In respect to their exclusion or admittance to the Covenant in the Gospel and thus the Elect Gentiles were once not a people and then made a people to the Covenant of Grace And in this sense I adde all unregenerate though Elect are not Gods people untill faith And hence Zanchy saith thus that whereas the words should have run thus that in the place where it is said ye are not my people there it shall be said ye are my people instead thereof he saith it is said ye are the Sonnes of God and he assigneth three reasons the third is Vt meliùs hâc locutione indicaret rationem quâ justificamur salvamur nempe per fidem verbum Dei apprehensantem si enim filii Dei sumus ergò nati ex Deo si nati ex Deo ergò per semen Dei in nos illapsum à nobis apprehensum in nobis retentum semen Dei est verbum Evangelii in nos illabitur per virtutem Spiritûs sancti à nobis verò fide quae it idem opus est Spiritûs sancti solâ recipitur ergò solâ fide fimus filii Dei He speaketh thus that he may the better declare the manner of our Justification or Salvation ta wit by faith apprehending the Word of God where he taketh faith not objectively but subjectively with connotation to the object for if we be the sons of God we are therefore borne of God if borne of God therefore by the seed of God falling into us and received and retained by us The seed of God is the Word of the Gospel it falleth into us by the power of the Holy Ghost but of us it is only received by faith which again is the work of the Holy Ghost therfore by faith alone we are made the sons of God where you see that Zanchy maketh this great change to be by faith and that such a change is made is evident for before faith they are * Eph. 2.1 2 3. 2 Tim. 2.26 Acts 26 18. Ezek. 44.7 Heb. 2.15 Mark 16.16 dead in sins and trespasses are children of disobedience in whom Satan acts and rules by whom they are led captive at his will and pleasure they are under his power they are unrenewed uncircumcised slaves in bondage to death subject to damnation children of wrath but upon believing are new * 2 Cor. 5 17 2 Pet. 1.4 John 1.12 Eph. 1.5 1 Pet. 1.3 23. creatures partakers of the Divine Nature they are actually instated into the number of children to which they were predestinated are begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead are borne again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever But could this be affirmed of them ever since Christs death surely no thâ—refore here is a change and that before God wrought in their estate by effectual vocation and therefore they were not justiâ—â—ed before Fifthly If we are exhorted to believe in God for pardon and remission of sins then were not we pardoned from the time of Christs death before faith But we are thus exhorted to believe in God for the pardon of sins Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and the Scripture was written for this end that we might believe and that believing we might have life through his Name John 20.21 The consequence is confirmed because if we were justified already before faith it were a needlesse exhortation to call upon us to believe for pardon when we are pardoned already and therefore we might be called upon to believe to get assurance of our pardon but not to obtain pardon it self it were an exhorting us to seek for that by faith which according to Mr. Eyre is to be evidenced not to be obtained through faith and so were a needlesse and a groundlesse exhortation Sixthly Such as were not mystically united to Christ at his death could not be justified actually by his death But Believets that now live were not then mystically united Therefore The Major Proposition will need no shield and buckler to defend it for Christ justifieth none but such as are in him as the first Adam brings condemnation to none but such as are in him so the second Adam gives life and salvation to none but such as are in him The Minor is proved because that that is not cannot be united Believers were not then existing Besides 2. This union is made by faith They that were not existing were not then believers 3. Christs being a common person is not sufficient to make the mystical union 4. Christ as a publick person is a surety but Christ as united to us is a Head which are different considerations in the one he is a meritorious moral cause of salvation in the other a physical cause or efficient natural cause 5. The mystical union is by a work of the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit but if the mystical union be made by Christs being a publick person that needeth not any new work of the Spirit to joyn Christ and Believers together 6. Those places where it is said Ephes 2.5 6.13 Ephes 2.5.6.13 Col. 2.13 14. Col. 2.13 14. That we were quickened with Christ and are made to sit together in heavenly places And in Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afarre off are now made nigh and that the handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out signifie no more then that in and through him as a meritorious cause we obtain such mercies but they hold not forth Believers to be existing in him before they had a being and our sitting in heavenly places is spoken only in regard of the certain right we have thereunto jus ad rem though not jus in re and in a qualified sense in Christ our Head who is already ascended Seventhly Christ in his death was not mystically but personally considered For though he were a publick person and Mediatour yet as so he was personally not mystically considered in his death and resurrection and the Justification that he received from God Therefore we were not justified actually from the time of Christs death The Antecedent is thus made good because it was not Christ mystical that was crucified but Christ the Son of God and He trod the * Isay 63.3 Wine-presse of his Fathers wrath alone Christ mysticall is not the Saviout of the world then the work of Redemption is to be attributed to every Believer and they are as truly Saviours of the world as Christ but this is blasphemy to imagine and therefore if he were not mystically considered in his death then not in his Resurrection nor in that Justification he received and so by consequence we were not justified by his death nor were in him antecedently to faith Eightly If we were pardoned from the time of Christs death then as Bellarmine objecteth against our Divines that make faith an assurance then it is
