Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Replyes to the second Objection (as he cals it) concerning our being Justified in Christ as a common person, are examined.
THe Argument was proposed by me at the time of our Conference, in this manner. They that were in Christ as a common person, before they beleeved, were Justified before they beleeved; But many were in Christ, as a common person, before they beleeved, Ergo: Mr. W. denyed both Propositions. The major I proved in this wise: If Christ was justified before many …hat are in him doe beleeve; then they that are in him, were …stified before they beleeved. But Christ was justified before many that are in Christ do beleeve, Ergo. His answer hereunto (as I remember) was, I deny all: And therefore the Assumption was confirmed from Isa. 50.8, 9. in this manner, Christ was justified at his resurrection, but that happened before many of them who are in Christ as a common person doe beleeve. Ergo, That Christ was justified at his resurrection, is clear from this Text, He is near that justifieth me, &c. Which words (I said) were uttered by the Prophet in the person of our Saviour, in the time of his greatest humiliation, who comforted himselfe with this, that the Lord would shortly justifie him; which was to be done at his Resurrection aSee M. Goodw▪ Christ set forth sect. 3. c. 5., when the Lord publickly declared to all the world, that he was acquitted and discharged from all those sins which were laid upon him, and which he, as a Surety undertook to satisfie. The sequel of the major was also proved by this Enthymem. The acts of a common person doe belong unto them, whom he represents; whatsoever is done by, or to a common person, as such, is to be attributed to them in whose stead he stands; and therefore if Christ were justified, all that were in him were justified also: For seeing that he was not justified, from his own, but from the sins of others; all they whom he represents were justified in his Justification: Whereunto hee replyed, That Christ was not justified according to the tenor of the New Covenant, which did lead us to that discourse of the New Covenant which is afterwards mentioned, of which in its place.
§. 2. We shall now take a view of his Replyes to this Argument, which we find in his printed copy. And 1. he distinguisheth of a threefold Justification, (1) Purposed, (2) Purchased, and (3) Exemplified; all which are before Faith; So then by his own confession, Justification in a Scripture sense, goes before Faith; Which is that horrid opinion, he hath all this while so eagerly opposed. It may be he will say as bActualis peccatorum remissio & justificati… absque fide, &c. nemini contingunt.Arminius doth, that neither of these were actuall Justification, which were a poor put off; for as Dr. Twisse bVind. Grat▪ l. 1. p. 2 sect. 25.observes, Omnis Justificatio simpliciter dicta, congruenter exponenda est, de Justificatione actuali; Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato: When we speak of Justification simply, there is no man but understands it of actuall Justification. And first, That which he cals Justification purposed in the Decree of God, is reall and actuall Justification; for if Justification be Gods will not to punish, or to deal with his Elect according to their sins (as both the Psalmist and Apostle do define it) then when Gods Will was in actual being, their Justification was actual: It is absurd, to say, That God did decree or purpose to will any thing whatsoever, his Will being his Essence, which admits no cause, either within or without God. (2) We have shewn before, that, Justification being taken for the effect of Gods Will, to wit, our discharge from the Obligation of the Law, it was actually, because solely, and absolutely obtained by the death of Christ; there being no other cause out of God, which concurs to the producing of this effect.
