336 (346)
Chapter 28
How Faith is, and may be called and Instrument in
Justification
Concerning
the instrumentality of faith in justification, much needs not be said, howbeit
too much hath been written about it, and that to very
little edification; so I judge: I am sure, to little use, as to their clearing
up of that concerning point of justification, and the true interest of faith
therein.
We
heard, in the beginning of the proceeding chapter, how both Socinians and
Arminians did disown faith being an instrument, and Papists also before them
did plead against it. On the other hand, the orthodox, writing against Papists,
Socinians, and Arminians, did unanimously assert faith to be an instrument, or
to be considered an instrument, in the matter of justification. And few, or
none, can be instanced of those, who hold with the orthodox, in all chief
controversies about justification, that did impugn, or so much as deny faith to
be an instrument, in justification; Yea John Goodwine, in his book of
justification, doth expressly call it an instrument in justification.
It is
true, the Scripture no where calls faith an instrument; and the same being no
Scripture expression, there needs not be much strife about it, nor will there
be, among such, as are unanimous, in the main and principal questions about
justification; or to that, which is only designed and intended by that
expression. And though the Scripture doth not use that expression, in terminis, yet no man can hence infer, that all use of
it, and of the like should be laid aside, nor can such be supposed to add to
the Scripture, (as Mr. Baxter hints, Apol. against
Mr. Blake, p. 40) who call faith an instrument; more than he can suppose that
he himself adds to the Scripture, when he calls faith a condition, or a
causa sine qua non, for these ar as little to be
found expressly, in the Scriptures, as the other. Nor do they, who say faith is
an instrument, so much plead for the name, as for the thing intended thereby:
All expressions, that are not in Scripture, must not be laid aside, in our
speaking of divine things: for then we must lay aside the word Trinity,
Sacrament, Satisfaction, and several others: far less must the truth, which we
conceive can be intelligently and usefully expressed by those borrowed words
and terms, be laid aside, because the term itself, by which we express our
conceptions of the truth, is not in so many letters and syllables to be found
in Scripture, if so indeed, we had quickly lost a fundamental point of our
religion, and yielded the cause unto the Socinians. If the Scripture may be
explained, we may make use of such expression,
337 (347)
term, and sentences, as will, according to their usual
acceptation, contribute to make the truths revealed in Scripture intelligible
to such, as hear us. And when some terms have been innocently used in theology,
for explication of truths, whether to the more learned, or to the more
unlearned, and have passed among the orthodox without control, or
contradiction, beyond the ordinary time of prescriptions, it cannot but give
ground of suspicion for any, now to remove these old landmarks, especially when
it is attempted to be done, by such means and arguments, as will equally
enforce a rejection of many Scriptural expression: for should all the
metaphorical expressions and sentences, which are in nature, be so canvassed,
and rejected, because everything agreeing properly to them when used, in their
own native soil, doth not quadrate with them, as used in the Scriptures, in
things divine, where should we land? If these divine mysteries had been
expressed to us only in terms, adequately corresponding with and suiting the
matter; how should we have understood the same? Therefore we find the Lord
condescending in the Scriptures, to our low capacities, and expressing sublime
and high mysteries, by low and borrowed expressions, to the end, we might be in
case to understand so much thereof, as may prove, through the Lord’s blessing,
saving unto us: And thereby hath allowed such, as would explain these matters
unto the capacity of others, to use such ordinary expressions, as may
contribute some light and understanding to them, in the truths themselves.
Now
when the orthodox have, according to their allowed liberty, made use of the
word instrument in this matter, and maintained that faith was, and was
nothing more than an instrument in justification, it is not fair to reject it
altogether, because improper, though fit enough to signify what they did intend
thereby; and because all the properties, that agree to proper physical, or
artificial instruments, do not agree to it; and because if the same be strictly
examined, according to the rules of philosophy, concerning instrumental causes,
it will be found to differ from them. Mr. Baxter himself, writing against Mr.
