The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 21
LECTURE XXI.
MAT. 6.12.
And forgive us our debts.
Whether Juſtification precede faith and repentance▪ Arguments for the affirmativeIT hath been proved, That God doth not juſtifie or pardon a man till he doth believe; and that the wrath of God abideth upon ſuch an one. It is neceſſary in the next place to anſwer thoſe Objections which are propounded by the Adverſaries, becauſe ſome of them carry a ſpecious pretence with them. And indeed the Antinomian with thoſe Arguments he fetcheth from ſome places of Scripture, is like David in Sauls Armour, not able to improve them, the weapons being too big for him. But before I enter into the Conflict, its worth the enquiry, what the judgement of the Orthodox is in this point.From authority of orthodox men.
The Remonſtrants, Acta Synod. p. 293. bring ſeverall places out of our Authours, Lubertus, Smoutius, Piſcator, and Others, wherein they expreſly ſay, That God doth blot out our ſins, before we either believe or amend our lives, and that this pardon doth antecede our knowledge of God, Faith, Converſion, or Regeneration of the heart. Thus alſo D. Twiſſe, in the place before quoted. Pemble alſo to this purpoſe (pag. 24.) The Elect (ſaith he) while unconverted, they are then actually juſtified, and freed from all ſin by the death of Chriſt; and ſo God eſteems of them as free, and having accepted of that ſatisfaction, is actually reconciled to them: But the falſhood of this will appear in Anſwer to the ſixth Argument. When Grotius had diſtinguiſhed of a two-fold remiſſion, a full remiſſion, and a leſſe full remiſſion, holding this later kinde of remiſſion to be given to impenitent ſinners, abuſing two places of Scripture for this purpoſe, Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5.19. Rivet confuteth him, making it a ſure truth, That ſins are not actually remitted, but to thoſe that repent, and ſaith, Quinam ſunt ii, qui volunt actu remiſſa peccata cuiquam ante converſionem? certè nobis ſunt ignoti. Who are they that ſay, ſins are actually pardoned before converſion? Certainly they are unknown to us. Although we acknowledge the price of reconciliation and redemption to have been prepared for the elect from all eternity, or in Gods purpoſe and intention remiſſion of ſins to have been ordained for them, even as converſion, which in his time by Gods grace are to be effected. Thus Rivet, vind. Apol. p. 127. If therefore any of our Orthodox Authors have acknowledged a remiſſion of ſins before faith, it hath been in a particular ſenſe to oppoſe the Arminians, who maintain a reconciliability, and not a reconciliation by Chriſts death, and not in an Antinomian ſenſe, as is more largely to be ſhewed in anſwering of their Objection, brought from Chriſts death for enemies and ſinners. Indeed ſome learned and worthy men ſpeak of a Juſtification before faith in Chriſt our head, as we are accounted ſinners in the firſt Adam or common perſon. Thus Alſtedius in his ſupplement to Chamier, pag. 204. when Bellarmine arguing againſt the holineſs of the Proteſtants Doctrine, and bringing this for a paradox above all paradoxes, That I muſt be juſtified by faith, and yet juſtifying faith be a believing that I am juſt and righteous; which is (ſaith Bellarmine) beſides and against all reaſon; He anſwereth among other things, That Chriſt and the elect are as one perſon, and therefore an elect man is juſtified before faith in Chriſt, as the principle of righteouſneſſe before God; and then he is juſtified by faith as an inſtrument, perceiving his juſtification in that righteouſneſſe of Chriſt. So that faith as it goeth to the act of juſtification, is conſidered in reſpect of that paſſive application, whereby a man applieth the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt to himſelf, not of that active application whereby God applieth to man the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt: For this application is only in the minde of God.
