Confession of His Faith, Chapter 8 – Chapter 9

Confession of His Faith · Chapter 8 – Chapter 9

p. 189CHAP. VIII.

My Reasons why I take, The Iustification by Faith, treated of in Scripture, not to be the justification of conscience, or in it: but somewhat antecedent.

SECT. I.

§. 1.BEcause the great offence that is taken against me, and that hath so exasperated the minds of this sort of men, is my contradicting their Doctrine of Justification; which Doctrine consisteth mainly in these two branches; 1. That the Elect are all Justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ, before they believe: 2. That Justification by Faith, is but in foro conscientiae, or in our own feeling, and terminated in conscience, and not in foro Dei, (further then conscience may be so called.) I shall therefore▪ here give my Reasons to the Church of God, of my contradicting both these: and I will begin with the latter.

The thing that I shall prove is this.

Prop. The Justification by Faith, so called in Scriptures, is not the knowledge or feeling▪ of Justification before given, or a Justification in and by our own consciences, or terminated in conscience, but is somewhat that goes before all such Justification as this is; and is indeed a Justification before God.

You may perceive that all this Proposition cannot in terms be concluded in each Argument which I use: But I will suppose my self to deal with the ingenious, that love truth, more then formalities, and come not to pick quarrels, but to understand my meaning: and therefore it shall suffice me, to conclude that p. 190which is equipollent, or which is in sense, the thing in Controversie.

Before I come to Arguments, I must tell you, that the contrary minded are much at a loss among themselves, how to describe their Justification in foro conscienti…, and what to make it, and what name to give it; so that some of them seem to be ashamed of the plain terms and dealing of the most, and though they hold the same thing in substance, yet they endeavour to finde new notions for it, and to put a better gloss upon it, then the rude Antinomians were wont to do.

Their common description of Justification by Faith, is, that it is the feeling, assurance, or perswasion of Gods love, or of our pardon and former Justification: or actually considered▪ that it is Gods Declaration to our consciences, that we are justified; or consciences justifying of us. And therefore they make Faith, which they call the Instrument of it, to be the belief that we are justified, or, as Saltmarsh saith, A perswasion more or less of the Love of God. Mr. Pemble saith, In foro Divino, in Gods sight, &c. even while the Elect are unconverted they are then actually justified and freed from all sin by the death of Christ, &c. 2. In foro conscientiae, in our own sense: which is but the Revelation and certain Declaration of Gods former secret act of accepting Christs righteousness to our Justification. Vindic. Grat. p. 21. Dr. Twiss saith Quare si quid morte sua nobis impetrat Christus, quod ad peccatorum nostrorum remissionem attineat sensum istum amoris Divini peccata nostra remittentis nobis impetret necesse est, Vindic. Grat. li. 1. part. 2. §. 25. p. 272, 273. And if it were but the feeling of pardon that Christ himself purchased, it may well be said that it is no higher matter that Faith receiveth. So pag. 279. c. 1. Sed adveniente fide, &c. tum demum agnoscitur & percipitur hic amor Dei erga nos in Christo Jesu. Ʋnde dicitur Justitia Christi imputari nobis per fidem, quia non nisi per fidem dignoscitur à Deo nobis imputari: Et tum demum justificari dicimur ejus generis justificatione quae pacem ingenerat Conscientiis nostris. Ita pag. 18. b. Nobis vero non nisi per fidem Innotescit. Et li. 2. part. 2. p. 434. Applicantur autem ista per praedicationem Evangelii, non ut de novo fiant, sed ut nobis innotescant. Et cum docet Apostolus nos fide Iustificari, nihil aliud ex instituto docet, quam nos Iustificari per sanguinem Christi, sive propter Christum crucifixum. So also Ludiomaeus Colvinus.

**Mr. Owen.One learned man saith, that, Absolution in heaven, and p. 191Justification differ as part and whole; and that Justification is terminated in conscience; and so makes a longer work of Justification, then they that say it is simul & semel; or, then I whom Mr. …r. blames for it: and so that whole begun in eternal Absolution (or from Christs death) and ended in conscience, should contain …mmanent and Transient acts together; and no small number of our own withal, as there described. Some most learned judicious men affirm, that God setteth up a Tribunal in the soul, and there first arraigneth and condemneth the sinner, and after justifieth him by his own sentence: and this they will not have to be Justification in foro conscientiae, nor done by conscience; but by God, at a certain bar, in the soul, and that is not forum privatum neither, but publicum. To this I argue, that it can be no other then a fiction: for mans soul is capable of no such thing as they describe▪ except by Enthusiasm, or extraordinary Revelation. Whatsoever sentence is revealed to mans soul, the Intellect must be both Passive and Active in it. Yea if it be an Axiom, Thou A. B. art Iustified, the Intellect is the Agent to gather this from some premises (from Scripture and consciences evidences); or else it is revealed immediately from heaven, into the soul, as Prophesies were to the Prophets: And of how dangerous consequence it would be, to the comfort of most Christians on earth, to assure them that they are all unjustified, till they are Justified by such a Revelation, is not hard to judge. To this it is replyed to me, that Gods workings on the soul are secret, and it may be, though we cannot tell how it may be. To which I say▪ No man more willing to accept of such a Reply then I, if the thing were first proved out of Scripture to be so: But to take it for granted, without proof, that Justification by Faith, is such a Sentence in the soul or conscience, whereof the soul or conscience is not the Author or Actor; and then to say, It may be so, though we know not how, is to me unsatisfactory. Reason must vail to Gods Revelation, but not to mans unproved suppositions: especially when we have so much to say for the contrary. It is past doubt to me, on consideration of so much as is commonly acknowledged concerning the nature of the souls actions, that there can be no such sentence pronounced in man, but man himself must be the pronouncer (excited by God); or else it must be an Enthusiasm, or immediate Inspiration or Revelation, such as the Prophets p. 192had, and man be but the Receiver of it. So that however some by plausible words would put a better face on it, the sense of all seems to be the same, that Justification by Faith is the Revelation of God in and by the conscience, that we are formerly Justified: And so their Justification by Faith, is the same thing that we commonly call the Assurance, or knowledge of our Justification, in some degree at least. I prove the contrary.