Kendal. § 47, tells us that the thing, which he denies, is that faith is an
instrument, in the strict logical sense, that is, an instrumental efficient
cause of our justification; and that he expressly disclaims contending de
nomine, or contradicting any, that only use the word instrument, in an improper
large sense, as mechanics and rhetoricians do: So that the question (says
he), is de re, whether it efficiently causes our justification, as an
instrument? But it may be conceived to have some efficient influence, in
our justification, not as that is taken simply & strictly for God’s act
justifying, but as taken largely, comprehending the whole benefit: as actively
coming from God, and as passively received by or terminated on us, and that as
an instrument, though not in that proper sense, that logicians or
metaphysicians take instrumental causes, and explain them, in order to physical
and natural effects. We know, that justification is a supernatural work and
effect; and therefore, though in explaining of it in its causes, we may make
use of such terms, as are used about the expressing of the causes of natural,
or artificial works and effects; yet no law can force us, to understand by
these
338 (348)
borrowed expressions, the same proper, and formal efficacy,
efficiency, and influence, which are imported by these expressions, when used
about natural causes and effects.
But Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake § 5. tells us what great
reasons he had to move him to quarrel with this calling of faith an instrument
viz. he found that many learned divines did not only assert this
instrumentality, but they laid so great a stress upon it, as if the main
difference betwixt us and the Papists lay here. And yet any might think, that they had reason so to do, when Papists on the
other hand, laid as great a stress upon the denying of faith’s instrumentality.
He tells us moreover, that our divines judged Papists to err in justification
fundamentally, in these points: 1. About the formal
cause, which is the formal righteousness of Christ, as suffering and perfectly
obeying for us. 2. About the way of our participation herein, which as to God’s
act is imputation, and that in this sense, that legaliter we are esteemed to
have fulfilled the law in Christ. 3. About the nature of that faith, which justifies. 4. About the formal reason of faith’s
interest in justification, which is as the instrument
thereof. I doubt not (says
Mr. Baxter) but that all these four are great errors. But we neither
may, nor can call all errors, which Mr. Baxter calls errors. We have seen above
how necessary truths the first two are, and have explained, in part, the third,
wherein I confess, too many (yet not all) of the foreign divines have, as to
that expression, missed the explication of true justifying faith and it may be,
it was not their design to describe it so, as it might agree to the faith of
every sincere, though weak believer: but rather to show its true nature,
grounds and tendency, when at its best; and yet what Papists hold, on the contrary,
is more false and absurd. But as to this fourth, it seems, that it hath a
necessary dependence upon the foregoing; and this to me seems to be the main
reason, why our divines did own and plead for faith’s instrumentality, in the
matter of justification, viz. because the righteousness, which they called the
formal, or others the material cause thereof, was not any righteousness
inherent in us, as Papists said; but the Surety-Righteousness of the Cautioner
Christ, without us: and therefore they behooved to look on faith, in this
matter, otherwise than Papists did, and not account it a part of our formal
righteousness, but only look upon it, as a hand to lay hold on and bring in the
Surety righteousness of Jesus Christ; and therefore judged it most fit to call
it only an instrumental cause. And how ever Mr. Baxter may exaggerate this
matter, as complying with Papists in condemning us, as to all these
controversies, and think it no wonder, they judge the whole Protestant cause
naught, because we err in these, and yet make this the main part of the
Protestant cause; yet we must not be scared from these truths; yea, because
this point hath such a connection with the other, concerning that
righteousness, upon the account of which we are to be justified in the sight of
God, we are called to contend also for this, and that so much the rather, that
though Papists do utterly mistake the nature of justification, and confound it
with sanctification; yet Mr. Baxter hath more rational apprehensions there
about, and yet will not have Christ’s righteousness to be that formal
339 (349)
righteousness, upon the account of which we are justified.
Yet
notwithstanding, we need not own it for such an instrument, or such an
instrumental cause, as philosophers largely treat of, in logic and metaphysics,
knowing that the effect here wrought is no natural effect, brought about by
natural efficient and instrumental causes; only we say, the Scripture
affirming, that we are justified pistei, e0k pi/stewj and
dia\ pistewj, gives us ground to call faith (if we will use such
terms, to express our mind) an instrument, seeing these expressions point
forth, some special interest and influence, that faith hath in justification,
and no other influence or causation can be allowed to it, conform to the
Scriptures; but that, which we express in our ordinary discourse, not in a
strict philosophical sense, by an instrument. And that so much the rather, that
hereby is pointed forth that which is the main ground and design of using this
term, viz. the application of the righteousness of Christ, which is made by
faith, as a means laying hold upon without which we cannot be justified,
according to the Gospel; and though in these borrowed expressions from causes,
metaphysical accuracy be not intended, yet the true meaning and intent of the
users of these terms being obvious, it is but vanity to raise too much dust
thereabout; unless differences about other more principal questions, in the
matter of Justification enforce it, as indeed all such as place the Formal
Cause or reason of our justification before God in our own inherent
righteousness, and not in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and
received by faith, must of necessity deny all interest of faith here, as an
instrument, or as anything like it; because, having all their righteousness
within them, they have no use for faith to lay hold on and bring in one from without.