To this purpoſe the learned Zanchy in his Explication of the ſecond Chapter of the Epiſtle to the Epheſians, upon thoſe words, verſ. 5. [And you being dead in ſin, he hath quickned together with Chriſt] doth in the firſt place diſtinguiſh of a two-fold quickning, One whereby we are freed from the guilt of ſinne, and inveſted with a title or right to eternal life; The other from the power of ſinne, whereby we are made ſpiritually alive to God. The former is Juſtification, the later Sanctification. Now (ſaith he) this two-fold bleſſing is to be conſidered in Chriſt, and in our own perſons. In the firſt reſpect, God did quicken us in Chriſt, when by his death (ſinne being expiated) he freed from guilt all the elect that have been and ſhall be, conſidering them as members in Chriſt their head. In the later reſpect, God doth it, when having given us faith, he gives us alſo remiſſion of ſins, and imputeth Chriſts righteouſneſſe to us. And afterwards the fore-quoted Author, making this Objection to himſelf, How Chriſt could be ſaid to be freed from the guilt of ſinne, who had no ſin? He anſwereth, The perſon of Chriſt is conſidered two wayes; Firſt, in it ſelf, as God-man, and ſo Chriſt was not bound by any guilt. Secondly, as appointed head, and ſo repreſenting our perſons. In this reſpect, as God laid our iniquities upon him, Iſa. 55. So when they were expiated by his bloud, then was he releaſed from the guilt of thoſe ſins. We might inſtance in other Authors, but theſe may ſuffice to certifie, that ſome orthodox and learned Divines do hold a Juſtification of the elect in Chriſt their head, before they do believe, yet ſo, as they acknowledge alſo a neceſſity of a perſonal Juſtification by faith, applying this righteouſneſſe to the perſon juſtified. Therefore although this Doctrine paſſe for true,What the opinion above-ſaid may mean. yet it will not ſtrengthen the Antinomiſts. Although even the truth of this opinion may modeſtly be queſtioned, unleſſe by being juſtified in Chriſt our head, we mean no more, then that Chriſt purchaſed by way of ſatisfaction our Juſtification for us, and ſo virtually we were juſtified in Chriſts death and reſurrection. But the learned men of that opinion, ſpeak as if God then paſſed a formal Juſtification upon all (though afterwards to be applied) that are elected; even as in Adam ſinning all his poſterity were formally to be accounted ſinners.
Now this may juſtly admit a debate,That ſo expounded it ſeemeth but weak, for th…ſe Reaſons. and there ſeem to be many Arguments againſt it.
Firſt, If there were ſuch a formal Juſtification, then all the elect were made bleſſed and happy, their ſins were not imputed to them: for ſo in Adam when accounted ſinners, they are wretched and miſerable, becauſe ſin is laid to their charge.Reaſ. 1. And if the elect before they believe or repent were thus happy, how then at the ſame time could they be children of wrath? and ſo God imputing their ſins to them, Can God impute their ſins to them, and not impute them to them at the ſame time? It is true, if we ſay, That Chriſt by his ſufferings obtained at Gods hand, that in time the elect ſhould beleeve and be juſtified, this is eaſily to be conceived; but it is very difficult to underſtand, how that all our ſins ſhould be at the ſame time done away in Chriſt (who is conſidered as one perſon with us) and yet imputed to us.
Secondly,Reaſ. 2. I do not ſee how this Doctrine doth make our juſtification by faith to be any more then declarative, or a juſtification in our conſcience only, and not before God, and ſo by believing our ſins ſhould be blotted out in our ſenſe only, when they were blotted out before God by Chriſts death already. And ſo our Juſtification by faith, ſhall be but a copy fetcht out of the Court roll, where the ſentence of Juſtification was paſſed already, whereas the Scripture ſpeaks to this purpoſe, That even before God, and in his account, till we do believe and repent, our ſins are charged upon us, and they are not cancelled or blotted out, till God work thoſe graces in us. Therefore this opinion may ſymbolize too much with the Adverſary; and indeed none of the meaneſt Antinomians *Den recon, of man with God p. 3, 4.ſpeaks of an original reconciliation which was wrought by Chriſt on the croſs, without any previous conditions in us, and urgeth that parallel of the firſt Adam, in whom we all ſinned before we had any actual being; as alſo that Text, Col. 3.1. where we are ſaid to be riſen with Chriſt.
Thirdly, It is difficult to conceive,Reaſ. 3. how Chriſt ſhould repreſent any to his Father, thereby to partake of the heavenly bleſſings which come by him, till they do actually beleeve, and are incorporated in him, for they are not his Members till they do believe: and till they are his Members, he cannot as an head repreſent them. It is true, God knoweth whom he hath elected, and to whom in time he will give faith, whereby they may be united to Chriſt, and ſo it's in Gods purpoſe and intention to give Juſtification and Sanctification to all his elect: but theſe being mercies vouchſafed in time, and limited to ſuch qualifications in the ſubject, I ſee not how they can be ſaid to be juſtified in Chriſt (before they do believe) otherwiſe then virtually and meritoriouſly. It is true, we are all condemned in Adam, becauſe that was a Covenant made with him and his poſterity, ſo that the iſſues thereof fell upon them by a natural and neceſſary way: but it is not ſo in the ſecond Adam. Neither do thoſe places, Epheſ. 2.5, 6. Coloſ. 2.13, 14. prove any more, then that in and through him, we do obtain ſuch mercies there ſpoken off: and although we are ſaid to ſit in heavenly places already, yet that is becauſe of the certain right we have thereunto; in which ſenſe alſo, he that believeth is ſaid to have eternal life; and Chriſt being the firſt fruits doth ſanctifie the whole lump.
