The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated, Lecture 22
LECTURE XXII.
MAT. 6.12.
And forgive us our Debts.
WE proceed to the remaining arguments, which would maintain a juſtification before faith.
Arg. 7.The next is from Gods election, thus, All the elect of God are juſtified before God. But ſome of the elect do not beleeve. And the major is proved from, Rom. 8.33. Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that juſtifieth.
Anſ. 1.In the firſt place this Argument might eaſily be laid aſide, for the Apoſtle doth not ſpeak here of election, antecedentèr, antecedently to his other graces, which flow from that in time, but executivè, as it is executed and compleated in thoſe that are elected. Therefore by the elect he meaneth thoſe elect that believe, that are holy, that are conformable to the image of God, that do love him, as the context ſheweth; for otherwiſe we know Paul himſelf laid much to the charge of the Epheſians, though elect, when before their converſion, he ſaid they were children of wrath as well as others; and therefore by that adamantine chain, Whom he hath predestinated he hath called, whom he hath called he hath juſtified, whom he hath juſtified he hath gl…rified, it is plain, he takes election terminativè (as they ſay) in the effects of it, even till it hath obtained the utmoſt terminus, which is everlaſting glory.
2. From this chain alſo is an infallible Argument againſt the Opponent, thus,Anſw. 2.
Thoſe only are juſtified that are called, But none are called or converted from all Eternity, Therefore none are juſtified from all Eternity.
The major is grounded upon the method and order which the Apoſtle obſerveth, beginning with the higheſt round in that chain, which is Predeſtination, and ending in the loweſt, which is Glorification: ſo that it cannot rationally be thought that the Apoſtle did not intend an exact order, and method in thoſe expreſſions.
3. If ſo be a man (becauſe he is elected) be juſtified from all Eternity, then it will alſo follow he is glorified from all Eternity. Anſw. 3.And ſo Hymenaeus …nd Philetus may be excuſed in this ſenſe, if they ſay, The reſurrection is paſt already. It is true, the Apoſtle uſeth words ſignifying time paſt, Whom he hath predeſtinated, he hath called, &c. But that is either to ſhew the certainty and infallible connection of theſe benefits together; or elſe, becauſe Predeſtination being neceſſarily for the time paſt, he would not alter the current of his expreſſion for the following mercies.
4. The Apoſtle might well ſay,Anſw. 4. Who ſhall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? and not of Believers, becauſe election is the maternal mercy, it is the fountain and head from which all other flow. Hence the Apoſtle doth in the ſame Chapter limit mercies to thoſe that are called according to Gods purpoſe, implying hereby, that this is the ground and root of all.
Anſw. 5.But fifthly, To diſcover the fundamental weakneſs of this Argument. We are to take notice, That Predeſtination is an immanent act of God, and works no poſitive real effect upon the party elected, till in time, for howſoever it be an act of love, yet of love only by way of purpoſe and decreeing, and ſo doth not denote a change in the creature, but when that purpoſe or councel of God, (which is altogether free) hath determined it. Hence we are to co…ceive a love of God electing us from all Eternity, which doth produce another love of God (not immanent in him, for ſo nothing is new in God, but tranſient in us) and that is Juſtification; from this love floweth another effect of love, which is Glorification. Some have doubted, Whether Election be an act of love; and therefore have diſtinguiſhed between Dilection and Election, as if Dilection did go before, and Election follow. But certainly the ſame act of God, as it doth will good to the creature, is Dilection, as it willeth it to this rather …hen another, is Election. We grant therefore that Election is an act of great love, but its a love of purpoſe or intention, not execution, it is Amor ordinativus, not collativus; it is a love ordaining and preparing of mercies, but not beſtowing them preſently. Thus Auſtin defined Predeſtination, to be Praeparatio beneficiorum quibus liberantur, a preparing or ordaining of thoſe mercies and priviledges, which the Elect ſhall have in time. And among men we ſee the purpoſe of giving ſuch a gift is accounted love, as well as the gift it ſelf. Now while a man is only under the love of Election, and no more, there is no actual Remiſſion of ſin, no acceptance or complacency in his perſon or duties. There is a purpoſe in God to do all theſe in time, but the mercies are not from eternity exhibited.An elect perſon unconv…r… ed, and a reprobate in many things differ not. As So that in ſome reſpects there is a great difference between an elect Perſon unconverted, and a Reprobate: And again in ſome reſpects there is none at all. As for example, there is this grand difference, That although both be equally in ſinne, and under wrath, yet God hath a purpoſe to bring the elect perſon infallibly out of that miſery; and in this reſpect God may be ſaid never to hate him that is elect, (In which ſenſe, God is ſaid to love Jacob, and hate Eſau) but the Reprobate ſhall periſh eternally in his ſinne. The Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 11. Election hath obrained, becauſe that will moſt certainly bring about both the means and the end. So that for all the Elect, The foundation of God ſtandeth ſure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2.19.