not justified by what we can do but we are all thus guilty before God therefore in his sight shall no flesh living be justified He speaketh there a Justification in foro Dei in the sight of God 2. If faith do only declare that we are justified then Paul did not say true in denying that by the works of the Law or holinesse we are justified for if he spake of a declarative Justification he had no reason to deny that we are justified by the works of obedience done to the Law for works of Sanctification do evidence this 1 John 2.3 4. 2 Cor. 5.17 1 John 3.14 1 John 3.24 Rom. 8.13 14. 3. If when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith be meant only we are declaratively justified by faith then we may as well say we are elected by faith as justified by faith because faith will as truly evidence Election as Justification hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 but the Scripture saith not we are Elected by faith or through faith but chosen unto saith therefore faith hath an influence into Justification though not into Election and something more is intended then a declarative Justification 4. Then Faith is not a believing on Christ for pardon but a believing on Christ because I am pardoned and if so then an Axiom or Proposition according to Mr. Eyre is the object of justifying faith contrary to all the * Actus credentis non terminatur ad axioma sed ad rem fatentibus Scholasticorum clarissimis Amesii Medul Theol. l. 2. c. 5 24. Orthodox who make Christ or the mercy of God in Christ the object of Faith 5. Then Faith may be necessary to Consolation but it is not necessary to Salvation contrary to the Scripture which saith that salvation is the end of Faith and we believe unto the saving of our soules 6. This inverteth the order of the Gospel for that commandeth us to believe that we may be justified this saith we are already justified therefore we must believe The Scripture saith We are justified by faith This opinion as Mr. Woodbridge observeth maketh us to be faithed by Justification 7. Then it is not lawful to pray for pardon of sin but for assurance the vanity of this is before discovered But Mr. Eyre will object that when the Scripture saith We are justified by faith the meaning is by Christ taking faith objectively and exclusively To which I answer that we deny not faith to be taken objectively if you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse but that therefore faith is excluded and that the object justifie without the act I deny and prove thus First It conduceth much to the beliefe of this truth that faith is to be taken subjectively with connotation to its object or that faith subjectively taken is not excluded from Justification because the letter of the Scripture expressely in many places affirmeth that we are justified by faith Secondly I conceive the matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries was not only precisely and abstractively considered what is the matter of our righteousnesse that God requires for our Justification for then his direct answer had been the righ eousnesse of Christ excluding faith for faith is in no sense the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified for then faith and works had not been opposed and we were then justified by works but I conceive the question was what was the matter of this righteousnesse and how is this ours as app areth by his answer Now if the righteousnesse of Christ be the matter of Justification and is made ours by imputation antecedently to faith the Apostle did impertinently adde faith in the answer to the questions that we are justified by faith in Christ if that be excluded from applying Christs righteousnesse for he is not speaking here of a declarative Justification what shall evidence it to my conscience and give me knowledge of it but what justifieth me and seeing it is something without done for me and imputed how is it mine not how is it known to be mine Therefore faith is not exclusively taken Thirdly If when it is said we are justified by faith in Christ the object is understood by the act excluding the act then why is it that in most places where Justification is spoken of that the object and the act are both expressed if by the object and act the same thing be intended Fourthly It is not probable that the Apostle in such a weighty controversie wherein he did desire to speak clearly and had most reason to speak clearly rather then elegantly and obscurely should take the act for the object if the act had no influence into Justification neither as the matter of Justification nor the instrument to apply it for danger might arise and is given by such an expression to ascribe something to faith in the point of Justification if his intent were to exclude it therefore he intended not to exclude it hence we justly ascribe instrumentality unto faith in applying Christs righteousnesse to Justification Fifthly If Abrahams faith by which he was justified was subjectively taken for the grace of faith yet relatively considered to its object then our faith that are the children of Abraham is so taken in the point of Justification this inference shineth clearly like the Sun at noon-day But Abrahams faith was subjectively taken with relation to its object Therefore The assumption is proved from Rom. 4.3 Rom. 4.3 For first besides the letter where it is said that it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith believing on God so that faith is described vers 17. in many excellent acts of that faith ne ther of which can in propriety of speech be applied to Christs righteousnesse and why the Apostle should impertinently break out into many expressions in the commendation of his faith as a grace when he is treating of the point of Justification and stirre up us to the imitation of the like faith telling us that it was written for our sakes that it was imputed to him for righteousness and that our faith believing on God that raised our Lord Jesus from the dead shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse if we so believe if faith hath no hand in Justification to apply Christs righteousnesse to that end I can no way rationally imagine Sixthly Nor can I see any supereminent excellency in that grace above all other as the Scripture expresseth and Divines acknowledge if its noblest effect of Justification be denied but as works of Sanctification do as evidently declare Justification as Faith as I have shewed so the grace of love farre excelleth it in other respects Therefore is it not exclusively taken in the point of Justification Seventhly Besides in Rom. 4.5 it is said That to him that believeth his faith is imputed for righteousnesse where something belonging to the Believer is called his to wit the act of
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the