SECT. II.

ARgument 1. From Rom. 2. 13. and 3. 20. 28. &c. Therefore by the deeds of the Law, shall no flesh be Justified in his sight; Therefore we conclude that a man is Iustified by Faith without the deeds of the Law: For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be Iustified. Whence I thus argue, Such Iustification a… is in Scripture denyed to be attainable by the works of the Law, such is that which is affirmed to be by Faith. But it is another Iustification, distinct from that in conscience, viz. Iustification in the sight of God, which is denyed to be attainable by works of the Law. Therefore it is another Iustification; viz. in the sight of God, which is affirmed to be by Faith. The major is unquestionable. The minor is plain in the texts cited also. If any say, Justification in conscience, is Justification in the sight of God; I answer, Its true that God seeth when we are Justified in conscience: but In the sight of God, signifieth, In the Estimation or Iudgement of God: And if Coram Deo, and Coram Conscientia, may be distinguished, as by them they are, then we may distinguish them also. All Justification in the sight of God, is not Justification in conscience, or in a mans own sight: And where they concurr, yet are they formally distinct things, Many are Iust before God, that are not yet just in their own sight, or in the knowledge of it.

Argument 2. From Rom. 19. 20. That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God: therefore by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight. If it p. 193be guiltiness before God, from which we are Justified by Faith, then it is Justification before God, which is the Justification by Faith. But the Antecedent is plain in the Text, therefore.

Though conscience also shall one day be convinced and witness against them, and therefore the Text saith, that every mouth shall be stopped, yet it is of Guilt before God, that it is convinced; and this being the Terminus à quo of Justification, it must needs follow, that Justification is directly before God, as being the freeing us from guilt before God: Yea in time they are frequently separated: For many a man is guilty before God, long before he stands guilty in the conviction of his own conscience: and so is many a thousand Justified before God, long before they are Justified in their own consciences.

Argument 3. Rom. 3. 22, 24. Even the Righteousness of God, which is by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. To be Justified by Faith, is to have the Righteousness of God to be unto and upon the Believer: But the righteousness of God is unto and upon Believers usually (if not ever) before they are Justified in their own consciences, therefore. This seems all clearer then to need any further confirmation.

Argument 4. Rom. 3. 23, 24. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being Iustified freely by his Grace, &c. that is, All them that believe, as the foregoing words express. The Justification which is by Faith, is opposed to coming short of the glory of God: The Justification in sense, is opposed to the sense of our coming short of the glory of God: therefore the Justification by Faith is not the same with the Justification in sense (or conscience.) This needs no further confirmation.

Argument 5. Rom. 3. 25, 26. and 4. 7, 8. Iustification by Faith, is the same thing (or at least, of the same nature of action) with forgiveness of sin, covering sin, and not imputing sin by the Lord: But these are distinct things, and separable from Iustification in sense or conscience, therefore. Many a mans iniquities are forgiven that knows it not; and are covered as to God, that are bare as to themselves. God imputeth not every mans sin to him, that is unacquainted with Gods non-imputation. Those whom I dispute against, do commonly grant that this non-imputation of sin is not the same thing with Justification in conscience: But it is the same thing with Justification by Faith, as is put past all doubt in the p. 194Text; therefore Justification by Faith, and in sense or conscience are not all one.

Argument 6. From Rom. 4. 3. 5. 6. 9. 11. 22, 23, 24. Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for Righteousness: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without Works. For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for Righteousness. And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the Father of all them that believe, that righteousness might be imputed to them also. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness: Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him: But for us also to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead. So Gal. 3. 6. and Iam. 2. 23.

From all these I thus argue: Justification by Faith is the same thing with Gods Imputing righteousness to us, or imputing Faith for righteousness: Justification in sense or conscience, is not the same thing with Gods imputing righteousness, or Faith for righteousness: therefore Iustification by Faith is not the same thing with Iustification in sense or conscience.

The Major is as true as Gods Word. The Minor is yielded by those that I dispute against, commonly. They suppose that Gods Imputing righteousness to us, is at Christs death, or before we believe: though the Scripture expresly contradict them. Nay hence I may further argue thus.

Argument 7. From the forecited Texts. If Iustifying Faith be not the Believing that we are already Justified or the knowledge or feeling of our Justification or pardon, then Justification by that Faith is not Justification in sense or conscience: But the former is true: therefore so is the latter.

I prove the Antecedent thus; Believing, or knowing, or feeling that we are Justified or pardoned, doth follow Justification or pardon: Justifying Faith doth not follow, but go before Justification and pardon; therefore believing that we are justified, is not Justifying Faith.

If they say, It goeth before Justification by Faith, but followeth Justification from eternity, or at Christs death; I answer, p. 195Scripture mentioneth no such thing as the latter, which they say, it followeth: However it must be confessed that it is not this Justification which the Apostle speaks of in all this discourse; Rom. 3. and 4. which goeth before Faith. For 1. Else it could not be a Justification by Faith; 2. Faith it self is imputed for righteousness in that Iustification which is by Faith: But Faith must exist before it can be imputed for righteousness. And further consider, the Faith which they describe doth not exist, before Faith is imputed to us for righteousness: Faith is imputed for righteousness before a man doth believe that he is already Iustified: therefore Iustification by Faith goeth before their Iustification in conscience.

If any say, that it is not Faith it self, but Christ that is imputed for righteousness: I answer, 1. In some sense Faith it self is imputed, else the Apostle would never say it, and say it so oft as he doth: and we are not now on a discussion of the sense▪ but in what sense soever it be, Faith must exist before it be imputed as the Apostle saith it is. 2. Mr. Gataker against Sal…marsh hath shewed, that they that say, Faith is imputed, and they that say Christs righteousness is imputed, and not properly Faith, do not differ in sense, but in the fitness of a phrase: and he shews it is fit to say either; see the words in him. 3. It is as plain in the Apostles words, as the tongue of man can speak it, that it is Faith that is imputed for righteousness, and not only Christ believed in. Which I undertake to make clear on any fit occasion, to any man that is truly willing to know the Truth, and of competent capacity in such matters. In the mean time, see but what Mr. Wotton de Reconcil. hath said, and John Goodwin of Justification, and see how Mr. Wotton on John, pag. 453. clears it from Rom. 2. 26. and 9. 8. Where the word imputing is also used, and where you may clearly see how it is used by the Holy-Ghost.

