been perfectly redeemed and reconciled to God But because they did not eat but tasted onely they received not perfect Remission they were not perfectly redeemed Idem pag. 225. There is this mutuall respect betwixt the promise and stipulation that the promise is as an argument which God useth that he might obtain of man what he requireth and the performance of the thing required is a condition without which man cannot obtain the promise of God Idem pag. 43. Of this Covenant be two parts 1. a Promise 2. a stipulation The Promise is that God will pardon the sinnes of them that repent unfeignedly and beleeve in his mercy 2. The Stipulation is that they beleeve in him that justifieth the ungodly and walk before him in all well-pleasing See him also delivering the most of Amiraldus doctrine p. 244 245. Molinaeus de elect ex fide p. 316. We know remission is not obtained before Prayers for it But I say that it was decreed before Prayers and that it is sought by Prayers although it be decreed Scarpius symphonia p. 93. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of grace made in Christ and the Restipulation of Faith and Gratitude Paraeus in Genes 17. p. 1130. The substance of the Covenant lyeth in the promise of free Reconciliation Righteousness and life eternall by and for Christ freely to be given and in the restipulation of our Morall Obedience and Gratitude Bullinger Decad. 1. Serm. 6. pag. 44. We say Faith justifieth for it self not as it is a quality in our minde or our own work but as Faith is a gift of Gods grace having the promise of Righteousnesse and life c. Therefore Faith justifieth for Christ and from the grace and Covenant of God Mr. Ant. Burgesse of Iustif. Lect. 14. p. 117. Scripture maketh no pardon of sin to be but where the subject hath such qualifications as this of forgiving others It is not indeed put as a cause or merit but yet it is as a qualification of the subject therefore our Saviour repeateth Except ye forgive others c. So Act. 10. 43. Rom. 3. 15. So 1 Ioh. 1. 9. If we confesse c. By these and the like Scriptures it is plain That remission of sinne is given us only in the use of these Graces Mr. Burges of Iustif. Lect. 18. pag. 148 149. Prop. 2. Although the Scripture attributes pardon of sin to many qualifications in a man yet repentance is the most expresse and proper duty If we speak of the expresse formall qualification it is repentance of our sins c. Prop. 3. None may beleeve or conclude that their sins are pardoned before they have repented Mat. 3. 2. Luk 13. 3. Prop. 4. There is a necessity of repentance if we would have pardon both by necessity of Precept and of means The Spirit of God worketh this in a man to qualify him for this pardon pag. 150. You see then that Faith is not the only condition of remission and consequently nor of justification Not as an appeal to men but to fill up the vacant pages and satisfy you who charge me with singularity have I added these promiscuous Testimonies supposing you can apply them to their intended uses FINIS
in execution of any part of the curse of the Law 3. Whether the sufferings of Beleevers are from the curse of the Law or only afflictions of Love the curse being taken off by Christ 4. Whether it be not a wrong to the Redeemer that the people whom he hath ransomed are not immediately delivered 5. Whether it be any wrong to the redeemed themselves 6. How long will it be till all the curse be taken off the Beleevers and Redemption have attained its full effect To the first Question I answer In this case the undertaking of satisfaction had the same immediate effect upon Adam as the satisfaction it self upon us or for us To determine what these are were an excellent work it being one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity What are the immediate effects of Christs Death He that can rightly answer this is a Divine indeed and by the help of this may expedite most other controversies about Redemption and Justification In a word The effects of Redemption undertaken could not be upon a subject not yet existent and so no subject though it might be for them None but Adam and Eve were then existent Yet as soon as we do exist we receive benefit from it The suspending of the rigorous execution of the sentence of the Law is the most observable immediate effect of Christs death which suspension is some kinde of deliverance from it Of the other effects elsewhere To the second Question The Elect before conversion do stand in the same relation to the Law and Curse as other men though they be differenced in Gods Decree Eph. 2. 3â—â—2 To the third Question I confess we have here a knotty Question The common judgment is That Christ hath taken away the whole curse though not the suffering by bearing it himself and now they are only afflictions of Love and not Punishments I do not contradict this doctrine through affectation of singularity the Lord knoweth but through constraint of Judgement And that upon these grounds following 1. It is undenyable that Christs taking the curse upon himself did not wholly prevent the execution upon the offendor in Gen. 3. 7 8 10 15 16 17 18 19. 2. It is evident from the event seeing we feel part of the curse fulfilled on us We eat in labour and sweat the earth doth bring forth thorns and bryars women bring forth their children in sorrow our native pravity is the curse upon our souls we are sick and weary and full of fears and sorrows and shame and at last we dye and turn to dust 3. The Scripture tells us plainly that we all dye in Adam even that death from which we must at the Resurrection be raised by Christ 1 Cor. 15. 21 22. And that death is the wages of sin Rom. 6. 23. And that the sickness and weakness and death of the godly is caused by their sins 1 Cor. 11. 