Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
Arg. Beſides other leſſer things first, the chief thing about which this Chapter is occupant, is to diſcover the judgement of Proteſtant VVriters about Juſtification, as an eternal, and immanent Act in God, and how far it is grounded upon Scripture.
Theſ. 36. pag. 166. B. The pardoning of ſinne is a gracious Act of God, diſcharging the offender by the Goſpel promiſe, or grant, from the obligation to puniſhment, upon conſideration of the ſatisfaction made by Chriſt, accepted by the ſinner, and pleaded with God.
I mean not here to fall upon a diſpute with Mr. Baxter, whether (according to Mr. Baxter himſelf) the pardoning of ſinne through Chriſt, and Juſtification through Chriſt be not one, and the ſame thing: And whether he himſelf doth not pag. 208. acknowledge ſo much? Indeed pag. 186, he ſaith, that Pardon of ſin, and juſtification in law, are not punctually, and preciſely all one. Yet addeth, that the difference is very ſmall, lying chiefly in this, that the terminus à quo of Remiſſion is the obligation to puniſhment, but the terminus of Juſtification (or the evill) that it forma…ly, and directly frees us from, is the Laws accuſation and condemnation. Here (ſaith he) though the difference be very narrow, yet a plain difference there is. How plain? Can the blind man ſee it? Yea as well as he that hath both his eyes; for it is reſpective rather then reall. But how doth the difference lye in the different termini à quibus, Remiſſion of ſins, and Juſtification free us? becauſe Mr. Baxter (a more curious cummin-cutter in Logical diſputes then he that Ariſtotle in his Ethicks ſpeaks of, was in dividing of ſecular goods) hath thus cloven the hair into two even rafters, and ſo hath himſelf layd the difference, giving the one rafter for remiſſion of ſins, and the other to Juſtification, and bidden each to reſt ſatisfied with his own, and neither to intrench upon the others part. I confeſs my ſelf to have been ſo groſs witted, untill Mr. Baxter doth here teach us ſo finely to diſtinguiſh, that I was apt to have argued in this caſe ſomewhat like to Mr. Baxter, pag. 208. when it ſeems his ſpectacles were off, and his conſidering cap not on, and ſo could not ſee, and conclude punctually where to bea… the wedges into the hair to cleave it exactly. As there he cannot cloſe with Mr. Burgeſs, That Juſtification, beſides the pardon of ſin, doth connote a State that the ſubject is put into, viz. a ſtate of favour, being reconciled with God. Becauſe remiſſion it ſelf doth connote the ſtate of favour. For if the loſſe of Gods favour be a part of the puniſhment, and all the puniſhment be remitted, then the favour which was loſt, muſt needs be thereby reſtored. So neither ſhould I have eaſily cloſed with another, putting Mr. Baxters plain difference, pag. 186, between Remiſſion, and Juſtification, in their ſaid terminis, that the one delivers from obligation to puniſhment, the other from the Laws accuſation, and condemnation. Becauſe freedom from obligation to puniſhment doth connote freedome from the Laws accuſation, and condemnation; and freedome from the Laws accuſation, and condemnation connotes freedome from obligation to puniſhment; and ſo doth Remiſſion of ſinnes, and Juſtification, i. e. Juſtification in Romane, and Juſtification in Secretary hand, have the ſame terminus à quo, viz. The Laws accuſation, and condemnation, and obligation to puniſhment; and conſequently that they are one and the ſame thing. But let Mr. Baxter paſs in this particle without further interruption. It is not for that he ſees a difference, but that hee thinkes it will ſomewhat advantage him in attaining the ends to which he driveth, to make an imaginary difference between pardoning of ſinne, and Juſtification in terminis. Therefore doth he▪ ſo acutely diſtinguiſh. And I ſhall leave him to ſolace himſelf in his diſtinction, without ſaying any more to it.
2. Neither doe I account it worthy of any deep examination, what in the Explication of the firſt words of the Definition, that it is [an Act of God] hee doth pag. 168. trifle about the difference which he maketh between Chriſts Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdome, and Gods Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdome. We grant unto him, that as of the two Temples that Marcellus built at Rome, one dedicated to Virtue, the other to Honour; that to Honour had no door to it, but out of the Temple of Virtue: So neither is there any other entrance into the Kingdome of Glory, but thorough the Kingdome of Grace. But to put a difference between Chriſts, and Gods Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, as if the one were upon Earth, the other not untill we are tranſlated hence into Heaven, and ſo we muſt be in Heaven firſt, and bee forgiven afterwards; or as if Chriſts acceptance, &c. were not Gods, or the Fathers Acceptance, Pardon, and Kingdom, is a meerly imaginary dreame of one that liſteth to dream waking; pat indeed to Mr. Baxters purpoſe of ſetting up his two-fold, or rather manifold Juſtifications; but wholly thwarting and croſſing the Scriptures, which affirme, Not that Chriſt as Mediator reconciled the world to himſelf, but that God was in Chriſt reconciling the world to himſelf, not imputing their treſpaſſes to them. 2. Cor. 5. 19. And that where Chriſt forgiveth, there God [not will hereafter forgive, but already] hath forgiven all our trespaſſes for Chriſts ſake, Eph. 4. 32. Col. 2. 13. And more often call the Kingdom of Grace here, the Kingdome of God, then the Kingdome of Chriſt. And that the great Abſolution at laſt in the day of Judgement ſhall be given by Chriſt, and not by the Father in perſon, and the ſame not in Heaven, but before the Aſcenſion of the Saints into Heaven, as is evident by all the Scriptures of the New Teſtament, which deſcribe the Judgement day. Neither doth the Scripture tell us of any ultimate perfecting pardon, beyond, or after this, if ever it ſo terme this.
