A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 139 – Aphorism 141
Aphorism.
NOw if Good-works, or sincere Obedience Page 325.to Christ our Lord, be no part of the Condition of our full Justification and Salvation, who will use them to that end?
Animadvers.
There is not the like Reason of Justification and Salvation: For Salvation is wrought by degrees; it's begun here, and perfected hereafter. We are saved by Hope, Rom. 8. 24. And we must work out our own Salvation with fear and trembling, Phil. 2. 12. It is not so in respect of Justification. It hath no degrees in it self, though it hath in the Manifestation of it. For it is a freedom from all sin, in respect of Imputation, and from all Condemnation for sin, Acts 13. 39. Rom. 8. 1. Salvation is so perfected hereafter, as that some part of it is added, and that the chief part which before was wanting: But Justification is only so perfected, as that the perfection of it is made manifest, and Satan with all other Accusers is for ever put to silence.
Reply.
1. As one good act may cause another in our selves, so there is not the same Reason between Justification, and that part of Salvation. For that is but the Condition of one, which is the Cause of the other. But as Salvation is the gift of God, so there is the same Reason of obtaining right to Justification and to Salvation. They are two distinct Dues, flowing from the same Covenant, upon our union to Christ, upon the same Condition on our part. And the immediate right of possession at Judgment is the same on the same Conditions.
2. I have said enough to this. [Freedom] is here ambiguous: Either you mean active Liberation, or passive: If the latter, either you mean a certainty, that we shall not be condemned; or you mean, non-Condemnation at present; or you mean right to Absolution per judicem; or else Absolution passive it self. The Reprobate here are non-condemnati per sententiam judicis, though per Legem they are condemned already. The Elect from the foundations of the World were sure (certitudine objecti) to be absolved; yet were not then freed perfectly. Right to Absolution is perfect pro praesenti in se, as is the right of a Tenant in his house, when he hath taken his Lease; But it is not perfect pro tempore futuro: Because, 1. More Conditions are to be performed. 2. More sins to be pardoned. If you mean it of actual judicial Absolution, you are not so perfectly freed in this Life.
1. Where there is not the active Absolution, there is not the passive: But the active Absolution judicial per sententiam, either is not at all in this life, or is not perfect, therefore, &c. Apologetical Justification hath degrees: And Sentential is the most perfect kind.
2. Justification is opposite to Condemnation: But Condemnation is not perfect (if properly any at all) till the Judgment; therefore Justification is not perfect till then. Condemnatio Legis est tantum virtualis, ut respicit judicium.
3. Your Doctrine is plain Antinomian, if by [freedom from all sin,] you mean all future sin, as you seem to do. Sin is not pardoned, which is no sin, that is, which is not yet committed: Reatus qui nondum contrahitur, non dissolvitur.
4. You suppose Justification per sententiam judicis, to be no Justification, but a Manifestation of it: When our Divines still say, the word is to be used in sensu judiciario. And I have far much more ado with Mr. L. (an excellent Politician) to prove, that constitutive Justification is so to be called. He thinks only sentential Justification is true Justification; you think it's none: But I think both Constitutive and Sentential, are truly and properly Justification. Sententia judicis, vel Condemnationem, vel Absolutionem continet: (Et non tantum Condemnationis, vel Absolutionis Manifestationem.) Zouch. Jurisprud. par. 5. sect. 10, &c. You'll spoil all your Law, if you confound Jus & Judicium. A Woman may as fully manifest a Felony or Murther, and the dueness of punishment, as the Judg; and yet the man shall not for that be executed. The Civil Law saith, that Judicis decretum requiritur etiam in manifeste prodigo. Mynsing. in Institut. l. 1. tit. 23. pag. 115.
Aphorism.
WHether this Doctrine doth not tend to Ibid.drive Obedience out of the World: For if men once believe, that it is not so much as a part of the Condition of their Justification, will it not much tend to relax their diligence?
Animadvers.
No: If they consider as they ought to do, that though Obedience do not concur with Faith as a Joynt-condition of our Justification, yet it is a necessary fruit of that Faith whereby we are justified.
Reply.
Obscure still. Do you mean [Necessary] necessitate Praecepti only, or necessitate Medii also? If the former, we may be saved without it; or else every sinner must perish. If the latter, what means can it be lower than a Condition? If you should mean it, non de necessitate morali sed naturali, that requires not our care or diligence.
Aphorism.
DOth it not much confirm the World Page 326.in their Soul-cozening Faith?
Animadvers.
It is not the Doctrine that doth it, but the abuse of the Doctrine; some being apt to turn the Grace of God into lasciviousness, Jude, v. 4. How do they confirm the World in their Soul-cozening Faith, who teach, That we are justified by receiving Christ for our Saviour: But yet teach withal, that none can have him for their Saviour, except they take him for their Lord also? The best Doctrine may be abused: The abuse is to be prevented or reformed; but the Doctrine it self is not to be deserted. See Rom. 5. 20. with 6. 1, 14, 15.
Reply.
The Doctrine it self I think is guilty of it: For when you have denied [Taking Christ for Lord] to have the necessity of a Condition (or Cause) and then say, it is necessary for all that; you either contradict your self, or you mean no such Moral necessity, but that a man may be saved without it. Nay, you say, that men are first justified by taking Christ as Priest, and after take him for King: And so a Christ-dividing Faith, which is no true Faith, should justifie, and the taking him as King should not be necessary ne quoad praesentiam. And when you have taught wicked men, that it justifieth them to accept of Christ as Priest, to justifie and save them, and they are willing of that unfeignedly, will you make them believe they are unjustified again, because the accepting Christ as King doth not follow it? Or will you shew them why they are not justified, when neither Cause nor Condition is wanting? What an effect is that which will not be produced, when there is all the Causes and Conditions?
Why is it that accepting Christ as King must of necessity follow? All necessity hath some Reason. And if you would perswade either them or me, that they do not accept of Christ's Satisfaction to justifie them (which you say is the Condition) and that they do but dissemble, neither they nor I can believe you. They feel the contrary, and I know it. I never knew man in my life that was unwilling to be pardoned and justified, or willing to be damned. Indeed properly it cannot be called [Acceptance,] because that presupposeth an offer: And Christ as Pri…st only, is offered to none, but a willingness so to have him it is.