30 31. And if so then doubtless they are in execution of the threatening of the Law though not in full rigor 4. It is manifest that our sufferings are in their own nature evils to us and the sanctifying of them to us taketh not away their natural evil but only produceth by it as by an occasion a greater good Doubtless so far as it is the effect of sin it is evil and the effect also of the law 5. They are ascribed to Gods anger as the moderating of them is ascribed to his love Psal. 30. 5. and a thousand places more 6. They are called punishments in Scripture and therefore we may call them so Lev. 26. 41 43. Lam 3. 39. 4. 6 22. Ezra 9. 13. Hosea 4. 9. 12. 2. Lev. 26. 18 24. 7. The very nature of affliction is to be a loving punishment a natural evil sanctified and so to be mixt of evil and good as it proceedeth from mixt causes Therefore to say that Christ hath taken away the curse and evil but not the suffering is a contradiction because so far as it is a suffering it is to us evil and the execution of the curse What reason can be given why God should not do us all that good without our sufferings which now he doth by them if there were not sin and wrath and Law in them Sure he could better us by easier means 8. All those Scriptures and Reasons that are brought so the contrary do prove no more but this That our afflictions are not the rigorous execution of the threatning of the Law that they are not wholly or chiefly in wrath but as the common Love of God to the wicked is mixt with hatred in their sufferings and the hatred prevaileth above the love so the sufferings of the godly proceed from a mixture of love and anger and so have in them a mixture of good and evil but the Love overcoming the Anger therefore the good is greater then the evil and so death hath lost its sting 1 Cor. 15. 55 56. There is no unpardoned sin in it which shall procure further judgment and so no hatred though there be anger 9. The Scripture saith plainly That death is one of the enemies that is not yet overcome but shall be last conquered 1 Cor. 15. 26 and of our corruption the case is plain 10. The whole stream of Scripture maketh Christ to have now the sole disposing of us and our sufferings to have prevented the full execution of the curse and to manage that which lyeth on us for our advantage and good but no where doth it affirm that he suddenly delivereth us To the fourth Question It can be no wrong to Christ that we are not perfectly freed from all the curse and evil as soon as he had satisfied 1. Because it was not the Couenant betwixt him and the Father 2. It is not his own will volenti non fit injuria 3. It is his own doing now to keep us under it till he see the fittest time to release us 4. Our sufferings are his means and advantages to bring us to his Will Mankind having forfeited his life is cast into prison till the time of full execution Christ steppeth in and buyeth the prisoners with a full purpose that none of them yet shall scape but those that take him for their Lord. To this purpose he must treat with them to know whether they will be his subjects and yield themselves to him and his terms Is it not then a likelier way to procure their consent to treat with them in prison then to let them out and then treat and to leave some of the curse upon them to force them to yield that they may know what they must expect else when the whole shall be executed To the fift Question It is no wrong to the sinner to be thus dealt with 1. Because he is but in the misery which he brought upon himself 2. No man can lay claim to the Satisfaction and Redemption upon the meer payment till they have a word of
of Pardon Justification doth then absolutely pardon and justifie us when we perform the Condition Hence is the phrase in Scripture of being Iustified by the Law which doth not only signifie by the Law as the Rule to which men did fit their actions but also by the Law as not condemning but justifying the person whose actions are so fitted In which sence the Law did justifie Christ or else the Law should not justifie as a Law or Covenant but only as a Direction which properly is not Justifying but only a means to discover that we are Justifiable As the Word of Christ shall judge men at the last day Ioh. 12. 28. So doth it virtually now And if it judge then doth it condemn and justifie So Rom. 2. 12. Iam. 2 12. We shall be judged by the Law of Liberty Gal. 5. 3. 4 23. In the same sence as the Law is said to convince and curse Iam. 2. 9. Gal. 3. 13. it may be said that the Gospell or new Law doth acquit justifie and bless Rom. 8. 12. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus hath made me from the Law of Sin and Death As the Law worketh Wrath and where is no Law there is no Transgression Rom. 4. 15. And as sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. and the strength of sin is the law 1 Cor. 15. 56 So the new law is the strength of Righteousness and worketh Deliverance from Wrath and were there no such new Covenant there would be no Righteousness inherent or imputed Ioh. 7. 51. So that I conclude That this transient Act of God pardoning and justifying constitutive is his Grant in the new Covenant by which as a Morall Instrument our Justification and Pardon are in time produced even when we beleeve the Obligation of the Law being then by it made void to us And this is the present apprehension I have of the nature of Remission and Justification Si quid novisti rectius c. yet I shall have occasion afterwards to tell you That all this is but Remission and Justification in Law and Title which must be distinguished from that which is in Judgment or Sentence the former being vertual in respect of the Actuality of the latter 2. The second kinde of Gods Acts which may be called Justifying is indeed Immanent viz. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just in Law his Willing and Approving hereof as True and Good These are Acts in Heaven yea in God himself but the former sort are on earth also I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoyn as he ever doth these last with the former But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legall Acts which the Scripture usually means when it speaks of Pardoning and constitutive Justifying and not these Immanent Acts though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former Yet most Divines that I meet with seem to look at Pardon and Justification as being done in heaven only and consisting only in these later Immanent Acts And yet they deny Justification to be an Immanent Act too But how they will ever manifest that these celestiall Acts of God viz. his Willing the sinners Pardon and so forgiving him in his own brest or his accepting him as just are Transient Acts I am yet unable to understand And if they be Immanent Acts most will grant that they are from Eternity and then fair fall the Antinomians Indeed if God have a Bar in Heaven before his Angels where these things are for the present transacted as some think and that we are said to be justified only at the bar now then I confess that is a transient Act indeed But of that more hereafter 7. I add in the definition That all this is done in consideration of the Satisfaction 1 made by Christ 2. Accepted 3. and pleaded with God The satisfaction made is the proper meritorious and impulsive cause 2. So the Satisfaction as pleaded by Christ the intercessor is also an impulsive cause 3. The Satisfactious Acceptance by the Sinner that is Faith and the pleading of it with God by the sinner that is praying for pardon are but the Conditions or Causae sine quo But all these will be fuller opened afterwards THESIS XXXVII IVstification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law 2. Or in Sentence of Iudgment The first may be called Constitutive The second Declarative The first Virtuall the second Actuall EXPLICATION I Will not stand to mention all those other Distinctions of Justification which are common in others not so necessary or pertinent to my purposed scope You may finde them in Mr Bradshaw Mr Iohn Goodwin and Alstedius Distinctions and Definitions c. The difference between Justification in Title of Law and in Sentence of Judgment is apparent at the first view Therefore I need not explain it It is common when a man hath a good cause and the Law on his side to say The Law justifieth him or he is just in Law or he is acquit by the Law and yet he is more fully and compleatly acquit by the sentence of the Judge afterward In the former sence we are now justified by faith as soon as ever we beleeve In the latter sence we are justified at the last Judgment The title of Declarative is too narrow for this last For the sentence of judiciall absolution doth more then barely to declare us justified I call the former virtuall not as it is in it felf considered but as it standeth in relation to the latter All those Scriptures which speak of Justification as done in this life I understand of Justification in Title opf Law So Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 4. 2. Rom. 5. 9. Being now justified by his blood c. Iames 2. 21 25. c. But Justification in Judgment as it is the compleating Act so is it most fitly called Justification and I think the word in Scripture hath most commonly reference to the Judgment day and that Justification in Title is called Justification most especially because of its relation to the Justification at Judgment because as men are now in point of Law so shall they most certainly be sentenced in Judgment Therefore is it spoken of many times as a future thing and not yet done Rom. 3. 30 Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. But these may be called Justification by Faith for by Faith we are justified both in Law Title and at Judgment THESIS XXXVIII IVstification in Title of Law is a gracious Act of God by the Promise or Grant of the new Covevant acquitting the Offender from the Accusasation and Condemnation of the old Covenant upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ and accepted by the sinner EXPLICATION HEre you may see 1. That pardon of sin and this Iustification in Law are not punctually and precisely alone 2. And yet the difference
and the Causa sine quâ non 3. Why I make not Christs Righteousness the materiall Cause 4. Why I make not the Imputation of it the formall Cause 5. Why I make not Faith the Instrumentall Cause 6. Why I make it only the Causa sine quâ non To the first Question As a Lease or Deed of Gift is properly a mans Instrument in conveying the thing leased or given and as the Kings Pardon under his Hand and Seal is his proper Iustrument of pardoning justifying the Malefactor so is the new Covenant Gods Instrument in this case or as it were his Mouth by which he pronounceth a beleever justified To the second Question Christs Satisfaction hath severall ways of causing our Justification 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause I know few but Socinians that will deny 2 That it is besides properly a Causa sine qua non cannot be denyed by any that consider that it removeth those great Impediments that hindered our Justification And what if a man should say that because impulsive and procatarcticall Causes have properly no place with God that therefore the greatest part of the work of Christs Satisfaction is to be the Causa sine qua non principalis But because my assigning no more to Christs Satisfaction but merit and this improper causality doth seem to some to be very injurious thereto I desire them so long to lay by their prejudice passion