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
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
is so easie and obvious 3. I call this Act a Discharging as being the proper term in Law to express it by We were before charged by the Law we are by this Act discharged 4. I call it a discharge of the Offender For an offender is the only capable object or recipient of it There can be no pardon where there is no offender 5. I call it a discharging from the Obligation to Punishment For. 1. You must look at this whole process as legall and not as referring chiefly to Gods secret judgment or thoughts Therefore when it is called a freeing man from the wrath of God you must understand it onely of the wrath threatened in the Covenant and so from the obligation to Punishment You must not conceive of the change in God but in the sinners relation and consequently in the sence and sentence of the Law as to him 2. The common word by which this terminus a quo or rather the evil which this pardon doth directly free us from is expressed is Guilt But because the word Guilt is variously used sometimes referring onely to the Fact sometimes to the desert of Punishment and sometime to the dueness of Punishment or the Laws obliging the Offendor to bear it I have therefore here taken it in this last expression because I think that Guilt is taken away only in this last sence as I shall further open anon Therefore many define Guilt only in this last sence Reatus est Obligatio ad Poenam This Obligation though expressed only in the Covenant yet ariseth also from the Fact For if the Covenant had not been broken it had not obliged to suffering but still to duty only 6. I call it a Discharging by the Gospell-promise or grant It is called a Promise in reference to the benefit as future but more properly a Grant in reference to the benefit as present or past either in the conferring or already conferred This I do for these Reasons 1. To clear the nature of this Act. 2. To divert your thoughts from Gods secret judgment where most suppose this Act performed and to turn them right and free God from the imputation of change A great question it is Whether Remission and Justification be immanent or transient Acts of God The mistake of this one point was it that led those two most excellent famous Divines Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble to that error and pillar of Antinomianism viz. Iustification from Eternity For saith Dr. Twisse often All Acts immanent in God are from Eternity but Justification and remission of sin are immanent Acts therefore c. by immanent in God they must needs mean Negatively not Positively For Acts have not the respect of an Adjunct to its subject but an effect to its cause Now whether all such immanent Acts are any more eternall then transient Acts is much questioned As for God to know that the world doth now exist That such a man is sanctified or just c. Gods fore-knowledg is not a knowing that such a thing is which is not but that such a thing will be which is not Yet doth this make no change in God no more then the Sun is changed by the variety of Creatures which it doth enlighten and warm or the Glass by the variety of faces which it represents or the eye by the variety of the colours which it beholdeth For whatsoever some say I do not think that every variation of the object maketh a reall change in the eye or that the beholding of ten distinct colours at one view doth make ten distinct acts of the sight or alterations on it Much less do the objects of Gods knowledg make such alterations But grant that all Gods immanent Acts are Eternall which I think is quite beyond our understanding to know Yet most Divines will deny the Minor and tell you that Remission and Justification are transient Acts Which is true But a Truth which I never had the happiness to see or hear well cleared by any For to prove it a transient act they tell us no more but that it doth transire in subjectum extraneum by making a morall change on our Relation though not a reall upon our persons as Sanctification doth But this is only to affirm and not to prove and that in generall only not telling us what Act it is that maketh this change Relations are not capable of being the Patients or subjects of any Act seeing they are but meer Entia Rationis and no reall Beings Neither are they the immediate product or effect of any Act but in order of Nature are consequentiall to the direct effects The proper effect of the Act is to lay the Foundation from whence the Relation doth arise And the same Act which layeth the Foundation doth cause the Relation without the intervention of any other Suppose but the subjectum fundamentum terminus and the Relation will unavoydably follow by a meer resultancy The direct effect therefore of Gods Active Justification must be a reall effect though not upon the sinner yet upon something else for him and thence will his Passive Justification follow Now what transient Act this is and what its immediate reall Effect who hath unfolded I dare not be to confident in so dark a point but it seemeth to me that this justifying transient Act is the enacting or promulgation of the new Covenant wherein Justification is conferred upon every Beleever Here 1. The passing and enacting this Grant is a transient Act. 2. So may the continuance of it as I think 3. This Law or Grant hath a morall improper Action whereby it may be said to pardon or justifie which properly is but virtuall justifying 4. By this Grant God doth 1. Give us the Righteousness of Christ to be ours when we beleeve 2. And disableth the Law to oblige us to punishment or to condemn us 3. Which reall Foundation being thus layd our Relations of Justified and Pardoned in title of Law do necessarily result Object But this Act of God in granting Pardon to Beleevers was performed long ago But our Justification is not till we beleeve Answ. Though the effects of Causes as Physicall do follow them immediately yet as Morall they do not so but at what distance the Agent pleases sometimes A man makes his son a Deed of Gift of certain Lands to be his at such an age or upon the performance of some eminent Action Here the Deed of gift is the fathers instrument by which he giveth these Lands The passing this Deed is the proper Act and time of Donation Yet the son hath no possession till the time prefixed or till the Condition be performed At which time the conditionall Grant becoming absolute and giving him right to present possession it is not unfitly said that his father doth even then bestow the Lands though by no new intervening act at all but only the continuation of the former Deed of gift in force So here the conditionall grant