§. 3. The third Branch of his distinction, Justification exemplified, is, terminus redundans, a member that may well be spared; for (1) there is not the least hint thereof in Holy Writ; the Scripture no where calls our Saviour, the example or pattern of our Justification. For though he is proposed to us as an example in acts of Moral Obedience dSee Reynolds …3. Treat. p. 4▪10., yet in his works of Mediation, he was not so; in these he was not an exemplary, but a meritorious procuring cause; an example is proposed to be imitated, and therefore we are frequently exhorted to imitate our Saviour in works of Sanctification eMatth. 11.29. Joh. 13.15. Phil. 2.5. 1 Pet. 2.21. … John 2.6., but we are no where bid to imitate him in our Justification, or in justifying our selves. It was needless he should be a pattern of our Justification; for this pattern must be of use, either unto us, or unto God: Not to us, because we do not justifie our selves; not unto God, because he needs no pattern or example to guide or direct him. (2) He that payes our debts to the utmost farthing, and thereupon receives a discharge, is more then a pattern of our release: Our real discharge is in his, as our real debt was upon him. And therefore his Grand-father Parker fVid. Sup. c 3.said well, That Christs Resurrection was the Actual Just…fication, both of him and us. (3) If Christ were onelyonly a pattern and example of our Justification, then was he justified from his own sins, and consequently was a sinner, which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered. The reason of the consequence is evident; for if Christ were but a pattern of our Justification, then was he justified, as we are: Now we are justified from our own sins, which we our selves have committed, and therefore his Justification must be from his own sins, or else the example and counterpart do not agree. (4) This expression intimates, that as Christ was justified by performing the conditions required of him, so we are justified by performing the conditions required of us; which in effect makes men their own Saviours, as before. (5) He recedes very far, both from the meaning and expressions of all our Orthodox Writers, who do constantly call our Saviour a common person, but never that I finde, the exemplary cause of our Justification. I shall onelyonly refer the Reader to what his Grand-father Parker gPark. de descens. l 3. sect. 49, 50, 53.hath written of this matter, who hath copiously and learnedly proved both from Scripture, and the Fathers, That Christ no less then the first Adam, was made a common person by the Ordination of God, and his own voluntary undertaking; who took our sins upon him, as if they had been his own, and for the same made full satisfaction to Divine Justice, and consequently received as full a discharge in our behalf. (6) This expression of his, savors rankly, both of Pelagianism and Socinianism. The Pelagians as they made the first Adam a meer pattern and example, in communicating sin to his posterity; so they made the second Adam but the pattern and example of our reconciliation. Those words, 2 Cor. 5.18. Who hath reconciled us to himself [by Jesus Christ] they expounded, by his Doctrine, and by his Example hVid. Estium in loc., i. e. By our obedience to his Doctrine, and by imitat…ng his example. The Socinians do speak the same Language iSocin: part… 1. de Servat. c. 2, 3, 4., Christus ideo servator noster dicitur, quod salutis viam nobis annunciavit; quod salutis viam nobis confirmavit, miraculorum patratione, sanguinis effusione, resurrectione à mortuis, quod vitae exemplo viam salutis nobis ostendit. Christ is therefore called a Saviour, because by his Life and Doctrine he hath shewed us the way of Salvation, and by his Miracles and Sufferings hath confirmed the same kSteg. Photin… ▪ Disp. 24 q 3.. I am sorry to hear the Language of Ashdod, from the mouth of a Protestant Minister.
§. 4. The excuse which he gives, for calling our Saviour, the exemplary cause of our Justification, rather then a common person, is both fallacious and impertinent. [I use (saith he) the term of an exemplary cause, rather then of a common person, because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents, as the Parliament of the Commonwealth.]
1. It is fallacious dealing, under pretence of giving a more significant term to leave out that, wherein the force of the Argument lay: He seems to intimate, that the phrases are of equal latitude, that an exemplary cause, doth express as much as a common person, which is cleerly false; for the act of the Exemplar, is not the act of the Imitator; as the act of a common person, is the act of them whom he represents, which in Law, is accounted as if it had been done by them. Parents and Superiors are examples to their Children and Inferiors, they are not common persons, as Adam was to all his posterity, In whose loyns (saith the Apostle) we all sinned; and in this respect, he is made a figure of Christ, Rom. 5.14. Whose Righteousness is accounted unto them, for whom he died;Vers. 15, 17, 18. as Adams sin was accounted unto us, when as yet we were not.
2. It is impertinent, for though Christ be not the effect of them, whom he represents; yet that hinders not, but that his discharge was theirs, no less then if he had been chosen by them. I can see no reason why the act of God, constituting and appointing his Son to be the Head, Surety, and Common Person, to all his Elect, should not be as effectual for the communication of his benefits to them, as their own choice and election: We did not chuse Adam to be our common person, and yet his sin was imputed to us; so though we did not chuse the Lord Jesus to stand in our stead, that is no reason why his Righteousness and Satisfaction should not be accounted ours.