while they consider of this one thing That we are not in this business considering which cause hath the preheminence in regard of physicall production but which in morall respect deserveth the highest commendation In point of Morality the greatest praise is seldom due to the greatest naturall strength or to the strongest naturall causation In Physicks the efficient hath the greatest part of the glory but in Morals the Meritorious Cause hath a singular share As Diogenes said Quare me non laudas qui dignus sum ut accipiam plus enim est meruisse quam dedisse beneficium The like may be said of some Causes sine qua non That they deserve far greater praise in morall respect then some that have a proper causality do It is agreed that removens impedimentum quâ talis is Causa sine quâ non And doth not the greatest part of a Phisitians skill lye there That which taketh away the offending humor and clenseth out the corruption and removeth all hinderances shall have the greatest share in the glory of the cure of any artificiall cause Suppose a man be condemned by Law for Treason one payeth one thousand pound for his Pardon and thereby procured it under the broad Seale hereby he suspendeth and afterward disableth the Law as to the offender This man is the efficient of those happy effects from which the justification of the Traytor will follow But as to his justification it self he is but the Causa removens impedimenta taking away the force of the Law and the offence of Majesty and whatsoever els did hinder the justification of the offender And yet I think he deserveth more thanks then either the Laywer that justifieth him by Plea or the Judge that justifies him by Sentence So here If you had rather you may call it a necessary Antecedent Or if any man think fitter to call these Causes by another name I much care not so we agree concerning the nature of the thing To the third question Christs Righteousness cannot be the materiall cause of an Act which hath no matter If any will call Christs Righteousness the matter of our Righteousness though yet they speak improperly yet farre neerer the truth then to call it the Matter of our Justification To the fourth Quest. That Imputation is not the Form is undenyable The form gives the name especially to Actions that have no matter Imputation and Justification denote distinct Acts And how then can Imputing be the Forme of Justifying Though I mention not Imputation in the Definition nor among the Causes here yet it is implyed in the mention of Satisfaction which must be made ours or else we cannot be Justified by it Though therefore the Scripture do not speak of imputing Christs Righteousnesse or Satisfaction to us yet if by Imputing they mean no more but Bestowing it on us so that we shall have the Justice and other benefits of it as truely as if we had satisfied our selves in this sence I acknowledge Imputation of Christs satisfactory Righteousness But I beleeve that this Imputing doth in order of nature go before Justifying And that the Righteousness so Imputed is the proper ground whence we are denominated Legally righteous and consequently why the Law cannot condemn us It is a vaine thing to quarrell about the Logicall names of the Causes of Justification if we agree in the matter To the fifth Question Perhaps I shall be blamed as singular from all men in denying Faith to be the Instrument of our Justification But affectation of singularity leades me not to it 1. If Faith be an Iustrument it is the Instrument of God or man Not of man For man is not the principall efficient he doth not justifie himself 2. Not of God For 1. It is not God that believeth though its true he is the first Cause of all Actions 2. Man is the Causa secunda between God and the Action and so still man should be said to justifie himselfe 3. For as Aquinus The Action of the principall Cause and of the Instrument is one Action and who dare say that Faith is so Gods Instrument 4. The Instrument must have influx to the producing of the effect of the Principall cause by a proper Causalitie And who dare say that Faith hath such an influx into our Justification Object But some would evade thus It is say they a Passive Instrument not an Active To which I Answer 1 Even Passive Instruments are said to help the Action of the principall Agent Keckerm Logick pag. 131. He that saith Faith doth so in my judgement gives too much to it 2. It is past my capacity to conceive of a Passive Morall Instrument 3. How can the Act of Believing which hath no other being but to be an Act be possibly a Passive Instrument Doth this Act effect by suffering Or can wise men have a grosser conceit of this 4. I believe with Schibler that there is no such thing at all as a passive Instrument The examples that some produce as Burgersdicius his Cultor gladius belong to Active Instrument And the Examples that others bring as Keckermans Iurus instrumentum fabricationis mensa scamnum accubitus terra ambulationis are no Instruments except you will call every Patient or Object the Instrument of the Agent The Instrument is an Efficient Cause All efficiencie is by action and that which doth not Act doth not effect Indeed as some extend the use of the word instrument you may call almost any thing an Instrument which is any way conducible to the
