The true doctrine of justification asserted and vindicated, from the errours of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially Antinomians in XXX lectures preached at Lawrence-Iury, London / by Anthony Burgess ...

LECTURE XXII.

MAT. 6.12.

And forgive us our Debts.

WE proceed to the remaining arguments, which would maintain a justification before faith.

The next is from Gods election, thus, All the elect of God are justified before God. But some of the elect do not beleeve. And the major is proved from, Rom. 8.33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? It is God that justifieth.

In the first place this Argument might easily be laid aside, for the Apostle doth not speak here of election, antecedentèr, ante∣cedently

to his other graces, which flow from that in time, but executivè, as it is executed and compleated in those that are ele∣cted. Therefore by the elect he meaneth those elect that be∣lieve, that are holy, that are conformable to the image of God, that do love him, as the context sheweth; for otherwise we know Paul himself laid much to the charge of the Ephesians, though elect, when before their conversion, he said they were children of wrath as well as others; and therefore by that ada∣mantine chain, Whom he hath predestinated he hath called, whom he hath called he hath justified, whom he hath justified he hath gl••ri∣fied, it is plain, he takes election terminativè (as they say) in the effects of it, even till it hath obtained the utmost terminus, which is everlasting glory.

2. From this chain also is an infallible Argument against the Opponent, thus,

Those only are justified that are called, But none are called or converted from all Eternity, Therefore none are justified from all Eternity.

The major is grounded upon the method and order which the Apostle observeth, beginning with the highest round in that chain, which is Predestination, and ending in the lowest, which is Glorification: so that it cannot rationally be thought that the Apostle did not intend an exact order, and method in those ex∣pressions.

3. If so be a man (because he is elected) be justified from all Eternity, then it will also follow he is glorified from all Eternity. And so Hymenaeus ••nd Philetus may be excused in this sense, if they say, The resurrection is past already. It is true, the Apostle useth words signifying time past, Whom he hath predestinated, he hath called, &c. But that is either to shew the certainty and infallible connection of these benefits together; or else, because Predestination being necessarily for the time past, he would not alter the current of his expression for the following mercies.

4. The Apostle might well say, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect? and not of Believers, because election is the maternal mercy, it is the fountain and head from which all other flow. Hence the Apostle doth in the same Chapter limit mercies

to those that are called according to Gods purpose, implying here∣by, that this is the ground and root of all.

But fifthly, To discover the fundamental weakness of this Argument. We are to take notice, That Predestination is an immanent act of God, and works no positive real effect upon the party elected, till in time, for howsoever it be an act of love, yet of love only by way of purpose and decreeing, and so doth not denote a change in the creature, but when that purpose or councel of God, (which is altogether free) hath determined it. Hence we are to co••ceive a love of God electing us from all Eternity, which doth produce another love of God (not immanent in him, for so nothing is new in God, but transient in us) and that is Justi∣fication; from this love floweth another effect of love, which is Glorification. Some have doubted, Whether Election be an act of love; and therefore have distinguished between Dilecti∣on and Election, as if Dilection did go before, and Election follow. But certainly the same act of God, as it doth will good to the creature, is Dilection, as it willeth it to this rather ••hen another, is Election. We grant therefore that Election is an act of great love, but its a love of purpose or intention, not execution, it is Amor ordinativus, not collativus; it is a love or∣daining and preparing of mercies, but not bestowing them pre∣sently. Thus Austin defined Predestination, to be Praeparatio beneficiorum quibus liberantur, a preparing or ordaining of those mercies and priviledges, which the Elect shall have in time. And among men we see the purpose of giving such a gift is ac∣counted love, as well as the gift it self. Now while a man is on∣ly under the love of Election, and no more, there is no actual Remission of sin, no acceptance or complacency in his person or duties. There is a purpose in God to do all these in time, but the mercies are not from eternity exhibited. So that in some respects there is a great difference between an elect Person un∣converted, and a Reprobate: And again in some respects there is none at all. As for example, there is this grand difference, [ 1] That although both be equally in sinne, and under wrath, yet God hath a purpose to bring the elect person infallibly out of that misery; and in this respect God may be said never to hate him that is elect, (In which sense, God is said to love Jacob, and

hate Esau) but the Reprobate shall perish eternally in his sinne. The Apostle saith, Rom. 11. Election hath obrained, because that will most certainly bring about both the means and the end. So that for all the Elect, The foundation of God standeth sure, having this Seal, The Lord knoweth who are his, 2 Tim. 2.19.