§. 5. The instances he hath brought from our Personal Resurrection, and Inherent Sanctification, to render this Argument absurd, have not the least force to conclude against the efficacy, of Christs Satisfaction, for our immediate discharge from sin and wrath. It doth not follow, that because we did not personally rise with Christ, and were not inherently sanctified in his Sanctification. Ergo. We had not in his Resurrection an actual discharge from the guilt of sin; there is not the like reason for these. For to our actual discharge, there needed no more then the payment of our debt, or satisfaction to the Law of God, but our personal resurrection necessarily supposeth both our life and death. Again, our Inherent Sanctification cannot be without our personal existence, and the use of those means which God hath appointed for that end; but our Justification is wrought without us, and for us, Though Christ hath fully merited our Sanctification and Resurrection to glory (in which respect we are said to be crucified with him, and to be risen with Christ) as well as our Justification, yet it is not necessary that these benefits should be communicated to us at the same time, and in the same manner. It is no such absurdity to say, Christ hath purchased our Resurrection, though we are not risen, as to say, Christ hath purchased our discharge, and yet we are not discharged; for (as hath been shewn lCap. 14. sect. 2.) to say a debt is discharged, and yet that it is justly chargable, implies a contradiction. Let the Reader judge, whether the Assertion that follows, be not much more confident, then solid. [No man living can shew any reason of difference (as if he were master of as much Reason, as all men living) why we may not as justly infer, that our Resurrection is passed already, because we are risen in Christ; as that our Justication is passed before we believe, because we are justified in Christ. Enough hath been said to evict the disproportion of these consequences.
§. 6. 2. His next distinction, is, That Justification is either Causal and Virtual, or Actual and Formal; We were (saith he) causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification, but not actually and formally.] Our Protestant Divines do generally place the formale of Justification, in the non-imputation of sin: Now if our sins were formally imputed unto Christ, even to a full Satisfaction, they could not formally be imputed unto us also, unless a debt discharged by a Surety, can be justly reckoned unto him that did first contract it. It is true, a debt may be imputed both to Principal and Surety, before it be discharged, but after to neither: It is granted by all Orthodox Writers, That our Saviour by giving himself to death, made full satisfaction to the utmost farthing, for all the sins or debts of Gods Elect. Now, I say, the discharge of a debt, is formally the discharge of the debtor, unless we speak of an outward formality, such as is by an Acquittance, which serves, but either against the unfaithfulness of the creditor, who otherwise would deny the payment, or else against the ignorance of the debtor; who being not at the payment, might still look upon himself as a debtor, and lyable to all the consequences of his debts. In this sence, our Formal Justification is by the gracious sentence of the Gospel, terminated upon our Consciences; but otherwise, intrinsecally and formally, the payment of our debt is our real discharge. I shall grant him, That the death of Christ doth justifie us onelyonly virtually; but yet I affirm, That the satisfaction in his death (being performed, and accepted for us) doth justifie us formally; for the actual payment of a debt, is that which formally makes him that was the debtor, no debtor. And therefore, Christ dying for us, or for our sins; his reconciling us to God, and our being justified, are Synonima's in Scripture phrase, Rom. 5.8, 9, 10.
Object.Object. But against this, some have alledged that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 5.21. where he saith, That Christ was made sin for us foreign, that we might be made (he doth not say, that thereby we are made) the Righteousness of God in him. Whence they would infer, That the laying of our sins on Christ, is onelyonly an Antecedent, which tends to the procuring of our Justification, and not the same formally.Answ. Whereunto we Answer, (1) That this phrase [that we might be, or be made] doth not alwayes signifie the final, but sometimes the formal cause: As when it is said, That light is let in, that darkness might be expelled; where the immission of light, is formally the expulsion of darkness. (2) Though the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his Righteousness to us, do differ; yet the imputation of sin to him, and non-imputation of it unto us, is but one and the same act of God; which was, when God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, before the word of Reconciliation was given; and therefore before they believed, Vers. 19. (3) Though the imputation of our sin to Christ, and so the non-imputation thereof to us, have an antecedency in respect of imputation of Righteousness to us, yet it is of nature onelyonly, and not of time. For though it be objected, That we were not then, and therefore Righteousness could not be imputed unto us, yet it follows not: They might as well object, Our sins were not then. Ergo, They could not be imputed unto Christ; whereas in this business of Justification,Rom. 4.17. God calleth things that are not, as though they were. But if Mr. W. had shewn what it is that formally justifies us, besides the satisfaction made in Christs death, somewhat more might have been spoken to it.
