A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Book 2 · Aphorism 72 – Aphorism 74
Aphorism.
THat saying of our Divines, that [Justification Page 194.is perfected at first, and admits of no degrees,] must be understood thus; That each of those Acts which we call Justification, are in their own kind perfect at once; and that our Righteousness is perfect, and admits of no degrees: But yet, as the former Acts called [Justification] 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 Justification at the last Judgment.
Animadvers.
Properly none can be more or less justified, because he that is justified is freed from all Condemnation, Rom. 8. 1. & 33. Justification therefore at the last Judgment, is not a more full Justification, but only a Justification more fully made manifest. Neither do I see how you should deny, that our Justification here is perfect, so as to procure full and perfect freedom, viz. from Condemnation, if (as you grant) our Righteousness whereby we are justified be perfect: And so indeed it is, though that Righteousness be not (as you suppose) a Righteousness of our own within us, but only the Righteousness of Christ through faith imputed to us.
Reply.
1. Negatur sequela. One man may be more perfectly freed from all Condemnation than another, though both be freed from all. It is not only the Terminus à quo that is to be considered, but the degree of the Liberation therefrom. One man may be freed from Condemnation only quoad Donationem & Constitutionem Legis, and another also quoad sententiam judicis.
2. Justification also freeth against Accusation, as the means, as well as from Condemnation, the end: And we are not yet freed against all Accusation.
3. And for the Autecedent, we must distinguish of the word [freed from:] either you mean, that our Liberation is compleated (which I deny;) or that it is so effectually begun, that it shall certainly he perfected (which serves not your turn.) The Apostle only saith, [There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ:] But as this Text doth not say, [There shall be none,] nor promise that they shall never be out of Christ again (though I think others do;) so it saith not that their deliverance from future Condemnation (or which would else be future) is perfected. They are not now under Condemnation, nor ever shall be; (Is not that all you can hence gather?) and yet they would be to morrow condemned, if no more were done than is done. I will be bold to tell you, how far short you are yet from Perfection, even in this matter of Justification.
1. There is a great deal of guilt which will lye on you, from which you are not yet justified ne quidem constitutivè. You will sin every day, hour and moment; Will you need no Justification from the guilt of these sins? They will condemn you, if you have none. Perhaps a man may have the guilt of ten times more sins to be freed from after his first Justification, than before. If Justification be the same with Remission of sin (as very many say, and I know no real difference, as to constitutive Justification;) then sure you have need of a particular Justification upon the renewal of sin, as well as of a particular Remission, besides the universal Justification and Remission foregoing: Yea, though they be not the same, yet being so near akin, this will follow. I suppose you will not say, sin is remitted before committed; or guilt removed before it is guilt! If you fly to Amese's, [Virtualiter & in subjecto,] Medul. l. 1. c. 27. § 24. that is sure less than Actualiter & in se (and indeed is not Remission;) and therefore not perfect.
2. Your Justification either is yet only constitutive, and not per sententiam judicis, or else only quoad sententiam aliquam minus publicam; & non ab omnibus (scil. futuris) peccatis: Whereas your Justification will be per sententiam judicis, at that great day, and that from all sin. How could the Apostle say, [That your sins may be blotted out, when the time of refressing comes, &c. Acts 3. 19.] if no more be done then to it than now?
3. Our present Justification freeth us not from God's Paternal Sentence, and castigatory punishment; but our future Justification will.
4. The continuance of Justification while we are here, is but conditional, and de futuro neither absolute nor actual. And a conditional Justification is not so much as an absolute. That it is but conditional▪ is evident from the full tenor of the Covenant: It saith not, [He that believeth once, shall be for ever justified; but, [He that believeth, is or shall be justified;] that is, as long as he believeth.
If you say, [It is certain they shall believe.]
I answer, That altereth not the tenor of the Promise: Predestination giveth not Legal Right. It was certain, vel futurum ab aeterno, that you should believe and persevere; and yet you were not therefore justified. And God only justifieth us pro praesenti, and not pro futuro. And then it is evident, that conditional Justification is not actual, nor true Justification: for conditionale nihil ponit, donec praestetur conditio. Where there is much means to be used, and conditions yet to be performed, for the Continuation and Consummation of our Justification, there it is not yet continued or consummate; nor that person so perfect as to Justification, as he that is past all conditions and means, and so hath his Justification consummate, and is in his immutable state. That much means is yet to be used to this end, that our Justification may be continued and consummate, and sentential Justification and Judgment added, if I thought I needed, I could easily and fully prove. Both Prayer, Obedience, &c. are means to that end: (of which more toward the end.) And that Conditions are yet to be performed to that end, I will argue on the common Principles (lest you deny Repentance or Obedience to be such Conditions.) If it be not only the first act of Faith by which men are justified, then their Justification is not so consummate at the first, but that they are still to be justified every day. But it is not only the first act of Faith by which men are justified; therefore, &c.
