by the death of Chrift, Rom. v. 9, 10. where we are faid to be juftified by his blood;" and he is faid to have made peace "through the blood of his crofs, to reconcile all things to him"felf," Col. i. 20. to be delivered for our offences, and railed "again for our justification,” Rom. iv. 25. Once more, “That "God was in Chrift reconciling the world unto himself, not "imputing their trefpaffes," 2 Cor. v. 19. God the Father had, in the death of Chrift, a foundation of reconciliation, whereby he became propitious to his elect, that he might abfolve and justify them. Again,

2. It must be confidered in its application to us, which application is made in this life at the time of our effectual calling. When an elect finner is united to Chrift by faith, and to patfeth from death to life, from a ftate of condemnation into a ftate of abfolution and favour; this is our actual justification, Rom. v. 1. Acts xiii, 39. John v. 24. which actual justification is again confidered two ways:

1. Univerfally and in general, as to the ftate of the perfon. 2. Specially and particularly, as to the acts of fin.

As foon as we are received into communion with Christ, and his righteoufness is imputed by God, and received by faith, immediately we pafs from a ftate of death and condemnation to a fate of life and justification, and all fins already committed, are remitted without exception or revocation; and not only fo, but a remedy is given us in the righteoufnefs of Christ, against fins to come: and though these special and particular fins we afterward fall into, do need particular pardons; yet, by renewed acts of faith and repentance, the believer applies to himfelf the righteoufaefs of Chrift, and they are pardoned.. Again, they carefully distinguish betwixt,

1. Its application by God to our perfons. And,
2. Its declaration, or manifestation in us, and to us.
Which manifeftation, or declaration, is either,

1. Private, in the confcience of a believer; or,
2. Public, at the bar of judgment.

And thus juftification is many ways diftinguished. And, notwithstanding all this, it is fill actus indivifus, an undivided act, not on our part, for it is iterated in many acts; but on God's part, who at once decreed it; and on Christ's part, who by one offering purchased it, and, at the time of our vocation, univerfally applied it, as to the state of the perfon justified; and that fo effectually, as no future fin fhall bring that perfon any more under condemnation.

In this fentence or judgment the generality of reformed or

thodox divines are agreed; and the want of distinguishing, (a they, according to fcripture, have distinguished) hath led the Antinomians into this firft error about juftification, and that error hath led them into the most of the other errors. That this doctrine of theirs (which teaches that men are justified actually and completely, before they have a being) is an error, and bath no folid foundation to fupport it, may be evidenced by these three reasons.

1. Because it is irrational.

2. Because it is unfcriptural.

3. Because it is injurious to Chrift and the fouls of men. Reafon 1. It is irrational to imagine, that men are actually justified before they have a being, by an immanent act or decree of God. Many things have been urged upon this account, to confute and deftroy this fancy, and much more may be rationally urged against it: let the following particulars be weighed in the balance of reafon.

1. Can we rationally fuppofe, that pardon and acceptance can be affirmed or predicated of that which is not? Reafon tells us, Non entis nulla funt accidentia; that which is not, can neither be condemned nor justified: but before the creation, or before a man's particular conception, he was not, and therefore could not in his own perfon be the fubject of juftification. Where there is no law, there is no fin; where there is no fin, there is no punishment; where there is neither fin nor punishment, there can be no guilt; (for guilt is an obligation to punishment); and where there is neither law nor fin, nor obligation to pu nishment, there can be no juftification. He that is not capable of a charge, is not capable of a discharge. What remains then, but that either the elect muft exift from eternity, or be juftified in time? It is true, future beings may be confidered, as in the purpose and decree of God from all eternity, or as in the intention of Chrift, who died intentionally for the fins of the elect, and rofe again for their juftification; but neither the decree of God, nor the death of Chrift takes place upon any man for his actual justification, until he perfonally exist: for the object of juftification, is a finner actually ungodly, Rom. iv. 5. but fo no man is, or can be fo from eternity. In election, men are confidered without respect to good or evil done by them, Rom. ix. 11. not so in actual justification.

2. In justification there is a change made upon the fate of the perfon, Rom. v. 3, 9. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, 11. By justification men pafs from a fate of death to a state of life, John v. 24. but the decree or purpose of God, in itself, makes no fuch actual

change upon the ftate of any perfon: it hath indeed the na ture of an universal caufe; but an univerfal cause produceth nothing, without particulars. If our state be changed, it is not by an immanent act of God: hence no fuch thing doth tranfire. A mere velle non punire, or intention to justify us in due time and order, makes no change on our flate, till that come, and the particular caufes have wrought. A prince may have a purpose or intention to pardon a law-condemned traitor, and free him from that condemnation in due time; but whilst the law that condemned him, ftands in its full force and power against him, he is not juftified or acquitted, notwithstanding that gracious intention, but ftands ftill condemned. So it is with us, till by faith we are implanted into Chrift. It is true, Chrift is a furety for all his, and hath fatisfied the debt, he is a common head to all his, as Adam was to all his children, Rom. v. 19. but as the fin of Adam condemns none but those that are in him; fo the righteousness of Chrift actually justifies none but those that are in him; and none are actually in him but believers therefore, till we believe, no actual change paffeth, or can pass upon our states. So that this hypothesis is contrary to reason.