which an Hypocrite may not perform and inward works they cannot discern nor yet the principles from which nor the ends to which our works proceed and are intended There is as much need of a divine heart-searching knowledge to discern the sincerity of Works as of Faith it self So that if it be not certain that the Text speaks of Justification before God I scarce know what to be certain of Once more 1. Was Abraham justified before men for a secret Action 2. Or for such a◠Action as the killing of his onely Son would have been 3. Was not he the justifier here who was the imputer of Righteousness But God was the imputer of Righteousness vers 23. therefore God was the Justifier So I leave that interpretation to sleep 2. That it is the Person and not his Faith onely which is here said to be justified by Works is as plain in the Text almost as can be spoken vers 21. Abraham not his faith is said to be justified by works Vers. 24. By Works a man is justified If by a man were meant a mans Faith then it would run thus sencelessely By Works a mans Faith is justified and not by Faith onely so Vers 25 3. For Mr. Pembles interpretation That by Works is meant a Working Faith I Answer I dare not teach the holy Ghost to speak nor force the Scripture nor raise an exposition so far from the plain importance of the words without apparent necessity But here is not the least necessitie There being not the least inconvenience that I Know of in affirming Justification by Works in the fore-explained sence Men seldom are bold with Scripture in forcing it But they are first bold with Conscience inforcing it If it were but some one Phrase dissonant from the ordinary language of Scripture I should not doubt but it must be reduced to the rest But when it is the very scope of a Chapter in plain and frequent expressions no whit dissonant from any other Scripture I think he that may so wrest it as to make it unsay what it saith may as well make him a Creed of his own let the Scripture say what it will to the contrary what is this but with the Papist to make the Scripture a Nose of wax If Saint Iames speak it so oft over and over that Justification is by works and not by Faith onely I will see more cause before I deny it or say he meanes a Working Faith If he so understand a Working Faith as that it justifieth principally as Faith and lesse principally as working then I should not differ from him only I should think the Scripture Phrase is more fafe and more propert But he understandeth it according to that common assertion and exposition that Fides solum justificat non autem fides sola Faith alone justifieth but not that faith which is alone The question therefore is Whether Works do concur with Faith as part of the Condition in the very businesse of Justifying or whether they are onely Concomitants to that Faith which effecteth the business without their assistance The ground of the mistake lyeth here They first ascribe to much to Faith and then because that nimium which they give to Faith is not found agreeable to Works therefore they conclude that we are not justified by works at all They think that Faith is an Instrumentall efficient cause of Justification which that properly it is not I have proved before when if they understood that it justifieth but as a Causa sine quanon or condition they would easily yeeld that Works do so too I will not say therefore that Works do effectually produce our Justification For faith doth not so Nor that they justifie as equall parts of the condition For faith is the principall But that they justifie as the secondary lesse-principall part of the Condition not onely proving our Faith to be sound but themselves being in the Obligation as well as Faith and justifying in the same kind of causality or procurement as Faith though not in equality with it I prove thus 1. When it is said that we are Iustified by Works the word By implyeth more then an Idle concomitancy If they only stood by while Faith doth all it could not be said that we are Justified by Works 2. When the Apostle saith By Works and not By Faith onely he plainly makes them concomitant in procurement or in that kind of causality which they have Especially seeing he saith not as he is commonly interpreted not By Faith which is alone but not by Faith only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. Therefore he saith that Faith is dead being alone Because it is dead as to the use and purpose of Justifying for in it self it hath a life according to its quality still This appears from his comparison in the former verse 16. that this is the death he speaks of And so Works make Faith alive as to the attainment of its end of Justification 4. The Analysis which Piscator and Pemble give contradicteth not this Assertion If in stead of a Working Faith they will but keep the Apostles own words I shall agree to most of their Analysis Though conclusious drawn from the Analysis are often weak it is so easie for every man to feign an Analysis suited to his ends onely the explication of the 22. vers they seem to fail in For when the Apostle saith that Faith did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 work in and with his works it cleary aimeth at such a working in and with as maketh them conjunct in the work of Justifying And when he saith that Faith was made perfect with Works it is not as they and others interpret only a manifesting to be perfect But as the habit is perfected in its Acts because they are the end to which it tendeth And as Marriage is perfected per congressum procreationem or any Covenant when its conditions are performed Faith alone is not the entire perfect Condition of the New Covenant but Faith with Repentance and sincere Obedience is A condemned Gally-slave being Redeemed is to have his deliverance upon condition that he take his Redeemer for his Master This doth so directly imply that he must obey him that his conditions are not perfectly fulfilled except he do obey him as his Master And so taking him for his Redeemer and Master and obeying him as his Master do in the same kind procure his continued freedom Indeed his meer promise and consent doth procure his first deliverance but not the continuance of it So I acknowledg that the very first point of Justification is by Faith alone without either the concomitancy or co-operation of Works for they cannot be performed in an instant But the continuance and accomplishment of Justification is not without the joynt procurement of obedience As a woman is made a mans wife and instated in all that he hath upon meer acceptance consent and contracts because conjugall actions affection the forsaking of others