in heavenly places but how in Christ thus the believing Râ—manes were first b Rom. 11.24 cut off from their old stock the wilde Olive they grew upon and were graffed into the new Olive-tree before they could be partakers of the root and fatness of the Olâ—ve-tree and their being graffed in did precede their being partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive-tree And he that hath but the first-fruits of reason must acknowledge this and take one place for all to shew that all the benefits that come by Christ follow upon our union to Christ In the c 1 Cor. 1.30 1 Cor. 1.30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdome and righteousnesse sanctification and redemption So that first we are in him before he is made of God unto us wisdome righteousnesse c. Now I come to the third particular and that is to shew you that before actual faith there is no actual union to Christ and so no spiritual communion with him in his death not actuall hope of eternal life Now for the fuller vindicating of this Proposition and what I have hereafter laid down in the defence of it against Mr. Eyre's Exceptions or Cavils rather I referre the Reader to the following discourse where I will purposely undertake this taske because I intend here only to give the world a sight of that naked truth as it was delivered without any variation from it that the world may see what reason Mr. Eyre had to condemne it as Heterodox To return then to the Proposition delivered That before actual faith there can be no actual union with Christ That which some imagine of an union with Christ from eternity and an union with Christ upon the Crosse when he stood as a common person if they understand it of an actual union and implantation into Christ and not of a relative respect and virtual union which yet is an union improperly so called that which they affirme is very irrational for that union which is the mystical union between Christ and a Believer by which we have spiritual communion with Christ in his death is the formall effect of faith by meanes of which Christ and we are made one d Eph. 5.23 1 Cor. â—0 7 body and this union necessarily requireth the consistence of the persons united for that union whereby Christ and we are united is such an union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ I called it not a personall union though it be an union of persons and although I explained my self so in my conference with him after the Sermon yet he is not ashamed to tell the world I hold our union with Christ to be a personall union but of this hereafter Now this actual union whereby the person of a Beleever is united to the person of Christ necessarily requires the pre-existence of his person and the antecedency of his faith And therefore when it is said that God e Eph. 1.4 chose us in Christ that is not to be understood as if we were then existentes in Christo or actually united but it sheweth us Gods order how he purposes to bring us unto holinesse that is through Christ or for Christs sake this being an immanent and eternall action it could not leave any present effect upon us who had no actuall but a mentall existence only in Gods minde and therefore we could not be actually united for neither Christ as yet had assumed our nature into the unity of his Person which was to lay the foundation of the union of our persons unto Christ although I deny not but the Patriarchs before Christ were really united by faith before the assumption of the humane nature Besides union to Christ is a thing accidental as to the nature of man now an accident is not nor cannot be without its subject where let the Reader observe the forgery of Mr. Eyre that which I spake of union with Christ he applies to imputation of righteousnesse For * Where I take inesse or esse in alio quatenus opponitur substantiae quae per se subsistit latè non strictè sed pro omni accidentali informatione in ordine al substantiam sive sit per modum inhâ—rentiae adjacentiae sive essendi c. Accidentis esse est inesse now the Believer being the person united and so a subject of this union how can union which is an accident subsist without man that is the subject exist And besides it is a known rule Non entis nulla sunt accidentia nullae sunt affectiones how can any thing be truly predicated of that which is not Besides it is against another Principle in reason and unlesse we will betray our reason to become beasts we cannot submit to this new Creed Omnis actio fit per contactum All action is by some contact which holds good in this supernatural action for by faith we touch Christ not by any local contiguity but by a spirituall contact and apprehension whereby Christ is said to dwell in our hearts Now having proved à priori that the Elect before faith are not united to Christ let us à posteriori see if the same truth will not be concluded from the proper effect of union with Christ which is communion with him in his death unto justification that the Elect are not united before faith Such then as are actually united to Christ are actually justified But a man is not justified actually before faith Therefore neither united to Christ As for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration God by his Spirit supplying what is wanting through the imbecillity of their age and hence the Spirit working semen fidei and apprehending them though they cannot apprehend Christ I question not their union to Christ and the imputation of his righteousnesse to their justification but we speak now de adultis that none that are of years sufficient are justified without actual faith Now that we are not justified by an immanent act of God from eternity nor immediately from the time of Christs death without some act of ours intervening for the application of Christs righteousnesse to justification will appear 1. From such Scriptures which require an act of faith to go before our justification and the remission of sins Acts 16.31 f Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the Jaylors question was not What shall I do to be quieted in conscience and assured that I am justified and in a state of salvation but What shall I doe to be saved I see my lost damnable estate how shall I doe to be saved With the heart g Rom. 10.10 man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made to salvation where you see righteousnesse is obtained by faith and made the end h 1 Pet 1.9 of believing as the Apostle expressely elsewhere calleth salvation the end of our faith