3. And of as little moment is that which he hath pag. 169. in the Explication of his Definition of Pardon, calling i… [a gracious Act] where he bleſſeth, and kiſſeth the image [Tantundem] ſet up by Grotius, and poliſhed by himſelfe, denying it to bee a pardon, if it be not in ſome ſort gratuitous, or free, and aſſerting, that if Chriſt hath payd for us the idem, or the proper debt, then there is no place left for pardon, and wee have nothing forgiven us: For the Creditor (ſaith he) cannot refuſe the proper debt, nor deny an acquittance upon the receipt thereof, &c. A meer vanity of words, without either ground, or ſubſtance. It doth not alway hold firm in trifling debts of money. Suppoſe I have a ſonne, that having received his portion of my eſtate from me, will forthwith come and pay it me for the debt of ſome bankrupt debtor, that I have caſt into priſon; if indeed it be ſo agreed upon between my ſelf, and my ſaid Sonne; and that to this end I gave him ſuch a portion of my eſtate, that he ſhould ſo doe with it, then it were not equity in me to refuſe the payment ſo offered. But yet Maſter Baxter wil not deny that this agreement, or covenant between me, and my ſonne, and my receiving of my own monyes in ſatisfaction for that Bankrupts debt, though it be the ſame, to the utmoſt farthing which hee owed, is an act of grace, or favour in mee to the ſaid Debtor. But in caſe …here were no ſuch covenant between me, and my ſaid ſonne, but that I gave him the ſaid portion of my goods for other ends, and uſes, and not to pay the Debts of Bankrupts: I ſuppoſe then it is in my choice, either to receive, or refuſe the full debt ſo offered me, becauſe he which offerrs it, was not bound upon the Bond, as Suretie, or as Excecutor, or Adminiſtrator to the Debtor, nor is aſſigned by the Debtor to make payment in his ſtead. What is there in this caſe binding me to receive the debt from ſuch an hand, or to give an acquittance to him that ſhould pay it? Much leſſe will the caſe hold in point of Life and Death. Suppoſe ſome Prieſt, Jeſuit, or other Traytor were by the Law condemned to dye for Treaſon committed: The day of Execution is at hand, Maſter Baxter interpoſes, and offereth to dye for him: Is it not in the power of the chiefe Magiſtrates to refuſe the accepting of the death of the Innocent for the Nocent? Or if they doe accept the change, is it not an Act of free grace to pardon the offendor, accepting anothers ſufferings for him? Much more is it a gracious act in God to pardon us upon Chriſts ſuffering in our ſtead, becauſe hee ſent his Sonne, and gave him a body wherein to ſuffer for us, Heb. 10. 5. And gives us acquittance, having caſt him into priſon in our behalf, untill he had payd the utmoſt farthing of our debts.
4. What hee ſaith againſt the ignorant Antinomians in the end of page 169, and in page 170, hee hath ſayd before, and it hath been before examined, and his pepper-corne being cruſhed, hath been found too hot in ſmell and operation, for a humble, and ſelfe-denying Chriſtian to meddle with in the point of Juſtification. Therefore I conclude with him, nor further to trouble the Reader with thoſe ſenſleſs conceites which have onelyonly a plauſible ſhew of words, but no footing in Scriptures, or authority from Scriptures to eſtabliſh them.
The reſt of the Doctrine which hee delivereth in this page 170, and addeth page 171, and 172, I doe in part grant him; and what I grant him not, wee ſhall finde againe ſo involved in his diſpute, whether Juſtification bee an immanent, or tranſient Act of God, page 173, & ſeq. that it ſhall be more proper there then here to take it into examination.
In his 173 page, Maſter Baxter enters upon a diſpute of great moment, whether Remiſſion and Juſtification be immanent, or tranſient Acts of God? Before pag. 93 of this Tractate, in a brave challenge of the Antinomians to produce one Scripture, teſtifying Juſtification to be from eternity, hee promiſed to ſhew, or prove that Juſtification is not an immanent Act in God. Here he addreſſeth himſelf to the accompliſhment of what he there promiſed, and in doing it he pretendedly draws the ſword againſt the Antinomians, as the ſole aſſertors of the opinion which he here with much gallantry ſeeks to confute.
Two things then I conceive here to call for examination.
Firſt, how ſound the reaſons are which he brings to deny Pardon, and Juſtification to be immanent, and to prove them to bee meerly tranſient acts of God.
2. What kind of Vermine theſe Antinomians are, againſt whom Mr. Baxter hath already diſcharged ſo many Gun-ſhots before in this Treatiſe, and findes them nevertheleſs yet alive, and in a capacity to bear ſo many more ſhots from him, in this, and the following parts of this book.
Before my entrance upon either of theſe, for an introduction to the former, that the ſtate of the queſtion may the better appear, I ſhall endeavour with as much fidelity, and ſimplicity as (in briefe) I may, to lay downe the judgements of our Proteſtant Divines, whom he ſlanders here, and every where (almoſt) with Antinomianiſm, about this queſtion, before mentioned, which Mr. Baxter here ſo much oppoſeth, I mean ſuch of theſe as hold (not that all have taught it) to be in ſome reſpect immanent in God.
1. Then, in their diſputes againſt Bellarmine, Arminius, Socinus, and their followers, about remiſſion of ſinnes, and juſtification they tell us, that juſtification is taken ſometimes actively, for a judicial act of Gods grace; ſometimes paſſively, or terminatively; as it hath its termination upon beleevers. In the former ſenſe, it is an act internal and immanent in God, not tranſient upon an extraneous ſubject; or in plain words, it is ſecret, abiding, and hidden in God himſelfe, not declared or paſſing into the knowledg and conſcience of man. That it is of the ſame nature with the acts of election and reprobation, having its complete being, as theſe, before the perſons ſo elected, juſtified and reprobated, begin to have being, life or faith in them, or to doe good or evill. But in its paſſive ſenſe, as it is terminated upon, and made out to the conſcience of a man, ſo it is a tranſient act of God, pronouncing and declaring home to the conſcience of a man now living, convinced of his ſinnes, and trembling at the ſenſe and burthen thereof, yet reſting upon, and cleaving to Chriſt by faith; that his ſinnes are forgiven for Chriſts ſake; and by this act and ſentence of God in his conſcience the poor ſinner becomes ſenſible and apprehenſive of his full diſcharge and abſolution at Gods tribunal, thorow Chriſts ſatisfaction made to juſtice for him.