As for that place, 1 Tim. 3. where Chriſt is ſaid to be juſtified in the ſpirit, that makes nothing at all to this Juſtification we ſpeak of. For the meaning is, That Chriſt was declared juſt, and abſolved from all the reproaches caſt upon him, by the ſpirit of God, which was done ſeveral waies, as by the witneſs exhibited from heaven unto him, by the innumerable miracles he wrought. In which ſenſe, Mat. 11. Wiſdom is ſaid to be juſtified of her children. So that Act. 2.22. ſeemeth to be a full Commentary on this place, Jeſus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by ſigns and wonders, which God did by him in the midſt of you: And this is that Juſtification of himſelf, which Chriſt ſpeaks of, Iſa. 50.8. It is true the Apoſtle doth apply that ſpoken of Chriſt to every believer, Rom. 8. by way of alluſion; and the rather, becauſe Chriſt being the head of the elect, it will be made good of them in time, when they do believe: otherwiſe election is not enough to free from preſent accuſation or condemnation, unleſs by faith they be actually in Chriſt, as is to be ſhewed more at large.
But this is a digreſſion. It is the conſtant opinion of the Orthodox, That a man is not juſtified, or hath his ſins pardoned, till he doth beleeve. I have brought Arguments to prove the point, and now addreſſe my ſelf to remove their Objections.
The firſt is brought from Infants, who are juſtified,1. Argument f…om Infants. and yet do not beleeve, therefore before faith ſome are juſtified.
Firſt, The caſe of Infants is of a peculiar conſideration, and therefore not to be attended unto in moſt Queſtions: yea the Scripture preſſing the things requiſite to ſalvation, as repentance, obedience, &c. cannot be underſtood of Infants. And Suarez argueth againſt Juſtification by faith in the general, upon this ground, Becauſe Infants are juſtified without it, ſo that the Argument (if it proveth any thing) would prove a Juſtification without faith, rather then before faith. Suppoſe a man ſhould argue about glorification, as the adverſary doth about Juſtification. Infants are glorified without fruits meet for repentance, Therefore men grown up alſo may be, How abſurd would that be? Therefore if the concluſion of the Argument were granted, viz. Some that do not believe are juſtified, reſtraining it to Infants, the main Queſtion would have no detriment. The opponent laieth down this concluſion (Reconc. of man with God, p. 5.) That mans actual reconciliation to God, requireth previous conditions to be wrought in him by Gods Spirit, before he can be reconciled actually to God; among which he reckoneth believing as the chief. Now I may retort on him thus, Infants are actually reconciled to God, but Infants do not believe, Therefore ſome are actually reconciled to God that do not believe.
Secondly, The opponent cannot but know, that there are Learned men, who hold Infants have actual faith, and do believe, Therefore to them his Argument is of no force. It may very well be thought, that they have actual ſins, not ſuch as are in men grown up, accompanied with reaſon and will; but thoſe immediate motions of original corruption in them. For although original ſin be not peccatum actuale, yet it is, peccatum actuoſum, if it be not an actual ſin, yet it is an active ſin, and therefore may not be thought idle in an Infant. Austin lib. 1. Confeſ. c. 2. Vidi ego Zelantem parvulum, &c. I have obſerved envy in an Infant, when another little childe hath ſucked his breast, and ſo they have ſinfull anger, which made the ſame Father ſay, Imbecillit as m…mbrorum infantilium innocens est, non animus infantum. There is more innocency in their bodies, then in their ſouls. Now if there be actuall motions of ſin before the uſe of reaſon, why not actuall motions of Gods Spirit. That it is poſſible, John Baptiſt makes it without queſtion: all the doubt is, Whether God doth ordinarily ſo to Infants. Aretius is alledged by ſome to hold, That *Neither may this ſeem ſuch a wonder, ſeei…g that the orthodox hold even in men grow… up, the firſt grace is wrought in us as meer patients, our underſtandings & wils no waies antecedently concurring to it; ſo that the grace of God is then wrought in us, without us.even repentance may be attributed to Infants out of Joel 2.16. but the command there is, That parents ſhould bring their children into the publike humiliation, that by the ſight of them they may be the more fervently ſtirred up to pour out their praiers before God.
