Confession of His Faith, Chapter 9 · Section 2
SECT. II.
BUt I will say no more distinctly to this immanent eternal Iustification, but speak to it and the other supposed Justification before Faith, both together; for dispatch. For all Arguments that conclude against Justification before Faith in general, will more evidently conclude against this supposed act from eternity, then that supposed act, at the undertaking or death of Christ.
And here it will first be requisite, that we may not make the quarrel or difference seem greater then it is, that we discern how much of our controversie is about the meer name of Remission or Justification, and how much about the Thing or Doctrine.
1. It is agreed on both sides, that God doth from eternity foreknow every sin that men will commit in time; and that he Decreeth to pardon (actually, and infallibly, and immutably) all the sins of his Elect.
2. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ gave himself a sacrifice and Ransom for the Elect; taking upon him those sufferings which he underwent, that we who had deserved everlasting suffering might escape.
3. I yield more then they desire or agree to, that Christs sacrifice was a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, and not for the Elect only; and that it was not only the sins of the Elect, which were the cause of Christs suffering, but of fallen mankind in general.
4. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ dyed not for all alike, or with an equal intent of pardoning and saving them: But that he had a special intent infallibly to pardon and save all his Elect; and them alone: And that the Father had the same intent in giving his Son to death; and therefore gave him the Elect to be infallibly saved.
5. It is agreed on both sides, that Christ did perfectly pay the Ransom which he undertook, and left not any part unperformed: and that he overcame Death and Satan, and was Discharged by Gods publick Declaration, and that in him God was well pleased. This much we agree in.
The first thing now to be handled, wherein we differ, is, de nomine, Whether all, or any part of this be to be called the Justification of any particular person, not yet believing or born.
Conclu. 1. I affirm, that It is not fit to say that we are Justified by all or any of this, before we are born, or believe.
Argument 1. If the Scripture never call this our Justification, (or say we are Justified before we are born, or believe) then we may not fitly so call it. But the Scripture never calls it so, (nor so affirmeth): therefore we may not, &c.
For the Major, I take the Consequence as granted to be good, on this explication: That I do not say that in no case it is fit to take up any Name which the Scripture hath not used: but in this case it is not fit. For 1. We should not depart from the language of Scripture, in sacred things, without necessity: But here is no necessity: therefore, &c. 2. Specially if it be a point of supernatural Revelation, and not naturally known. But this is such: therefore. 3. And specially if it be a controverted point, where new made terms, or altering of terms in the application to the thing, may foment differences, and cloud the Truth: But this is such; therefore. 4. And also specially, if it be in a case of great moment, where mistakes are more dangerous. But this is such; therefore, &c. 5. And especially if it be a Name or Word, which is very frequently used in Scripture in another sense, and never in this sense: For then it is worse to use that word to a sense different from that of Scripture, then to devise words that are not in Scripture at all: For it tends to lead men to a Misunderstanding of all those Scriptures that otherwise use it. But that is undenyably the present case: therefore, &c. So that I think I may safely conclude that it is not fit nor safe to depart from the Scripturesense in the use of the word Justification here.
And for the Minor, that Scripture never so useth this word. To avoid the tediousness of reciting every Text where the word is used, and examining them as to this point, it may suffice 1. If you will turn by your Concordance to the Texts, and peruse them impartially, you may satisfie your selves. 2. If we only speak to those Texts that are pretended to speak in this sense: it is enough. We have often urged the Antinomians to cite one Text of Scripture that saith, We are Justified before we were born, or do believe; and we could never yet see one produced that had any strong appearance, of speaking in that sense. Nor do I remember any more then two, that ever I heard produced, with any shew of Reason.
The first is that Rom. 4. 5. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, his faith i… counted to him for Righteousness. The forementioned learned man saith, Perhaps also this may be the Justification of the ungodly, mentioned Rom. 4.Mr. J. O. God Absolving a sinner in heaven, by accounting Christ unto him, &c. To this I have said enough against Lud. Colvinus, to which I refer the Reader.
1. The Text by ungodly, plainly means (in my judgement)See Anton. Fayus on the Text, Syrus Interpres legit, Justificante peccatores. unjust: God makes those just, by giving them part in Christ, who are unjust by their own sins.
2. The common answer also, is far liker to truth then their Exposition: viz. that it is in sensu diviso, he that was ungodly, (and that in the same moment of time wherein he was justified) and not he that was so in order of nature after Justification as well as before, yea and in time too.
