actually to eternal punishment, is not to be absolved from guilt in actu
ARG. VII. Justification is an instantaneous act, and immediately perfect upon our believing, as is generally maintained by the orthodox: for, as Mr. Durham says,* "If Justification be not immediately perfect, it must either be upon one's not believing in Christ, or because of some defect of the righteousness that faith presenteth, and so faith were not a sufficient shield; or it must be because the word doth not pronounce him just upon the ground of that righteousness; which were also absurd." I shall not stand more upon the proof of this. But from thence it follows, that the after sins of the justified do not make them actually liable to eternal punishment: which I prove thus. The state of perfect justification is either interrupted by the after sins of believers, or not. If ye say it is, then, 1. The gifts and calling of God are not without repentance. 2. A believer is sometimes under grace, sometimes under the law. 3. There is condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus; or, the after sins of believers dissolve the union. I shall say no more of this at the time. If ye say, it is not interrupted by their after sins, then they do not make them liable to eternal wrath; for an uninterrupted state of justification, and being actually liable to eternal wrath, are utterly inconsistent. And I prove the assertion thus.
1. To be justified, is to be absolved from guilt in actu secundo. To be liable actually to eternal punishment, is not to be absolved from guilt in actu secundo; which is a flat contradiction: The man is absolved, and not absolved; absolved, because justified; not absolved, because he is liable to eternal punishment. I know it will be said, for solving the matter, that it is in different respects that the man is absolved, and not absolved; absolved in respect of sins repented of; not absolved in respect of sins unrepented; he is justified in respect of his state, but in respect of that particular sin or sins he is liable to eternal wrath. But I answer, That this is meant either of the man's past state, whereof he hath no benefit now, or of his present state. If you say the former, then the state of justification is interrupted, in such sort that the man must begin anew again, as at the first moment of believing; and so the believer under unrepented of sin, is in no better case, in respect of justification before God, than he was when unconverted; and if so, why is it urged here? If it be meant of his present state, the distinction is not to be admitted: for the man hath no benefit of that state, more than what flows from former experience of God's