These
things may satisfy us, as grounds of this denomination.
1. That
in justification, we are said to be receivers, and do receive something from
the Lord; not only the passive justification itself expressed by our being
justified, but of something in order thereunto, as of Christ himself, the
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, the atonement, the word of
promise, yea everything that concurs unto justification, or accompanies it, we
are said to receive. John 1: 12, Colossians 2: 6, Romans 5: 11, 17, Acts 2: 41,
10: 43, 26: 18, Hebrews 9: 15.
2. That
the only grace, whereby we are said to receive these things, is faith:
receiving is explained to be believing, John 1: 12,
Acts 2: 41 compared with verse 44. We receive forgiveness of sins by faith,
Acts 26: 18.
3. That
the Surety-Righteousness of Christ, is that only righteousness, upon the
account of which we are justified before God, and not any inherent
righteousness within ourselves, has been evinced above.
4. That
this righteousness of the Surety must be imputed unto such, as are to be justified,
or reckoned upon their score; has also been evinced.
5. That
this Surety-Righteousness of Christ must be laid hold on by us, in order to our
justification, has been shown; and must be granted by all that acknowledge it
to be the righteousness, upon the account of which we are justified.
340 (350)
6. That
the Scripture says expressly, that God justifies e0k pi/stewj and
dia\ pistewj, by faith and
through faith, and pistei by faith, Romans 3: 24, 25, 28, 30, Galatians 3: 8 and 2: 16,
and that even when justification is denied to be by works; so that faith must
have a far other interest in; and must otherwise concur unto our justification,
than any other works or graces; and therefore must be looked upon as having
some peculiarity of interest and influence here, and this peculiarity of
interest cannot be otherwise better expressed, so as the matter shall be
cleared, than by calling it an instrument. Not as if it did concur to the
producing of the effect of justification by any physical operation, as physical
instruments do; but as a medium and mean required of us, in order to
justification, according to the free pleasure of God, who disposes the order
and method of his bestowing of his favors upon us, and the relation and respect
that one hath unto another, as he sees most for his own glory, and for our
good; and that such a mean, as concurs therein, and thereunto, according to
what is said, in such a way, as we can best understand by calling it an
instrument; for we cannot allow it to be called any way meritorious, or any
formal disposition of the soul or preparation unto the introduction of an
inherent formal cause of justification, as Papists say; nor can we allow it to
be called such a proper and potestative condition, as some would have it to be,
as we saw in the foregoing chapter.
7. That
no real inconvenience can follow upon the owning of faith for an instrument in
justification; for justification is not here taken simply and strictly for that
which is properly God’s act, but more largely and complexly, including other
things requisite unto justification, such as the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, which faith, as the instrument or hand of the soul,
lays hold on, and brings in, for this end, that the man being clothed
therewith, may be acquitted before the tribunal of God, pardoned, and accepted
of as righteous. And howbeit be God, that justifies, and as to this act of God
justifying, faith has no real interest or influence; yet the Scripture saying
that God justifies by faith, and through faith, we must acknowledge some
interest, that faith has, in the work and effect; as when the Scripture says,
that He purifieth the heart by faith, Acts 15: 9, the purifying of the
heart is God’s work, and yet it is said to be done by faith, which is our work.
