Vindiciæ justificationis gratuitæ = Justification without conditions, or, The free justification of a sinner : explained, confirmed, and vindicated, from the exceptions, objections, and seeming absurdities, which are cast upon it, by the assertors of conditional justification : more especially from the attempts of Mr. B. Woodbridge in his sermon, entituled (Justification by faith), of Mr. Cranford in his Epistle to the reader, and of Mr. Baxter in some passages, which relate to the same matter : wherein also, the absoluteness of the New Covenant is proved, and the arguments against it, are disproved / by W. Eyre ...

CHAP. X. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges first Argument against Justification before Faith, taken from the Nature of Justification, is answered.

HIs first Argument is drawn from the Nature of Justification, Which (sayes he) is the absolution of a sinner from con∣demnation, by that gracious sentence and signal promise in the Gospel. [He that believes, shall not enter into condemnation.] The Argument he hath cast into this frame, If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word, which may be a legal discharge of the sinner, while he is in unbelief, then no unbe∣lieving sinner is justified: But there is no act of grace, declared and published in the Word, which is a legal discharge of the sinner, whilest he remains in unbelief, Ergo. Whereunto I an∣swer, 1. That his Assumption is false; for the Gospel or New Covenant is a published or declared discharge of all the Elect. The sum of which is, That God hath transacted all their sins up∣on Jesus Christ, and that Christ by that offering of his hath made a full and perfect atonement for them; whereby the whole spiritual Israel, are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God, as of old, carnal Israel were Typically clean, upon the atonement made by the High Priest, Levit. 16.30. Now though they can∣not plead it before they believe; yet is it a real discharge, because it frees them from condemnation: As a Pardon granted by a Prince, is a legal discharge, though the Malefactor doth not know of it. 2. The Sequel or Consequence of the Major stands upon a sandy bottom, a postulatum that will not be granted, to wit, That Justification is the discharge of a sinner, by a published, declared act. We have shewed before, That Justification consists in the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of Righteousness, which is

an act of the Minde, or Will of God. It is a gross non sequitur, God doth not declare his non-imputing of sin to his Elect, before they believe, Ergo He doth account and esteem them sinners. The Question is not, whether this gracious sentence of Absolution, be declared; but whether it be not in the Brest of God, before it be declared? or, whether this immanent act of God doth not secure the sinner from condemnation? If so! then there is Justification, though there be no published, declared sentence. As Gods saying in his heart, That he would never drown the world any more, Gen. 8.21. did sufficiently secure the world from the danger of an other deluge, though he had never declared it; so Gods will not to punish, secures a person from condemnation, though this security be not declared.

§. 2. They are but feeble proofs, wherewith he hath backed h••s Assertion, That Justification is onely by the promise, as a declared discharge. We are not (says he, as if he sa••e in Pythagoras his Chair) to conceive of Justification, as an internal immanent act of God, resolving privately in his own Brest, not to prosecute his right against a sinner; but it must be some declared, promulged act, &c. But why are we not to conceive of it, as an internal, imma∣nent act? Instead of proofs he gives us Illustrations, which may pass in a Sermon, but are too weak for a dispute. As sin (saith he) is not imputed, where there is no Law, Rom. 5.13. So neither is Righteousness imputed without Law. Whereunto I answer, 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves, where there is not a Law to convince them of it, For by the Law is the knowledge of sin, Rom. 3.20. & 7.9. Gal. 3.19. Yet it follows not, but God did impute sin to men, before there was any Law promulged, or before the sin was actually committed: For what is Gods hating of a person, but his imputing of sin, or his will to punish him for his sin? Now the Lord hated all that perish, ere ever the Law was given. The scope of the Scripture alleadged, Rom. 5.13. is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person, but that sin, in being, supposeth a Law; and consequently, That there was a Law, before the Law of Moses, else men could not have sinned, as it is confessed they did: As the Law it self had a being in the Minde of God, so the issues thereof were deter∣mined by him, before it was declared. 2. There is not the same

reason of our being sinners, and being righteous, seeing that sin is our act, but Righteousness is the gift of God. A man is not a sin∣ner, before he do commit sin, either by himself, or Representative, which necessarily supposeth a Law; For sin is the transgression of a Law, 1 Iohn 3.4. But a man may be righteous before he doth works of Righteousness, and consequently before any Law is given him to obey. Indeed, if we were made righteous by our own per∣sonal Inherent Righteousness, then our Justification would necessa∣rily require a Law; for as much as all our Righteousness consists in a conformity to the Law. But seeing we are justified by the im∣putation of anothers Righteousness, what need is there that a Law should first be given unto us.