3. Ungodliness is by most Divines supposed to be opposed to sanctification, and not to our first Faith: and they judge commonly (till Mr. Pemble) that Faith goes before Justification and Sanctification. And therefore it might be said that the person Justified is ungodly, as being unsanctified; but not an unbeliever. If they say, Can a Believer be unsanctified? I answer, There is no moment of time, wherein a Believer is unsanctified: but because in order of nature a man is first called, and then a Believer, and then justified and sanctified, therefore Justification going before Sanctification, and after Faith, the object must be accordingly denominated, quoad momenta rationis, non temporis; and we must say, God justifieth an unholy man, (because he is not holy in order of nature till after Justification;) but not that he justifieth an unbeliever, because he is in order of nature a Believer first. Though I speak not this as giving you any opinion of my own in this point, yet it being the common Doctrine of the Protestant Churches, should not by Protestants be slighted.
4. At least they that bring this Text to prove the Justification of the Elect before believing, must confess that there is no such words in the text. And therefore they that will affirm that ungodly is as much as unbelieving, their bare word is no proof: and therefore we must expect some better▪ or take the point unproved.
5. Nay, what need we more words with them, when the Text twice over tells you what ungodly ones are Justified, even Believers: It must be, He that believeth on him that Justifieth the ungodly, and it is his Faith (that) is imputed to him for righteousness: And this man is not an unbeliever.
The second text cited to prove Justification to be a word applicable to the eternal act, or to some before …aith or existence of that person, is Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect? It is God that Justifieth, who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that dyed, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Answ. The whole scope of the Chapter shews that it is the sanctified Elect that are here spoken of, and not any other. It is they that are in Christ Jesus, that walk not after the fl…sh, but after the Spirit, to whom there is no condemnation. v. 1. to 14. It is they that are led by the Spirit of God, and so are the Sons of God. v. 14. That have received the Spirit of Adoption. v. 15. Having the Spirit bearing them witness that they are the children of God. v. 16. That are heirs, and joynt heirs with Christ. v. 17. That have Hope and Love to God. v. 24. 28. and are Saints. v. 27. And God doth exactly tell us his order of gifts. v. 30. where calling goeth before Justification. In the very text it is plain; 1. It is such Elect ones as are chargeable and condemnable, if God did not justifie them. But so are not any unborn. 2. It is such as the world is apt to accuse and slander, and condemn, and this is spoken to encourage them against such sufferings from the world: But the world doth not so persecute the Elect while they are unconverted, and run with them to all excess of riot, and are foolish, disobedient, serving divers lusts and pleasures: but when they break from their captivity, and escape the pollutions of the world. 3. It is such as Christ is interceding for, as for strength and perseverance. 4. It is such as Paul was confident should persevere, and nothing separate them from the Love of God.
2. And, though I do believe that there is an Absolute Election of Individual persons to Faith and Salvation, yet it is certain, that the words Elect, and Election, do often signifie that which is in time, if not far more often then that which is from eternity: When God by his Spirits effectual Grace doth choose one, and pass by another, this is (executive) Election, and these so actually chosen or taken out of the world to Christ, are Elect: and this is the most usual sense of the word in Scripture, as I think.
3. The Text speaks of such as God himself doth not condemn: but God by his Law doth condemn all Unbelievers, the Elect as well as others; though not with a Peremptory, Remediless Condemnation. For he that believeth not is condemned already: And God hath concluded all under sin. God chargeth with sin, conscience chargeth them, and others may charge them. I conclude therefore that this Tixt cannot be understood of Infidels.
Argument 2. If the name Justification be not fitted to the nature of the thing, viz. of the Decree of God to pardon us, or the present immediate effects of Christs satisfaction, as to us, before we did exist: then it is not fit to be ordinarily applyed thereto: But the Antecedent is true: therefore so is the Consequent. Here we should examine the nature of the thing it self, and the sense of the word, but the former will be our work anon, when we come to speak of the Real or Doctrinal difference between us in this point; and the latter is oft enough done by others. I proceed to the next verbal difference.
Conclu. 2. The name of Pardon or Reconciliation is not fit to be given to Gods eternal Decree of Pardoning, or to any eternal act, or any act not procured by the Mediation of Jesus Christ. The proof is the same with the former. There is no word of▪ God (that ever I observed, or heard produced by any of them to that end) that doth so use the word Pardon or Reconciliation. He that saith there is any, let him prove it if he can. I admire that they neither do something in it, or give up that cause, being so much provoked to it as they have been.