It is said in Hebrews 11: 11 that through faith Sarah herself received
strength to conceive seed, and in verses 33 and 34 that some through
faith subdued kingdoms, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of
fire, &c. all which were the works of God, and yet while they are said
to be done by faith, faith must have had some interest and influence in these
effects. So in working faith in the soul, which is God’s work alone, the Lord
uses the preaching of the Gospel, and ministers, and the people’s hearkening
and listening to what is preached, as means thereunto; though preaching and
hearing be men’s work, yet God uses them for his ends; and as he sends
preachers to preach, and moves persons to hear, that thereby he may, according
to his own will and pleasure, work faith in them; so he works faith in souls,
that he may, thereby justify them. Nor is it of any weight to say, that if
faith be an instrument, it must work as an efficient cause, because the
instrumental
341 (351)
cause belongs to the efficient; for neither do all
philosophers agree to this, some holding instruments to be a <?> kind of
cause; nor are we obliged to stand to their prescriptions and rules, especially
in these things, that are no natural causes or effects; no man says that faith
has the same kind and measure of efficiency in and towards the effect,
justification, that all instrumental causes, or instrumental causes so called,
have in the effects, which they concur to the producing of; what efficiency
hath an exemplary cause, which some philosophers reduce to the efficient, viz.
Keckerkan: But that faith hath some influence, is manifest from the Scripture,
not of itself, it is true, but by the gracious appointment of God; and that
this influence cannot be better and more safely expressed, than by the name of
an instrument, appears to us clear; hereby nothing of the glory due to God, or
unto Jesus Christ, and to his righteousness, is ascribed unto man, nor is any
more hereby granted unto man, than to a beggar, as to the enriching of himself,
when it is said, his hand made him rich, by receiving the purse of gold that
was given unto him: yea hereby is Christ and his righteousness more fixedly
established, in their due place, because faith is considered not as a
righteousness of itself, nor as a part of righteousness; but purely and simply
as an instrument of the soul laying hold on the righteousness of Christ, and
pleading the same, as the only formal ground of his justification before God.
If it be said, that it were safer to call it a causa sine qua non, we
must first know, what is properly signified thereby, and whether it will help
us more, to understand the just and true import of the Scripture expressions
about faith in justification; for no terms ought to be used, that attain not
this end, or have not a direct tendency thereunto; such terms, however we may
please ourselves in the invention of their application unto the business in
hand, and think we are in case to defend the same against opponents; yet if
they do not contribute manifestly to the clearing and explaining of the matter,
according to the Scriptures, can only darken the matter: And no reason can
enforce us to embrace them, with the arbitrary explications and limitations of
the authors, and to reject or lay aside such, as do more obviously explain the
matter, unto all such, as have orthodox apprehensions of the matter; and have
given offense to none, nor have been excepted against by any, but such as were
not orthodox in the point of justification; and whose erroneous principles led
them to deny, or except against the same. And what for a cause shall we take
that, causa sine qua non to be? (which cannot
be so explained in our language, as that everyone that hears it, shall be in
case to understand what it means.) Such as speak of it, call it causa fatua,
and refer to it external occasions, time and place, and such like things,
without which the action cannot proceed, as the place wherein we stand, and the
time wherein we do anything, which have no more interest in, or relation to one
action, than another, for all must be done by us in some time, and in some
place. And shall we say, that faith hath no other interest or influence in
justification, than the hour of the day when, or the place wherein, a minister
preaches, hath unto his preaching? Shall we have so mean and low an account of
the ordinances and appointments of
342 (352)
God, in reference to spiritual ends? Seeing the Lord hath appointed faith, in order to
justification, we must not look upon it as a causa fatua, or as a mere
circumstance, but as having some kindly influence in the effect, by virtue of
the appointment of God, and such a connection therewith, that it no sooner
exists, but as soon justification follows. Faith then cannot be called a mere causa
sine qua non. Historical faith and several other antecedents, may be a conditio
or causa sine qua non; for no man of age can be justified without it;
yet we may not say, that we are justified by it, as by saving faith; the same
may be said of conviction, of legal repentance, and of desire of pardon, and of
peace, which yet may be, and oft are without justification. And it may also
seem strange, how this causa sine qua non, can be called a potestative
condition; or how that, which is said to be a proper Potestative Condition,
ex cujus praestatione
constituitur jus actuale ad beneficium, can
be called a mere conditio or causa sine qua non, seeing it hath
such a considerable moral influence in the effect?