alwayes thus God pardoneth us that believe since the death of Christ and that not from the time of Christs death but it may be long after upon believing and so our sins were a moral cause of punishment God might impute this to Christ before they are committed by us for a morall cause will admit of the effect to go before it self that is the cause of it and both the Patriarchs to whom Christs righteousnesse was imputed and Christ to whom our sins were imputed were existent and the merit of the one and demerit of the other may be communicated at the will of God moved thereby because there are subjects capable of this imputation but now Christs righteousnesse which is imputed to us cannot be imputed for want of a subject to whom it may be imputed for how can that which is not be made righteous and it is the will of God it should be imputed to none but Believers hence then till faith this benefit is not enjoyed Thus have I vindicated my second argument and for the third which he objecteth against That God made a Covenant with Christ that the Elect should have no benefit by his death till they believe I have defended and confirmed that already sufficiently As for this Argument which he brought for the Negative drawn from Matth. 3.17 This is my well beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to it already and it is answer enough to deny his Assumption as I then did that this voice This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased was not terminated or spoken to Christ mysticall but to Christ personal yet as a publick person and Mediatour And to make Christ mystical and Christ the Mediatour the same is unheard of Divinity nor doth it speak him any great Gamaliel in Theology that affirmeth it As for the scandall he raiseth upon me that I compared my self to Christ and him to Judas and used him uncivilly in language I deny it and have many to bear witnesse of me to the contrary and for the answer to it I referre the Reader to the Epistle to the Reader And I now shall addresse my self to some short answer to his Book and as by the grace of Christ I have not hitherto my conscience bearing me witnesse in the Holy Ghost written any thing which I knew or suspected as unsound so I trust I shall not erre or handle this subject deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commend my self to every mans conscience as in the sight of God to whom I commend thee Religious Reader and to the Word of his grace who is able to build thee up and give thee an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ CHAP. IV. Shewing four material differences between us and M. Eyre wherein he hath departed from the Orthodox faith concerning the Doctrine of free Justification of a sinner through Faith in Christ reduced unto four several Questions which are in this Chapter clearly stated THE Doctrine of Justification through Faith in Christ is deservedly stiled Doctrina stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae and therefore the differences amongst Christians in this point are not of so small concernment as Curcellaeus judgeth that they ought not to breed a Controversie for it is a fundamental Article of our Christian Religion yea all Religion lives or dies with it nothing concernes the glory of God more the honour of Christ or the comfort of a Christian and such goates as shall soile with their feet these waters Ezek. 34.18 or with the Philistines throw dirt into this well do at once strike at the glory of God the honour of Christ the peace and safety of the world and being commanded to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints let not the world wonder that I who am by Mr. Eyre represented as Heterodox in this point stand up both to defend it and my self against those errours wherewith he hath darkened and obscured this blessed truth and endeavoured to render me and his Brethren that dissent from him as those that have overthrown the freenesse of Gods grace in making Justification the effect of Faith and Faith the condition of the Covenant of Grace The matters in controversie depending between us may be reduced to four Heads or unto four severall Questions 1. Whether Justification be an immanent or a transient act whether it be from eternity or a transient act of God done in time 2. Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually justified and reconciled to God antecedently not onely to their faith but to their birth 3. Whether a Believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this is understood only tropically by taking faith for the object Christ or whether it be taken subjectively for the act with connotation to the object 4. Whether faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace God hath made with us For the first Question Whether Justification be an immanent or transient act whether we be justified from eternity or whether it be a transient act of God done in time Here are three termes to be explicated 1. What Justification is 2. What an immanent act is 3. What is meant by a transient act 1. Then by all the Orthodox it is unanimously affirmed that the word justifie or justification is not to be taken in this question sensu Pontificio as the Papists take it that is sensu Physico in a physical sense as if to justifie signified to make just by infusion of an inherent righteousnesse as Bellarmine and his confederates take it for till Etymologies have gotten the supremacy above the Scriptures as the Pope above the Kings of the Earth and so long as the written Word is acknowledged the only Touchstone of divine Truth and that Christs righteousnesse and our works cannot be admitted as corrivals that sense must no way be acknowledged and received in this dispute yet let this be observed against this new Doctrine of Infidels Justification in the state of their unregeneracy though they remain adulterers murtherers parricides yet if Elect say they they are justified even then when they are in the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2.26 Eph. 2.2 led captive by him at his will and pleasure Though they walk according to the course of the world the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience for Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth he is well pleased with the unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy That GOD when he justifieth a man through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed doth at the same time begin to justifie him physically he doth infuse an habituall and an inherent righteousnesse of Sanctification for God justifieth none whom he doth not sanctifie at the same time Secondly Justification may be taken sensu forensi in a juridical or judiciary sense as in Rom. 8 33. Who shall lay any thing to the