Reafon 2. As this opinion is irrational, fo it is unfcriptural. For,

1. The fcripture frequently speaks of remiffion or justification as a future act, and therefore not from eternity, Rom. iv. 23, 24. "Now it was not written for his fake alone, that it was

imputed to him; but for us alfo, to whom it fhall be impu❝ted, if we believe on him," &c. And, Gal. iii. 8. "The fcrip"tures foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through "faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham." The gofpel was preached many years before the Gentiles were justified; but if they were justified from eternity, how was the gospel preached before their juftification?

2. The scripture leaves all unbelievers, without distincttion, under condemnation and wrath. The curfe of the law lies upon them all till they believe, John iii. 18. "He that believeth in "him is not condemned; but he that believeth not, is condem"ned already." And, Eph. ii. 3. 12, 13. The very elect themfelves were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. They were at that time, or during that ftate of nature, (which takes in all that whole space betwixt their conception and converfion), without Chrift, without hope, without God in the world. But, if this opinion be true, that the elect were juftified from eter VOL. IV.

Dity, or from the time of Chrift's death, then it cannot be true, that the elect by nature are children of wrath, without Christ, without hope, without God in the world; except these two may confift together, (which is abfolutely impoffible), that the children of wrath, without God, Chrift, or hope, are actually discharged from their fins and dangers, by a free and gracious act of jullification.

Objection. But doth not the scripture fay, Rom. viii. 33. "Who fhall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" If none can charge the elect, then God hath discharged them.

Solution. God hath not actually difcharged them, as they are elect, but as they are justified elect; for fo runs the text, and clears itself in the very next words, It is God that juftifieth. When God hath actually juftified an elect perfon, none can charge him.

(3) 'Tis cross to the Scripture order of justification, which places it not only after Christ's death in the place last cited, Rom. viii. 33. but alfo after our actual vocation; as is plain, ver. 30. "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and "whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justi"fied, them he alfo glorified." Is it abfurd to place vocation before predestination, or glorification before juftification? Sure, then, it must be abfurd, alfo, to place juftification before vocation; the one, as well as the other, confounds and breaks the fcripture order: You may as well fay, men shall be glorified, that were never justified; as fay they may be juftified before they believed, or existed. So that you fee the notion of justification from eternity, or before our actual existence, and effectual vocation, is a notion as repugnant to facred scripture, as it is to found reafon.

Reafon 3. And as it is found repugnant to reason, and fcripture, fo it is highly injurious to Jefus Chrift and the fouls of

men.

(1.) It greatly injures the Lord Jesus Christ, and robs him of the glory of being our Saviour; for if the elect be justified from eternity, Chrift cannot be the Saviour of the elect, as moft affuredly he is; for if Chrift fave them, he muft fave them as perfons fubject to perithing, either de facto, or de jure. But if the elect were jatified from eternity, they could, in neither respect, be subject to perishing: For he that was eternally juftified, was never condemned, nor capable of condemnation; and he that never was, nor could be condemned, could never be subject to perishing; and he that never was, nor could be fubject to perishing, can never truly, and properly be faid to be faved.

If it be faid the elect were not juftified till the death of Chrift; I demand, then, what became of all them that died before the death of Chrift? If they were not justified, they could not be glorified; for this is fure, from Rom. viii. 30. that the whole number of the glorified in heaven is made up of such as were justified on earth: Let men take heed, therefore, left, under pretence of exalting Chrift, they bereave him of the glory of being the Saviour of his elect.

(2.) It bereaves him of another glorious royalty. The fcripture every where makes our juftification the refult and fruit of the meritorious death of Chrift, Rom. iii. 24, 25. Rom. viii. 3, 4. 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. Gal. iii. 13, 14. Eph. i. 17. but if men were juftified from eternity, how is their juftification the fruit and refult of the blood of the crofs? as it plainly appears, from these scriptures, to be. Nay,

(3.) This opinion leaves no place for the fatisfaction of justice by the blood of Chrift, for our fins. He did not die according to this opinion, to pay our debts. And here Antinomianifm and Socinianifm meet, and congratulate each other: For if there were no debts owing to the juftice of God from eternity, Christ could not die to pay them; and it is manifeft there were no debts due to God's juftice from eternity, on the account of his elect, if the elect were from eternity juftified; unless you will fay, a perfon may be justified, and yet his debts not paid: For all juftification diffolves the obligation to punishment.

If there were any debt for Chrift to pay, by his blood, they must either be his own debts, or the elects. To say they were his own, is a blafphemous reproach to him; and, according to this opinion, we cannot fay they were the elects; for if they were juftified from eternity, their debts were difcharged, and their bonds cancelled from eternity. So that this opinion, leaves nothing to the blood of Christ to discharge, or make fatisfaction *for.

(4.) And as it hath been proved to be highly injurious to the Lord Jefus, fo it is greatly injurious to the fouls of men, as it naturally leads them into all thofe wild and licentious opinions, which naturally flow from it, as from the radical, prolific error, whence moft of the reft derive themfelves, as will immediately appear, in

Error II. That juftification by faith is no more but the manifeftation to us of what was really, and actually done before. Or a being perfuaded more or less of Chrift's love to us. And that