Conclu. 3. Though the names of Reconciliation, and Taking or Purging away sin, (and perhaps Pardon) may be applyed to that which Christ hath done for us with God, by his Merits, before we believe or were born, yet should it be very sparingly, and never but with sufficient caution to discover, that we mean not an Absolute, Actual Reconciliation of any man, nor such a pardoning, purging, or taking away his sin.
The reason is▪ because 1. Scripture useth these words thus, but very seldom. You hear not any act at Christs death called by any of these names, once, for many times that you hear of pardon to Believers, and Reconciling them to God, &c. 2. You never read these words so used in Scripture, but with sufficient cautionary light (there, or neer at hand) to acquaint us, that it is not personal, actual, absolute pardon or Reconciliation that is meant: and usually this is done two waies; 1. In that the Reconciliation or pardon mentioned from Christs death, before the sinner was born, is never mentioned (that I know of) with appropriation to the Elect, or any sort of men more then others, nor with exclusion of any sinner, but as a common Reconciliation or Pardon: Now it is certain that all men attain not to an absolute, actual pardon and Reconciliation. 2. In that when the Scripture doth mention Reconciliation or purging away sin, &c. as done before we believe, it either prescribes us some Condition or Means by which it may be made Ours in particular, or else some other way makes it manifest that it is not yet ours, any more then the rest of lost mankinds. Let us peruse the particular places.
The most remarked text, and most urged by them that we oppose is, 2 Cor. 5. 19. That God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation: Now then we are Embassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christs stead, be ye Reconciled to God. To this I have spoken against L. Colvinus.
Note here, 1. That the Text saith not, God was Reconciled to the world, but God was Reconciling the world: He did much, and as much as concerned the sufficiency of a Sacrifice, Ransom and Satisfaction towards an actual Reconciliation, which through their own wilful rejection, many do miss of.
2. Note that the Text only saith, God was Reconciling, &c. not Imputing their sin. Not that he did not at all impute sin to them: but he was then, not dealing with them according to the desert of their sin, but in mercy: So far was he in that work from imputing sin to them, or then charging it on them, that he was providing a sufficient Remedy for the pardon of it, if they would accept it freely given.
3. Note that it is not any special sort of persons, that are here spoken of, but the world; whether simply considered, as the whole race of mankinde▪ or whether the Gentiles as well as the Jews: it is to avoid an exclusion of any, and not to exclude any: and therefore it is not meant of the Elect only.
4. The next words most plainly shew that they were not yet actually reconciled, when the Office of Embassadors is appointed, to beseech men in Christs stead, and as if God did it by us, to be reconciled to God. If they were Reconciled already, what need Ministers beseech them to be Reconciled? I remember Den and other Antinomians say, that God was reconciled to them, but not they to him: but this vain objection I have answered in two former writings already.
The 2. Text that is urged, is Joh. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world. Here note 1. The text saith not that, He hath taken away, but he taketh away, as Erasmus and Beza, signifying his continued act in taking away sin: So that it saith nothing of taking it away before we believe. Beza thinks John pointed to Christ in reference to his Baptism, to shew them that it was by vertue of Christs blood, that the sins of the baptized were taken away. 2. The word here used, may signifie the taking away of sin it self in its power, as well as Guilt: And though we may not expound it as Grotius doth, of taking away sin it self only, yet we may well do as other Expositors do, extend it to both. Beza blames them that restrain it to the taking away of Punishment only, and himself expounds it of both, Punishment and Power of sin. Now it is certain that Christ took not away the Power of sin, or sin it self before we were born, or did believe. 3. Note that, if it were granted that it is meant of taking away sin, at the time of Christs death, yet it would prove but a common taking away, and therefore not an Absolute and Actual pardon: For if it be so understood, the world will never be proved to be meant of the Elect only.