Argument 8. From Rom. 4. 4, 5. Justification by Faith is a Reckoning the Reward to a man of Grace: Justification in conscience is not a reckoni…g of the reward to him; therefore Justification by Faith is not the same as Justification in conscience. To reckon the Reward to him, is to adjudge it to him, or to judge him to have a Right in it, or to give him that Right in it, of meer Grace, and not to give him the knowledge or sense of his former Right.

p. 196Argument 9. From. Rom. 4. 13, 14. Justification by Faith, is the same thing as making us heirs by Promise, through the righteousness of Faith. But to be made an heir by Promise, through the righteousness of Faith, is not the same thing as to know, feel, or believe that we are justified, or to be justified in conscience: therefore.

Many a man is made an heir, that is not certain of it, nor believeth it: and if he did believe it, yet to be made an heir is one thing, and to feel or believe it is another. The Promise also doth first convey Right to us, and that it may do long before we apprehend that we are the persons that have that Right.

Argument 10. From Rom. 5. 1, 2. Justification by Faith goeth before our having Peace with God, and our having access into the Grace wherein we stand; Justification in conscience doth not go before our having Peace with God, and access to that Grace wherein we stand: therefore Justification by Faith is not the same as Iustification in conscience.

Argument 11. Rom. 5. 16. The free gift is of many offences unto Iustification; The Justification that Paul treats of, is the free gift of Remission of many offences: but this goeth before Justification in conscience: therefore the Iustification that Paul treats of, goeth before Iustification in conscience: Gods gift of Remission must go before the knowledge or belief of it.

Argument 12. Rom. 5. 17. Much more they which receive abundance of Grace, and of the gift of Righteousness, shall reign, &c. The Iustification by Faith, and which Paul treats of, is the gift of Righteousness: Iustification in conscience is not the gift of righteousness, but the knowledge or sense that righteousness is given us: therefore.

Here you have the true nature of Iustification by Faith. It is Gods giving us righteousness (Remission of sin through Christs blood), on our believing. To give righteousness goes before giving knowledge of it, or comfort in it.

Argument 13. From Rom. 5. 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, Iudgement came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the Righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to Iustification of life. The Iustification which Paul means, and is by Faith, is the Iustification of life, and opposed to condemnation by Gods p. 997Iudgement. Iustification in sense or conscience is not so, but follows it: therefore they are not the same.

By Iustification of life, is meant the giving or adjudging of life to us: But assurance or knowledge that it is given us, follows the gift, and is not properly the Iustification of life, but the Iustification of comfort.

Argument 14. From Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous: Hence I thus argue.

Iustification in Pauls sense, and which is by Faith, is a making men righteous: Iustification in feeling or conscience, is not a making men righteous, but followeth it; therefore. Iustification in Pauls sense, and which is by Faith, is not the same with Justification in feeling or conscience.

The Major is in the text, and context: The Minor is acknowledged by them that I dispute against. To declare to a man that he is righteous, is not to make him righteous, but followeth it; If it be a true Declaration, the thing must be true in order before it be Declared true. By making righteous, I do not mean (nor doth the text) as the Papists do, a making us conformable to the Moral Law of God, by sanctification; nor yet the giving us the vertue of particular Iustice, whereby we give every man his own; but the Text by making us righteous, means, making us not guilty of death, which is done by remitting our guilt, the Condition of Remission (Faith) being first given us.

From this text and some of the rest before cited, I commend to the Readers consideration, whether it be not evident that constitutive☜ Iustification, or making us righteous, be not that first Iustification by Faith, which Scripture mentioneth? And hereby, 1. I would convince those of a mistake, that so precisely tye the word Iustification to signifie a sentence of Iudgement, that they affirm that this is the Iustification, yea the only Iustification by Faith, that the Scripture mentioneth? Whereas it is a making us righteous that Paul means, which is done by the Promise, or Legal Donation or Condonation, and goes before the Sentence; and may it self be well called Sententia Legis, and that far better then we may so speak of the Laws of men (as I could shew by clear reason;) and it is Virtually the Sentence of God as Iudge (at least.) I confess that Iustification most strictly signifieth the Iudicial p. 198Sentence: But it is plain that in Pauls Epistles it signifieth more frequently the Sentence of the New Law.

2. Let the Reader here judge, whether Mr. Crandons reviling me as a deluding Papist, for distinguishing between Constitutive and Sentential Justification, as having no ground in Scripture▪ did more credit the Papists, or himself, and were any wiser and honester then the rest of his book? 1 I might have disti…guished between things of so known, palpable difference as Just…ficat…o Ju…, and just…ficatio Judicis, though the Scripture had said nothing of it▪ because it supposeth the matters of common Reason and natural verity. 2. But yet he may easily see both branches of the Distinction in many texts of Scripture, and particularly Constitutive Justification is in this, if making or Constituting righteous be Justifying, as the terms, and the foregoing 18. verse do shew that it is. Here is foreign opposed to foreign. And he that hateth and curseth every man that saith to the wicked Thou art righteous, and that Justifieth the wicked; will undoubtedly make a man righteous before he sentence or declare him righteous.

And for the other branch of the distinction, if I must prove that there is such a thing as Justification by sentence in judgement (that is, that there is a Judgement and a Sentence,) and it be not enough to prove that we shall be judged by Christ, who shall come to Iudge the quick and the dead; to omit many more, I only now refer such a man to Math. 12. 36, 37. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of Iudgement. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned; viz. in that day of Iudgement.