§. 7. The close of this Paragraph is such a dirty puddle, that I intended to have stept over it in silence, seeing it is so hard to touch pitch, or pollution, and not be defiled with it; but yet for their sakes that do not know …, I shall stay the Reader a little, whilest I wash off that dirt, which he hath thrown upon me, and others. [They are credulous souls, I will assure you, that will be drawn by such decoyes as these, into Schism and Faction, to the hardning, and discomforting of more hearts in one hour, then the Opinion it self (should it obtain) will do good to, while the world stands.] I dare not allow my self foreign, or to pay him in his own coyn, having perswaded my heart to follow better examples, even his, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, 1 Pet. 2.23. And theirs, who being reproached, returned blessing, 1 Cor. 4.12. In these few words, there are a heap of slanders packt together, both against my self and others, and (which is more grievous to be born) against the truths and ways of God, which we adhere to. 1. They that do embrace this Doctrine which I have taught, are aspersed with credulity and levity. I do verily believe there is not one of my charge, but is able to say as the Samaritans, John 4.42. We believe not, because of thy saying; for we have heard him our selves, &c. I dare say, they are better setled, then to be shaken with the sophistry of this Assailant. I am sure, both they, and many more, will bear me witness, how frequently I do admonish them, of taking up matters of Faith, upon trust and credit: it being Idolatry in a high degree, to give the most Spiritual Worship of God, viz. Our Faith, to a weak and sinful man. He that believes a truth upon a Humane account, is no better Christian, then he that doth believe a lie. Let the prudent judge, whether they are not more justly obnoxious to this censure of abusing the credulity of simple souls, who will not endure that their hearers should bring their Doctrines to the touchstone. The tyranny and usurpation of the Popish Priests, is far more excusable, then the affected domination of some of ours; for they believe, that their Church is infallible, and cannot erre; ours confess, that they are fallible, and may erre, and yet expect subscription to their Dictates, no less then to the Canon it self: It is held a piaculum to question, or debate, what ever they say. 2. It is but an unhandsome character, he hath given my Arguments, which he calls decoyes. The Apostle, I take it, hath Englished his French, Eph. 4.14. The sleight of men, who lie in wait to deceive. I dare say he knows me better, then in cold blood to accuse me of driving on such a devillish trade, as wittingly to deceive mens precious souls: And therefore, I shall call in no other Compurgator then his own Conscience.
§. 8. As for his charge of Schisme and Faction, I am not carefull to answer it, being the usuall foam of passionate men, who when they want Arguments to convince fall to downright railing mRationibus victi, dentibus vincunt, Bas. ep. …0. Haeretici argumentis victi calumnias meditantur. Athan. Istae sunt haereticorum machinae, ut convicti … perfidia, ad maledicta se conferant. Hier. Apo. cont. Ruff….; Schisme (sayes a learned man nHale… tr. of Schism.) in the common manage of the word is a meer Theologicall Scar-crow, wherewith they who uphold a party in Religion, seek to fright away others from enquiring into, and closing with that which they doe oppose: Both this and the other are most frequently in their mouthes, who are deepest in the guilt that is imported by them. Ahab by his sins brought down Plagues and Judgements upon Israel; yet he cals Elijah, the troubler of Israel, 1 King. 18.17. Athalia was the cheifest Traytor, and yet she was the first that cryed out Treason, 2 King. 11.14▪ Tertullus was the Orator of the tumult, yet he inveighs against Paul, as a Ring leader of Sedition, Act. 24.5, 6. the Church of Rome, which hath fallen from the purity of the Catholique Faith, brands them for Schismaticks who refuse to continue in the same Apostasie. Amongst our selves the late Innovators aspersed all those with Faction and Schisme who would not prostitute their Consciences to the Wils of men; and to this day ignorant and prophane persons think all them to be Factious and Schismaticks who live more strictly, and religiously then themselves. I must needs say, they are lesse to be blamed▪ seeing Professors and Ministers do give them such an evill example.