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
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
to be false But yet by such grounds they may very easily overthrow the safety also of unbeleevers while they teach them how to comfort themselves without Faith or to look at all out of themselves in Christ and so to silence the accusation of both Covenants by producing only the Righteousness of one THESIS LII WE must not plead for our Iustification that Christ hath made us free from the very fact nor 2 from the sinfulness of the fact nor 3 from its desert of punishment If Christ had done any of this for us he must verifie Contradictories But we must plead that the penalty is not due to our persons notwithstanding the fact and its sinfulness and demerit because Christ hath satisfied for all this EXPLICATION SO Mr Anthony Burgess in his book of Justif. pag 19. affirmeth as much though some take it for hainous doctrine 1. That the fact should be done and not done is a contradiction 2. So is it That the fact should be sinful and not sinful 3. Or that it should deserve death and not deserve it Or that it should be a sin against that threatening Law and yet not deserve the penalty threatened Besides if any of these three could have been taken off what need Christ have dyed But that which Remission and Justification freeth us from is the dueness of punishment to our persons notwithstanding the dueness of it to the sin because what is due to the sin is inflicted on the person of another already even Christ. So that you see in what sence Christ taketh away sin and guilt which you must observe lest you run into the Antinomian conceit That God seeth not sin in his justified ones When we say therefore that God looketh on our sins as if they had never been committed the meaning is that in regard to punishment they shall have no more power to condemn us then if they had never been committed THESIS LIII THe offending of God and the desert and procuring of punishment are not two distinct effects of sin as some make them nor is the removal of the curse and punishment and the obtaining of Gods favour two distinct parts of our Iustification EXPLICATION THis is plain because Gods displeasure against our persons for his dislike of the sin is never taken off is a chief part of our punishment and therefore not to be distinguished from it but as the Species from its Genus And so when all the punishment is removed then Gods displeasure or the loss of his favour must needs be removed Therefore that Justification in this differs from Remission of sin I cannot yet think as that godly and learned Servant of Christ whom I honour and reverence Mr Burgess of Iustificat pag. 259. doth That Justification besides the pardon of sin doth connote a state that the subject is put into viz. a state of favour being reconciled with God Because even Remission it self doth connote that state of favour For if the loss of Gods favour be part of the punishment and all the punishment be remitted then the favour which we lost must needs be thereby restored Indeed there is a two-fold Favour of God 1. That which we lost in the fall 2. More super-added by Christ besides the former restored Of these in the following Position THESIS LIV. REmission Iustification and Reconciliation do but restore the offender into the same state of freedom and favour that he fell from But Adoption and Marriage-Vnion with Christ do advance him far higher EXPLICATION THe three former are all concomitant consequents of one and the same Act of God by his Gospell The freedom from obligation to punishment is called Remission the freedom from Accusation and Condemnation is called Justification and the freedom from enmity and displeasure is called Reconciliation which are all at once do all denote but our Restauration to our former state Adoption and Marriage-Union do add the rest Some may blame me for putting Union among the relative Graces and not rather among those that make a real physicall change upon us as Sanctificition and Glorification But I do herein according to my judgment whereof to give the full reasons here would be too large a digression I know that Caspar Streso and divers others do place it in an unconceivable unexpressable medium between these two which yet must be called a Reall Union more then a Relative though not Physicall I will not now stand on â—his 〈◊〉 knowledg a Reall Foundation of a Relative Union and a Reall Communion following thereupon But am very fearfull of coming so near as to make Christ and sinners one reall Person as the late elevated Sect among us do lest blasphemously I should deifie man and debase Christ to be actually a sinner And if we are not one reall Person with Christ then one what It sufficeth me to know as abovesaid and that we are one with Christ in as strist a bond of relation as the wife with the husband and far stricter and that we are his body mysticall but not naturall That we shall be one with him as he is one with the Father is true But that as doth not extend the similitude to all respects but to a truth in some THESIS LV. BEfore it be committed it is no sin and where there is no sin the penalty is not due and where it is not due it cannot properly be forgiven therefore sin is not forgiven before it be committed though the grounds of certain Remission be laid before EXPLICATION FOr proof of this I refer you to Master Burgess of Iustificati Lect. 28. THESIS LVI BY what hath been said it is apparent That Iustification in Title may be ascribed to sever all Causes 1. The principall efficient Cause is God 2. The Instrumentall is the Promise or Grant off the new Covenant 3. The Procatarctick Cause â—o far as God may be said to be moved by any thing out of himself speaking after the manner of men is fourfold 1. And chiefly the Satisfaction of Christ. 2. The Intercession of Christ and supplication of the sinner 3. The necessity of the sinner 4. The opportunity and advantage for the glorifying his Iustice and Mercy The first of these is the Meritorious Cause the second the morall perswading Cause the third is the Objective and the fourth is the Occasion 2. Materiall Cause properly it hath none If you will improperly call Christs Satisfaction the remote matter I contend not 3. The formall Cause is the acquitting of the sinner from Accusation and Condemnation of the Law or the disabling the Law to accuse or condemn him 4. The finall Cause is the Glory of God and of the Mediator and the deliverance of the sinner 5. The Causa sine quâ non is both Christs Satisfaction and the Faith of the justified EXPLICATION HEre it will be expected that I answer to these Questions 1. Why I call the Gospell the Instrumentall Cause 2. Why I call Christs Satisfaction the meritorious Cause