2. That juſtification, as taken in the former ſenſe, is an Act of Gods ſupreme Lordſhip or dominion, or elſe of his good pleaſure (to uſe the Apoſtles termes) by which he freely and without neceſſity, in relation to his juſtice, willeth the ſalvation of one, and willeth not the ſalvation of another, loveth or hateth, imputeth not, or doth impute ſinne, according to his own free will. But juſtification in the latter ſenſe, is an act of Gods righteouſnes or faithfulneſſe, by which hee faithfully and righteouſly accompliſheth his promiſes of grace, in juſt …ying and abſolving them which believe, by the ſentence of pardon pronounced to their conſcience, according to the Goſpel promiſe made to beleevers. No word of promiſe went before juſtification in the former ſenſe, to make it an act of juſtice to fulfill that promiſe; neither could it be an act of his natural juſtice, that by the neceſſity of his nature he ſhould ſo juſtifie and love any; for then ſhould none be either loved or ſaved freely of God, when contrariwiſe it was in his own free choice, to love or to hate, to ſave or condemn all, or mutatis vicibus, to have loved Eſau, & hated Jacob, to have willed the condemnation of the ſaved, and the ſalvation of the reprobated. But the word of promiſe preceded juſtification in the latter ſenſe, which it is righteouſneſſe in God to fulfill; therefore is it an act as well of his juſtice or righteouſneſſe, as of his free grace.
3. That Juſtification in the former ſenſe is antecedaneous, or foregoing to all covenants whatſoever. 1. In order of nature (though not in time) it goeth before that covenant between the father and the ſon, mentioned before in the examination of the explication of Mr. Baxters fourteenth Theſis; and conſequently before Chriſts undertaking to make, or the fathers Covenant to accept what he ſhould offer, in ſatisfaction for the ſinnes of the elect. For in order of nature the willing of the end, alway goeth before the willing of the means conducing to the end; ſo that Gods willing mans righteouſneſſe and immunity from ſinne, and loving him to ſalvation, muſt needs goe before his willing of Chriſts ſatisfying of his juſtice, which was but a mean appointed of God to the conſtituting of man righteous before him, that he might be pure from ſinne, diſcharged from condemnation, and partaker of ſalvation, which was the end. Not that there was any precedency, or following after, of theſe acts of God, in time: for they are both coeternal, and before all times. Whom God hath loved, and forgiven their ſinnes, them hath he ſo loved and forgiven, in and through Chriſt from all eternity, and through and for the merit of his ſatisfaction. Much more doth this immanent act of juſtification go before, not onelyonly in nature, but in time alſo, the other temporary Covenants, both the Covenant of workes made with Adam, and the Covenant of Grace, made after by Goſpel promiſe, by Chriſt, or God in Chriſt, to us and with us. For theſe had all their being in time. But juſtification in its other acceptation is ſubſequent unto, and followes after, and is an effect of not onelyonly the Covenant of Grace, but of faith it ſelfe, which the Covenant of Grace calls for, as a mean to attain it. None elſe but a beleiver, nor he, until he actually beleeveth, is thus actually juſtified, or hath pardon of ſinnes and abſolution from wrath declared and pronounced of God in his conſcience. And thus to be juſtified in Chriſt, or in God, is one thing and to bee juſtified in our ſelves by God through Chriſt is another. The former is an antecedent, the latter an effect or conſequent of the Covenant of Grace.
4. That neither the mediation & ſatisfaction of Chriſt, nor (much leſſe) our faith in Chriſt, nor any of the moſt noble gifts of grace received from Chriſt, either in their habit or operation do move God to juſtifie us, ſo as to put into him a will to pardon our ſins, and accept us as righteous, or to change his affection from nilling to will our forgiveneſſe and happineſſe, and from hating to love and accept us; becauſe he is God, and therefore immutable; and there cannot be any cauſe of Gods will rendred, any more than of God himſelfe. For the Will of God, is God himſelfe, and theſe immanent acts of God, are God himſelfe acting. So that the ſubſtration of all that Chriſt hath ſuffered, and by his ſufferings ſatisfied for us, and of all that we doe, or can doe to put our ſelves into union with Chriſt, and a conformity with the Will of God, are in no wiſe the cauſes or conditions, or antecedents of Gods firſt loving, owning, and pronouncing u… righteous and pure from ſinne imputed; but the effects thereof. For he ſo loveth and juſtifieth all, that in a Covenant way have been, or ſhall be juſtified in their own conſcience, before ever they beleeve, or live. But that the intervening of Chriſts ſatisfaction for our ſinnes, and our recumbency upon, and embracing of Chriſt ſo ſatisfying by faith, that we may be juſtified, do ad nothing to God which was not, nor alter any thing which was in his will before; but do onelyonly lay and make a way by Gods ordination, how he from all eternity loving and juſtifying us in himſelfe freely, may in a courſe moſt convenient to magnify both his truth and righteouſneſſe, and withal his grace and mercy, at length actually declare us juſt in, and to our own conſciences, and for ever acquit us from ſinne and wrath, to the admiration of Men and Angels. And ſo the former juſtification is a pure, ſimple, free, and irreſpective act of God, having no cauſality out of himſelfe moving him to it: but the latter is a foederal, Goſpel or Covenant juſtification, reſpecting his own Covenant before made, Chriſts ſatisfaction already given and pleaded in heaven by Chriſt, and mans faith in the mediator and promiſer, pleading the promiſe, and the blood of the mediator ſealing it: upon all which he doth, he cannot but actually pronounce and declare to the conſcience of the beleiver his perfect abſolution from ſin and vengeance. This latter is indeed the juſtifying wherof the Scriptures primarily ſpeak, as oft as they ſpeak of juſtification by faith, but ſo as the former is alſo in ſuch Scriptures implyed. Neither is the Scripture ſilent in reference to the former, as conſidered without the latter, or apart from it.