2. There is no difference in this, in that for the preſent both are children of wrath, both aliens from the promiſe of grace, no promiſe of any gracious priviledge either for pardon of ſin, or eternal glory belongs unto them, only Gods purpoſe will in time make an actual difference between them. Neither is this to make any contradictory will in God, for both theſe may well ſtand together, viz. Gods will, for the future to give pardon and glory, and yet to will neither of them to be for the preſent. All this is done with the ſame act of Gods will. If therefore hatred be taken as oppoſite to that love of Election, which God had from all Eternity, ſo an elect man, though unregenerate, is never hated; but if it be taken largely for that diſplicency or wrath of God, which is contrary to the grace of Juſtification exhibited in time, ſo he may be ſaid to be hated before his converſion: neither is it any wonder, if this be called hatred, ſeeing in the Scripture, leſs loving, is called hating ſometimes, as the Learned obſerve. Neither doth this make any change in God, it only denoteth a change in the creature, as hereafter is to be ſhewed. So that the groſs miſtake, as if Ele…tion were all love, actually and expreſly, and the confounding of the love of God, as an immanent act in him, with the effects of this love, hath made ſeveral perſons ſplit upon rocks of errors. But how love and anger are in God, is more exactly to be examined, when we ſpeak of the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, which is Chriſts merits: for indeed this Argument from Election, will as well put in for a Juſtification before any conſideration of Chriſt, as well as of Faith, if every thing be duely weighed, as in that part (God willing) is to he ſhewed, where alſo the diſtinctions about Gods love are to be conſidered of. Some making a general love, and a ſpecial love; others a firſt love and a ſecond, or one flowing from the firſt; others a love of benevolence or beneficence, and of complacency: But of theſe in their proper place.
We proceed, and in the next place, we will put his fourth and ſixth Argument together,Argu. 4. and Argum. 6. being both grounded upon this, That Chriſt by his death gave a full ſatisfaction to God, and God accepted of it, whereby Chriſt is ſaid ſo often to take away our ſins, and we to be cleanſed by his bloud. This Argument made the learned Pemble, pag. 25. to hold out Juſtification in Gods ſight long before we were born, as being then purchaſed by Chriſts death, otherwiſe he thinks we muſt with the Arminians ſay, Chriſt by his death made God placabilem, reconcilable, not placatum, reconciled. No (ſaith he) it is otherwiſe, the ranſome demanded … paid and accepted, full ſatisfaction to the divine Juſtice is given and taken, all the ſins of the Elect, all actually pardoned. This is a great overſight.
Anſw. 1.For firſt, Though Chriſt did lay down a price, and the Father accept of it, yet both agreed in a way and order when this benefit ſhould become theirs, who are partakers of it, and that is, when they believe and repent. Now Bonum eſt ex integris cauſis, if God the Fathers Covenant be to give pardon for Chriſts ſake to thoſe that do believe (which faith alſo is the fruit of Chriſts death) then may we not ſeparate Chriſt from faith, no more then faith from Chriſt, or God the Fathers love from both. If Chriſt had died for ſuch a man to have his ſins pardoned, whether he had faith in him or no, then this Argment would have ſtood firm: God then, did accept of Chriſts death, and becomes reconciled, but in that order and way which he hath appointed.