Christ apprehended and applied by faith not by any new act of Gods will I dare not determine but pardoned he is and justified he is his state is truly changed and that coram Deo in the sight of God and a new relative relation there is in God to this person as a Father a great change wrought in the sinner but none at all in God and the Believer is the subject upon whom this act of God passeth Acts 13.39 Acts 16.31 Rom. 4.24 John 8.24 John 3.36 16. John 17.20 he is the adequate subject of it for all Believers are thus justified and none but Believers God did not will that our sins should be immediately forgiven but mediately by faith as in John 3.16 Gods end in giving Christ was that only Believers should have benefit by his death and John 17.20 Christ prayeth for them that believe on him and surely he had the same intentions in his death that he had in his intercession And I added that the sinnes of Believeres were laid upon Christ thus Christ was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Isa 53.16 that knew no sin and the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed we are accounted just and so are acquitted before God as righteous Hence God is said to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their transgressions to them 2 Cor. 5. and we are said to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Cor. 1.30 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And Christ is made to us righteousnesse wisdome sanctification and redemption I shall now come to enquire what is meant by an immanent act and whether Justification were from eternity and what is meant by a transient act First Then by an immanent act I understand such an act as is terminated in agente in the agent and not in any thing without it There are some actions which do remain in God and are terminated in himself being confined in his own breast within the compasse of his own understanding and will not but that they may have an external object but nothing in these immanent acts hath any thing without them for the subject or terme As for example a man may purpose and intend to do something in his minde and heart as to relieve a poor mans wants this thought and purpose of heart is an immanent action and so long as it remaines in his minde and breast and he reveal it not and do not yet act accordingly this is yet an immanent action and the poor man is not yet actually the better for it but if he declare his minde and doth practise what he intended here is a transient act for now he doth outwardly expresse and performe what he did inwardly purpose Now the poor man is comforted and his wants actually relieved Let us referre this to God there are some Cabinet secret thoughts and purposes in God from eternity about justifying a sinner through the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied by faith which Christ God will prepare and give to procure a sufficient righteousnesse and will also give faith to the sinner to believe on Christ for salvation Such thoughts as these are were in the minde of God from eternity these thoughts were immanent acts in God and work no present change upon the sinner who had no being from eternity and untill God do actually declare and fulfill the thoughts of his heart the sinner is not justified but only God really intends it Secondly There are actions in God which passe from God upon the creature and do work a change and alteration upon the creature and these we call transient actions when therefore God doth not only declare by his Gospel what his thoughts were to his Elect in pardoning them through faith in Christ but doth in time give Christ for them and them to Christ by drawing their hearts unto Christs by faith now God actually performes the thoughts of his heart and as he intended upon believing to justifie them for Christs sake so now as soon as he hath brought them to faith he doth actually forgive them all their sins justifie their persons and accept them as righteous in Christ Now of this sort are all Gods actions that relate to man except Predestination which is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Sanctification Adoption are transient acts of God for all these imply a positive change in the creature and do put something either physically or morally into the justified adopted sanctified c. But concerning Predestination Tritum est in Scholis eam nihil ponere in Praedestinato It is generally received by the Schoolmen that Predestination puts nothing into the predestinate or makes no present change indeed virtually it is the cause of all those transient actions that are done in time And * Aquin. p. 1. q. 13. artic 2. c. Aquinas gives a reason of it Quia Praedestinatio est pars Providentiae Providentia verò non est in rebus provisis sed est quaedam ratio in intellectu provisoris Because Predestination is a part of Divine Providence Now Providence is not in the things foreseen or provided for but is a certain purpose or counsel in the understanding of the foreseer And hence all our Divines are wont cautelously to distinguish between the decree and the execution of the decree they grant the Decree hath no cause but the free will and wise prudence of God but the Execution of the Decree depends upon faith because Pardon Reconciliation is granted to none but Believers Let me adde in the third place that an immanent action is from eternity and is the same with Gods Essence for whatsoever is in God is God but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence Gods Decrees are as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burgesse Justifi p. 168. rightly observes the same with his nature for an act of Gods understanding or will is not any thing distinct from his understanding or will but the very same with it * Scheib Met l. 2. ca. 3. De Deo p. 137. Actus vitales Dei ut est ejus intellectio volitio habent ibi realem identitatem ad essentiam divinam All vital actions in God as his understanding and will are have a reall identity or samenesse with his Divine Essence for otherwise the simplicity of Gods nature would be overthrown therefore though we may conceive distinctly of them yet they are not really distinguished in God But now in transient actions it is otherwise for they are the same with the effect produced Mr. Eyre will have it to be an immanent action done from eternity not a transient act done in timo Gods transient act in creating is Creation and in justifying is Justification By this that hath been said it appeareth