For the Antecedent; As it were a wild fancy to exclude all the Faith of a man's life, except the first act; so Abraham's example, as mentioned by the Apostle, contradicteth it expresly. And for the Consequence, If following acts of Faith justifie, either by concurring to our first Justification, or by the continuing our universal Justification, and procuring the daily addition of particular Justification and Remission: But it cannot be by concurring to our first Justification; for it is against Scripture and Reason, that I was justified twenty years ago, by believing to day. It is therefore by continuing our universal Justification, and procuring the addition of daily particular Justification: And all this by way of Condition. Now though Perseverance add nothing ad rei naturam, yet it is a moral Addition, which must have its Cause; and therefore such Promises are made to Waiting, Patience, Perseverance, &c. And that man that must have all these Conditions yet to perform, that he may be continuedly and consummately justified, is not in so perfect and full a sense justified, as he that hath done all. I still profess, that every sort or act of Justification is perfect in its kind, and as to its proper end; but not of the perfectest kind, nor absolutely perfect. He that is in the beginning of the fight, unwounded and safe, is as perfectly safe quoad naturam rei, as he that hath gone through all the rest of the dangers, and suffered twenty more particular charges, and overcome all: But he is not safe in so perfect a sense (though you suppose him by a spirit of Prophecy to be sure to scape;) because he hath yet much hazard and labour to go through for the attaining of his safety: And yet we may say as Paul, If th…se abide not in the ship, ye cannot be saved. The end is not perfectly enjoyed, while so many means are yet to be used for it. I refer you to Mr. Burgess of Justification, Lect. 29. which is wholly to prove the point I insist on.
5. There is yet the solemnizing of all wanting: And a Marriage not-solemnized is not all so perfect as that which is.
But the main thing that I stand on is, that both Christ's Apologetical Justification of us qua Advocatus vel Patronus, and his sentential publick Justification at Judgment, do not only differ from ours now; but so much differ, that I think we should fearce be called justified now, but in Relation to the Justification then.
But you think otherwise, that [it is not a more full Justification, but a Justification more fully made manifest.] Many men, many minds: I have sore contest with Mr. L. and all will not convince him, that any but sentential is properly Justification: And that which I call Constitutive, & in sensu Legis, is but Right to Justification. I easily yield to you, that the Law or Grant of Grace doth its own work perfectly, in constitutive Justification. But yet I make no doubt to affirm, that though Justification constitutive be proper Justification; yet the word is more commonly used by Lawyers and Protestant Divines, for Justification by sentence: And so the Law justifieth but virtually, and not properly and actually at all (as to this sentential Justification.) To absolve from a Crime and Penalty, and adjudicare praemium, contra actoris accusationem, is the most full, perfect Justification of all. And it's exceeding strange, that you should think it nothing but a Justification made manifest, when it is another sort of Justification toto coelo, different from constitutive: Or if you mean, it is but a fuller Manifestation of some sentential Justification, which we have now by Faith; you should have said so, and should shew what that Sentence is, & in quo foro? per quem judicem? & quinam sint actus judiciales? & cujus generis sit decisio absolutoria? when I had brought that so far into question. But I conceive there is more in the Sentence of the Judg, than Manifestation. Sententia Judicis est pars decisionis litis, quae est causae controversae per judicem determinatio: Without it there is ordinarily no full jus in re & possessio of the Priviledge or Reward in question: It is more fully ours after the Judgment than before. Nor is there a perfect Liberation from the Crime and Penalty which we are charged to be guilty of: Haec enim pertinent ad sententiae executionem, quae sententiam ipsam praesupponit. Decretum est pars secunda judicii. Decernere est post causae cognitionem statuere. Statuere est quid majus quam manifestare. Manifestant testes, evidentiae, ipse reus, &c. Sed non statuunt, decernunt, nec per sententiam absolvunt. That Adjudication of everlasting Reward or Punishment at the Judgment-day, will be more than mere Manifestation: It will be the most full, proper, perfect Justification which then we shall receive; which I think Scripture more respecteth in this point, than some observe; and I think it is in order to that great Justification that our present Justification obtains the name.