5. That although all that are or ſhall be juſtified by faith in time, i. e. each on… in the time when he ſo beleeveth, were juſtified alſo in Chriſt, & ſecretly in God before they beleived, or yet lived even from eternity: Yet is there no man juſtified by vertue of the New Covenant and promiſe of the Goſpel, proclaiming right to the Lord Chriſt, to forgiveneſſe of ſinnes, freedome from condemnation, heirſhip to Gods Kingdom, and all other benefits of Chriſts Paſſion; until he doth actually beleeve and embrace Chriſt, thorow him to have all thoſe pretious promiſes made good and effectual to himſelfe. Though in Chriſt he were Lord of all before, yet differed he nothing in himſelfe from a ſervant, from a child of wrath, his life and righteouſneſſe were hid with Chriſt in God; He could claim nothing from God by any evidential title, but wrath and condemnation; though he had right in Chriſt, yet had he no right unto Chriſt; though in Chriſt all was his, becauſe Chriſt had united, purchaſed, and received all into his hands for him, yet had he no right to Chriſt by which to claim a partnerſhip and intereſt in the kingdome and priviledge of grace, was without all true peace of conſcience, all joy and conſolation in the promiſes of grace, under fears and terrors in expectation of wrath and damnation, could be ſenſible of nothing but anger, hatred and diſpleaſure againſt him for ſinne, knew not himſelfe to be one of the children of promiſe, Gal. 4. 28. to be entitled to Chriſt, in whom alone the promiſes of God are yea and Amen: 2 Cor. 1. 20. Therefore as if there had been no Chriſt, no Mediator and reconciler, no Covenant of Grace, yea no Grace, or acts of Grace eternal or temporary in God thorow Chriſt, ſo he remained under a Spirit either of deluſion or of bondage ſtill. But now when the father hath drawn him to Chriſt, and Chriſt hath received him, when Chriſt hath apprehended him to himſelfe by his Spirit, and he by faith hath apprehended Chriſt to himſelfe for redemption, reconciliation, remiſſion, righteouſneſſe, and whatſoever elſe is laid up in Chriſt for him; and ſo hath union and communion with Chriſt, hath Chriſt in him, and is himſelfe in Chriſt: Now his juſtification, which was ſure before in God and in Chriſt, is alſo made ſure to his conſcience. He is now juſtified in his own conſcience after the tenor, and by the vertue of the Goſpel and Covenant and promiſes of Grace; findes and knowes himſelfe through Chriſt abſolved at Gods tribunal, hath all the evidences for it that poſſibly he can deſire, the Word and the Oath of God, that by two immutable things, in which it is impoſſible for God to ly, he may have a ſtrong conſolation, Heb. 6. 18. The Word evidenceth, and his faith evidenceth, the Covenant is now ſealed mutually and reciprocally between God and him, by beleeving he hath put to his ſeal that God is true, and God ſealeth to his conſcience by certifying it by his Spirit, that his wrath is pacified, that all accuſations are ſilenced, there is no condemnation to him being now in Chriſt Jeſus, Rom. 8. 1. Himſelfe may now reſt ſatisfied, baniſhing henceforth all fears and doubts, and glorying in the Lord that the fear of death is paſt, it is enough my ſoul is now alive, Chriſt is made ſinne for me, that I might become the Righteouſneſſe of God in him: 2 Cor. 5. 21. Now Lord letteſt thou thy ſervant depart in peace, for my eyes have ſeen thy Salvation: and in the interim while he is here enjoying a heaven upon earth, a kingdome of Righteouſneſſe, joy and peace in the Holy Ghoſt, untill he was incorporated by faith into Chriſt, Chriſt might indeed plead for him, but he had no evidence, no ſhew of title, not an article, under Gods hand, or from his lips, to plead at Gods barre for life or pardon.
6. That nevertheleſſe when a man truly beleeveth, then may he apprehend juſtification and remiſſion of ſinnes not onelyonly as now firſt declared and evidenced to his own ſoul: But alſo as paſt and compleat before the foundation of the world was laid. Becauſe from eternity Chriſt ſatisfied, in that he undertook to ſatisfie, for the ſinnes of the Elect; and God from eternity reſted in this ſatisfaction undertaken by Chriſt, and ſo laid aſide all diſpleaſure which (without this Covenant between him and his onelyonly Son) he might have taken up as wel againſt them that ſhould afterward beleeve, as againſt them which dye in unbeleef. For their juſtification in time doth à poſteriore argue their juſtification before all times: and where faith findes the leaſt rivulet of the great ſtream ſent forth it can, it ought, by it to aſcend up to the very fountain to be filled and ſatisfied with the deliciouſneſſe thereof. Thus ſhall we finde the Apoſtle almoſt in all his Epiſtles, from the ſenſe of their preſent enjoyments in Chriſt, to carry upward the Saints to whom he writeth, unto the very boſom of Gods eternal grace, counſell and good pleaſure where all was laid up and treaſured for them from all eternity, that thence it might in due time be ſhed forth upon them. Faith runs not away raſhly and haſtily with the gift, but delights to enter and pierce through the vail, to contemplate and embrace the as well eternal, as infinite love of the giver.