2. There is no difference in this, in that for the present both [ 2] are children of wrath, both aliens from the promise of grace, no promise of any gracious priviledge either for pardon of sin, or e∣ternal glory belongs unto them, only Gods purpose will in time make an actual difference between them. Neither is this to make any contradictory will in God, for both these may well stand together, viz. Gods will, for the future to give pardon and glory, and yet to will neither of them to be for the present. All this is done with the same act of Gods will. If therefore hatred be ta∣ken as opposite to that love of Election, which God had from all Eternity, so an elect man, though unregenerate, is never ha∣ted; but if it be taken largely for that displicency or wrath of God, which is contrary to the grace of Justification exhibited in time, so he may be said to be hated before his conversion: nei∣ther is it any wonder, if this be called hatred, seeing in the Scri∣pture, less loving, is called hating sometimes, as the Learned ob∣serve. Neither doth this make any change in God, it only deno∣teth a change in the creature, as hereafter is to be shewed. So that the gross mistake, as if Ele••tion were all love, actually and expresly, and the confounding of the love of God, as an imma∣nent act in him, with the effects of this love, hath made several persons split upon rocks of errors. But how love and anger are in God, is more exactly to be examined, when we speak of the me∣ritorious cause of Justification, which is Christs merits: for in∣deed this Argument from Election, will as well put in for a Ju∣stification before any consideration of Christ, as well as of Faith, if every thing be duely weighed, as in that part (God willing) is to he shewed, where also the distinctions about Gods love are to be considered of. Some making a general love, and a special love; others a first love and a second, or one flowing from the first; o∣thers a love of benevolence or beneficence, and of complacency: But of these in their proper place.

We proceed, and in the next place, we will put his fourth and sixth Argument together, being both grounded upon this, That Christ by his death gave a full satisfaction to God, and God accepted of it, whereby Christ is said so often to take away our sins, and we to be cleansed by his bloud. This Argument made the learned Pem∣ble, pag. 25. to hold out Justification in Gods sight long before we were born, as being then purchased by Christs death, other∣wise he thinks we must with the Arminians say, Christ by his death made God placabilem, reconcilable, not placatum, recon∣ciled. No (saith he) it is otherwise, the ransome demanded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 paid and accepted, full satisfaction to the divine Justice is given and taken, all the sins of the Elect, all actually pardoned. This is a great oversight.

For first, Though Christ did lay down a price, and the Father accept of it, yet both agreed in a way and order when this benefit should become theirs, who are partakers of it, and that is, when they believe and repent. Now Bonum est ex integris causis, if God the Fathers Covenant be to give pardon for Christs sake to those that do believe (which faith also is the fruit of Christs death) then may we not separate Christ from faith, no more then faith from Christ, or God the Fathers love from both. If Christ had died for such a man to have his sins pardoned, whe∣ther he had faith in him or no, then this Argment would have stood firm: God then, did accept of Christs death, and be∣comes reconciled, but in that order and way which he hath ap∣pointed.

2. This Argument doth interf••re with that of Election; for there pardon of sin doth take its rise from Election, but here from the time God laid our sins upon Christ. And indeed the Antinomians are at a variance amongst themselves, some fetch∣ing the original of pardon from one way, and some from ano∣ther.

3. We do not say, That faith is the condition of Christs ac∣quiring pardon, but of the application of pardon. Faith doth not make Christs merits to be merits, or his satisfaction to be satisfaction. This ariseth from the dignity and worth of Christ. It would be an absurd thing to say, That faith is the cause why God doth accept of Christs merits, and receiveth a satisfaction

by him. This were to make the instrumental cause, a meritori∣ous cause. The Arminians they make Christ to have purchased pardon upon condition of believing, which believing they do not make a benefit by Christs death; yea they say, Nihil in∣eptius, nibil vanius, nothing is more foolish and vain then to do so. Now this indeed is an execrable errour, to hold Christ died only to make a way for reconciliation, which reconcilia∣tion is wholly suspended upon a mans faith, and that faith comes partly from a mans will, and partly from grace, not being the fruit of Christs death, as wel as remission of sins it self. But we say a far different thing, Christ satisfied Gods wrath, so that God becomes reconciled, and gives pardon, but in the method and way he hath appointed, which is faith, and this faith God will certainly work in his due time, that so there may be an instru∣ment to receive this pardon.