Again, I would argue thus: If Justification be opposed to Condemnation, and the Condemnation by publick Sentence be quite different in kind from Condemnation now in Law (or any sentential Condemnation that I know of) then Justification by publick Sentence, is as different from Justification in Law: But the former is true; therefore so is the latter. I say therefore as Camero, Praelect. de Verbo Dei, pag. 462. (operum fol.) [Authoritas judicis propria jus facit; Ita{que} judicis sententia effectiva p… tius est quam declarativa.]
But suppose the Sentence did only declare: It may yet be as true and proper a kind of Justification as constitutive; if we consider, that it is not the Declaration of a private person, but of the Supreme Judg: And a Declaration in opposition to Accusation (ne succedat) and Condemnation (ne sit;) and which must determine the case finally, Whether we shall be in Heaven or Hell.
But you say, [You see not how I can deny our Justification to be perfect, when I say our Righteousness is perfect.]
I answer you by two necessary distinctions:
1. I deny not but our constitutive Justification is perfect; and that's all that can be gathered from the perfection of our Righteousness. But I deny that our constitutive Justification is the most perfecting, compleat sort of Justification; or yet that our sentential Justification is now perfect.
2. You must distinguish of Perfection, as it respecteth the present subject, and as the same thing materially is compared to another subject, or to the future state of that subject: And so I say, that we are perfectly justified constitutivè the first day we believe, considering it as the present Righteousness of us in that present state: And yet that is not materially so perfect a Justification, as that which we have of the same kind at our death: For we are then justified from millions of sins more than before, and all the Conditions are performed. If therefore we had but the same Justification materially at death, which we had at our first believing, that is, were justified from no more sins, it would be no perfect Justification to us, but a partial and particular one. A Childs shooe is meet for his foot, and a mans is no more: But the same shooe which was meet for him when he was a Child, will not be meet when he is a man: Yea, if it be the skin on his foot, it must grow as he grows, or it will not be meet; and yet Meetness formally is one and the same thing. This is it that I told you before, that the matter of our Righteousness; viz. Our gracious inclinations and actions (commonly called Holiness) hath degrees, though Righteousness as such, hath none.
IF we are not one real person with Christ, Page 211.then one what?
Animadvers.
The Apostle saith, He that is jo…ned to the Lord, is one spirit▪ 1 Cor. 6. 17. i. e. he is spiritually one with Christ, as being partaker of Christ's Spirit, and thereby united to him, a…d made one with him. And this I think you mean, when you say, that we are his Body Mystical, but not Natural.
Reply.
This is mere Ambiguity, Ʋnio …aec est spiritualis illa Relatio hominum ad Christum qua jus a…q…r…nt ad omnes ill… benedictiones quae in ipso praeparantur. Jo. 5. 12. & 3. 24 Ames. M…ul. l. 1. c. 26. §. 2.and no resolution of the Question. The Question is, Whether he that is spiritually one with him, or one Spirit with him, be one Spirit essentially, or one personally, in sensu physico; or only one person in sensu morali vel politica, as a Corporation and their Bailiff, a City and their Mayor, a Republick and their Sovereign, are one Body? or, Whether Union be largely taken for Conjunction? But I am willing to let this Mystery pass with a reverend admiration and acknowledgment of my ignorance, rather than rashly to determine in the dark: Only I resolve to keep off from their errour, that tell us we are deified, or made one essence or person with Christ properly. I am afraid of soaring too high in proud aspiring strains, in my thoughts of our Union with Christ, and our participation of the Divine Nature; and lest while I seck to be more than man, I become less; knowing that aspiring to be as God, is the way to be a Devil. Camero in Praelect. hath said more of this point of Union, than any I know; but he extendeth the sense of [Ʋnion] somewhat far.
Aphorism.
BƲt though Faith be not the Instrument Page 221.of Justification, may it not be called, the Instrument of receiving Christ?
Animadvers.
I think they mean so, and no more, who call Faith the Instrument of our Justification, because by Faith we receive Christ, by whom we are justified.
Reply.
I commend your charitable Interpretation: But the vehement asserting and arguing for Faiths proper, direct Instrumentality in justifying, which from multitudes I have heard, and which in multitudes I have read, forbiddeth me so to judg. And if it were so, their speech is improper.