7. That although no man receiveth the ſenſible comfort of his juſtification before he actually beleeveth, yet every elect veſſell hath (beſides, and without his knowledge) the true benefit thereof (as to freedome from vengeance) throughout the whole time of his infidelity: was in Chriſt beloved, accepted and owned of God as righteous, in that his ſinne was not imputed, as fully before as after he beleeved, the price of his redemption was paid, all his ſinnes borne and puniſhed upon the ſhoulders, yea the ſoul and body of Chriſt, ſo that himſelfe was no leſſe exempted from the revenging wrath of God, & from all obligation to make any part of ſatisfaction in his own perſon for his ſinnes, as hee that was already in Chriſt by faith: So that whatſoever afflictions befell him in the time of his unbelief, were not the infliction of the curſe, as the curſe for ſinne, but ſanctified chaſtiſements of a loving father, flowing from his grace and favour, not from his indignation and hatred againſt his perſon (though againſt his ſins) tending all to his good, not to his ruine. Elſe if he ſhould have born the leaſt ſtroke of Gods revenging juſtice, and in the leaſt pittance have made but one leaſt peece of ſatisfaction by his ſufferings for his offences; then either Chriſt hath made ſatisfaction for him but in part; and is not his whole Saviour and redeemer, for that himſelfe hath ſatisfied divine juſtice in part: or otherwiſe the father hath taken ſatisfaction twice for the ſame ſins, once from the Lord Chriſt, and after that from the offender alſo. But this were to ſlander either the perfection of Chriſts mediation, or the incorruptneſſe of Gods juſtice, both which are unſufferable.
8. That the juſtification which is by faith conſiſteth not onelyonly in a bare apprehenſion of our juſtification and pardon from God, (for this is onelyonly mans act, and no expreſs act of God) but firſt in Gods actual declaration, evidencing and certisfying the conſcience of man drawn to the barre of judgement (ſet up as it were in the conſcience) that God hath taken ſatisfaction to his offended juſtice from the Lord Chriſt for all the offenders ſinnes, and hath for ever quit-claimed and diſcharged him from all ſin and wrath, and admitted him into favour and family to be under the diſpenſations of his grace for ever. And then indeed God having by this act abſolved the conſcience, there followeth alſo the ſenſe of our remiſſion and juſtification: So that beſides this ſenſe and apprehenſion, there are two things in our juſtification by faith over and above that which was in our eternal juſtification in Chriſt: viz. 1. A total diffidence and denyal of our own righteouſneſſe, and a truſting and adhering wholly and onelyonly to Chriſt for pardon and juſtification. 2. Gods act upon our conſciences, declaring and aſſuring us that our debt is paid by Chriſt, and we diſcharged upon the ſatisfaction which our ſurety hath made, ſo that the obligation is cancelled, and we depart with a full and general acquittance in our conſciences. Neither of theſe were there in the former juſtification, i. e. in the juſtification in the former ſenſe before mentioned, and ſo that there is more than the bare knowledge of our juſtification, in our being juſtified in the latter ſenſe is evident.
Whatſoever elſe is conteined in the doctrine of the Proteſtant divines about this queſtion, we ſhall have occaſion to adde in examining what Maſter Baxter ſaith here, and afterwards to oppugn it.
But the chief thing is yet behind, (may ſome ſay) viz. the proof of theſe poſitions by ſound Arguments, or by evidencing Scriptures: and the main thing to be proved, is, that there is ſuch a juſtification as is an immanent and eternal act in God. It is Maſter Baxters lowd challenge. pag. 93. Let all the Antinomians ſhew but one Scripture that ſpeaketh of juſtification from eternity. I will be ſo charitable as to conceive, he expects not that we ſhould produce Scriptures that ſay in thoſe very words, but that which is the Tantundem) that ſay it in ſenſe and ſubſtance; elſe if he reject the matter, and ſtick to words, I ſhall challenge him to produce one ſentence of all the ſermons which Chriſt preached, and in the whole doctrine that he perſonally delivered, which ſpeaketh at all of juſtification by faith. But in words equipollent to Maſter Baxters, the Scripture delivereth this doctrine which he oppoſeth, viz. juſtification from eternity.
Firſt, What leſſe is to be gathered from 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath ſaved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our workes, but according to his purpoſe and grace, which was given us in Chriſt, before the World began. What can be ſaid more fully to Maſter Baxters challenge? He will not deny that the word ſaving, doth include in it juſtifying, for ſo ſhould he both contradict himſelfe, and loſe elſwhere more than he can gain here, by denying it. It will then run thus, that we are juſtified and called of God with a holy calling, not according to our works, [theſe words deſtroy the end of Maſter Baxters oppoſing the eternity of our juſtification] if our own qualifycation and workes may not come in collaterally with Chriſt to conſtitute us juſtified, he little regards whether the act be immanent or tranſient) but according to his purpoſe and grace, which was given us in Chriſt, before the world began, and that is from eternity. See, the grace of juſtification and ſalvation was given us in Chriſt from eternity.
Object. Maſter Baxter may probably object, that the grace was indeed given us in Chriſt from eternity, that is, God had decreed from eternity to juſtifie us in Chriſt, when we ſhould come to beleeve in him, to juſtifie or ſave us in time, as to call us in time. For the grace here mentioned given us in Chriſt before times, is as much affirmed to be the grace of our vocation or calling, as of our ſaving and juſtifying. But our calling muſt, therefore our juſtification alſo muſt be in time. And thus by the grace given, muſt be underſtood Gods gracious purpoſe, and decree to give us ſalvation and juſtification. So Mr. Baxter, I know God hath decreed to juſtifie his people from eternity. But it is done in time, page 93.