Argument 15. From Rom. 8. 1, 2. The Iustification which Paul treats of, freeth us from the Law of sin and death, Justification in feeling or conscience, freeth us but from the Accusation of conscience, and inward disquiet of minde; therefore.

It will prove a dangerous Doctrine, to teach that God doth make internal Declarations the Instrument of conveying right to his favours, or the foundation of our Right, and so lead men p. 199from that sure Word which is the Instrument and foundation. The obligation of the Law which is dissolved by Justification, is an Act of Law, whether we feel it or not; and not an act of conscience, nor alwayes there felt: therefore it must be an act of Law, that must dissolve that obligation (to punishment) and not an act of conscience, nor an act upon conscience, as such. But of this more anon.

Argument 16. From Rom. 8. 30. Whom he called, them he also Justified, and whom he Justified, them he also Glorified. The Justification that Paul speaks of, and is by Faith, belongeth to all the called: The Justification in feeling or in conscience, belongs not to all the called: therefore they are not one kinde of Justification. I shall say more to this also anon.

Argument 17. From Rom. 8. 33, 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? it is God that Iustifieth; Who is he that condemneth? The Iustification that Paul speaks of, is opposed to mans Accusation, as that which it freeth us from, as to the effect of it: But so is not the Iustification in feeling or conscience; therefore they are not all one.

It is not in our Consciences that men Accuse us: they have no Access thereto: they lay no charge there against us.

Argument 18. From the same place. The Iustification that Paul treats of, is opposed to condemnation by any man whomsoever: But so is not Iustification in conscience; therefore they are not the same.

Argument 19. From Rom. 11. 30. The Gentiles which followed not after Righteousness, have attained to Righteousness, even the Righteousness which is of Faith. The Iustification which Paul treats of, is attaining to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Iustification in foro Conscientiae is not an attaining to Righteousness, but to the knowledge or apprehension that we are righteous: therefore they are not the same Iustification.

Argument 20. From Rom. 10. 4, 10. For Christ is the end of the Law, for righteousness, to every one that Believeth. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. The Iustification that Paul speaks of, is a becoming righteous upon our believing, Christ being then p. 200our Righteousness: Iustification in conscience is not so, but a knowledge or sense of it: therefore they are not the same.

Argument 21. From Gal. 2. 16. and 21. compared. The Iustification which Paul treats of, and is by Faith, … coming of righteousness by Christ; as opposite to the coming of righteousness by the Law, (to the person so justified): But so is not Iustification in conscience: therefore, &c.

Argument 22. From Gal. 3. 8, 9. All that have the blessing Promised to Abraham, and the faithful with him, are justified in Pauls sense, and by Faith. All that have that blessing are not Iustified in foro Conscientiae: therefore they are separable, and oft separated, and not the same. If all that are not …ustified in conscience or feeling, are not blessed with Abraham, (that is, are not heirs of the promised Kingdom,) and his seed, then woe to thousands of poor distressed Christians, whom by their lives, we have taken hitherto for sincere.

Argument 23. From Gal. 3. 11. But that no man is Iustified by the Law in the sight of God, it is evident; for the just shall live by Faith. Iustification by Faith, and in Pauls sense, is the life of the just, and is in the sight of God: Iustification in foro Conscientiae, is not such, but followeth it; therefore they are not the same.

Argument 24. From Gal. 3. 21, 22. Is the Law then against the Promises of God? God forbid? For if there had been a Law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the Promise by Faith of Iesus Christ might be given to them that believe. From these words I may raise divers Arguments, One is from the Instrument, and foundation of the Relation, the Law; the Promise. Iustification in Pauls sense, and by Faith, is such as the Promise doth give, and the Law would have given, if it could have given Life. Iustification in foro Conscientiae is not this, but a consequent of it: therefore.

For the Major, that the Text speaks of Justification, is evident in those words, R…ghteousness should have been by the Law. For the Minor, it is confessed by the most learned of mine Antagonists, whose main plea is, th…t justification is only the Sentence of the Judge, and not of the Law or Promise. And in the thing it self p. 201it is evident, in that to assure the conscience, is a separable effect▪ that alway follows not the Law or Promise: but to convey Legal right to the benefit conferred, is an inseparable effect, as soon as the Promise acteth and is effectual. This shews also that Justific…tio Juris, is true Justification.

Argument 25. From the same words I argue thus. Justification in Pauls sense, and by Faith, is either the giving of life, or an act of the same nature: Justification in conscience is not so, but is the giving of Assurance, knowledge or sense that life is before given us: therefore they be not all one.

Argument 26. From the same words I argue thus. Justification in Pauls sense, and by Faith, is opposite to the concluding men under sin: Iustification in conscience is not so, but is opposite to the knowledge or sense of our being concluded under sin, or to the concluding our selves under sin; and not to Gods concluding them under it by Law: therefore they are not all one.

Argument 27. From Gal. 3. 24, 26. To bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by Faith: For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus: Justification by faith, and in Pauls sense is the same, or of the same sort as to the act▪ as is the mak…ng us the children of God. But so is not Justification in conscience, but is as the sense or assurance that we are already the children of God: therefore, &c.

Argument 28. Titus 3. 7. Gal. 3. 24. and 4. 5, 7. Iustification in P…uls sense is of the same kind of action, as the making us heirs according to promise, or goes before it. Justification in conscience, is not so, but follows it, being the Declaring to our selves that we are already heirs according to Promise: therefore they are not the same.

Argument 29. From Gal. 4. 6. and Rom 8. 16. Because ye are Sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father. The Spirit it self beareth witness with our Spirits, that we are the children of God; Gods witness in our hearts that we are justified and are his children, (which is the thing which they call …ustifying us in foro Conscientiae) is given to us, because we are first his children; and therefore after we are his children, and therefore after we are Iustified; and therefore is not the same with Iustification, in Pauls sense, and by faith, p. 202(for it is by faith that we are made the children of God; Gal. 3. 26.)