participation of that and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell which is Faith as I have opened before 5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise it were as much against your Doctrine as mine For is not Faith a work or act of ours But you will say That though Faith which is a work do justifie yet not as a work but as an instrument I answer 1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ which you call its instrumentality is to bee a work Therefore if it justifie as it is such an apprehension it justifieth as a work 2. So also say I that subjection and obedience justifie 1. Not as works simply considered 2. Nor as legall works 3. Nor as meritorious works 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life Nay your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine for you make justification an effect of your own Faith and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it and so make your selfe your owne justifier And you say your Faith justifieth as it apprehendeth Christ which is the most intrinsecall essentiall consideration of Faith and so Faith hath much of the honour But while I affirm that it justifieth onely as a condition which is an extrinsecall consideration and aliene from its essence or nature I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant and that enableth me to performe the said condition And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections as fully as necessitated brevity would permit And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation Abrogation c. of the Law which you confesse you doe not well understand I refer you to Vossius Defens Grotii de Satisf cap. 27. where among other things hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex populus rogabatur an ferrivellet seu tollendae rogabatur an tolli eam placeret Hinc rogari lex dicebatur quae ferrebatur ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur cum antiquaretur c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian Lex rogatur id est fertur vel abrogatur idest prior lex tollitur vel Derogatur id est pars primae tollitur aut subrogatur id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi aut Obrogatur id est mutatur aliquid ex primâlege And so concludeth that the first Law was not abrogated but relaxed dispensed with and obrogate How farre it was executed I have shewed you in the Treatise But the last task you set me is of all the rest most ungratefull endlesse and in my judgement unnecessary viz. To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted 1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly 2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book the task would be endlesse and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe and am like to have so short a time to doe it in 3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe 2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly The Authors which you refer me to are two D. Maccovius and Mr. Owen The points which they contradict are three 1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant but onely in satisfaction for our Disobedience This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. par 4. Disp. 9. 2. That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation but the value and so the Law was not properly and fully executed but relaxed This you say Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140. 3. That no man is actually and absolutely justified no not so much as in point of Right either from eternity or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ till themselves doe beleeve This you say is confuted by both of them Maccov par 3. Disp. 16. par 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments you might have spared me this labour But briefly to the first of these I answer 1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us as well as suffered for us and who denyeth that 2. Of those passages which yet goe further there is few of them that say any more then this that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant more then we lost by breaking the Old But this is nothing to our Question which is onely about justification For I have cleared to you before that Justification is properly and strictly taken one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law and set in statu quo prius and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption Union Glorification 3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius Gomarrus c. and Mr. Goodwin notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer and divers others that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour as to doe that which is better done already then can be expected from me 4. Onely one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration And that is this If Christ onely suffered for us then the righteousnesse of Adam had hee continued in innocency would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens But the consequence is false because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from To this I answer 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects 1 In reference to its Rule 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self The second denominateth it good to us Now the Rules to measure it by are two 1. The neerest inferiour Rule which is the