Chapter 5: On Justification Before Believing

The next thing I am called into question about, is concerning actual, and absolute justification before believing: this Mr Baxter speaks to page 146, and so forwards: and first answers the arguments of Maccovius for such justification, and then page 151 applies himself to remove such further arguments, and places of Scripture, as are by me produced for the confirmation of that assertion.

Here perhaps I could have desired a little more candor. To have an opinion fastened on me, which I never once received, nor intimated the least thought of, in that whole treatise, or any other of mine; and then my arguments answered as to such an end, and purpose, as I not once intended to promote by them, is a little too harsh dealing. It is a facile thing, to render any man's reasonings exceedingly weak, and ridiculous, if we may impose upon them such, and such things to be proved by them, which their author never once intended.

For partial justification, evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely justified, that it should precede believing, I have not only not asserted, but positively denied, and disproved by many arguments. To be now traduced as a patron of that opinion, and my reasons for it, publicly answered, seems to me something uncouth. However I am resolved not to interpose in other men's disputes, and differences, yet lest I should be again, and further mistaken in this, I shall briefly give in my thoughts to the whole difficulty: after I have discovered, and discussed the ground, and occasion of this mistake.

In an answer to an argument of Grotius about the satisfaction of Christ, denying that by it we are ipso facto delivered from the penalty due to sin: I affirmed that by his death, Christ did actually, or ipso facto deliver us from the curse, by being made a curse for us; and this is that, which gave occasion, to that imputation before mentioned.

To clear my mind in this, I must desire the reader to consider, that my answer is but a denial of Grotius his assertions: in what kind, and respect Grotius does there deny that we are ipso facto delivered by the satisfaction of Christ, in that sense, and that only, do I affirm that we are so: otherwise there were no contradictions between his assertion, and mine, not speaking ad idem, and eodem respectu.

The truth is, Grotius does not in that place from where this argument is taken, fully, or clearly manifest, what he intends by a deliverance which is not actual, or ipso facto: and therefore I made bold to interpret his mind, by the analogy of that opinion wherewith he was throughly infected about the death of Christ. According to that, Christ delivering us by his satisfaction, not actually, nor ipso facto, is so to make satisfaction for us, as that we shall have no benefit by his death, but upon the performance of a condition, which himself by that death of his, did not absolutely procure. This was that which I opposed and therefore affirmed, that Christ by his death did actually, or ipso facto, deliver us.

Let the reader then here observe:

1 That our deliverance is to be referred to the death of Christ, according to its own causality; that is, as a cause meritorious: now such causes do actually, and ipso facto produce all those effects, which immediately flow from them; not in an immediation of time, but causality. Look then what effects do follow, or what things whatever are procured by them, without the interposition of any other cause in the same kind, they are said to be procured by them actually, or ipso facto.

2 That I have abundantly proved in the treatise mentioned, that if the fruits of the death of Christ, be to be communicated to us upon condition, and that condition to be among those fruits, and be itself to be absolutely communicated upon no condition, then all the fruits of the death of Christ, are as absolutely procured for them, for whom he died, as if no condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one.

3 I have proved in the same place, that faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by the death of Christ, for them for whom he died, to be freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of any such condition as on whose fulfilling, the collation of it should depend.

These things being considered as I hoped they would have been by every one, that should undertake to censure any thing, as to this business in that treatise (they being there all handled at large) it is apparent what I intended by this actual deliverance: namely, that the Lord Jesus by the satisfaction & merit of his death, & obligation made for all, & only his elect, has actually, & absolutely purchased, & procured for them all spiritual blessings of grace, & glory to be made out to them, and bestowed upon them in God's way, and time, without dependance on any condition to be by them performed, not absolutely procured for them thereby: whereby they became to have a right to the good things by him purchased, to be in due time possessed according to God's way, method, and appointment.

From a faithful adherence to this persuasion, I see nothing as yet of the least efficacy, or force to dissuade me: and am bold to tell these concerned therein, that their conditional satisfaction, or their suspending the fruits of the death of Christ upon conditions, as though the Lord should give him to die for us upon condition of such, and such things, is a vain figment, contrary to the Scriptures, inconsistent in itself, and destructive of the true value, and virtue of the death of Christ; which by the Lord's assistance, I shall be ready at any time to demonstrate.

My intention in the place excepted against being cleared, I shall now tender my thoughts to these two things: 1 the distinct consideration of the acts of the will of God, before, and after the satisfaction of Christ: as also before, and after our believing towards us, as to justification. 2 The distinct estate of the sinner upon that consideration: with what is the right to the fruits of the death of Christ which the elect of God have before believing.