Aphorisms of Justification, Thesis 36 – Thesis 50
THESIS XXXVI.
THe pardoning of sin is a gracious act of God, discharging the Offender by the Gospell-Promise, or grant from the Obligation, to punishment, upon consideration of the satisfaction made by Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded with God.
EXPLICATION.
THe true definition of Pardon, and of Justification doth much conduce to the understanding of this whole mysterious Doctrine. The former I have here laid down as neer as I can. I shall briefly explain the whole Definition,
1. I call it an Act of God; for so the Scripture ordinarily doth. Mat. 6. 12. 14, 15. Mar. 11. 24. 26. Luk. 23. 34. Ephes. 3. 32. Some may object; If all things be delivered into the hands of Christ the Redeemer, and all Judgement committed to the Son, as is shewed before, then the Son should forgive rather then the Father. I answer. 1. So the Son is said to forgive also, Mar. 2. 7, 10. Luk. 5. 24. 2. I shewed you before, That the Father giveth not away any power from himself by giving it to the Son; but onelyonly doth manage it in another way upon other terms. 3. As the Mediator is a middle person, interposing between God and the world for their reconciliation, so the Acceptance, Pardon and Kingdom of the Mediator, is, as it were a Mean or step towards the Pardon, Acceptance, and Kingdom of God. First Christ doth cleanse men by his Spirit, and Blood, and then offereth them blameless and undefiled, without spot or wrinkle to God, who so accepts them at his hands, and even the Kingdom also will he deliver up to the Father, Ephes. 5. 27. Col. 1. 22, 28. Iude 24. 1 Cor. 15. 24. Therefore the Sons pardoning and accepting being first in order of Nature, and so but a mean to Gods pardoning and accepting where the whole work is compleatly perfected, (when the sinner is fully brought home by Christ to God, from whom he first fell, the act of pardoning is therefore most usually and fitly ascribed to the Father, (that being the ultimate perfecting pardon,) and we are said to ask it of him through Christ.
2. I call this Pardon, a gracious Act; For if it were not in some sort gratuitous, or free, it were no Pardon. Let those think of this, who say, We have perfectly obeyed the Law in Christ, and are therefore righteous. If the proper debt either of obedience or suffering be payd, either by our selves, or by another, then there is no place left for Pardon: For when the Debt is payd, we owe nothing (except obedience de novo;) and therefore can have nothing forgiven us. For the Creditor cannot refuse the proper Debt, nor deny an Acquittance upon receit thereof. But Christ having payd the Tantundem and not the Idem, the Value and not the strict Debt, this satisfaction the Father might have chosen to accept, or to have discharged us upon Christs sufferings: which yet because he freely doth, therefore is his gracious Act properly called Pardon.
The ignorant Antinomians think, it cannot be a Free Act of Grace, if there be any Condition on our part for enjoying it. As if in the fore-mentioned comparison, pag. 153. the Tenants redemption were the less free, because his new Lease requires the Rent of a pepper corn in token of homage! As if when a pardon is procured for a condemned Malefactor, upon condition that he shall not reject it when it is offered him, but shall take him that procured it for his Lord, that this were therefore no free pardon! Indeed if we payd but a mite in part of the debt it self, so far our pardon were the less free. But I will not further trouble the Reader with these senceless conceits, the confutation whereof 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 of Pardon & Justification doth then absolutely pardon and justifie us, when we perform the Condition. Hence is the phrase in Scripture of being [Iustified by the Law:] which doth not only signifie [by the Law as the Rule to which men did fit their actions;] but also [by the Law, as not condemning, but justifying, the person whose actions are so fitted:] In which sence the Law did justifie Christ: or else the Law should not justifie as a Law or Covenant, but only as a Direction: which properly is not Justifying, but only a means to discover that we are Justifiable. As the Word of Christ shall judge men at the last day, Ioh. 12. 28. So doth it virtually now, And if it judge, then doth it condemn and justifie. So Rom. 2. 12. Iam. 2▪ 12. We shall be judged by the Law of Liberty. Gal. 5. 3. 4, 23. In the same sence, as the Law is said to convince and curse (Iam. 2. 9. Gal. 3. 13.) it may be said that the Gospell or new Law doth acquit, justifie and bless. Rom. 8. 12. The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Iesus, hath made me from the Law of Sin and Death. As the Law worketh Wrath, and where is no Law, there is no Transgression, (Rom. 4. 15.) And as sin is not imputed where there is no Law, (Rom. 5. 13. and the strength of sin is the law, (1 Cor. 15. 56 So the new law is the strength of Righteousness, and worketh Deliverance from Wrath; and were there no such new Covenant, there would be no Righteousness inherent or imputed: Ioh. 7. 51.