Sol. 1. That Covenant juſtifying, or the declaring of us in our own Conſciences to bee accepted as juſt in Chriſt, is not denyed to be an act accompliſhed in us in time. Nor yet that God decreed from Eternity to declare us in our conſciences Righteous, when wee ſhould beleeve. But the granting of all this nothing advantageth Maſter Baxters cauſe: For neither doth this Act of God in time terminate upon our conſcience, nor his eternal decree ſo to juſtifie us (beleeving) in our ſelves, deny that wee were juſtified in God, and in Chriſt from Eternity.
2. It appears not that the Apoſtle here ſpeaketh of our calling to the participation of Chriſt, and of juſtification and ſanctification by him in time, but rather of that calling mentioned Rom. 4. 17. That God calleth thoſe things that be not, as though they were. As he called Abraham the father of many Nations, when he was yet either childleſſe, or at leaſt was in reference to the ſtrength of nature, without having, without hope to have that child from whom thoſe nations ſhould iſſue and accrew to him as their father. So God is ſaid to have called us with a holy calling, i. e. to have called and reputed us in Chriſt his pardoned, accepted and adopted children, even before we had any actual being in our ſelves. Dedit qui erat, accepit qui non erat. Quis antem hoc facere potuit, niſi qui vocat ea quae non ſunt tanquam ea quae ſunt. Aug. de verb. Apoſt. Sect.
3. If by Calling it be pertinaciouſly maintained that we muſt underſtand that which is done by the Miniſtry of the Goſpel; yet all this helps not Maſter Baxter at all, in regard of the excluſive clauſe following, not according to our work…, where our ſalvation and juſtification as well as our vocation, are denyed to have any dependance upon our own workes and qualifications, as conditions thereof: And the whole end of Maſter Baxters diſpute againſt juſtification as an immanent Act in God, is, becauſe if that be granted, there will be no place for footing our works and qualifications as neceſſarily precedent conditions of juſtification. And theſe fall to ground, as well as if we were juſtified without them, though in time, as if wee were juſtified from Eternity.
4. But how, and whether we can truly, and properly be ſaid to have received Grace in Chriſt before all worlds, whereby we are ſaved, and juſtified, and yet not to be ſaved, and juſtified in Chriſt before the world was, will come to bee examined in drawing forth the ſenſe of other Scriptures which I ſhall annex. In the interim this remaines unqueſtioned, that although the Apoſtle ſpeak here of Juſtification in our ſelves in time, yet he affirmes it to be according to the Grace given us in Chriſt before the world; ſo it was in Chriſt for us before, though not in our ſelves till we beleeve.
Againe when the Scripture ſpeaking of the Sonnes of Iſaac, ſaith of them, while yet unborn, and conſequently having neither done good nor evill, Jacob have I loved, but Eſau have I hated, Mal. 1. 2, 3. Rom. 9. 11, 13. And elſwhere pronounceth of men, that when they lay in their blood, in their nakedneſs then hee made it the time of love, ſayd to them live, ſpread his skirt over them, and covered them, entred into Covenant with them, and made them his, Ezek. 16. 6, 8. God of his great love wherewith hee hath loved us, even when we were dead in ſins and treſpaſſes, hath quickned us, &c. Epheſ. 2. 4, 5. God commendeth his love to us that when we were yet ſinners, when enemies, we were juſtified by Chriſts blood, and reconciled to God by his death. Rom. 5 8, 9, 10. Here it is evident to all men that the love of God juſtifying and reconciling us to himſelf, goeth before our Faith and Workes, was then in its power and operation, when wee were yet ſinners, in all our pollution, enemies, dead in ſinne, therefore without any ſpirituall motion, or operation to our own cleanſing, or happineſs. I demand now when this love of God ſo juſtifying us beganne? Not when we beleeved, and firſt obeyed the Goſpel, for it went before, it was then acted toward us when wee were enemies, dead, &c. Or when wee beganne to be ſinners? Then it ſeems our ſinne begat this love in God, and then let the Atheiſts Aphoriſm ſtand as an impregnable Principle, let our ſinne abound, that the grace and love of God may abound. Or was there ever an hatred of us, as a contrary affection in God, before, which is now expelled that love might ſucceed in its place? And hath God now changed his hating of us to condemne us, into a love to juſtifie and ſave us? This were to accuſe God of mutableneſs and change. For God is Love, 1 Iohn 4. 8. and the Love of God is God himſelfe loving, and to affirme where wee finde the Love of God at preſent, that there was a time when this Love was not in God, and a time when God beganne to love, is no other but to affirme, that there was a time when God yet was not, and a time when he beganne to bee God, the will of God being God himſelfe; And the volitions, or willings of God, being God himſelf willing: And the acts of Gods Love and Hatred being acts of Gods Will; yea of God himſelfe, and no more ſubject to change (becauſe immanent in God) then God himſelfe. So that theſe Scriptures which affirme Gods love to us when ſinners, doe affirm alſo conſequentially his love to us before we were either in being, or juſt, or ſinners, even from eternity.
Thirdly, when the Lord ſaith to his people, I have loved thee with an everlaſting love, Jerem. 13. 3. Doth hee not mean a love which is from everlaſting to everlaſting? Or is there a Love of God to everlaſting which was not from everlaſting? Or was it not the Love of accepting, and approbation of them unto Righteouſneſſe and Salvation, whereof hee there ſpeaketh? And when the Apoſtle Iohn tels us, that the glory of Gods love doth herein ſhine forth, Not that we loved him, but that he loved us, 1 John 4. 10. making not our love, or any fruits thereof, the foundation of Gods love to us, but the love of God to us to goe before and prevent our love; is not this a doctrin univerſally true of all the Saints that are or have been, that Gods love to them prevented, and was antecedaneous to their love toward him? if ſo, then conſequently before mans being, as well as before his loving; and if before mans being, then from eternity was this grace given us, that we were loved of God in Chriſt, to juſtification and ſalvation. It is that which the Lord Chriſt ſpeaketh, (and that not obſcurely) in his prayer before his paſſion, where having interceded and craved ſundry bleſſings for his Elect, he adds this reaſon why he craved thoſe bleſſings in their behalfe, viz. That the world may know that thou haſt ſent me, and that thou haſt loved them as thou haſt loved me. Jo. 17. 23. How is that? in the next verſe he explaineth himſelf thus, Thou haſt loved me before the foundation of the world: what doth follow hence, but that as Chriſt, ſo they that are Chriſts, were loved of God unto life, before the foundation of the world? why will not Maſter Baxter acknowledge what Chriſt hath prayed that all the world may know?