§. 3. Mr. W. goes on, [As our condemnation is no secret act, or resolution of God to condemn, but the very voice and sen∣tence of the Law [Cursed is he that sinneth;] (and therefore he whom God in his Eternal Decree, hath purposed to save, may yet for the present be under the sentence of condemnation; as the Ephesians, whom God had chosen to Eternal Life, Chap. 1.4. were yet sometimes the children of wrath, Chap. 2.3.) So on the contrary, our Justification must be some declared, promulged act, or sentence of God, which may stand good in Law, for the dis∣charge of the sinner against condemnation.] We say that con∣demnation (being taken, not for the Will of God to punish, or to inflict upon a person, the desert of his sin, but for the thing willed, or for the curse it self) it comes upon men by vertue of that Law, or Covenant which was made with the first Adam. So our Justi∣fication (being taken, not for the Internal Act of Gods will, not to punish, but for the benefit willed to us by that Internal Act, to wit, Our actual discharge from the Law) descends to us, by vertue of that Law or Covenant, which was made with the second Adam: He performing the terms of agreement between the Father, and himself, made the Law of Condemnation, to be of no force against us, Gal. 3.13. & 4.5. Which New Covenant, and not the Conditional Promise (as Mr. W. would have it) is called The Law of Faith, Rom. 3.27. And the Law of Righteousness, Ch. 9.31. It is called a Law, because it is the fixed and unalterable Sanction of the Great God; or else by way of Antithesis, or opposition to the Covenant of Works: The Law of Righteousness, it being

the onely means whereby men do attain to Righteousness, and are justified in the sight of God; and the Law of Faith, because it strips men of their own righteousness , to cloath them with Christs, and thereby takes from men all occasion of boasting in themselves; whereas, if men did attain to Righteousness by ver∣tue of this Conditional Promise, He that believes, shall be saved; they would have as much cause of boasting in themselves, as if they had performed the Law of Works. That saying of his, with which he closeth this Argument, is wide from truth, That every man is then condemned, or stands condemned in foro Dei, when the Law condemns him; for then all men living are condemned, seeing the Law condemns, or curseth every one that sins; and there is none that lives without sin. Either he must say, Believers do not sin, and then Saint John will give him the lie, 1 Joh. 1.8. or else, That Believers are not justified; which is contrary to the Scrip∣ture last cited by himself, Joh 5.24. with a thousand more. In what sence the Elect Ephesians were called Children of wrath, will more fitly be explained in the next Chapter.

§. 4. In the mean time we will adde a few Reasons against the main support of this Argument, That Justification is the discharge of a sinner, by a declared, published act; to wit, by that Signal, Conditional Promise, He that believes shall be saved. Which, when a man hath performed the condition, he may plead for his discharge. Against this Notion, I shall offer to the Readers serious consideration, these following Arguments. First, If Justi∣fication be not by works, then it is not by this or any other Condi∣tional Promise, which is a declared discharge onely to him that performs the condition, i. e. That worketh: But Justification is not by works , which we have wrought, but an act of the freest grace and bounty, Col. 2.13. where the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a, which the Apostle useth to express the forgiveness of sin, ascribes it sole∣ly to the Grace of God, without Works or Conditions performed by us.

§. 5. Secondly, If Justification be by that Signal Promise (He that believes, shall be saved,) then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published, which was not till our Saviours Ministery in the flesh; nor was there any sentence of Divine Re∣velation like it, which the people of God could plead for their

discharge from the Law, from the fall of Adam; until the publi∣cation of that subservient Covenant in Mount Sinai (which is the tenor of the Law of Works) the Lord never made any Condition∣al Promise, which they could plead for their discharge, and abso∣lution from sin; the promises to Adam, Noah, Abraham, were not conditional, but absolute. Now, if there were no Justificati∣on, till God had made some conditional promise, which men upon performing the condition, might plead as their legal discharge, I marvel into what Limbus▪ Mr. W. will thrust the Fathers of the Old Testament: For they that were not justified, were not saved. But the Scripture gives us more hope, shewing that they were sa∣ved by the same grace, as we are, Acts 15.11. God accepting them as righteous in Jesus Christ; who in respect of the vertue and efficacy of his death, is called The Lamb slain from the foun∣dations of the world, Revel. 13.8. For though this rich Grace were not revealed to them so clearly, as unto us, Eph. 3.5. 1 Pet. 1.12. Yet the Effects and Benefits thereof descended upon them unto Justification of life, no less then to the Faithful in the New Testament. The Argument in short is this. If the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified, who yet had not any such de∣clared discharge; then Justification is not by a declared dis∣charge; but the Fathers of the Old Testament were justified, &c. Ergo.