So that I conclude, That this transient Act of God, pardoning and justifying (constitutive) is his Grant in the new Covenant; by which as a Morall Instrument, our Justification and Pardon are in time produced, even when we beleeve: the Obligation of the Law being then by it made void to us.
And this is the present apprehension I have of the nature of Remission and Justification: Si quid novisti rectius, &c. (yet I shall have occasion afterwards to tell you, That all this is but Remission and Justification in Law and Title, which must be distinguished from that which is in Judgment or Sentence; the former being vertual in respect of the Actuality of the latter)
2. The second kinde of Gods Acts, which may be called Justifying, is indeed Immanent; viz. his knowing the sinner to be pardoned and just in Law; his Willing and Approving hereof as True and Good: These are Acts in Heaven, yea in God himself; but the former sort are on earth also. I would not have those Acts of God separated which he doth conjoyn; as he ever doth these last with the former: But I verily think that it is especially the former transient legall Acts which the Scripture usually means when it speaks of Pardoning and (constitutive) Justifying: and not these Immanent Acts: though these must be looked on as concurrent with the former. Yet most Divines that I meet with, seem to look at Pardon and Justification as being done in heaven only and consisting only in these later Immanent Acts: And yet they deny Justification to be an Immanent Act too: But how they will ever manifest that these celestiall Acts of God, (viz. his Willing the sinners Pardon, and so forgiving him in his own brest; or his accepting him as just,) are Transient Acts, I am yet unable to understand. And if they be Immanent Acts, most will grant that they are from Eternity: and then fair fall the Antinomians. Indeed if God have a Bar in Heaven before his Angels, where these things are for the present transacted, as some think; and that we are said to be justified only at the bar now; then I confess that is a transient Act indeed. But of that more hereafter.
7. I add in the definition, That all this is done [in consideration of the Satisfaction, 1 made by Christ, 2. Accepted, 3. and pleaded with God.] The satisfaction made is the proper meritorious and impulsive cause: 2. So the Satisfaction, as pleaded by Christ the intercessor, is also an impulsive cause. 3. The Satisfactious Acceptance by the Sinner (that is Faith,) and the pleading of it with God by the sinner (that is praying for pardon,) are but the Conditions, or Causae sine quo.
But all these will be fuller opened afterwards.
THESIS. XXXVII.
IVstification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law; 2. Or in Sentence of Iudgment. The first may be called Constitutive; The second Declarative: The first Virtuall, the second Actuall.
EXPLICATION.
I Will not stand to mention all those other Distinctions of Justification which are common in others, & not so necessary or pertinent to my purposed scope. You may finde them in Mr Bradshaw, Mr Iohn Goodwin, and Alstedius Distinctions and Definitions, &c.
The difference between Justification in Title of Law, and in Sentence of Judgment, is apparent at the first view: Therefore I need not explain it. It is common, when a man hath a good cause, and the Law on his side, to say, The Law justifieth him, or he is just in Law, or he is acquit by the Law; and yet he is more fully and compleatly acquit by the sentence of the Judge afterward. In the former sence we are now justified by faith, as soon as ever we beleeve: In the latter sence we are justified at the last Judgment. The title of [Declarative] is too narrow for this last: For the sentence of judiciall absolution doth more then barely to declare us justified. I call the former [virtuall] not as it is in it felf considered, but as it standeth in relation to the latter.
All those Scriptures, which speak of Justification as done in this life, I understand of Justification in Title opf Law: So Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith, we have peace with God. Rom. 4. 2. Rom. 5. 9. Being now justified by his blood, &c. Iames 2. 21, 25. &c.
But Justification in Judgment, as it is the compleating Act, so is it most fitly called Justification; and I think the word in Scripture hath most commonly reference to the Judgment day; and that Justification in Title is called [Justification] most especially, because of its relation to the Justification at Judgment; because as men are now in point of Law, so shall they most certainly be sentenced in Judgment.
Therefore is it spoken of many times as a future thing, and not yet done: Rom. 3. 30 Mat. 12. 37. Rom. 2. 13. But these may be called [Justification by Faith,] for by Faith we are justified, both in Law Title. and at Judgment.
THESIS XXXVIII.
IVstification, in Title of Law, is a gracious Act of God, by the Promise or Grant of the new Covevant, acquitting the Offender from the Accusasation and Condemnation of the old Covenant, upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ, and accepted by the sinner.
EXPLICATION.
HEre you may see 1. That pardon of sin, and this Iustification in Law, are not punctually and precisely alone: 2. And yet the difference is very small. The chief difference lyeth in this, That the Terminus a quo of Remission, is the obligation to punishment; but the Terminus of Iustification, (or the evil that it formally and directly doth free us from,) is the Laws Accusation and Condemnation: Now though the difference between these two be very narrow, and rather respective then reall, yet a plain difference there is: For though it be one and the same Commination of the Law, by which men are both obliged to punishment, accused as guilty, and condemned for that guilt, yet these are not all one, though it is also true, that they all stand or fall together.