that Justification is a transient not an immanent action For though I deny not that God did from eternity with an absolute fixed and immutable will purpose in time to justifie his people through faith in Christ which faith he will also give and Christ did merit and if this will satisfie Mr. Eyre as he saith it will if he be not a Reuben as unstable as water and fall from his word the controversie is at an end Yet this is not Justification no more then Gods purpose to sanctifie is Sanctification as shall be made to appear in its place Justification leaveth a positive change upon the person justified He is thereby passed from death to life from a state of hatred into a state of love and friendship but an immanent act leaveth no such change nor do I mean with Aquinas and the Papists a physicall change as when the Lord makes a wicked man a holy man an unclean man a chaste man a passionate man a meek man this is a naturall change and is the work of Sanctification but it is a relative and morall change Take a man that is in prison for some capitall offence and also exceeding sick a double change may be wrought upon this man First let his offence be forgiven and he set at liberty he is now a free man acquitted and set at liberty that before was in bond a dead man here is a relative change but he may be as sick still as he was when in prison let the Physician come and heal his distemper here is a cure wrought his health restored this is a natural physical change so it is here upon Justification there is a relative change wrought We that were debtors to the Law and liable to death and condemnation our sin through faith in Christ is pardoned now we are acquitted and set free from condemnation here is a change of our estate but then also by Sanctification the Lord heales our natures Now Justification is a transient act of God in time upon the Believer acquitting him for Christs sake from the guilt of sin and through his righteousnesse imputed he is accepted unto life eternall The second Question is Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to their faith but their birth also 1. It is not denied upon neither hand that the Elect are the persons and the only persons for whom Christ intentionally and effectually died 2. It is not denied that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation and that a full satisfaction was made thereby to the justice of God for the sins of the Elect. 3. It is acknowledged that Christ in his death was a common person making satisfaction for the Elect and such as shall believe and by vertue of Christs death they shall infallibly be brought to faith and that God hath thus farre accepted of this satisfaction as that he neither will nor can require any thing more at the hand of the sinner by way of satisfaction nor at the hands of Christ and that in regard of the price paid we are redeemed 4. It will not be denied but that by the death of Christ God may now freely give us the pardon of sins which without the satisfaction of Christ supposing his eternal decree not to pardon us without a satisfaction he could not do 5. We deny not but Christs Resurrection from the dead was a manifest signe that the full price of redemption was paid and that God gave him a publick discharge from the guilt of our sins and that he rose again as a publick person for our justification that we may be said virtually to die and suffer and rise with him and virtually to be justified in his justification But it is denied by us and affirmed by Mr. Eyre that we stand actually justified and reconciled to God from the time of Christs death antecedently to our faith and birth and that it was the will of the Lord to give us a present discharge from the time of Christs death but God hath limited the benefit of this untill faith So that no person in the state of unbelief and unregeneracy is a subject of Justification this we affirme and Mr. Eyre denies who will have all the Elect though Infidels and in their unregenerate estate under the power and dominion of sin to be actually justified The third question is Whether a believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this be understood tropically by taking faith for the object Christ excluding the act or whether it be taken properly for the act with connotation of the Object Now here first it is agreed upon all hands by Pretestants and PÃ pists Orthodox and Socinians Antinomians Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants that it is plainly assâ—rted in Scripture that we are justified by faith It cannot be denied because it is syllabically written the only contention is about the sense I would there were more contending for the Grace then for the right understanding of the Word 1. Then to believe signifies an act of the understanding yielding assent unto Divine Testimony but because the will * Ames Med. cap. 3. Num. 2â— consequently is moved by that assent to embrace the good assented unto and offered in the Gospel therfore faith that is truly saving and justifying consisteth in both faculties therefore we reject their opinion that will have it to be onely an act of the understanding yielding a true * Wotton De reconci lib. 1. par 1. c. 13. n. 1. p. 78. assent to Divine Testimony upon the authority of the Revealer though this be necessary to salvation this comprehendeth not the whole nature of justifying faith which is seated in the heart for with the heart man believeth unto salvation Nor 2. Can we rest in their opinion who define it by assurance and say it is an assurance grounded upon Divine Promises that Christ died for us in particular and that our sins are forgiven For this assurance is a consequent of faith and Justfication and an * Proprium objectum fidei justificantis est Christus vel miscricordia Deâ— in Christo non propositio sive Axioma Ames Bell. Ener Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 2. Sect. 22. Axiome or Proposition is not the object of faith but Christ and it is a relying upon Christ for pardon not a believing that I am already pardoned it is therefore a * Fider est acquiescentia cordis in Deo tanquam in authore vitae vel salutis aeternae ut per illum ab omni malo liberemur omne bonum consequamur Ames Medul c. 3. num 1. fiducial act or recumbency upon God in Christ for pardon 3. It is questioned Ames Medull c 27. de justificat n. 15 16. whether Faith in the point of Justification of a sinner be to be taken tropically or properly Master Eyre will have
