« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
also is included in it, as evident in many places of the Scripture. Wherefore, there is no reason why we should limit the object of it, unto the person of Christ as acting in the discharge of his sacerdotal office, with the effects and fruits thereof.
Ans. 1. Saving faith, and justifying faith in any believer, , are one and the same; and the adjuncts of saving and justifying are but external denominations, from its distinct operations and effects. But yet saving faith doth act in a peculiar manner, and is of peculiar use in justification, such as it is not of under any other consideration whatever. Wherefore, 2. Although saving faith, as it is described in general, do ever include obedience, not as its form or essence, but as the necessary effect is included in the cause, and the fruit in the fruit-bearing juice, and is often mentioned as to its being and exercise, where there is no express mention of Christ, his blood, and his righteousness, but is applied unto all the acts, duties, and ends of the gospel; yet this proves not at all, but that as unto its duty, place, and acting in our justification, it hath a peculiar object. If it could be proved, that where justification is ascribed unto faith, that there it hath any other object assigned unto it, as that which it rested in for the pardon of sin, and acceptance with God, this objection were of some force; but this cannot be done. 3. This is not to say, that we are justified by a part of faith, and not by it as considered essentially; for we are justified by the entire grace of faith, acting in such a peculiar way and manner; as others have observed. But the truth is, we need not insist on the discussion of this inquiry. For the true meaning of it is, not whether any thing of Christis to be excluded from being the object of justifying faith, or of faith in our justification, but what in and of ourselves under the name of receiving Christ, as our Lord and King, is to be admitted unto an efficiency or conditionality in that work. As it is granted, that justifying faith is the receiving of Christ, so whatever belongs unto the person of Christ, or any office of his, or any acts in the discharge of any office, that may be reduced unto any cause of our justification, the meritorious, procuring, material, formal, or manifesting cause ofit, is so far as it doth so, freely admitted to belong unto the object of justifying faith. Neither will I contend with
any upon this disadvantageous stating of the question, What of Christ is to be esteemed the object of justifying faith, and what is not so. For the thing intended is only this; whether our own obedience, distinct from faith, or included in it, and in like manner as faith, be the condition of our justification before God. This being that which is intended, which the other question is but invented to lead unto a compliance with, by a more specious pretence than in itself it is capable of, under those terms it shall be examined, and no otherwise.
Of justification, the notion and signification of the word in Scripture. Unto the right understanding of the nature of justification, the proper sense and signification of these words themselves, `justification,' and to justify,' is to be inquired into. For until that is agreed upon, it is impossible that our discourses concerning the thing itself should be freed from equivocation. Take words in various senses, and all
be true that is contradictorily affirmed or denied concerning what they are supposed to signify. And so it hath actually fallen out in this case, as we shall see more fully afterward. Some taking these words in one sense, some in another, have appeared to deliver contrary doctrines concerning the thing itself, or our justification before God; who yet have fully agreed in what the proper determinate sense or signification of the words doth import. And therefore, the true meaning of them hath been declared and vindicated already by many. But whereas the right stating hereof, is of more moment unto the determination of what is principally controverted about the doctrine itself, or the thing signified, than most do apprehend; and something at least remains to be added for the declaration and vindication of the import and only signification of these words in the Scripture; I shall give an account of my observations concerning it, with what diligence I can.
The Latin derivation and composition of the word “jus. tificatio' would seem to denote an internal change from inherent unrighteousness, unto righteousness likewise inherent; by a physical motion and transmutation, as the schoolmen speak. For such is the signification of words of the same composition. So sanctification, mortification, vivification, and the like, do all denote a real internal work on the subject spoken of. Hereon, in the whole Roman school, justification is taken for justifaction, or the making of a man to be inherently righteous by the infusion of a principle or habit of grace, who was before inherently and habitually unjust and unrighteous. Whilst this is taken to be the proper signification of the word, we neither do, nor can speak, ad idem in our disputations with them about the cause and nature of that justification, which the Scripture teacheth.