But
says Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake, § 27, faith cannot justify both as a
condition, and as an instrument of justification; for either of them imports
the proximam and causalem rationem of faith, as to the effect; and it
is utterly inconsistent with its nature, to have two such different causal
interests. Answer: When we speak of
faith justifying as an instrument, we consider the physical,
or quasi-physical way of its operation, and denote only its kindly acting on
Jesus Christ, and on his righteousness which it lays hold on, applies,
apprehends, and puts on. And when we say it justifies as a condition, we
consider it as appointed of God unto that end, and as placed by him, in that
state and relation unto justification, which now it has: And either of these
can be called the proxima ratio causalis of
faith, according to its different consideration: if justification, (meaning not
God’s act only, but the complex relative change) be considered in genere Physico, or quasi
physico, then the nearest causal interest of
faith, is its instrumentality: but if it be considered in genere morali, or legali, then its nearest causal interest is,
that it is a condition. As when a rich man bestows a purse of gold on a beggar,
and requires that he, in order to the possessing of it, stretch forth his hand
and take it, considering this act of enriching him in genere
physico, his hand acts herein, as an instrument,
apprehending the purse, and taking it to himself: considering this, in genere legali or morali, the stretching forth od his hand, and apprehending the purse is a condition; for
so the donor hath determined to give the riches, after such a manner and
method, for his own ends, according to his good pleasure. Thus we see, how
faith can, in its way, produce one and the same effect of justification, both
as an instrument, and as a condition, taking these terms, in a large sense,
according to the matter in hand.
Mr.
Baxter says, Confess. p. 89. he
denies that faith is an instrument of justification, because he dare not
give so much of Christ’s honor to man, or any act of man, as to be an efficient
cause of pardoning himself. Answer: And he knows, that the orthodox do of
purpose, call faith an instrument in justification, in opposition to the Papists,
that Christ may wear the honor alone, and
343 (353)
man may be abased: and if they have been unhappy, in
falling upon the medium to that end; yet their intention was honest. But when
faith is called an instrument in justification, justification is not taken for
an act of accepting and pardoning alone; for they knew, that it was God only
that accepts and pardons, and that it is he only who justifies; but they took
justification in a more comprehensive sense, as including Christ’s
righteousness, the only formal ground of justification, in reference to which,
faith is said to act as an instrument receiving. And this may satisfy such, as
will not have the mysteries of God cast in a pure philosophical mold, because
some such terms are used for explication’s sake.
Mr.
Baxter, Confess. p. 95, says, Such as say,
faith justifies qua instrumentum, do most certainly
make it to justify as an action. And in his postscript to Mr. Cartwright,
Those that make faith to justify as an instrument, or as apprehensio
Christi, do set up the to\ credere, which they
cry down; for that, which they call instrumentality, is the apprehensive act,
and apprehendere and credere are here all one. They
contradict themselves in saying, that Paul excludes all works, because faith
(say they) justifies not as a work: for to justify qua instrumentum,
or qua apprehensio Christi, is to justify as a work,
or as this work. And so this doctrine sets up justification by works and that
in an unlawful sense; for it makes the formal reason of faith’s justifying to
be its apprehension, that is, that it is such an action; or its
instrumentality, which is an operation.
Answer: This is no new objection; for Schlichtingius
the Socinian Cont. Meisnerum p. 130, did object the same upon the
matter. It is true, when we say faith justifies as an instrument, we make it to
justify as an action, taking qua specificative;
as he himself must also do, when he says it justifies as a condition
potestative, for a potestative condition is some action performed, and he
himself, as we heard, called it action voluntaria
de futuro. But he knows, that when it is said
that faith justifies, as an instrument, the meaning is but more emphatically to
show, that it is the righteousness of Christ, which faith apprehends, by which
we are justified, and that they, who cry up the to\ credere,
make that the righteousness, by which we are justified: so that the to\ credere in
their sense, who will have it imputed to us for righteousness, respects
immediately the benefit, to wit, pardon, acceptation, &c. Faith as an
instrument, or apprehension, in our sense, respects Christ and his
righteousness immediately, which it receives as an instrument, in order to the
benefit, which is had upon the account of Christ and his righteousness, made
ours. In our sense, faith is no more, but as the hand receiving bread, and as
the mouth eating it, in order to food and nourishment thereby. In their sense,
faith is made the very food and nourishment, or meat itself that nourishes.