Anſw. 2.2. This Argument doth interf…re with that of Election; for there pardon of ſin doth take its riſe from Election, but here from the time God laid our ſins upon Chriſt. And indeed the Antinomians are at a variance amongſt themſelves, ſome fetching the original of pardon from one way, and ſome from another.
Anſw. 3.3. We do not ſay, That faith is the condition of Chriſts acquiring pardon, but of the application of pardon. Faith doth not make Chriſts merits to be merits, or his ſatisfaction to be ſatisfaction. This ariſeth from the dignity and worth of Chriſt. It would be an abſurd thing to ſay, That faith is the cauſe why God doth accept of Chriſts merits, and receiveth a ſatisfaction by him. This were to make the inſtrumental cauſe, a meritorious cauſe. The Arminians they make Chriſt to have purchaſed pardon upon condition of believing, which believing they do not make a benefit by Chriſts death; yea they ſay, Nihil ineptius, nibil vanius, nothing is more fooliſh and vain then to do ſo. Now this indeed is an execrable errour, to hold Chriſt died only to make a way for reconciliation, which reconciliation is wholly ſuſpended upon a mans faith, and that faith comes partly from a mans will, and partly from grace, not being the fruit of Chriſts death, as wel as remiſſion of ſins it ſelf. But we ſay a far different thing, Chriſt ſatisfied Gods wrath, ſo that God becomes reconciled, and gives pardon, but in the method and way he hath appointed, which is faith, and this faith God will certainly work in his due time, that ſo there may be an inſtrument to receive this pardon.
For the opening of this, when it is ſaid, Chriſt ſatisfied Gods wrath, this may have a different meaning, either that Chriſt abſolutely purchaſed reconciliation with the Father, whether they believe or no, without any condition at all, as Joab obtained Abſoloms reconciliation with David, or Eſther the Jews deliverance of Ahaſhu…roſh, Or with a condition. In the former ſenſe it cannot be ſaid, becauſe the fruits of Chriſts death are limited only to believers. If with a condition, then either Antecedent, which is to be wrought by us, that ſo we may be partakers of his death, and that cannot be, becauſe it is ſaid, He died for us while ſinners and enemies. And this is Arminianiſm, for by this means only a gate is ſet open for ſalvation, but it may happen that no man may enter in: or elſe this condition is Concomitant or conſequent, viz. A qualification wrought by the Spirit of Chriſt, whereby we are enabled to receive of thoſe benefits, which come by his death; And in this ſenſe it is a truth; and by this, the foundation of the Opponent is totally razed. For Chriſt took away the ſins of thoſe, for whom he died, and reconciled them to God, and this abſolutely, if by it we underſtand any condition anteceding to be done by us: but not abſolutely, if it exclude a condition that is conſequently wrought by the Spirit of God, to apply the fruits of Chriſts death: ſo that the actual taking away of ſins is not accompliſhed, till the perſon for whom he died be united to him by Faith. Hence the Scripture ſpeaks differently about Chriſts death; ſometimes it ſaith, He died for us ſinners and enemies; and in other places, John 15.13. He layeth down his life for his friends, and his ſheep. Joh. 17.19, He ſaith, he prayeth and ſanctifieth himſelf for thoſe that ſhall believe in him, viz. in a conſequent ſenſe; for thoſe who by faith ſhall lay hold on his death.A two fold condition of faith, So that faith hath a two-fold condition, the firſt of the time, when ſins are taken away by Chriſts death, and that is, when they believe. 2. Of whom theſe priviledges are true, and that is, of ſuch who do believe. Now all this may be the further cleared, if we conſider, what kinde of cauſe Chriſts death is, to take away our ſins. It is a meritorious cauſe, which is in the rank of moral cauſes; of which the rule is not true, Poſitâ causâ, ſequitur effectus, The cauſe being, the effect preſently followeth. This holdeth in natural cauſes, which neceſſarily produce their effects, but moral cauſes, work according to the agreement and liberty of the Perſons that are moved thereby. As for Example, God the Father, is moved through the death of Chriſt to pardon the ſins of ſuch perſons, for whom he dieth. This agreement is to be made good, in that time they ſhall pitch upon in their tranſaction. Now it pleaſed the Father, that the benefits and fruits of Chriſts death ſhould be applied unto the believer, and not till he did believe, though this faith be at the ſame time alſo a gift of God through Chriſt. It is good therefore, when we either call Election abſolute, or ſay, Chriſt died abſolutely, to conſider that Abſolute may be taken as oppoſite to a Pre-requiſite Condition, which is to be fulfilled by us, ſo that upon this, Election, and the fruits of Chriſts death ſhall depend; or elſe Abſolute, may be taken, as it oppoſeth any Means or Order which God hath appointed, as the way to obtain the end; and in this later ſenſe, it would be a grand abſurdity to ſay, Election is abſolute, or Chriſt died abſolutely, for if this were ſo, the prophane Argument about Election, would have truth in it. If I be elected, let me live never ſo wickedly, I ſhall be ſaved. And the Arminian Argument, That every one were bound to believe that Chriſt died for him, though wicked and abiding ſo, would not well be avoided.