For the opening of this, when it is said, Christ satisfied Gods wrath, this may have a different meaning, either that Christ absolutely purchased reconciliation with the Father, whether they believe or no, without any condition at all, as Joab ob∣tained Absoloms reconciliation with David, or Esther the Jews deliverance of Ahashu••rosh, Or with a condition. In the for∣mer sense it cannot be said, because the fruits of Christs death are limited only to believers. If with a condition, then either Antecedent, which is to be wrought by us, that so we may be partakers of his death, and that cannot be, because it is said, He died for us while sinners and enemies. And this is Arminianism, for by this means only a gate is set open for salvation, but it may happen that no man may enter in: or else this condition is Concomitant or consequent, viz. A qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ, whereby we are enabled to receive of those benefits, which come by his death; And in this sense it is a truth; and by this, the foundation of the Opponent is totally razed. For Christ took away the sins of those, for whom he died, and recon∣ciled them to God, and this absolutely, if by it we understand any condition anteceding to be done by us: but not absolutely, if it exclude a condition that is consequently wrought by the Spi∣rit of God, to apply the fruits of Christs death: so that the actual taking away of sins is not accomplished, till the person

for whom he died be united to him by Faith. Hence the Scri∣pture speaks differently about Christs death; sometimes it saith, He died for us sinners and enemies; and in other places, John 15.13. He layeth down his life for his friends, and his sheep. Joh. 17.19, He saith, he prayeth and sanctifieth himself for those that shall be∣lieve in him, viz. in a consequent sense; for those who by faith shall lay hold on his death. So that faith hath a two-fold conditi∣on, the first of the time, when sins are taken away by Christs death, and that is, when they believe. 2. Of whom these privi∣ledges are true, and that is, of such who do believe. Now all this may be the further cleared, if we consider, what kinde of cause Christs death is, to take away our sins. It is a meritorious cause, which is in the rank of moral causes; of which the rule is not true, Positâ causâ, sequitur effectus, The cause being, the effect presently followeth. This holdeth in natural causes, which necessarily produce their effects, but moral causes, work ac∣cording to the agreement and liberty of the Persons that are moved thereby. As for Example, God the Father, is moved through the death of Christ to pardon the sins of such persons, for whom he dieth. This agreement is to be made good, in that time they shall pitch upon in their transaction. Now it pleased the Father, that the benefits and fruits of Christs death should be applied unto the believer, and not till he did be∣lieve, though this faith be at the same time also a gift of God through Christ. It is good therefore, when we either call Ele∣ction absolute, or say, Christ died absolutely, to consider that Absolute may be taken as opposite to a Pre-requisite Condition, which is to be fulfilled by us, so that upon this, Election, and the fruits of Christs death shall depend; or else Absolute, may be taken, as it opposeth any Means or Order which God hath appointed, as the way to obtain the end; and in this later sense, it would be a grand absurdity to say, Election is absolute, or Christ died absolutely, for if this were so, the prophane Argu∣ment about Election, would have truth in it. If I be elected, let me live never so wickedly, I shall be saved. And the Armi∣nian Argument, That every one were bound to believe that Christ died for him, though wicked and abiding so, would not well be avoided.

His last Argument is from the unchangeableness of Gods love, If we are not justified in his sight before we believe, then God did once hate us, and afterwards love us. And if this be so, why should Arminians be blamed, for saying, We may be the children of God to day, and the children of the devil to mor∣row? Hence he concludes it, as undoubted, That God lo∣ved us first, before we believe, even when we were in our bloud.

In answering of this Argument, several things are considera∣ble,

First, It must be readily granted, That God is unchangeable, Jam. 1.17. God is there compared to the Sunne, and is therefore called, the Father of Lights, but yet is preferred before it, because that hath Clouds sometimes cast over it, and sometimes is in e∣clipse, but there is change, or shadow of change with him. The Hea∣thens have confessed this, and so argued, If God should change, it would be either for better or worse; for worse, how could it be imagi∣ned? for better, then God were not absolutely perfect. Most accur∣sed therefore must Vorstius his blasphemy be, who purposely pleads for mutability in God.

But secondly, As this is easily to be confessed, so the diffi∣culty of those Arguments, brought from the things which God doth in time, and not from all Eternity, have been very weighty upon some mens shoulders; insomuch that they thought this the only way to salve all, by saying, That all things were from Eternity. And certainly by the Antinomian Argu∣ments we may as well plead for the Creation of all things from all Eternity, as that we are justified from all Eternity, for all are equally built upon this sandy foundation, That because the things are done in time, therefore there must be some new act of will, or love in God, which would imply God is mutable, not loving to day, and loving to morrow; Therefore to avoid this, they say, All is from Eternity. Origen who was called by an ancient Writer Centaur, because of his monstrous opinions, argued thus, lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, cap. 2. As there cannot be a father without a sonne, or a Master and Lord without a possession, so neither an omnipotent, unless there be those things about which this power may be exercised. Now although it be true,

That De Deo etiam vera dicere periculosum est, because of the weakness of our Understandings to perceive his infinite lustre,

Yet thirdly, It is well cleared by the Schoolmen, That those relations which are attributed to God in time, as a Creatour, Father, or Lord, are not because of any new thing in God, but in respect of the creatures; so that when the world is created, when a man is justified, we say, God who was not a Creator before, is a Creator, who was not a Father by grace, is now by grace; not because any new accident is in him, but because there is a new effect in the creatures. Thus, if a man once the childe of wrath, be now a son of Gods love, the change is not in God, but in the creature.