And this appearing sense of the word possibly deceived some of the ancients, as Austin in particular, to declare the doctrine of free gratuitous sanetification, without respect unto any works of our own, under the name of justification. For neither he nor any of them, ever thought of a justification before God, consisting in the pardon of our sins, and the acceptation of our persons as righteous, by virtue of any inherent habit of grace infused into us, or acted by us. Wherefore, the subject matter must be determined by the scriptural use and signification of these words, before we can speak properly or intelligibly concerning it. For if to justify men in the Scripture, signify to make them subjectively and inherently righteous, we must acknowledge a mistake in what we teach concerning the nature and causes of justification. And if it signify no such thing, all their disputations about justification by the infusion of grace, and inherent righteousness thereon, fall to the ground. Wherefore, all Protestants (and the Socinians all of them comply therein) do affirm, that the use and signification of these words is forensic, denoting an act of jurisdiction. Only the Socinians, and some others would have it to consist in the pardon of sin only, which indeed the word doth not at all signify. But the sense of the word, is to assoil, to acquit, to declare and pronounce righteous upon a trial, which, in this case, the pardon of sin doth necessarily accompany.
• Justificatio' and `justifico,' belong not indeed unto the Latin tongue; nor can any good author be produced, who ever used them, for the making of him inherently righteous by any means who was not so before. But whereas these words were coined and framed to signify such things as are intended, we have no way to determine the signification of them, but by the consideration of the nature of the things, which they were invented to declare and signify. And whereas, in this language, these words are derived from `jus' and justum,' they must respect an act of jurisdiction, rather than a physical operation or infusion. “Justificari,' is 'justus censeri, pro justo haberi ;' to be esteemed, accounted, or adjudged righteous. So a man was made 'justus filius' in adoption unto him, by whom he was adopted; which, what it is, is well declared by Budæus, Cajus lib. ii. F. de Adopt. De Arrogatione loquens; 'Is qui adoptat rogatur, id est, interrogatur, an velit eum quem adopturus sit, justum sibi filium esse. Justum (saith he), intelligo, non verum, ut aliqui censent, sed omnibus partibus ut ita dicam filiationis, veri filii vicem obtinentem, naturalis et legitimi filii loco sedentem. Wherefore as by adoption, there is no internal inherent change made in the person adopted; but by virtue thereof, he is esteemed and adjudged as a true son, and hath all the rights of a legitimate son; so by justification, as to the importance of the word, a man is only esteemed, declared, and pronounced righteous, as if he were completely so. And in the present case, justification and gratuitous adoption, are the same grace for the substance of them; John i. 12. only'respect is had in their different denomination of the same grace, unto different effects or privileges that ensue thereon.
But the true and genuine signification of these words is to be determined from those in the original languages of the Scripture which are expounded by them. In the Hebrew, it is p78 : this the LXX.render by dikalov åtopaivw, Job xxvii. 5. δίκαιος αποφαίνομαι, chap. xiii. 18. δίκαιον κρίνω, Proν. xvii. 15. To shew or declare one righteous; to appear righteous ; to judge any one righteous. And the sense may be taken from any one of them, as chap. xiii. 18. inny x3 77377
-· I cause, I know that I shall be justified.' The ordering of his
Behold now I have ordered_iny • משפט ידעתי כי אני אצדק
cause (his judgment), his cause to be judged on, is his preparation for a sentence, either of absolution or condemnation; and hereon his confidence was that he should be justified, that is, absolved, acquitted, pronounced righteous, And the sense is no less pregnant in the other places; commonly, they render it by ĉikalow, whereof I shall speak afterward.
Properly, it denotes an action towards another (as justification, and to justify do), in Hiphil only; and a reciprocal action of a man on himself in Hithpael p7317. Hereby, alone, is the true sense of these words determined. And I
that in no place, or on any occasion, is it used in that conjugation wherein it denotes an action towards another, in any other sense, but to absolve, acquit, esteem, declare, pronounce righteous, or to impute righteousness, which is the forensic sense of the word we plead for; that is its constant use and signification, nor doth it ever once signify to make inherently righteous; much less to pardon or forgive ; so vain is the pretence of some, that justification consists only in the pardon of sin, which is not signified by the word in any one place of Scripture. Almost in all places this sense is absolutely unquestionable ; nor is there any more than one which will admit of any debate, and that on so faint a pretence as cannot prejudice its constant use and signification in all other places. Whatever therefore an infusion of inherent grace may be, or however it may be called, justification it is not, it cannot be ; the word nowhere signifying any such thing. Wherefore, those of the church of Rome do not so much oppose justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as indeed deny that there is any such thing as justification. For that which they call the first justification, consisting in the, infusion of a principle of inherent grace, is no such thing as justification. And their second justification, which they place in the merit of works, wherein absolution or pardon of sin hath neither place nor consideration, is inconsistent with evangelical justification, as we shall shew afterward.
This word, therefore, whether the act of God towards men, or of men towards God, or of men among themselves, or of one towards another be expressed thereby, is always