Argument 30. Gal. 5. 4. Christ is of no effect to you; whoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. The continuance in Iustification in Pauls sense, and by faith, is opposite to Christ being of none effect to us; and falling from Grace; that is, Gods favour: The continuance in Iustification in foro Conscientiae is not so, but is opposite to Christ not affording us the knowledge of his efficacy to us; and to falling from the sense or knowledge of Grace: therefore they are divers.

Argument 31. From Ephes. 1. 6, 7. To the praise of the glory of his Grace, wherein he hath accepted us, in the beloved, in whom we have Redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, &c. Justification in Pauls sense, is the same with Acceptance in the beloved, and Remission of sins. Justification in conscience, is not so, but is the Declaration of that Acceptance and Remission; therefore they are divers.

Argument 32. From Phil. 3. 9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ; the righteousness which is of God by Faith. Doubtless this is a description of a state of Justification. The Iustification that Paul treats of, and is by Faith, is that which followeth, being found in Christ, and consisteth in not having a righteousness of the Law of our own, but having the righteousness, which is of Christ by Faith. The Iustification in conscience is not such; but is our knowledge that we are in Christ, and have his righteousness, which is by Faith: therefore.

Argument 33. From Iam. 2. Iustification in Iames his sense, was such as salvation depended on, vers. 14. and as consisted in Gods Imputation, vers. 23. Iustification in conscience, is not so, but is only the Declaration of this to our selves; therefore they are not the same.

Argument 34. From Iohn 1. 11, 12. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of God, even to them that believe in his name. Adoption, which is an act of the same nature with Iustification, and concomitant, if not part of it, doth not consist in a Declaration to our consciences that we are sons; but in giving power, or Authority to become sons: (which is by the Promise or Law of Grace, and not by sentence internal or eternal:) p. 203therefore Justification in Christs sense here, and which is by Faith, consisteth not in a Declaration to our consciences, that we are righteous, but in giving us power, Priviledge, or Authority to become righteous. The Reason is the same.

Argument 35. From Ioh. 3. 18. The Iustification by Faith isI had written hither, before I heard of Mr. Crandons death. described as consisting in Not being condemned, opposite to being condemned already, because he believeth not, &c. which must needs be a condemnation in Law, and not in conscience, for every such a one is not then so condemned already, nor is every Believer not-Condemned by his own Conscience.

Argument 36. A most effectual Argument may be drawn from 1 Cor. 4. 3, 4, 5. Where Paul saith, he is not Iustified, because he is conscious of nothing to himself, and slighteth mans Iudgement, and opposeth both to Gods, which will not be perfected till the time of his Iudgement Come. I had rather desire the Reader to study the Text well, then say any more from it.

A multitude more of Scripture Arguments might be produced, but I have been numerous enough already. I shall add some from the nature of the thing, and the Analogie of Faith.

SECT. III.

ARgument 1. If there be a Iustification by Faith in point of Law or Right, that ever goes before Iustification in foro §. 3.Conscientiae, then it is not …ustification in foro Conscientiae that is the Iustification by Faith which the Scripture treats of. But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the Consequent.

The Consequence of the Major is proved thus: The Iustification by Faith, which Scripture treats of, (at least commonly, if not ever, as I suppose, when it excludeth all works) is the first Iustification by Faith, or of the same sort, and not any following sort, overpassing the first: therefore the Consequence is good. I know but one man, if any, that denyeth this; or that affirmeth it is only a second Iustification of a different sort from the first, p. 204that Scripture meaneth by Iustification by Faith: nor is there any probability that our first Iustification by Faith should be silenced and passed over, and a second (of a far lower nature) only, or usually mentioned, without it! When I know any to dispute against, I shall easily prove what in this I assert.

And for the Antecedent (that there is a Iustification by Faith in point of Law or Right, before that of conscience) I prove it thus: No man is by God, or a well informed conscience, declared to be pe…sonally, actually just, before he be personally actually just indeed: But no man is personally actually just indeed but by Faith: therefore.

The Major is plain, in that God and a well informed conscience declare nothing but the truth: But if they should declare him to be personally actually just, that is not so, they should declare an untruth: therefore.

I say personally and actually just; because it is not righteousness as it is in Christ only▪ not made ours, nor our persons thereby yet righteous, that can justifie us, that have it not in Right: 2. Because it is not a righteousness meerly potential, or in Causa, that …an justifie us actually.

And for the Minor, that none is so just but by Faith, almost all the Scriptures forecited prove, with many more: Without Faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 11. 6. The just shall live by Faith. It is the righteousness which is by faith; and faith that is imputed for righteousness, &c. Here the common subterfuge, is by bringing in the case of Infants, which have not Faith. To which I still say, 1. That our discourse is supposed, and to be of the aged, and the case of infants obscure: and so is the Scripture it self to be understood, unless you will say, all dying in Infancy are damned. 2. Infants are righteous by Christ upon their Parents Believing.

The ordinary opposers have nothing that I know of against all this that I have said; but two learned men that have more wit then the rest, have each of them an objection. The first saith, that the first Iustification by Faith is indeed by the moral Act of the Law of Grace or Promise, but it is nevertheless terminated in conscience; for it is conscience which the Promise p. 205speaks to and assures. To which I say, as I did before: The act of the Promise, Law or Grant, constituting Right, Giving Title, Remitting the Obligation to Punishment, in it self is totally distinct from the act of declaring this to our selves which is said to be terminated in conscience, and is before it, and may be without it. A man may by the Princes Grant, be made free, or noble, before he know it; and so may a Traytor be actually pardoned before he know it, seeing the Princes pardon doth remit the Guilt, and Constitute a Right to Impunity, before it notifie this to the offendor, at least in order of nature, if not of time.

The other objecteth, that its undenyable that men are Constituted Iust, or pardoned by the Covenant or Promise, before they are Iustified in conscience: but it is not the former, but the latter▪ that is called in Scripture, Iustification, seeing Justification is ever sententia Iudicis, and not Legis. To which I Reply.