many But I know nothing can be said against it but by denying the Antecedent viz. That Faith as it Accepteth Christ for Lord and King doth Justifie But that I have proved before If it be one Faith and have the Object entirely propounded as one and be one entire principall part of the Covenants Condition then sure it cannot be divided in the work of Justifying This may be easily apprehended if men will but understand these three things 1. That Faith is no Physicall or naturall proper Receiving of Christ at all But meerly a morall Receiving though performed by a Physicall Act of Accepting For thy Will doth not naturally touch and take in the person of Christ That is an impossible thing whatsoever the Transubstantiation men may say Though the Essence of the Godhead is every where 2. That this accepting which is a Morall Receiving doth not nor possibly can make Christ ours immediately and properly as it is a Receiving But mediately and improperly onely The formall cause of our interest being Gods Donation by the Gospell Covenant 3. That this Covenant maketh a whole entire Faith its Condition A Receiving of whole Christ with the whole soul It is as Amesius Actio totius hominis And if the Covenant doe make Christ as King the object of that Faith which is its Condition as well as Christ as a Deliverer or Priest Then may it be as fit a Medium for our Justification as the other That Obedience is as neere a fruit of Faith as Affiance is evident if you take it for the Obedience of the Soul in Acts that are no more remote from the heart then Affiance is And so is the Obedience of our Actions externall in its formall respect as Obedience though not in its materiall because the imperate Acts are not all so neer the fountain as the Elicite I take it here for granted that Dr Downames arguments in the place fore-cited have proved Affiance to be but a fruit of the principall justifying Act of Faith THESIS LXXIII FRom what hath been said it appeareth in what sence Faith only justifieth and in what sence Works also justifie viz. 1. Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant and is so put in opposition to the Works of the Law or the personall Righteousnes of the old Covenant 2. Faith only justifieth as the great principall master duty of the Gospell or chief part of its Condition to which all the rest are some way reducible 3. Faith onely doth not justifie in opposition to the Works of the Gospell but those Works do also justifie as the secondary less principall parts of the condition of the Covenant THESIS LXXIV SO that they both justifie in the same kinde of causality viz. as Causa sine quibus non or mediums and improper Causes or as Dr Twisse Causae dispositivae but with this difference Faith as the principal part Obedience as the less principall The like may be said of Love which at least is a secondary part of the Condition and of others in the same station EXPLICATION I Know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest out-cries raised against it and will-make some cry out Heresie Popery Socinianism and what not For my own part the Searcher of hearts knoweth that not singularity affectation of novelty nor any good will to Popery provoketh me to entertain it But that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees before I durst adventure on it And that I resisted the light of this Conclusion as long as I was able But a man cannot force his own understanding if the evidence of truth force it not though he may force his pen or tongue to silence or dissembling That which I shall do further is to give you some proofs of what I say and to answer some Objections Though if the foregoing grounds do stand there needs no more proof of these assertions 1. If Faith justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant and Obedience be also part of that Condition then obedience must justifie in the same way as Faith But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved The other proofs follow in the ensuing Positions and their Explications and Confirmations THESIS LXXV THe plain expressions of Saint James should ternifie us from an interpretation contradictory to the Text and except apparent violence be used with his Chap. 2. 21. 24 25 c. it cannot be doubted but that a man is justified by Works and not by Faith only THESIS LXXVI NEither is there the least appearance of a contradiction betwixt this and Paul's doctrine Rom. 3. 28. If men did not through prejudice negligence or wilfulness overlook this That in that and all other the like places the Apostle doth professedly exclude the Works of the Law only from Iustification but never at all the Works of the Gospell as they are the Condition of the new Covenant EXPLICATION IN opening this I shall thus proceed 1. I will shew the clearness of that in Iames for the point in question 2. That Paul is to be understood in the sence expressed 3. How this differeth from the Papists Exposition of these places and from their doctrine of Justification by Works 4. And how from the Socinian doctrine 1. The ordinary Expositions of St. Iames are these two 1. That he speaks of Justification before men and not before God 2. That he speaks of Works as justifying our Faith and not as justifying our persons or as Mr. Pembles phrase is the Apostle when he saith Works justifie must be undestood by a Metonimy that a working Faith justifieth That the former Exposition is falfe may appeare thus 1. The worlds Justification freeth us but from the Worlds Accusation to which it is opposed And therefore it is but either a Justifying from the Accusation of humane Lawes Or else a particular Justification of us in respect of some particular facts or else an usurped Judgement and Justification For they are not constituted our Judges by God And therefore we may say with Paul It is a small thing with me to be judged of you or of mans Iudgement And so a small thing to be Justified by men from the Accusations of the Law of God But the Justification in Iames is of greater moment as appeares in the Text. For 1. It is such as salvation dependeth on vers 14. 