For the better clearing of this, we are to take notice in the fourth place, That it is one thing, as Aquinas observeth, Mu∣tare voluntatem, to change the Will; and another thing, Velle mutationem, to Will a change. By the same unchangeable Will, we may Will several changes in an Object. As the Phy∣sician without any change of his Will, may will his Patient to take one kinde of Physick one day, and another the third: here he wils a change, but doth not change his Will. Thus God with the same Will, decreed to permit in time such an elect man to be in a state of sin, under the power of Satan, and after∣wards to call him out of this condition, to justifie his person; here indeed is a great change made in the man, but none at all in God. There is no new act in God, which was not from all Eternity, though every effect of this love of God was not from Eternity, but in time. Hence when our Divines argue against Arminians, That if the Saints should apostatize, Gods love would be changeable, it is meant of Gods love of Election, which is an absolute purpose and efficacious will to bring such a man to glory: now although such a decree was free, and so might not have been; yet ex hypothesi, supposing God hath made this de∣cree, it doth very truly follow, That if that Saint should not be brought to glory, God would be changeable. And besides this im∣mutability, which may be called an immutability of his nature, there is another of his Word and Promise, whereby he hath graciously covenanted to put his fear in their heart, that they shall

never depart from him: Now if any of the Saints should totally or finally apostatize, Gods mutability would be seen in both those respects of his nature or will, and of his truth and fidelity. But the case is not the like, when a man at his first conversion, is made of a childe of wrath, a childe of grace; partly because there was no such absolute decree of God from Eternity, that he should be for no space a childe of wrath, but the clean con∣trary; and partly because there is no such word or promise un∣to any unconverted person, that he shall be in the favour of God; but the Scripture declareth the clean contrary. This duly considered, will give a clear reason, why it is no good Ar∣gument to say, Such a man in his sins to day, is a childe of wrath; and converted to morrow, is a son of grace: Therefore God is changeable. But on the other side, if a man should argue, An Elect man received into the state of grace, may fall totally and fi∣nally, Therefore God is changed, would be a strong and unde∣niable inference. And indeed for this particular may the Ar∣minians be challenged, as holding Gods mutability, because they hold, That notwithstanding Gods decree and purpose to save such a man, yet a man by his own corruption and default, shall frustrate God of this his intention. Otherwise all know, Adam was created in a state of Gods favour, and quickly apo∣statized into the contrary: so that we may truly say, Adam was one day, (yea hour, as some) a childe of Gods favour; and in another of his wrath, yet the change was in Adam, not in God, both because God had not made an absolute Decree from all Eternity for his standing, as also because he had made no Promise to preserve him in that happy condition. In this sense 1 Pet. 2.10. it is said, Which in time past were not a people, but now are the people of God, which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. And whereas the Opponent saith, God loved us before we did believe; it is true, with a love of pur∣pose; but many effects of his love are not exhibited till we do believe. He loveth us▪ and so worketh one effect of love in us, that that effect may be a qualification for a new and further effect of love. He loveth us, to make us his friends, and when he hath done that, he loveth us with a love of friendship. God lo∣ved us before he gave Christ, for out of that love he gave us

Christ, that so when Christ is given us, he may bestow another love upon us. Now because it is ordinary with us to call the ef∣fect of love, love, as the fruit of grace is grace; Therefore we say, In such a time God loved not one, and afterwards we say, He doth love the same, not that herein is any change of God, but se∣veral effects of his love are exhibited. As we call the effects of Gods anger, his anger, Poena patientis, ira esse creditur decernen∣tis, The punishment on the offender, is judged the anger of the inflicter: and by this means we say sometimes God is angry, and afterwards he ceaseth to be angry, when he removeth these ef∣fects of his anger: so a man is said to be loved, or not to be lo∣ved according to the effects of Gods love exhibited in time, and God hath so appointed it, that one effect of his love should be a qualification in the subject for another, as sanctification for glo∣rification.

Notes

• Arg. 7.
• Ans. 1.
• Answ. 2.
• Answ. 3.
• Answ. 4.
• Answ. 5.
• An elect per∣son unconv••r••∣ed, and a repro∣bate in many things differ not. As
• Argu. 4. and Argum. 6.
• Answ. 1.
• Answ. 2.
• Answ. 3.
• A two fold condition of faith,
• Arg. ult.
• Answ.