When we say that faith justifies as an instrument, it is as if we said, man lives by his hand taking meat, and by his mouth
eating it. When they say that faith justifies as a work, and that the to\ credere is
imputed for righteousness, it is as if they had said, the
hand and mouth are the very food, or meat itself, by which we live and are
nourished. We, looking upon faith as an instrument, as upon the hand and
mouth as instruments of nourishment,
344 (354)
ascribe all the virtue of nourishment unto the meat. They,
denying the hand and mouth to be considered here as instruments, and saying
that we live and are nourished by the hand and the mouth, (just as they do,
when they make the to\
credere our righteousness, in reference to justification)
ascribe all the virtue of nourishment unto the hand and the mouth, and so set
up the hand and the mouth, in the place that is due unto the meat, and rob the
meat, of that power and virtue that is only proper to it. Yet withal, when we
say, that hand and mouth nourish us as instruments, we do not deny, but in a
general sense, our receiving of meat with our hands, and eating of it with our
mouth, are conditions of nourishment, importing hereby, that the wise God hath
appointed this order and method, giving us hands to receive meat, and mouths to
eat it, and a stomach to digest it, in order o the living, and receiving
thereby nourishment; only we do not say, they are such conditions, as have all
the virtue of nourishment in them. This is but a similitude, and so must halt
in some things, as all similitudes do; yet it serves to illustrate the matter,
and to show the difference betwixt our expressions, and the expressions of our
adversaries, in this matter; and how little ground there is for this objection,
and particularly how, when we say faith justifies as an instrument, we do not
withal say, it justifies as a work, in our adversaries’ sense; And how when we
say, faith is a condition, we do not withal say, that it justifies as a
potestative proper condition, in our adversaries’ sense. As also, how we cannot
admit, that faith shall be called no more than a causa sine qua non;
seeing it is so manifest, that eating and digesting of meat hath another
influence into nourishment by food, than a mere causa sine qua non hath
unto any effect.
Mr.
Baxter, Confess. p. 95, 96 I must therefore profess, that after long
consideration I know no one term that properly expresses this nearest and
formal interest of faith in justification, but only the term condition, as that
is usually taken for the condition of a free gift, and when the Scripture tells
us, how faith justifies, it is in such terms as these, if thou confess with
thy mouth &c., he that believeth shall be saved &c. In all which, if
the condition if, and the conditional form of the promise, express not a
condition, I despair of ever understanding in this life. Answer: As for the
nearest and formal interest of faith in justification, if all other questions
touching that fundamental truth of justification were satisfyingly determined,
and put to an end, there needed not be much controversy; but when as we have
seen, the decision of this hath such an interest in the decision of more
substantial points, or necessarily attends the same, enquiry with sobriety
after the truth, even in these lesser things, cannot be condemned. And on the
contrary, receding from, and condemning received terms and expressions, which
have an obvious, plain and sound meaning, being taken, as they have been
constantly used, because they do not quadrate in every way with men’s new
philosophical and too metaphysical apprehensions and notions, in this matter,
cannot but be displeasing. And too much philosophical accuracy in the clearing
up of these mysteries, is not the most edifying and safe way of explication. 2.
We are not against the use of the term Condition in this matter, knowing
that faith
345 (355)
may well be called a condition, but the question is in
what sense we must take the word, condition. And to say that it is
taken as commonly used for the condition of a free gift, will not satisfy
in our case, because though the gift which we expect by faith, is to us indeed
free; yet it is a purchased free gift; and such a free gift, as those who get
it, have all the legal title and right thereunto, through the Cautioner’s
purchase and payment, and only come to the possession of it through faith,
according to the wise method and connection made by the sovereign Lord. Adam’s
perfect obedience might have been called the condition of a free gift: and we
cannot give the same place and power to faith in the New Covenant, that perfect
obedience had in the Old; for if Adam had perfectly obeyed, he had gotten his
reward without any intervention of a price by a Mediator purchasing it, but we
must hold all our reward solely of Christ, that he may have the glory of all. 3.