That pardon is most properly the removing of the Obligation, and that Iustification is the removing of Accusation and Condemnation in the Law, will be evident to those that have read what Divines have written at large concerning the signification of the words, especially such that have skill in Law, which is a great advantage in this doctrine of Iustification: Therefore as Mr. Wotten, and Mr. Goodwin do a little mistake in making pardon of sin to be the formall cause of Iustification, (though they are far neerer the mark then their opposers.) So Mr. Bradshaw doth a little too much straiten the form of it, making it to lye only in Apology or Plea. It consisteth in both the Acts; 1. Apology, in oppositiō to Accusatiō; thus Christ our Advocate doth principally justifie us: 2. In Sentence, (virtuall or actuall,) & so it is opposed both to Accusation and Condemnation; so Christ the Mediator as Iudge, and the Father as one with him, and as the supream Iudge, doth justifie: But this latter is the chief Act. The rest of the Definition is sufficiently opened under the foregoing Definition of Pardon, and will be more after.
THESIS XXXIX.
IVstification in Sentence of Iudgement is [a gracious Act of God by Christ, according to the Gospel, by Sentence at his publique Bar, acquitting the sinner from the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law, pleaded against him by Satan] upon the consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded for him.
EXPLICATION.
THere is also a two-fold Pardon, as well as a two-fold Iustification: One in Law, the other in Sentence of Iudgement. So. Acts 3. 19. Repent, that your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refreshing comes, &c. But pardon of sin is usually mentioned in respect to this life present, as being bestowed here; because a man may more fitly be said to be fully quit from the Obligation of the punishment, commonly called the guilt in this life, then from the Accusation of that guilt which will be managed against him by Satan hereafter, or from the Condemnation, which he must then most especially be delivered from.
The difference betwixt this Iustification and the former, may easily be discerned by the Definition without any further Explication.
THESIS XL.
WHen Scripture speaketh of Iustification by Faith, it is to be understood primarily and directly of Iustification in Law title, and at the bar of Gods publique Iudgment; and but secondarily and consequentially of Iustification at the bar of Gods secret judgment, or at the bar of Conscience, or of the World.
EXPLICATION.
1. THat Justification by Faith is in foro-Dei, and not in foro conscientiae primarily, see Dr. Downam's Appendix to Covenant of Grace against Mr Pemble. Conscience is but an inferiour, petty, improper Judge: The work must be transacted chiefly at a higher Tribunall. View all the Scriptures that mention Justification by Faith, and you shall finde by the Text and Context that they relate to the bar of God, but not one directly to the bar of Conscience. It is one thing to be justified, and another thing to have it manifested to our Consciences that we are so.
2. That it is not directly at the bar of the World, all will acknowledge.
3. That it is not directly at the bar of Gods secret Judgment, in his own brest, may appear thus: 1. That is not a bar at which God dealeth with sinners, for Justification or Condemnation in any known or visible way; No Scripture intimateth it. 2. We could not then judge of our Justification. 3. They are immanent Acts; but Justification is a transient Act: Therefore Dr Downame in the place before mentioned hath proved against Mr Pemble, that Justification is not from Eternity. And (as I judge by his following Tract of Justification) Mr Pemble himself came afterwards to a sounder Judgment in the nature of Justification. 4. God dealeth with man in an open way of Law, and upon Covenant terms, and so will try him at a publique Judgment according to the Tenor of his Covenants. There secrets of his brest are too high for us. By the word will he judge us: That must justifie or condemn us. Therefore when you hear talk of the Bar of God, you must not understand it of the immanent Acts of Gods Knewledg or Will, but of his Bar of publique Judgment, and in the sence of the Word, Some think that Justification by Faith is properly and directly none of all these yet, but that it is a publique Act of God in heaven before his Angels. I think this opinion better then any of the three former, which would have it at the Bar of Gods secret Judgment, or of Conscience, or of the World; and I know no very ill consequence that followeth it; But that God doth condemn or justifie at any such Bar. I find no Scripture fully to satisfie or perswade me. Those places, Rom. 2. 13. Heb. 9. 24. Luke 12, 8, 9. & 15. 10. which are alledged to that purpose, seem not to conclude any …ch thing, as that to be the Bar where Faith doth most properly justifie: Yet I acknowledge that in a more remote sence we may be said to be justified by Faith at all the four other Bars, viz. Gods Immanent Judgment, and before the Angels, and before Conscience, and the World: For God and Angels do judge according to Truth, and take those to be just, who are so in Law and in deed: and so do our Consciences, and Men when they judge rightly; and when they do not, we cannot well be said to be justified at their Bar. Therefore I think they mistake, who would have Works, rather then Faith, to justifie us at the Bar of the World, as I shall shew afterward, when I come to open the conditions of Justification.