His laſt Argument is from the unchangeableneſs of Gods love, If we are not juſtified in his ſight before we believe, Arg. ult.then God did once hate us, and afterwards love us. And if this be ſo, why ſhould Arminians be blamed, for ſaying, We may be the children of God to day, and the children of the devil to morrow? Hence he concludes it, as undoubted, That God loved us firſt, before we believe, even when we were in our bloud.
In anſwering of this Argument, ſeveral things are conſiderable,
Firſt, It muſt be readily granted, That God is unchangeable,Anſw. Jam. 1.17. God is there compared to the Sunne, and is therefore called, the Father of Lights, but yet is preferred before it, becauſe that hath Clouds ſometimes caſt over it, and ſometimes is in eclipſe, but there is change, or ſhadow of change with him. The Heathens have confeſſed this, and ſo argued, If God ſhould change, it would be either for better or worſe; for worſe, how could it be imagined? for better, then God were not abſolutely perfect. Moſt accurſed therefore muſt Vorſtius his blaſphemy be, who purpoſely pleads for mutability in God.
But ſecondly, As this is eaſily to be confeſſed, ſo the difficulty of thoſe Arguments, brought from the things which God doth in time, and not from all Eternity, have been very weighty upon ſome mens ſhoulders; inſomuch that they thought this the only way to ſalve all, by ſaying, That all things were from Eternity. And certainly by the Antinomian Arguments we may as well plead for the Creation of all things from all Eternity, as that we are juſtified from all Eternity, for all are equally built upon this ſandy foundation, That becauſe the things are done in time, therefore there muſt be ſome new act of will, or love in God, which would imply God is mutable, not loving to day, and loving to morrow; Therefore to avoid this, they ſay, All is from Eternity. Origen who was called by an ancient Writer Centaur, becauſe of his monſtrous opinions, argued thus, lib. 1. foreign, cap. 2. As there cannot be a father without a ſonne, or a Maſter and Lord without a poſſeſſion, ſo neither an omnipotent, unleſs there be thoſe things about which this power may be exerciſed. Now although it be true, That De Deo etiam vera dicere periculoſum eſt, becauſe of the weakneſs of our Underſtandings to perceive his infinite luſtre,
Yet thirdly, It is well cleared by the Schoolmen, That thoſe relations which are attributed to God in time, as a Creatour, Father, or Lord, are not becauſe of any new thing in God, but in reſpect of the creatures; ſo that when the world is created, when a man is juſtified, we ſay, God who was not a Creator before, is a Creator, who was not a Father by grace, is now by grace; not becauſe any new accident is in him, but becauſe there is a new effect in the creatures. Thus, if a man once the childe of wrath, be now a ſon of Gods love, the change is not in God, but in the creature.