2. It is such as followeth onely a living Faith but the world may as well Justifie us when we have no Faith at all I therefore affirme 1. The World is no lawfull Judge of our Righteousness before God or in reference to the Law of God 2. Neither are they competent or capable Judges They cannot possibly passe any certaine true sentence of our Righteousness or unrighteousnesse 3. If they could yet Works are no certain medium or evidence whereby the world can know us to be Righteous For there is no outward work
acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted and so saith every man that is a Christian 2. He saith It was a full valuable compensation therefore not of the same 3. That by reason of the Obligation upon us we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation but only ours so the Law was not fully executed but relaxed 4. He saith he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all accidents of duration and the like but the same in weight and pressure therefore not the same in the Obligation because not fully the same Not the same numerically nor perhaps specifically in all respects if the losse of Gods Love and Image and incurring his hatred the corruption of the body the losse of right to and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall c. were any part of the curse yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde I doubt not 5. He saith God had power so farre to relax his owne Law as to have the name of a surety put into the Obligation which before was not there and then to require the whole debt of that surety And what saith Grotius more then this If the same thing in the Obligation be paid then the Law is executed and if executed properly and fully then not relaxed Here he confesseth that the sureties name was not in the Obligation and that God relaxed the Law to put it in Now the maine businesse that Grotius there drives at is but to prove this relaxation of the Law and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius on that question whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law punishing Christ for us c. as a Creditor or as an absolute Master or as a Judge under Lawes or as the supreme Rector the last of which Grotius maintaineth He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers But this is nothing to me Onely I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection It was himself that deserved the discredit and not the Truth of God The third and last contradicted Article is That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ till they become Beleevers Against this you send me to both the forementioned Authors Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski I had thought he had spoke onely of the universall conditionall Justification of men when he saith that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken But I find as his Doctrine is very strange so are his proofs as slender as any mans you could have sent me to 1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active And that God had justified no man who is not thereby justified 2. And as strange and abhorred to me is the other part of his doctrine viz. That Faith onely taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous 1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act. Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification that not only in offer but in actuall being should be the object of justifying Faith I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion Sure it is Christ and not actuall justification that is the object When the Scripture saith that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it You that are elect are already justified and if you will beleeve it you shall know it 2. He citeth Paraeus saying that Faith doth not effect justification but accept it Answ. 1. They that say Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification must needs say that Faith effectth it 2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification 3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him For when hee saith that All the Elect are justified in Christ in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification which who denyeth But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to is this If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge then is the debtor free from the debt But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect therefore the Elect are freed Answ. 1. Payment is refusable or not refusable That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation either by our selves or our Delegate is not by the Creditor refusable so that if we had paid it or Christ had been our Delegate appointed by us to pay the same that was due then God could not have refused to take that payment But Christ being appointed to this by the Father and not by us and also paying not the very same but the value God might have refused the payment 2. Where the payment is not refusable there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable but doth follow ipse facto But where the payment is refusable as here it was the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety the father and the sonne that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it 3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it may be understood 1. In respect to the Surety and the value of his payment and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment as bein the full value that his justice did require and beyond which he expected no more at his hands 2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor the sinner and the effecting of his freedome And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands 1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them for their only Saviour Husband and Lord. To these of Maccovius Mr. Owen in