it to be taken tropically only and in a figurative sense for the obedience of Jesus Christ and his righteousnesse by excluding faith so that by faith with him is as much as by Christ or by the righteousnesse of Christ To which I answer that we deny not but faith is to be taken metonymicaly when we speak of the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified and in this sense we are not justified by faith that is the grace of faith as the matter of our righteousnesse for it is no where said that we are justified for our faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be often said we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our faith tanquam per organum as an instrument of which by and by And therefore our Divines do acknowledge we are justified by faith objectively taken but to take faith altogether for Christ and to deny it as an instrument of applying Christs righteousnesse was never the meaning of our Divines and it were altogether irrational to imagine as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from Justification for as it is an instrumental cause which our Divines unanimously acknowledge it is taken subjectively for the act and grace of faith it self And thus * Ames Med. Theol. cap. 27. sect 14. Ames saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolutè consideratum quo sensu Christus est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum This Justification for Christ is not for Christ absolutely considered in which sense Christ is the cause also of vocation but for Christ apprehended by faith so that Christ alone absolutely considered doth not justifie * Musc Loc. Com v. Artic. in quo justifice mur. So Musculus expressely Quaerendum est hoc loco quo medio justificemur Deóque reconciliemur Est autem duplex medium in hâc causâ unum in quo justificamur alterum per quod justificationis hujus gratiam apprehendâ—mus utrumque necessarium est neutrum enim sine altero justificat We must seek in this place by what meanes we are justified and reconciled to God But here is a double meanes in this cause one in whom we are justified another by which we receive this grace of Justification both are necessary neither justifieth without the other Musc in loc Com. de justifi Artic. in quo justificemur And so * Calvin Inst l. 3. 11. num 7. Calvin calls it the instrumental cause of Justification Sciendum est esse causam instrumentalem duntaxat instrumentum scilicet percipiendae justitiae quâ justificamur We must know therefore it is only an instrumentall cause to wit an instrument of receiving that righteousnesse by which we are justified It were endlesse to reckon up all that give in their suffrage * Willet in Synopsi Art 6. De fide p. 982. for this instrumentality of faith for Justification only I shall adde one Author more Mr. Rutherford in his Apologetical Exercitations because Mr. Eyre alledgeth him in defence of his opinion that he saith * Perkins Reformed Cath. Differ 2. We say otherwise faith justifieth because it is a supernatural instrument c. p. 5 0 vol. 1. Chemnit Bucan Ursin Scheib Met. de causa c. 22. Titu 784. that fides non est organica causa divinae satisfactionis c. which is true and rightly alledged yet he saith to the act of justifying Subordinatur fides tanquam organica causa Ruth Apol. Exeâ— p. 37. and more to this purpose pag. 51 52. And faith is an instrument because it hath the properties of an instrument prima est ut subsit alicui And the first is that it be subservient to the superiour agent by whom it is directed thus it is an instrument wrought by God the pcincipal efficient cause of Justification and is subservient to his act of justifying us and directed by him to this end Secondly That it hath an influx into the effect of the principal agent by a proper causality and that is by receiving Christ offered I see no danger in making it such an instrument for we are not said to justifie our selves because this grace is wrought of God And what if man be causa secunda Epâ—es 2.8 yet is he not therefore a second cause between God and the action for God doth immediately work it and man is purely passive in respect of the habit and although we might answer that the act of receiving is equivalent to a suffering being a renouncing of all our owne righteousnesse and so acknowledge it as a passive instrument only yet for my part I look upon it as a lively active instrument of Justification as * Ball Covenant of Grace pag. 19. Mr. Ball doth which is amongst the number of true causes and that it is not only causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done which indeed is no cause at all for that is only present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is as Mr. Ball observeth an active instrument for sight and the eare for hearing so is faith for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is it is the instrument of the soul wrought by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God Nor do I fear hereby to be made the Authour of our Justification or to be made injurious to God or Christ seeing faith is wholly Gods work though our act and it hath this place and office of receiving Christ unto Justification by the appointment of God himself Eph. 2 8 and upon this account alone the Apostle acknowledgeth though we be saved by faith yet it is no lesse of free grace because it is the gift of God The fourth and last Question is Whether Faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace 1. Here we must enquire what is the Covenant of Grace 2. In what sense Faith is the condition of the Covenant First What is the Covenant of Grace The Covenant of Grace is that free gracious Covenant of reconciliation which God of his meer mercy in Jesus Christ made with man fallen into sin and misery wherein he hath promised pardon of sin and eternall happinesse by Christ upon condition that he * Mark 16.15 16. John 3.16 Rom. 10.6 9 10. Gal. 3.11 believe in Christ promising also to give unto all those that are * Acts 13.48 John 6.44 ordained unto life his Holy Spirit to inable them to believe and so He will be their God and they shall be his people The Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament is for substance one and the same under various dispensations * Gal 3.16 17. The distance between God and man is so great that although the reasonable creature do owe obedience to his Creator yet he could never have God obliged to him to give him fruition of himself and eternal happinesse but by some