THESIS XLI.
THat saying of our Divines [That Iustification is perfected at first, and admits of no degrees] must be understood thus, That each of those Acts which we call Iustification, are in their own kind perfect at once; and that our Righteousness is perfect and admits not of degrees. But yet as the former Acts, called Iustification, do not fully, and in all respects, procure our freedom, so they may be said to be imperfect, and but degrees toward our full and perfect Iustification at the last Iudgment.
THESIS XLII.
THere are many such steps toward our finall and full Iustification; As▪ 1. Gods eternall Love and Decree of justifying us. 2. Christs undertaking for satisfying and justifying. 3. His actuall satisfying by paying the price. 4. His own Iustification, as the publique Person, at his Resurrection. 5. That change which is made in our Relation upon our Regeneration, or receiving the vitall seed of Grace, where, among others, that is contained, which is called the habit of Faith: these infants are capable of. 6. The change of our Relation upon our actuall Faith. 7. The pacyfying our own hearts is by the evidence of Faith, and assurance there-upon, and witness of Conscience, and Testimony, and Seale of the Spirit. 8. The Angels judging us righteous, and rejoycing therein. 9. Our Iustification before Men. 10. And our finall Iustification at the great Iudgment.
But it is only the sixth and tenth of these which is directly and properly the Iustification by Faith, as is before exprest.
THESIS XLIII.
THe Iustification which we have in Christs own Iustification is but conditionall as to the particular offenders, and none can lay claim to it, till he have performed the conditions; nor shall any be personally justified t…ll then: Even the elect remain personally unjust and unjustified, for all their conditionall Iustification in Christ, till they do beleeve.
THis needs not explication, and for Confirmation there is enough said under the 15, 18, 19, 20, Positions before.
THESIS XLIV.
MEn that are but thus conditionally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands; and all this without any change in God, or in his Laws. See Ball of the Covenant, pag. 240.
THis is all plain; only for so much of it as seems to intimate an universall conditionall Justification, and consequently universall Redemption, I intreat the Reader to suspend his Judgment, till I come to the point of Universall Redemption, where I shall fully and purposely explain my meaning.
And for that which intimates in the following Position, the falling away of the justified, understand, that I speak only upon supposition, and of a possibility in the thing, and of the Tenor of the Gospell: But in regard of Gods Will of Purpose, which determineth eventually, whether they shall fall quite away or not, I do beleeve, that the justified by Faith never do, or shall fall away.
THESIS. XLV.
YEa, in case the justified by Faith should cease beleeving, the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again, and yet without any change in God, or Scripture, but only in themselves. Because their Iustification doth continue conditionall as long as they live here; the Scripture doth justifie no man by name, but all beleevers as such; therefore if they should cease to be beleevers, they would cease to be justified.
THESIS. XLVI.
IVstification implyeth Accusation, either Virtuall or Actuall.
EXPLICATION.
AS there is a Justification in Law or in Sentence, so is there the Accusation of the Law, as it stands in force, which may be called a virtuall Accusation, in reference to that at Judgment, which will be Actuall from Satans pleading the violated Law against us. Mr Bradshaw doth fully shew you the reason of this Position.
THESIS. XLVII.
THe new Covenant accuseth no man, as deserving its penalty, but only those that perform not its conditions; that is, the finally unbelieving and impenitent rebels against Christ, and their rightfull Lord.
EXPLICATION.
THat the Gospell doth not condemn men, or threaten them with damnation for any sins but unbelief, I dare not speak or think. But that the Gospell threateneth no man with damnation but unbeleevers, is out of all question: And consequently the proper sin threatened in the new Covenant as such, is unbelief; the rest are but left and setled on the sinner by this.
THESIS XLVIII.
WHere the Gospell-Covenant doth thus accuse, or where any one is truly thus charged, there is no Iustification for that person.
EXPLICATION.
I Mean, not where any man is accused of a temporary neglect, or delay of performing the conditions: For the Gospell threateneth not death to such, if at last they do perform them: But where there is a finall nonperformance which is the proper violation, there is no hope of Justification. See for this the 32, 33, 34, 35, Positions.
THESIS XLIX.
IT being the Laws Accusation and Condemnation only, & not the Gospels, which we are justified against; therefore the Righteousness which must be pleaded for our Iustifica… directly must be a legall Righteousness, which is only Christs Satisfaction.
THESIS L.
OVr Faith therefore cannot be the least part of that Righteousness so to be pleaded, it being not the Righteousness of that Covenant which doth accuse us; so that though we are justified by Faith, yet is it not any of the Righteousness to be pleaded against the accuser.