As (If) can denote a condition, so (by, dia\) can
denote an instrumental cause. He himself tells us somewhere in his Confut. of Ludom. Colvinns, alias Ludou. Molinaus,
that dia\ denotes an efficient cause and we read, that we are justified
by faith, dia\
pistewj. And further, though these passages, which he cites,
and the conditional if, and the conditional form of the promise, do indeed
express a condition, yet they do not say, or prove that the term condition
is the only one term that properly expresses the nearest and formal interest of
faith in justification, or that the term of an instrument is no way fit to
express this near and formal interest of faith in justification, seeing to be
justified by faith, or thru faith, pistei, e0k pi/stewj and
dia\ pistewj, (all which the Scripture uses) is as expressive of an
instrumental interest as if thou believe &c. is expressive of a
condition.
He
says, ibid., Conclus.
10. That the difference betwixt him and others, is not that he gives any more
to works than they, but that they give more to faith, than he, and consequently
to man: and if he be guilty of equaling faith and obedience too much, it is not
by bringing works up to high (to be instruments of justification, as they make
faith) but in taking down faith too much, and consequently, in too much abasing
all acts of man. Answer: If he bring up works to faith, in our
justification, and gives a like interest to both, he gives more to works than
the orthodox will do: and when we call faith an instrument in justification, we
give not so much to it as they do, who call it conditio potestativa, and
give it the same place in the New Covenant, that perfect obedience had in the
old, as was seen above: and whoever says this, is so far from debasing man and
his actions, that they give him, as much ground of glorying and boasting, as
ever Adam would have had, if he had fulfilled the condition, and given full and
perfect obedience: and he cannot but know, that the term instrument was
of purpose applied to faith in this matter, to depress man, and to keep the
crown upon the head of Christ, as it is apt enough to do, if it be but candidly
understood, and taken as it is applied, and no further, nor vexed with
metaphysical niceties, a way, that might render every borrowed term, whether
from arts or sciences, how expressive so ever of our meaning, and explicative
of the matter intended, utterly useless. It is true, when he calls faith only a
causa sine qua non, he seems to give less to
346 (356)
faith, than we do, if that term be taken in its strict
sense, as it is by philosophers taken, who will not have it called a cause at
all, but rather conditio sine qua non: But thus he depresses it below
that place and interest, which is due to all the institutions and appointments
of God, as such; for none of them can rightly be called conditio sine qua
non, and no more, in reference to that effect and end for which they are
appointed of him; and far less can faith be said to be only conditio sine
qua non, in reference to justification, seeing by the unalterable
appointment of the Sovereign Lord, justification so depends upon and is
connected with faith, that whoever believes (to wit, savingly, or with that
faith which here we only understand) whensoever he believes, doth immediately
pass from death unto life, and is justified. But no man will say,
that the effect doth so much depend upon, or is connected with that, which is
but a conditio sine qua non, as was before shown inseveral
instances. And where then is his Conditio Potestativa? is that but a causa fatua.
But ibid.
Conclus.,
he tells us that one main reason, which constrained him to deny that
faith is an instrument in justification, is because he dare not give so much of
Christ’s honor to man, or any act of man, as to be an efficient cause of
pardoning himself. Answer: When we make faith an instrument in
justification, we make it not an instrument of the act of pardoning, which is
solely the Lord’s act; but taking justification largely as including the
righteousness of Christ, the only ground thereof, we say, that in reference to
Christ, and this Surety-Righteousness of his which is imputed, in order to the
Lord’s justifying and pardoning of us, faith acts as an instrument,
apprehending Christ and his righteousness, and upon that account is to be
considered as an instrument in the matter of justification: And he himself,
Concl.11, ibid., says that he ever held, that it is only faith, that is
the receiving of Christ, and that faith being the only receiving grace (wherein
no mere moral duty or grace doth participate of its honor or nature) it was
therefore by God peculiarly destinated or appointed to the office of justifying,
as fittest to the glory of free grace, and of God Redeemer therein. And if
this be the all (as to the substance) of what we say, or the most of that which
we mean, when we call faith an instrument, what ground was there of differing from
his brethren? What ground was there to fear that Christ’s honor should have
been wronged thereby? Surely, while faith is called an instrument, as receiving
Christ and his righteousness, in order to justification, Christ is more honored
in that affair, than when our faith is made our Gospel righteousness, and
called a perfect righteousness, and so our whole righteousness (as some) a chief
part of it (as others) upon the account of which we are justified.