1. I have fully proved the contrary before.

2. Gods Laws are such, that in some of them may be said Iudicis partes agere in some measure, as well as Leg…slatoris: much execution being done without any other intervening sentence then that in the Law; and God having so exactly fitted his Law to mens cases, and described the case in the Law, that Judgement is less necessary in those cases, especially where himself is the unerring Executioner, he may slay them if he take them in the fact.

3. Sententia Legis, is a common phrase, and though not so proper as Sententia Iudicis, yet here it is not unfit.

4. What means the Scripture to talk so much of Iustification by the Law, and to yield that the Law would Justifie us, could it have given life, or were it not weak through the Flesh? And Iustification by Christ and the Promise, is opposed to Iustification by the Law: It is plain therefore, that its primarily of …ustification in Law sense or Right that Paul treateth, and secondarily or consequentially of Iustification, by sentence at Iudgement, (which is also oft mentioned directly;) but never that I can find doth he once call that Iustification, which is but the Declaration of our righteousness, to or by our consciences.

p. 2065. At the utmost, all is granted us by this objection, save the name. For it is confessed that we are by Faith made righteous, (by Christs satisfaction, and Merit, as the deserving Cause, and by Remission of sin as the thing) before we are justified in conscience: And to say we are made righteous, but not justified, is to be more or less accurate then Scripture, or then Grammarians are: Though we confess that there is a sentential Justification, after making righteous. I would not therefore make any more debate about the name Justification, when the thing is granted, were it not that by this advantage, the Erroneous will interpret all the texts that use the word Iustification, of Iustification in conscience only, to the no small wrong of the Scripture, themselves and others. I must be shorter in the next.

Argument 2. In the Iustification in conscience, man justifieth himself, or is the true efficient cause of that his Iustification. In the Iustification by Faith, which Paul treats of, man doth not justifie himself, nor is any true efficient cause of it: therefore they are not the same kind of Iustification.

The Major is undenyable, at least, if it be not an Enthusiasm, which they speak of, such as the Prophets Revelations were: such an act as knowledge is, such is conscience. Omne Conscire, est scire. If it were proved that Intelligere est tantum pati & non agere, and so that the Intellect were a meer patient in receiving its part, yet Intellection is but an Introductive act or passion: that is more fully said to be done to or on the man, which reacheth the heart: and in that the Intellect must be Active, or else the order of the natural operation of mans soul must be subverted▪ If the Will or Affections be moved by supernatural Truths or Matters, and not by the action and meditation of the intellect, it will not be actus bumanus, not a rational act. But Iustification by Faith is not such, I think.

Argument 3. Iustification in conscience, or in any Declaration to the soul, is of divers Degrees, at first: (for ought I know as different as there be persons;) one justified more, and another less: Iustification by Faith in Paul… sense, is in all men at their first believing, in the same measure: therefore they are not the same Iustification.

The Major is undoubted; 1. From Christian experience: 2. From the nature of the thing, and quality of our faculties, p. 207which God makes use of in that sort of Iustification. So that it is as needless to prove it further, as to prove that one man knows more then another, or that one man lives more comfortably then another, or hath more assurance.

The Minor is commonly granted by Protestants. Our justification at our first believing, is in the Remission of sins past: and all mens sins are equally remitted; all men have equal right to impunity, and equal right to glory. The conclusion therefore must needs follow.

Argument 4. Iustification in conscience may rise and fall in degrees every day in the same persons: Justification by faith in Scripture sense, doth not so: therefore they are not the same.

The Major needs no proof, but consulting the common experience of our selves and others. What man hath the same knowledge and feeling of Gods Love, or the pardon of sin, one time as at another: yea or long together? To whose soul doth God declare Remission of sins, every day, and at all times alike?

The Minor is commonly acknowledged by those that I dispute against: Only some may question whether I hold it my self; which I have spoke enough to before. Iustification by Faith in Scripture sense may be said to be increased as to the addition of new sins remitted, which were not remitted before; or as to the degree of Castigatory punishment remitted: but not as to the nature of the act of Remission, nor as to the right to eternal life (though Iustification by sentence be yet of a higher kind:) But Iustification in conscience, is increased in the very nature of the thing: And as it may rise, so may it fall again▪ many times a day. But Iustification by faith, is not changed according to every change in our apprehensions.

Argument 5. A man is not actually justified in conscience, when he is a sleep, or wholly taken up with other thoughts (and then I doubt most of us, live unjustified the far greater part of our lives:) But a man is justified by faith, when he is a sleep, and wholly taken up with other thoughts: therefore these are not one sort of Iustification.

Argument 6▪ Iustification in consc…ence is frequently lost and repaired again: Iustification by saith, in Scripture sense, is not p. 208frequently (nor at all) lost and repaired again: therefore they are not the same sort of Iustification. The Major is proved by the common experience of Christians; who sometime (at least many) do quite lose all Apprehensions of the pardon of their own sin▪ and of Gods special love to them: The Minor is commonly maintained by our Divines against the Arminians, Lutherans and Papists (save only that Davenant, and some others, and it seems the Sinod of Dort, excepted infant Justification from being not-loseable) But we speak of that of actual Believers.

Argument 7. Justification in conscience is not enjoyed by every true Believer. Justification by Faith is enjoyed by every true Believer: Therefore they are not the same. For the Major, I appeal to experience: The Minor is past question.

Only I must answer one great objection against the Major, which may be made. Obj. Whoever believeth, taketh Christ for his Saviour, and Believeth the Promise of Pardon and salvation: and therefore he must needs believe that Christ is his Saviour, and consequently his Justifier: and that there is a Promise of his pardon and salvation. Answ. Whoever believeth to Justification, believeth that Christ is the Saviour, having made himself a sacrifice for sin▪ and received power to pardon: also that God offereth Christ to him as well as others: and also that there is a Promise of salvation made through Christ to all that will believe sincerely, and therefore to him, if he so believe: He also consenteth unfeignedly that Christ should be his Lord and Saviour on the terms that he is offered on. And he that goes thus far, believeth to Justification. But this same man that doth thus believe, may be ignorant that he doth believe sincerel…: Either not knowing the nature of saving Faith, as dist…ct from common Faith but thinking a common Faith may go further then it can: Or else not knowing his own heart, or misjudg…ng of what he doth through fear and temptations: and so he … conclude he is an hypocrite, or unbeliever, as having but a temporary faith, and not a saving faith: and thence he may conclu…e▪ that though Christ be offered, yet he doth not sincerel… accept him, …n… though there be a Promise of pardon and life to …e Believe… it is not effectual to him who is none. I co…lude therefore, that ev…ry true …eliever is not Justified in conscience: Some may be condemned by a misinformed conscience: p. 209What more common then the sad experience of such Cases?