Thirdly, That which the moſt ſolid Divines pitch upon, is, That Infants have, (I ſpeak not generally, but indefinitely) a ſeed of faith, becauſe they have the Spirit of God and regeneration, otherwaies they could not be ſaved; and by this ſeed of faith, they become members of Chriſt, and that relation which is in their faith to Chriſts merits, is the inſtrument by which they obtain remiſſion of ſin. As for that place, Faith cometh by hearing, it is to be applyed to the ordinary means of faith, and that in perſons grown up. Neither can I ſay, that an Infant is bound to have actuall faith; for happily in the ſtate of integrity, Infants then, though they had the image of God, yet could not have put forth the actuall exerciſe of graces, and if they could not do it in that ſtate, it is not to be expected they do ſo now.
Fourthly, It is not enough for him to prove they are juſtified before they beleeve, but alſo before they be any way united to Chriſt, Let that union be conceived how it can by us. For if a man be juſtified, becauſe he is elected, as his third Argument would prove; then he is to ſhew, that Infants not only before they beleeve, but before they have any union with Chriſt are juſtified, for the election of Infants muſt needs go before their union with Chriſt. And howſoever the opponent quoteth Auſtin ſaying, That which was wrought in John Baptiſt, to be a ſingular miracle, yet Serm. 14. d… Verbis Apoſtoli, on thoſe words, He that beleeveth not ſhall be damned, makes this queſtion, Ʋbi ponis parvulos baptizatos? Where put you little children baptized? profectò in numero credentium, truly in the number of beleevers.
His ſecond Argument is to this effect.Argum▪ 2. He that is in Christ is juſtified. Now a man is in Chriſt, before he doth beleeve, becauſe the tree muſt be good before the fruit can be. Therefore a man muſt be juſtified before he do beleeve.
In anſwering this Argument many things are conſiderable.
Firſt, It muſt be acknowledged a very hard task to ſet down the true order of the benefits beſtowed upon us by God. The aſſigning of the priority and poſteriority of them is very various according to the ſeverall judgements of men intereſſed in that controverſie.
The opponent (it may be knoweth) that there are ſome, who ſay Chriſt, or the Spirit of Chriſt is firſt in us by way of a moving or preparing principle, and afterwards as a principle inhabiting and dwelling in us; That as ſome ſay, Anima fabricat ſibi domicilium, the ſoul makes its body to lodge in; it works firſt efficiently, that afterwards it may formally, ſo they ſay Chriſt doth in us. As the ſilk-worm prepareth thoſe ſilken lodgings for her ſelf to reſt in. So that according to the judgement of theſe men, Chriſt, or his Spirit, doth efficiently work in us the act of believing, by which act Chriſt is received to dwell in us. And in this way, Chriſt hath no union with us, till we do believe. He worketh indeed in us before, but not as united to us. Now according to this opinion, the anſwer were eaſie, That we are not in Chriſt, till we do beleeve; Though Chriſt be in us, as working in us, and upon us. Yea faith would firſt be wrought, and then Chriſt with his benefits of juſtification, &c. would be vouchſafed to us; but there are Reaſons why it is not ſafe to go this way. And indeed that Charta magna or grand promiſe for regeneration, doth evidently argue, the habits or internall principles of grace, are before the actions of grace, Ezek 36.26. God takes away the heart of ſtone, and giveth a new heart, an heart of fleſh, which is the principle of grace, and afterwards cauſeth them to walk in his Commandments, which is the effect of grace.
But ſecondly (which doth fully anſwer the Objection) It is true, our being ingraffed into Chriſt, is the root and fountain of faith, and of Juſtification too; but yet ſo, that theſe being correlates (faith and Juſtification) they both flow from the root together, though with this order, that faith is to be conceived in order of nature before Juſtification, that being the inſtrument to receive it, though both be together in time. Therefore the major Propoſition ſhould be thus regulated, He that is in Chriſt doth believe, and is juſtified, or believing is juſtified; for Juſtification as our Glorification, though it flow from Chriſt, yet it is in that order and time which God hath appointed. Neither is it any new thing in Philoſophy, to ſay, Thoſe cauſes which produce an effect, though they be in time together, yet are mutually before one another in order of nature in divers reſpects to their ſeverall cauſalities.