§. 6. Thirdly, If Justification be onely by a declared discharge, then Elect Infants insensible of this Declaration, and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise, have no Justification, I hope Mr. W. is not such a durus pater infantum, as to exclude all those from Justification that die in their infancy, which he must necessarily do, if he makes Justification to consist in that which they are utterly uncapable of.

§. 7. Fourthly, The making Justification a declared discharge, detracts from the Majesty and Soveraignty of God: For as much as it ascribes to him but the office of a Notary, or subordinate Minister, (whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court) rather then of a Judge or Supream Magistrate, whose Will is a Law. And by this means Justification shall be opposed, not to condemnation, but to concealing or keeping secret.

§. 8. Fifthly, If Justification were by a Conditional Promise,

as a declared discharge, then it would not be Gods act, but our own; God should not be our Justifier, but we must be said to justifie our selves; For a Conditional Promise doth not declare one man justified more then another, but the performance of the con∣dition: So that a man should be more beholding to himself, then to God, for his Justification.

§. 9. Sixthly, We may argue a pari: Forgiveness amongst men is not necessarily by a declared discharge, Ergo, Gods is not; for there is the same reason for both; and therefore we are bid to forgive one another, as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us, Eph. 4. ult. i. e. heartily, or from the heart, as the Apostle else∣where explains it, Col. 3.17. Not in word, or in tongue, but in deed, and in true affection. Mans forgiveness is principally an act of the Heart and Minde: A man forgives an injury, when he layes aside all thoughts of revenge, and really intends his welfare that did the same; his heart is as much towards him, as if he had not done it: And therefore Gods forgiving of a sinner, is not necessa∣rily a declared absolution. God may justifie or acquit a person, though he doth not declare his reconciliation with him.

§. 10. Mr. Woodbridge foresaw the force of this Reason, and therefore hath wisely laid in this Exception against it. Indeed to our private forgiveness one of another, being meerly an act of Charity, there is no more required, then a resolution within our selves to lay aside our thoughts of revenge, &c. But the for∣giveness of a Magistrate, being an act of Authority, must be by some formal act of Oblivion, &c. A Vote in the house is no Le∣gal security to a Delinquent; so then, Gods forgiveness being an act of Authority, must neither be an hidden, secret purpose in his own heart, &c. but a formal promulged act. Answ. 1. I see no reason why God should not have as much power to forgive, without a promulged act, as man. It was a saying heretofore, Papa nunquàm sibi ligat manus; they that have supream and absolute power, love not to have their hands tyed. I wonder therefore, that Mr. W. should be so bold as to limit God, and to prescribe in what way and manner he must forgive sinners; I am sure, the Reason which he gives, is of little force; for Gods forgiveness is no less an act of Charity, then mans; as these Scriptures, Rom 5.8. Eph. 2.4. with many others do sufficiently shew. And though God in

the act of forgiveness, may be looked upon as a Judge, yet is he such a Judge, as proceeds by no other Law then his own Will. And therefore (2) we say, That though the forgiveness of Magistrates be by some published act of Oblivion, yet it doth not follow, That God must proceed in the same manner; because the promul∣gation of an act of Grace, is for the direction and limitation of Judges, and Ministers of State, that they do not execute the sen∣tence of the Law. Now in the Justification of a sinner, God hath no need of such an act, because he is the sole Judge and Justifier himself; and therefore the purpose of his Will secures the person sufficiently though his security be not declared, and makes the Law of condemnation (which depends wholly on the Will of God) to be of no force, in regard of the real execution of it, whether he do plead it, or no; as in Infants, and doubting Christians, whose hearts do condemn them; some of whom Mr. W. acknowledgeth to be justified, Pag. 3. & 15. A Judge that hath the Legislative power in his own brest, needs no published Edict to absolve an Offender. Now God is such a Judge, as doth not receive, but gives Laws unto all. (3) The publishing of acts of Grace, is for the comfort of the Offender, rather then for any need that the Supream Magistrate hath thereof, as to the compleating of his act; as for instance, the Act of Oblivion was a real Pardon, when it passed the house; for though Delinquents had no knowledge of their immunity from the penalties which they had incurred, be∣fore it was published in Print, yet the Vote or Sanction of the House did secure them from danger, and invalidate the Statutes that were in force against them; otherwise Delinquents would be more beholding to the Printer that published that act, then to the Parliament that made it: So the publication of the New Cove∣nant was for the comfort of Gods Elect, and not for their security, in foro Dei.

Notes

• Diodat. on Rom. 3.27.
• Gal. 3.10.
• Tit. 3.5. Rom. 4.5.
• a

  Verbum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ab ipsa gratia de∣duction, ut remis∣sionem gratuitam intelligamus ex parte nostra, nullo pretio à nobis numerato. Daven. in loc.