Argument 8. Justification in Conscience, is a thing that a true Believer may not only live without, but die without: Iustification by faith is no such thing: therefore they are not the same: 1. Experience tells us of Godly people that have dyed without the former (immo qui nece violenta s…ipsos perdiderunt): 2. God hath no where promised that a Believer shall not dye till he attain Iustification in Conscience: or if he lose it, that he shall not dye till he have recovered it. At least I may thus argue.

Argument 9. Iustification in conscience doth not evermore immediately and inseparably accompany Iustifying, or true saving faith: Iustification by faith doth evermore immediatly and inseparably accompany such a faith: therefore they are not the same.

Argument 10. No Infants are Iustified in conscience; All the Infants of Believers that are in a state of salvation, have that Iustification which is by faith; therefore they are not the same.

To prove the Major, there needs no more then to prove that they have not the use of reason; for if they do not scire, they do not conscire.

The Minor is proved thus; 1. It is the same Promise that isI would not argue from the case of Infants in any of the obscurer points, no… scarce in this more plain one, but with men that will so do themselves. made to Believers, and to their seed, as the seed of Believers; and the faith of the Parent, is the Condition of that Promise; therefore the Infant is so Iustified by Promise, upon the Parents believing, as well as the Parent himself is. I refer you for this, to what I have said in my Book of Baptism.

2. Infants stand accused and condemned by a Law; therefore they must be discharged and justified by a Law, or Promise as well as others.

3. If Infants have no Promise of pardon, then what differ they from the Infants of Heathens.

4. And if there be no Promise of their pardon, who can tell that any of them ever are pardoned.

5. Or who can Baptize them for Remission of sin. All this I say, as to them that say, infants and all the Elect are justified in Christ when he satisfied; and this may save them that are not p. 210capable of Believing. But to what is said, I further answer.

6. No man hath an actual right in Christ, or actual Remission or Iustification, upon the meer payment and acceptance of the ransom, without a further means of conveyance; No word of God gives any such Right. Let them prove it, that affirm it.

7. Infants have no other kinde of Right to Christ, then the aged have, upon the meer payment of the price, before a further conveyance. But the aged are not in a state of Iustification or salvation by it before further conveyance: therefore Infants are not.

8. Else according to this Doctrine, why may we not say that Heathen Indians are saved by Christ, as well as Christians. Infants? For they are not called to believe in Christ any more then Infants: And either Infants of Believers have some Promise of pardon, more then the Heathens that never heard the Gospel, or they have not: If they have no more Promise, then we must say alike of them, that either both may be Elect, and so Justified in Christ without Faith or Promise; or that neither are Elect, justified or saved. If there be a Promise to our Infants of pardon, more then to those Pagans; then I have what I seek: viz. That Infants have a Justification in Law or by Promise, distinct from that in conscience, and from the benefit which flows from Christs death, meerly as a price paid and accepted, without a further Conveyance of a special Right, which all have not.

Argument 11. Justification in conscience, is but a Declaration or knowledge that we were actually justified (or made righteous) before. Justification by Faith in Scripture-sense is not so, but the making us first actually righteous: therefore they are divers.

Argument 12. Justification in conscience freeth us but from the Accusation, Condemnation, and Consequent terrors of conscience, and not from the effect of Satans, and the Laws Accusations before God, nor from Gods Condemnation. Justification by Faith, in the Scripture sense, freeth us from these latter, and not alwaies from the former: therefore they are not the same. Our salvation depends on our Justification by Faith in Law, or before God (as many Scripture shew): but our salvation doth not depend on the knowledge of this, and of Justification in conscience. p. 211It is only our comfort that dependeth on that Our peace with God is the attendant of one, and our peace of conscience of the other. Justification in conscience (commonly, and more fitly called Assurance, or some degree of the knowledge of pardon) is a great mercy, and highly to be valued. But compared to our Justification by Faith in Right and before God, it is small and inconsiderable: differing from it as much as a mans present comfort differs from his safety and eternal salvation. He that liveth sadly here, may dye well and live happily hereafter.

Or take the Argument thus. Justification in conscience dissolveth not the Laws obligation to punishment: Justification, or pardon of sin in Law-sense by Faith, doth dissolve the Laws obligation to punishment: therefore they are not the same.

Argument 13. Justification by conscience is by a fallible and unauthorised Judge (as to any certain decision): Justification by Faith is, by God the supream, rightful, infallible Judge; therefore they are divers. I know nothing by my self saith Paul, yet am not thereby justified: there is one that Judgeth, even the Lord: Hereby he expresseth that conscience hath not authority of Decision for life and death, but of Discretion for comfort or discomfort.

Argument 14. Men may be justified in conscience by other Graces as well as by Faith, and in the same kind and rank, Coordinate with it, if not without any consideration of it. (for he that can find Love, Hope, true Humility, &c. may receive the knowledge of Gods Love by them by way of evidence, as well as by Faith) But Justification by Faith is in a special and principal manner by Faith; therefore, &c.