Object. 1. Or will it be objected, that God loving the Elect in Chriſt before the foundation of the world, is to be underſtood onelyonly in this ſenſe, that before the foundation of the world, God decreed in himſelfe to love them in Chriſt afterward in time? Then muſt we ſo conclude of Chriſt alſo, that God loved Chriſt before, that is, decreed before the foundation of the world to love Chriſt in after time, not that he loved him from eternity, for as hee loved Chriſt, ſo he loved them in Chriſt: But he actually loved Chriſt as the head of the Church before the foundation of the World, therefore alſo he loved the Elect in Chriſt as the body and members of Chriſt before the foundation of the world. Yea to decree from eternity, to love them afterward in time, and untill the time came, to hate them, or not to love them in Chriſt, was to decree mutableneſſe and change in his own will, i. e. in himſelfe, which is wholly repugnant to his nature that cannot change, by receiving augmentation unto, or diminution of the acts of his Will, which were in him from eternity.
Object. 2. But perhaps Maſter Baxter may object with his friends of the Netherlands, the Arminians, whoſe ghoſts have much infeſted us within this Nation theſe many years, that this love of God from Eternity, that which he ſhed abroad upon the Elect when they were yet ſinners, enemies, and dead in ſin, is to be underſtood onelyonly of Gods univerſal & common love, his love to all the creatures which he hath made, or at the uttermoſt his foreign, his love unto mankind which he extends to all alike; Making the raine to deſcend, and his Sun to ſhine upon the juſt and unjuſt, and fills the hearts of all with food and gladneſs.
Sol. But how then was Jaakob loved and Eſau hated, when Eſau partaked more of this common love than Jaakob? or was it a Common love by which God doth juſtifie and reconcile ſinners to himſelfe? then all ſhall be reconciled, juſtified and ſaved. Or when the Apoſtle termes it foreign the much, or great love of God, out of which when he quickned us, yet dead in ſinnes and treſpaſſes, Eph. 2. 4. was this the common love extended to all the Sonns and Daughters of Adam without difference? Then alſo (for God loved us as he loved Chriſt) the love of God to Chriſt was a common love, in nothing ſupereminent to the love wherewith he loved Cain and Judas.
Laſtly, when God ſaith, I have not beheld iniquity in Jaakob, nor ſeen perverſneſſe in Iſrael, Num. 23. 21. it will (I doubt not) be granted that the meaning was, that God did not ſee it to impute it, as to the curſe which Baalam was hired to denounce from God againſt Iſrael. If God did not actually ſee iniquity and perverſneſſe in Iſrael, then never did he ſee it in any people; So degenerate had Iſrael been into the idolatries of the Egyptians, ſo full of infidelity and murmuring in the Wilderneſſe, untill the very day that God thus ſpake; that unleſſe wee will make him Plinies God, that doth not deſcend in his providence lower than the ſtarrie and Celeſtial Spheres, to intermixe himſelf with earthly things, for fear of attracting to himſelf pollution thence; Wee muſt acknowledge that he ſaw iniquity in that people. But he ſaw it not to impute it, although he ſaw it clearly to reprove it, and to purge it out of them. Alſo in thoſe Scriptures, where God imputeth to men righteouſneſs without works, pr…nouncing …hem bleſſed, whoſe iniquities are forgiven, and whoſe ſinns are covered, and to whom God imputeth no ſin, but imputeth Righteouſneſſe, Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19. To what time ſhall we reduce this imputation to find it in its Originall, if not to Eternity? When began God to account or reckon us righteous in Chriſt, or not to impute ſinne to us, if he did not actually doe it in himſelf before time from eternity? When elſe was the generation of the Elect reckoned righteous in Chriſt firſt, and had their iniquity no more imputed; but when Chriſts ſatisfaction became effectuall for them? But this Maſter Baxter before, page 23, 24. acknowledgeth, and maintaineth to be when Chriſt undertooke to ſatisfie in their behalf: How ſhould it be otherwiſe? when Chriſt came to bee voluntarily bound for them, then were they diſmiſſed free. When he became ſinne for them, they became the righteouſneſſe of God in Chriſt. 2 Cor. 5. 21. At once their ſinnes were imputed to Chriſt in point of ſatisfaction to bee made for them; and they diſcharged for ever, (viz. in the Court where theſe things were tranſacted between the Father and the Sonne) from making ſatisfaction in their own perſons, and reckoned perfectly righteous for ever, in reſpect of vengeance, and condemnation for ſinne. But Chriſts undertaking to ſatisfie for them, and conſequently the whole tranſaction, and covenant between the Father and him about our Redemption, and Juſtification, and the ſaid imputation of the ſins of the Elect to Chriſt, were all from eternity, before the foundation of the world, elſe how could they bee loved in Chriſt before the foundation of the world? Therefore alſo their being accounted Righteous in Chriſt, the not imputation of ſinne unto them, their abſolution, and diſcharge from condemnation (and this Maſter Baxter will acknowledge to be Juſtification) were perfited in God, and in Chriſt before the foundation of the World. Yea however ſome godly Commentators ſpeak beneath the mind of the Apoſtle, yet his words are plaine, and full, Tit. 1. 2. 1 Tim. 1. 9. That God hath promiſed eternal life, and given us Grace in Chriſt before the world beganne. How promiſed? unto Chriſt our head, and to us in him, by that eternall Covenant between the Father and the Son? And how given us in him, but as Iohn ſaith, He hath given us eternall life, and this life is in his Son; viz. laid up in him for us from eternity, to be received in time into our ſelves, as we receive Chriſt, according to what followeth, He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, 1 Ioh. 5. 11, 12. And the grace or life that in that 2 Tim. 1. 9. is ſaid to be given us in Chriſt before times, is yer. 10. affirmed to be brought to light by Chriſt in theſe laſt times; As the former ſeems the Immanent, ſo this the Tranſient Act of Juſtification. Elſe let Mr. Baxter produce any other ſeaſon of ſuch a parley and covenant between God and Chriſt ſince the world beganne. He finds this project not to thrive in the hands of his friends the Arminians, therefore as aſhamed of it, he layes it aſide, not touching it (as far as I can remember) in any part of this his Tractate.