For the better clearing of this, we are to take notice in the fourth place, That it is one thing, as Aquinas obſerveth, Mutare voluntatem, to change the Will; and another thing, Velle mutationem, to Will a change. By the ſame unchangeable Will, we may Will ſeveral changes in an Object. As the Phyſician without any change of his Will, may will his Patient to take one kinde of Phyſick one day, and another the third: here he wils a change, but doth not change his Will. Thus God with the ſame Will, decreed to permit in time ſuch an elect man to be in a ſtate of ſin, under the power of Satan, and afterwards to call him out of this condition, to juſtifie his perſon; here indeed is a great change made in the man, but none at all in God. There is no new act in God, which was not from all Eternity, though every effect of this love of God was not from Eternity, but in time. Hence when our Divines argue againſt Arminians, That if the Saints ſhould apoſtatize, Gods love would be changeable, it is meant of Gods love of Election, which is an abſolute purpoſe and efficacious will to bring ſuch a man to glory: now although ſuch a decree was free, and ſo might not have been; yet ex hypotheſi, ſuppoſing God hath made this decree, it doth very truly follow, That if that Saint ſhould not be brought to glory, God would be changeable. And beſides this immutability, which may be called an immutability of his nature, there is another of his Word and Promiſe, whereby he hath graciouſly covenanted to put his fear in their heart, that they ſhall never depart from him: Now if any of the Saints ſhould totally or finally apoſtatize, Gods mutability would be ſeen in both thoſe reſpects of his nature or will, and of his truth and fidelity. But the caſe is not the like, when a man at his firſt converſion, is made of a childe of wrath, a childe of grace; partly becauſe there was no ſuch abſolute decree of God from Eternity, that he ſhould be for no ſpace a childe of wrath, but the clean contrary; and partly becauſe there is no ſuch word or promiſe unto any unconverted perſon, that he ſhall be in the favour of God; but the Scripture declareth the clean contrary. This duly conſidered, will give a clear reaſon, why it is no good Argument to ſay, Such a man in his ſins to day, is a childe of wrath; and converted to morrow, is a ſon of grace: Therefore God is changeable. But on the other ſide, if a man ſhould argue, An Elect man received into the ſtate of grace, may fall totally and finally, Therefore God is changed, would be a ſtrong and undeniable inference. And indeed for this particular may the Arminians be challenged, as holding Gods mutability, becauſe they hold, That notwithſtanding Gods decree and purpoſe to ſave ſuch a man, yet a man by his own corruption and default, ſhall fruſtrate God of this his intention. Otherwiſe all know, Adam was created in a ſtate of Gods favour, and quickly apoſtatized into the contrary: ſo that we may truly ſay, Adam was one day, (yea hour, as ſome) a childe of Gods favour; and in another of his wrath, yet the change was in Adam, not in God, both becauſe God had not made an abſolute Decree from all Eternity for his ſtanding, as alſo becauſe he had made no Promiſe to preſerve him in that happy condition. In this ſenſe 1 Pet. 2.10. it is ſaid, Which in time paſt were not a people, but now are the people of God, which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. And whereas the Opponent ſaith, God loved us before we did believe; it is true, with a love of purpoſe; but many effects of his love are not exhibited till we do believe. He loveth us▪ and ſo worketh one effect of love in us, that that effect may be a qualification for a new and further effect of love. He loveth us, to make us his friends, and when he hath done that, he loveth us with a love of friendſhip. God loved us before he gave Chriſt, for out of that love he gave us Chriſt, that ſo when Chriſt is given us, he may beſtow another love upon us. Now becauſe it is ordinary with us to call the effect of love, love, as the fruit of grace is grace; Therefore we ſay, In ſuch a time God loved not one, and afterwards we ſay, He doth love the ſame, not that herein is any change of God, but ſeveral effects of his love are exhibited. As we call the effects of Gods anger, his anger, Poena patientis, ira eſſe creditur decernentis, The puniſhment on the offender, is judged the anger of the inflicter: and by this means we ſay ſometimes God is angry, and afterwards he ceaſeth to be angry, when he removeth theſe effects of his anger: ſo a man is ſaid to be loved, or not to be loved according to the effects of Gods love exhibited in time, and God hath ſo appointed it, that one effect of his love ſhould be a qualification in the ſubject for another, as ſanctification for glorification.