Confession of His Faith, Chapter 9 · Section 1
SECT. I.
HAving (I think) proved that the Justification by Faith,§. 1. that Scripture speaks of, is not the same thing which they call Justification in foro Conscientiae, or Gods Declaration to the soul, or sentence in the soul that we are just or pardoned, I am next to prove that we are not justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ. The former as distinct from the latter, I will speak of but briefly, and then speak to both conjunctly.
1. The Elect are not justified from Eternity: I prove it thus.
Argument 1. To be justified, is either to be made just; or witnessed to be just, or maintained by Apologie to be just, or esteemed just, or sentenced just. But the Elect are in none of all these senses justified from eternity: therefore not at all.
Yet I deny not but a man may, if he will speak unfitly, put the name of Iustification upon some act that is eternal, and then if he so say, we are justified from eternity, the thing that he meaneth is true; though the words in the proper sense are false? For the Major, if they have any other fit sense of the word Iustification, when we know it, we shall know what to say to it. For Dr. Twisses Non punire, & Nolle punire, I have said enough in another writing to it. To which I will now add but this. Should we grant that Remission of sin may be expressed by those terms; it must be on supposition of the existence of a Capable object: that is, that it be about a guilty person. For as it is Essential to Punishment, that it be propter peccatum, for a fault (real, or mistakingly judged so, at least), and if it be otherwise, it is but Affliction and no Punishment: So is it essential to any. Non punire, or Nolle punire, which may be called Remission, that the party be guilty who is the object. Yea and that it be an act of God as Rector, of mankinde: (or Angels in their case.) Otherwise God might be said to justifie or pardon a stone or a tree from eternity, because he doth Non punire, not punish them, and Nolle punire, resolve not to punish them. Now God was not Rector of the Rational Creature, before the creature did exist; that is past doubt: And as certain is it that man was not guilty from Eternity. If it be said that if sufficeth that his guilt had an esse cognitum in God; I answer, when that is proved, I will believe it.
1. As the guilt hath but an esse cognitum, so the Remission can have no higher a nature, and therefore not have an esse Reale: Nay it implyeth a denyal of Real existence in both: For as the esse cognitum of the guilt, is but Gods foreknowledge that it will be, or his knowledge that it is future, so his Will not to punish, is but a Drcree to Remit that guilt, when it is guilt indeed; and is no Remission of it from eternity.
2. A purpose to punish, is no obligation to punishment, nor makes it due: therefore a purpose not to punish, is no Remission of any such dueness or obligation.
3. Foreknowledge is an immanent act, that puts nothing in the object: therefore it makes it not guilty, nor removeth guilt.
4. It is manifest injustice among men, to suppose a man guilty and capable of pardon or punishment meerly because it is foreknown that he will offend, if any could foreknow it.
5. Foreknowledge makes no man immediately capable of punishment: therefore it makes him not capable of pardon.
For the Minor, 1. That we are not constituted just from eternity needs no proof. 2. That we are not witnessed, maintained by Plea▪ or sentenced just, need no proof neither. I know none that will affirm them. The only doubt is, whether God esteem us not just, or accept us as just from eternity? But this is answered sufficiently already, and especially in my Reply to Mr. Kendal.
1. The most learned deny that Gods secret estimation is any Justification or pardon, nor so to be called. 2. If it were, it must be the estimation of God as Rector of mankinde: but he is not Rector from eternity. 3. God esteemeth not that to be true which is false, nor men to be what they are not: therefore he esteemeth not men to be guilty before they are guilty, nor just before they are just: Ob. God esteemeth us just in time: therefore he so esteemed us from eternity, because esteeming is an immanent act in God. Answ. According to the commonly approved Doctrine in these high points, we must say, that as it is but Denominatione ex trinseca, or Relatione Rationis, at most: That Gods Acts of Approving and Disapproving, esteeming just, and esteeming unjust, are diversified and distinguished; so in the same respects they may and must be said to begin and end according to their objects, without any change in God. And therefore we must say that God esteemeth men just, when they are just, and not before; For the same Act or Essence of God, which before was only denominated, A foreknowing that we would be just, was not to be denominated, An esteeming us to be just, till we are so indeed. So much for that Argument.
Argument 2. If we are justified from eternity, then we are justfied without Christs satisfaction as the cause of it. But we are not Justified without Christs satisfaction as the cause: therefore.