Another text that is stronger in appearance then this, for the phrase in question, is Heb. 1. 3. When he had by himself purged our sins, sate down on the right hand of the Majestie on high. To which I say, 1. The text saith not he pardoned or Justified us, but he made a purgation, as the words are expresly. 2. They whom we in this oppose, deny not but that it is the sin it self, or power of it, as well as the guilt▪ that is purged away through the blood of Christ: yet none will say that sin it self, or the strength of it is purged away, before we are born or believe, but only that Christ made a Purgation, which should in time, being applyed, effectually, and actually purge us from sin▪ 3. The text having reference to the Jewish sacrifices, doth plainly speak of Christs blood as a price or sacrifice; and only intendeth that he did make a sufficient Purgation of our sins, quoad pretinm, vel s…crificii perfectionem: as far as concerned him as sacrificer of himself. He did all that was his part on the Cross to do; though there remained more to do in the application and conveyance of Right to particular persons, by his Word and Spirit: If the High Priest had offered a sacrifice for the sins of an obstinate impenitent sinner, he had not thereby made a legal effectual Purgation of his sin, supposing the sinner, at least, to declare his Dissent and Impenitency. Yet it is so much that Christ hath done before we believe, that we may see Reason why it may bear the name of Purgation or Reconciling; because it is a Pardon sufficiently purchased by him, and granted freely by God to all that Refuse it not, when it is offered them. If a Kings Son pay a Ransom for 100. Traytors, and his Father grant and seal them a pardon, is it not fit or tollerable language to say, the King hath pardoned these men, or the Prince hath bought their pardon? Yet it is no actual pardon, till they consent, if we suppose it to be granted on Condition of their Consent or Acceptance. And so reasonable, so naturally necessary is that Condition, that it is not used to be expressed in Pardons or the like Grants, but implyed; But whether expressed or not, it is in the nature of the thing most commonly supposed: And if it did run in an Absolute form, yet is Acceptance still implyed as an unquestionable Condition, and as to it, the Pardon is not intended to be Absolute. Yet if such a Pardon were brought to a Traytor at the Gallows, and he refuse it, and be hanged; men would say, that The K…ng or State did Pardon such a man, but he wilfully refused it.
I know no other texts that have neer so strong appearance of favouring their cause, as these cited, especially the last, and therefore I shall not need to mention any more; but come to the Doctrinal difference.
ANd here it is hard to say wherein we disagree, because they agree not among themselves, some saying one thing, and some another. Most of them say, that we are actually pardoned and justified in Christ at his undertaking to dye for us; and that it is but the knowledge, and comfortable feeling of this that is wanting to us: Mr. Crandons words are these in his Epist. Dedic. Justification as an Immanent act in God: As actually compleated in the Redemption which is by Christ, and in Christ; both these before we believe. So that it is Actual and Compleated Justification, which they suppose to be before Faith. Many of them use to express themselves, that Christ being the Publick person, he represented all the Elect, and they dyed in him, and satisfied in him, and were justified in him.
The forementioned Learned man, makes the ground of the Elects Absolution to be, they dying with him, as he speaks: andMr. Owen. saith that Christ is Reckoned to us, and Gods Reckoning Christ in our present sense, is the imputing of Christ to ungodly unbelieving sinners for whom he dyed, so far as to account him Theirs, to bestow Faith and Grace on them for his sake. And If then this be done for Christs sake, then is Christ made ours before we believe: And I cannot conceive how any thing should be made out to me for Christ, and Christ himself not be given to me. And the Question he offers is this: Whether Absolution from the guilt of sin, and Obligation unto Death, though not as terminated in the Conscience for Compleat Justification, do not precede our Actual believing? So that this learned man seems to judge that the name of Compleat Justification is proper to that in Conscience, and not to be given to any before. He seems also to judge that Justification hath Degrees and Parts at many 100 or 1000 years distance one from another: Or else Absolution at least hath, which we have hitherto taken for the same thing with Justification. For as he calls this in conscience, Compleat Justification; So he saith Absolution in Heaven, and Justification, differ as Part and Whole. By this much it may be gathered where our difference lyeth in sense, as well as terms. We will except then Justification as Terminated in Conscience, and speak to that which is terminated, or (passivè sumpta) consisteth in our meer Relation, of being Iust: Of all the forementioned forts of Justification that will fitly bear that name (I mean of Actual Justification of such persons,) the first in Order is Constitutive Iustification, or Making us Iust: and therefore if I prove that this is not before Faith, it must needs follow that the rest are not. I confess the grounds of their mistake do call lowdest for a Confutation. 1. That We dyed with Christ, or satisfied in him, or fulfilled the Law in him. 2. That Christ is given to us in special manner more then to others, (the not-Elect) before we believe. Against both these I would oppose these two Conclusions.
1. We did neither Really, nor in Gods Account, Dye with Christ when he dyed, nor in him satisfie Gods Justice, nor fulfil the Law. Con. 2. Though Christ were given for the Elect, more then others▪ yet is he no more given to them then others, before they are born, or before they have Faith. The first of these is of so great moment, and is the heart and root of so many Errors, yea of the whole body of Antinomianism, that I had rather write as great a volumn as this against it, then leave it with so brief a touch as here▪ must do, if I should particularly fall upon it. Let it therefore now suffice, to tell the Affirmers, that it is their part to prove it, which I think, they will never be able to do, while Scripture is taken for Gods Word.