As for that giddy and unbottomed deviſe of Grotius, which Maſter Baxter laies down firſt in his own words, Theſ. 15. pag. 92. and then in Grotius his words, pag. 94, 95. it hathin its due place received ſo much in anſwer, as I think fit to be given to ſo bold & peremptory an aſſertion as hath nothing but a dream for its father, and neither Scripture nor ſhew of reaſon annexed to confirm it.
If it be objected, that the Apoſtle in the afore… quoted Chapter affirms faith to be imputed for righteouſneſſe, and that it was ſo reckoned to Abraham when he was yet in uncircumciſion: and thence concluded that therefore we are juſtified in time even when wee beleeve, wee grant the argument in reſpect of foederall juſtification, or Gods tranſient act, concerning declaring a man juſtified to his own conſcience.
This alone the Apoſtle there aſſerteth, and this is acknowledged by our Divines (as hath been ſaid before) not to be untill we actually beleeve. But this is nothing to the confuting, no nor to the weakening of our Juſtification, compleated in God, and in Chriſt before the foundation of the world. This I take to be the ſum of the Doctrine which Mr. Baxter aſperſeth with Antinomianiſm; which I beleeve no other Papiſt, or Arminian had done before him. As well, and properly might hee have termed it Mahometaniſm; for as agreeable is it with the principles of this, as of that. How conſenting it is with the Scripture I leave to the unprejudiced Reader to judge. The very flower of all our Proteſtant Writers have aſſerted it in ſuch numbers, as would fill up a page to name them. Neither know I any one Writer which (having not occaſion to manifeſt himſelfe to be of the ſame judgement) hath ever expreſſed himſelfe to diſſent from it: Till Doctor Downham excepted againſt Maſter Pemble for delivering it, and that upon a ſtrange ground, that declared great inadvertency in the reading of the Doct. viz. That he beleeveth no man had ſo written before Mr. Pemble. Within theſe ten years indeed, ſome others of great place and name (among our ſelves) have diſrelliſhed it. But (as farre as I can by enquiry find) have not communicated their reaſons to their Brethren, why they did it, therefore ought not to be angry with them, if by an implicite Faith they take not in the ſame diſrelliſh alſo. For my own part I muſt crave the liberty to ſee light for my guidance into the contrary aſſertion, before I lay down this as darkneſs, unto which I at leaſt think my ſelf to have been led by the light of the Word. Yet with theſe Proviſo's (to prevent miſtakes) I adhere to his opinion.
1. That this Immanent Act in God doth not deny his Tranſient Act of Juſtifying man when he beleeveth, any more then this latter doth that former.
2. That the Tranſient Act of Juſtification conſiſteth not onelyonly in Gods evidencing and manifeſting to the beleever that he was really juſtified in God from eternity; but alſo in Gods Actual, and Judiciall pronouncing of the ſentence of Abſolution to the ſoul drawn to Gods Tribunal, and gaſping for pardon thorough Chriſt. By means whereof the poor ſinner is conſtituted, as well as declared actually, and perſonally righteous, and that before God his Juſtifier.
3. That as oft as the Goſpel ſpeaketh of Juſtification by Faith, it is in reference to this Tranſient Act of God, not that Immanent.
4. That as I conceive the Covenant between God and Chriſt to be (if I may ſo term it) a fruit, in order to that immanent act in God; ſo I think alſo that the Covenant of Promiſe, the Covenant under the Law, the Covenant under the Goſpel, and the very Covenant of Works to be ſubſervients to this Covenant made with Chriſt as a publick perſon, repreſenting us, to work all coordinately to the advancing of the glory of Gods Grace to his Elect, in juſtifying them in himſelf from Eternity. Yet ſo, that if I find a candid Teacher in any, or all theſe to inform me better, I hope I ſhall not be wanting to ſhew my docility.
I ſhould have wholly forborn to touch upon this point (ſo famous a Divine having lately taken upon him the Province) but this was written before, and it will not hinder his further proſecution thereof, to which I hear hee will bee provoked.
As to Mr. Baxter, let him pretend what he will of his zeal againſt this Doctrine, becauſe it is a Pillar of Antinomianiſm, yet his conſcience tels him that his rage againſt it is under this conſideration, as it is a ſl…dge to beat in peeces the conditional Juſtification, Election, Redemption, and Grace; together with the pride of mans Free-will, Works, and Righteouſneſſe, uncertainty of Perſeverance, &c. Which are the Articles of Faith common to Mr. Baxter with the Papiſts and Arminians. If Juſtification, as an immanent act in God from Eternity, hold, all theſe muſt fall, and Maſter Baxter and his fellows bee cruſhed with the ruines thereof. The worke of the next Chapter therefore ſhall bee, to examine the force of his reaſons, and arts, whereby he ſeekes to refute, and ſubvert it.