If any say, I equal them my self. I Answ. 1. I have shewed before that I do not. 2. If I did, yet the Argument is good ad hominem, in that I plead upon their principles with whom I deal. Obj. But it is not objectively by way of evidence only that Faith justifieth in conscience, but it is effectively ex natura actus, because Justifying Faith is a Believing that I am just in Christ. Answ. Then either you were so before, or not. If not, you believe a falshood. If you were, either by Fa…th, or without. Not without! For without Faith it is impossib…e to please God: and it is by Faith that we are justified: being till then …l concluded under sin: If by Faith, then you were justified by Faith, before that p. 212Justification by Faith which you plead for. Furthermore, your belief that you are justified in Christ, is either such an act as all ought to perform, or not: If it be, then either most must believe an untruth, or else it is only some common Justification that you mean, which all are partakers of: but that is not it in question now. If not, then either you have some ground more then others in Gods Word, for to bottom your Faith of particular Iustification in Christ upon, or not: If you have, either that Scripture nameth you (which it doth not) or it describeth you as a qualified person distinct from others by some qualification by which you may know your self. But this it doth not: and to assert such qualifications before Faith, to which Iustification is annexed, is Pelagianism, or worse. If you have no grounds in Gods Word to bottom your particular belief on, which all have not, then 1. Your particular belief is confessed not to be grounded on the Word, and then I had rather it were yours, then mine: at least, I durst not trust to it. 2. Then it must have the very nature of an Immediate Euthusiasm or Revelation from Heaven: and if you say, you have such, I will not deny it; but if you say; All the justified by Faith have such, I shall not believe you in the least, without better proof.

Argument 15. If Justification by Faith, be Justification in conscience, then Justification is a part of Sanctification (which is the work of the Spirit making a Real change on the soul.) But Justification by Faith is not a part of Sanctification. Therefore it is not Justification in conscience.

The Minor is undenyed. The consequence of the Major is proved from the description of them both: Sanctification is the Real mutation on the Intellect and Will; on the Intellect, it is Illumination, acquainting us with Divine verities; On the Will, it is the entertainment of these as good, &c. Justification in conscience, is Gods illuminating our understandings to see the Truth of our Condition, that we are righteous; and the affecting the heart to Rejoyce herein; both are a real change, and an illumination, whereas Protestants have taken Justification hitherto to be a Relative change, and distinguished it from Sanctification, and that in this respect. (Though executive Remission be a Real change.)

Argument 16. If the Faith whereby we are justified in Scripture p. 213sense, be not the same act of Faith, with that whereby we are supposed to be justified in conscience, then the Justifications are not the same: But the Antecedent is true; therefore so is the Consequent.

The Antecedent (which only requireth proof) is proved by the description of each of them. The Faith whereby they feign that we are Justified in conscience, is, say they, a particular belief that my own sins are pardoned; or that I am justified, or righteous in Christs righteousness, or that I am Elect: Or a perswasion of this; or an Assurance of it. The Faith whereby we are Justified in Scripture-sense, is a believing the Gospel, and that Christ is the Messiah, and an accepting of him as he is offered in the Gospel: It is a receiving of Christ Jesus the Lord: As many as received him, to them he gives this power; Joh. 1. 12. Or it is a believing in or on Christ for Iustification and pardon, and not a believing that we are pardoned already. The conclusion therefore cannot be avoided.

Argument 17. If Iustification by Faith, be that in conscience, and such as the most learned maintainers of it affirm (that is, an immediate supernatural Declaration of God to the soul, that it is absolved, without our own discourse to collcct it by way of Conclusion from other Premises) then the duty of Examination, to try whether we be in the Faith, and whether Christ be in us, seems vain: But the Consequent is unsound: therefore so is the Antecedent. The reason of the Consequence is here, where God immediately by supernatural Revelation declareth to a man that he is justified, there is no use for his own reasonings and collection thereto: No more then of a Candle at noon: for Gods immediate Declaration is the fullest testimony: especially if it be so convincing and deciding as the maintainers do affirm it. But all that are Justified by Faith, according to them, have these Demonstrations, or Declarations from heaven: therefore to all believers do they make examination useless: which yet the Scripture doth command.

Argument 18. If God justifie all Believers by such an immediate Revelation or Declaration to conscience (or any the like) then Iustification may be felt, and discerned in se, as sanctification may, and not only in and by its signs, causes, effects, concomitants▪ But the contrary hath hitherto been the Doctrine of Protestants, p. 214who have taught that election and Iustification cannot be discerned in themselves but only by the signs, as sanctification, &c.

Argument 19. That Doctrine is not true, which contradicteth the experience of the Generality of the Godly, in a case wherein their experience is fit for decision. But this Doctrine (of the most learned of that way) that Justification by Faith, is such an immediate Declaration to the conscience or soul, without the use of mans reasoning to collect it, is contradictory to the experience of the generality▪ (the most) of the Godly, (of my acquaintance, so far as I can learn): therefore, &c. Sure I am, I know not my self of any witness or Declaration of God to my soul▪ which was not in the natural way of discourse, (though supernaturally excited, assisted and succeeded); the Intellect receiving the objective Species, and seeing a Reason for the Conclusion in the Premises: and not that ever I knew any Conclusion, which is revealed neither in nature, Scripture, nor by humane testimonie, without knowing the Premises, and how it riseth from them. Yet I confess I have experience of strange unusual incomes of Light, and very suddenly, when I least expected it: but it is only in a Revelation of Conclusions from Premises, shewing me suddenly the reason of things which I observed not, or sought after before in vain. But never found I an immediate Revelation, Euthusiasm, or Vision.

Argument 20. That Doctrine is not to be embraced which tends directly to the deluding of fanatick, proud and melancholly persons, and to drive all sober Christians, or most, to unavoidable despair; But such is this Do…rine, that all that are Justified, have such immediate supernatural Revelations, that they are justified or pardoned, without the use of discourse to collect it: therefore

1. How directly doth this encourage every one that hath a strong melancholly, opinionated, or diabollically deluded fancy to conclude that they are Justified by Revelation.

2. How necessarily doth it leave the generality of sober Christians to despair, who never felt such Revelations, when it is concluded that all the justified, that is the saved, must feel them.

3. What means is there to discern delusions, from such Revelations.

4. All Christians then must live by feeling, if this hold.

p. 215CHAP. IX.

The reasons why I judge that the Elect are not justified from Eternity, nor at Christs death, nor while they are Infidels or impenitent. And that we did not Merit or satisfie justice in Christ; but he did it in the person of a Mediator.