§. 9. I confesse though in common use, Schisme and Faction are but ridiculous termes, yet the things themselves are reall evils; the one being an offence against Civill▪ and the other against Ecclesiasticall peace. If this Author had shewn wherein I had offended against either of them, I doubt not but I should have cleared my selfe at a just Tribunal. For 1. I have ever been so far from factious Combinations, or attempting any thing against the Civil Peace, that (as I verily beleeve) it hath not been the least cause of my troubles, that I have alwayes prayed for, and pressed subjection foreign oRom. 13.1., to the …owers in being; had others of my calling done the like, the disaffections of the people against the present Government had not been so great as yet they are in these parts. 2. As for Schisme, I know no ground that he hath to charge me with it; for Schisme cannot be, but where communion is, or ought to be held: now to my best remembrance, I never refused to hold Christian comunimon with any person or persons, with whom by the Rules of Christ I conceived I ought. It is true, we receive not all within that Parochial circuit wherein we live, unto communion in Church Priviledges; because either they refuse to make Profession of their Faith, and to declare their subjection to the Ordinances of Jesus Christ: and so they separate from us, and not we from them; or else they are such as in their practises do contradict the profession which they seem to make, like them Tit. 1.16. And as for Members of other Churches, we are ready to give them the right hand of fellowship, unlesse the person, or the Church to which he belongs, lyes under the guilt of any publick scandal pSee Mr. Cottons way of the Churches, p. 78… &c.. If he doth accuse me of Sch…sm, because I have refrained going to some Lectures that are preached in this City: I doubt not but the wise will be satisfied with a just Apology. I doe not conceive that Christians are bound to frequent every Lecture that is preached near them; the obligation to this Duty must needs be determined by Christian prudence; and we ought to follow that which we conceive hath the greatest tendency to Edification. Now I confesse I have rather chosen to deprive my selfe of that benefit, which sometime I might injoy, then to wound my Conscience by keeping of silence when I hear the Truths and Servants of God declaimed against Dr. Jackson qTreat. of the Church, cap. 14(a man large enough in the point of communion) grants, that there is just cause to separate from the communion of a visible Church (our practise doth not amount so high) when we are urged or constrained to professe or beleive some points of Doctrine, or to adventure upon some Practises, which are contrary to the Rule of Faith, or Love of God; and in case we are utterly deprived of freedome of Conscience, in professing what we inwardly beleeve, for which he cites 1 Cor. 7.23. Yee are bought with a price, be yee not Servants of men; For (sayes he) although we were perswaded that we might communicate with such a Church without evident danger of damnation; yet in as much as we cannot communicate with it upon any better termes, then Servants and Bondslaves doe with their Masters, we are bound in Conscience, and religious discretion, when lawfull occasions or opportunities are offered, to use our Liberty, and seek to our Freedom, rather then to live in bondage. Let them allow us that liberty (which we offer to them) to discusse and examine the Doctrines which they do deliver, and if they shall be found erroneous, to professe against them, I shall not often decline such opportunities.
§. 10. But says Mr. W. the contending about this matter [will harden and discomfort more soules in an houre, then the opinion it selfe will doe good to, while the world stands] 1. It seems he is of Curcaelleus his mind, that the matter in question is of so small concernment, that it ought not to breed a controversie: I marvel then, he should offer himselfe a Champion on either part, especially in a place where he had so little to doe, and where his humility might suppose there were others as able as himselfe to defend the notion which he stickles for. No man will imagine that he ingaged in this controversie upon conscientious principles, if he judgeth the Point in question to be of little moment. For my part I cannot looke upon that as such a trifle, which doth so nearly concern the glory of Gods Grace, the vertue and efficacy of Christs Blood, upon which alone poor Souls can with confidence and security build their hopes of Eternall life. 2. I have shewed before, that the Doctrine it selfe is guiltlesse both of hardning, and discomforting the soules of men, and if these effects doe insue the pressing of it in a Christian way, they are accidental, and consequently ought not to be charged upon the Tenent. I know none that are discomforted by these Debates but such as the Apostle speaks of r2 Tim. 3.7.Who are ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth. For having pinned their Faith on the sleeves of others, they are jealous of their credit, least they should be thought to have builded on a sandy foundation.