Chriſt is in us, and we in Chriſt, Chriſt is in us, foreign, by way of gift and actual working, and we are in Chriſt foreign, by way of receiving; and both theſe are neceſſary, as appeareth, Joh. 15.5. and both are together in time, yet ſo that in order of nature Chriſts being in us is before our being in him, and the ground of all our comfort and fruit, is not, becauſe we are in him, but he in us (even as the branch beareth fruit, not becauſe it is in the Vine, but becauſe the Vine is in it, communicating efficacy to it.) Thus alſo faith and Juſtification are together, yet ſo as one is produced by the other, we are not juſtified, and therefore believe, but we believe and are therefore juſtified.
Laſtly, This may be retorted upon the opponent, who (as was alleadged before) denieth any actual reconciliation, till we do believe. But may not we ſtrike the adverſary with his own reaſon in this manner? He that is in Chriſt is actually reconciled. But we muſt be in Chriſt before we do believe. Therefore we muſt be actually reconciled, before we do believe.
I paſs over the third, and reſerve the fourth and ſixth Argument (being all one) for the next Lecture, becauſe in them is matter worthy of a large conſideration.
I come therefore to the fifth Argument,Arg. 5. which is taken from the collation between the firſt Adam and ſecond out of Rom. 5.18, 19. From whence is argued, As in the firſt Adam we are accounted ſinners before any thing done on our part; ſo in the ſecond Adam, we are to be juſtified before any thing wrought in us. This the opponent doth much triumph in, but without cauſe, as the anſwer will manifeſt.
And in the firſt place we cannot but reject thoſe Expoſitors of that text fore-quoted,Anſw. who underſtand us to be ſinners in Adam, only by imitation, or by propagation meerly, as from a corrupted fountain; but we ſuppoſe it to be by imputation: Adam (by Gods Covenant) being an univerſal perſon, and ſo as Auſtin ſaid, Omnes ille unus homo fuerunt, All were that one man. And therefore theſe do not riſe up to the full ſcope of the text, who parallel Chriſt and Adam only as two roots, Origens or fountains; for there muſt be a further conſideration of them as two common perſons, for our immediate fathers are a corrupted root, and we are corrupted by them, yet their ſins are not made ours, as Adams was. Hence the Apoſtle laieth the whole tranſgreſſion upon one, as by one mans diſobedience, &c. Thoſe that deny imputation of Adams ſin (as the Pelagians of old, and Eraſmus with others of late) do not reliſh that tranſlation of thoſe words foreign, in whom all have ſinned, but prefer the other, Foraſmuch as all have ſinned in him; but both come to the ſame ſenſe: and howſoever Eraſmus ſay, that foreign with a dative caſe muſt be underſtood cauſally, yet that is not univerſally true; for Mar. 2.4. there is mention made of the bed, foreign in which the paralytique lay, it would be ridiculous to tranſlate that inaſmuch. So Act. 2. Be baptized, foreign, in the name, Heb. 9. Thoſe ordinances conſiſted foreign, in meats. We therefore grant, That Adams ſin was ours by imputation, before we had any actual conſent to it. In which ſenſe Bernard called it, Alienum & noſtrum, anothers ſin and ours: yea, it is ſo farre from being ours by conſent, that if a man on purpoſe ſhould now will that Adams ſin ſhould be his, this would not make Adams ſin imputed to him, it would be a new actual ſin in the man, it would not be Adams ſin imputed to him. Now although all this be concluded upon, yet it followeth not, that therefore we are juſtified in Chriſt before we believe. I acknowledge ſome eminent Divines have preſſed this compariſon; but there is a vaſt difference in this very act of imputation, and the ground of it: for ſuppoſing the Covenant at firſt made with Adam, all his poſterity by a naturall way are involved in his guilt, and ſo whether they will or no, antecedently to their own acts they are obnoxious to this guilt. Hence all men (none excepted) that are propagated in a natural way are thus corrupted, but in Chriſt we are by a ſupernatural way, and none are made his, but ſuch as beleeve in him; and he doth not repreſent any to God as his members, till they be incorporated into him by faith, which faith although it be a gift of God, yet by it we are enabled voluntarily to chooſe and embrace Chriſt. Many other differences there are, but I pitch on this only, as being fully to my purpoſe in hand. If therefore we were in Chriſt by a natural way, as we are in Adam, then antecedently to any thing wrought in us, we might be partakers of priviledges by one, as we are of curſes by another.