The Major is evident, in that Christs satisfaction was not from eternity, and therefore could not cause from eternity. Nor was there any effect from eternity to be caused by it; Gods immanent acts are commonly said to be God himself; and Christs Merits did not cause God himself. They whom I oppose, say, that Christs death causeth only the Rem Volitam, at non Actum volentis. They cannot say, therefore, as in the foregoing case, that it causeth in esse Cognito: or if they did, the same answer will seem fitting to this case, besides what is now said. But I need not contend where I have no adversary.
The Minor I should think most Christians should confess▪ Without Blood there is no Remission: It is Christ that is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world What need his blood be shed for the Remission of sins, that were remitted from eternity? to do that which was done before. That Doctrine which supposeth 1. That God was so prodigal of his Sons blood and sufferings. 2. That there was no more need of the sufferings and Merits of Christ, then to manifest what was done from eternity. 3. That no Elect man was ever guilty no not Adam himself upon his fall (unless he could be guilty, and not guilty at once) 4. That we are no more beholden to Christ, then for doing a needless work, as to our Justification and safety: and accordingly are no more obliged by his favour to gratitude and obedience; with multitudes of the like pernicious Consequents, which I will not bestow the time distinctly to handle, or form into several Arguments ab absurdo; I say, this Doctrine which so subverteth Christianity it self, and makes it but a name and shaddow, cannot be true. …t were easie here to heap up fortie Arguments from so many Texts of Scripture to prove that there is no Justification or Remission, but by Christs Death and Merits: but I know the answer of the Adversary would be, that it is true of that sort of Remission and Justification which Christs death procureth, but not of that sort which …s from eternity; To which I Reply, 1. No Scripture mentioneth the divers sorts of Justification which they feign (of which anon) 2. They have ill performed their parts in describing and distinguishing these two or three sorts of Justification or Pardon, which yet did lie so much upon them. 3. For ought I know, they do totally destroy the Merits of Christ: For 1. Mr. E. and the common sort of them acknowledge that it is not actum volentis, but rem volitam, which Christ procured or caused: so that Active Justification is hereby denyed to be any effect of Christs death: and how a meritorious cause can work immediately on the effect, without working on the Agent, and whether the effect of meritorious causes be not directly on the Agent, that he may produce the further effect, I have already desired Mr. E. to satisfie me Though this scruple may be well solved, yet I think, not by men of their principles. And what is the Res Volita? if it be only Justification in soro Conscientiae, it is unconceivable how Christs Merit can cause that, without causing the act of God. For the Declaration of our righteousness to our selves, they say is Gods act: and the sense of this, or the knowledge of it, Christs Merits do not immediately eff…ct: Merit is not terminated on our consciences. If they say, It is Right to Justification in conscience, that Christs Merits do cause, as the Rem volitam; I answer, no Right nor real benefit can come to the Creature, (who is wholly Gods own, and at his dispose) but by the Will of God, granting it as the efficient cause: If therefore Merit be no consideration, causing Gods Will to grant that Right, there will be a difficulty in shewing how it immediately causeth the Right it self, especially to Ʋs. And perhaps it will anon appear, that they leave nothing to Christs death to do in this neither; but that according to them, we had Right to all this, and much more, from eternity.
2. The words of the most sober and learned man that I know of, that writes this way, are these, Here two things may be observed; Mr. J. Owen.1. What we ascribe to the Merit of Christ: viz The accomplishment of that Condition, which God required to make way, that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself, might be in actual force. And so much (how rightly, I leave to himself to consider) doth Mr. Baxter assign to our Works: Thes. 26. p. 140.
And all know, that a Condition as such, is no cause, but an Antecedent▪ or Causa sine qua non. And is not the death of Christ then fairly advanced, and his Merits well vindicated? My constant affirmation is, and still was, that mans works are not in the least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such meer Conditions of salvation (not of our first Justification) as that they are no causes of any right we have (no not to a bit of bread, much less) to Heaven. Do not these men well defend the honor of Christs Merits then, if they give no more to them, then I do to mans works? viz. to be no meritorious causes, so much as of an hours temporal mercy? that is, To be properly no Merits at all: It seems to me therefore that they do by their Doctrine of eternal Justification or pardon not only destroy Justification by Faith, but also all the Merits of Christ▪ and leave nothing for them to do, for the causing of our pardon or Justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make Christs sufferings and obedience so much as a bare Condition, let them consider that read him, affirming that Conditions properly must be uncertain: and nothing is so to God: therefore there can be no Condition with God: therefore Christs death could be none.