of the loved and hated Mr. Eyre p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate as to their present condition whilest the Elect are unregenerate but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ that they may be justified which was all I said or intended Fifthly He saith Gods eternall decree to justifie Mr. Eyre p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justification because it secures men from wrath and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes Then what need Christ to die here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction Christs death was not the câ—use of this immanent act or will in God And yet he contradicteth himself for pag. 140. he saith that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election Surely Justification is one of the good things intended in Election and therefore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ till their sin was satisfied for but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act yet Christs death was not a cause of this act and if they were actually discharged from sin how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us but if we were actually discharged we were actually pardoned and that without the merit of Christs death and satisfaction to his justice Sixthly He interpreteth pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight when it is said We are justified in his sight this phrase he saith is variously used 1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God c. 2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice and although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo justificationis in the article of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge but out of his sight Now saith he pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins c. and this was from eternity And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justification stands in this will of God not to punish this is properly Justification in his judgement and then God knew them to be righteous yet he saith in the article of Justification knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight throughout the whole Scripture and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge as much as if he should say If you take this phrase as it is never to be taken then we were justified from eternity And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight and this is to be referred to his legal Justice and this is the most proper and genuine use of it saith he and so we were justâ—fied in the sight of God when he exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins and yet this Justification is not the most proper acceptation of Justification for that was from eternity and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight how well this agrees let the Reader judge Seventhly He taketh Faith objectively Mr. Eyre p. 47. Pag. 58 76. not for the act with connotation of the object but for the object excluding the act as if the word Faith signified Christ and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said We are justified by Faith and the like he understands it of a declarative Justification and so taketh Faith subjâ—ctively not objectively So he taketh it p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the Medium or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience Eightly Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish pag. 63. yet he saith and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish or impute sinne to us yet he acknowledgeth no other act that Christs death is the meritorious cause of he saith it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification Pag. 67 but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us can Christ cause the effect and not the act Merit is an outward procatarâ—â—ical cause moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum and hence God is said for Christs sake to forgive us Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving and is a remote cause of the effect and God as the principall efficient is the immediate cause and what influence then can this remote cause have to produce the effects of Justification and no way by any causal influx to cause the act Though I still willingly acknowledge that the internal moving cause is Gods own will for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will unlesse we make God beholding to another for his being 9thly He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scriptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing Acts 10.43 Acts 26.18 Though it be said whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin it is not said saith he by believing we obtain remission of sins true who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving and possessing what we never had before so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins he distinguisheth between the giving of remission and the receiving it as if one were long before the other To which I answer If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission so it is long before receiving but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given it implies the receiving of it for Relata se mutuo ponunt tollunt thus giving and receiving are together and so forgivenesse of
his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour that will not receive the truth in the love of it Eleventhly Page 66 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie as may appear pag. 66 67. Although saith he Gods will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet saith he we are justified in him but he doth not say for him though the Scriptures speak it plain enough because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ yet we are said to be chosen in him because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. c. Col. 2.14 Heb. 9.12 But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ that we have redemption through his blood he hath obtained eternal redemption for us Eph. 4.32 Eph. 2.16 and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians And that he hath reconciled both that is Jew and Gentle unto God by the Crosse and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification God being moved thereto by the death of Christ but where saith the Scripture that God elected us for the sake of Christ it is true it saith we were chosen in him and he accepted us in the beloved but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ when elected and that God elected us for Christs sake as if Christ were the cause of our Election Vide Dr. Twiss Vind. Lib. 2. Digress p. 74. Interca non dicimus Christum in negotio electionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs cligentis sed duntaxat respectu termini c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis which Arminius mightily contendeth for that he might bring in faith if not as a cause yet as a prerequisite of our Election And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election all that he saith ends in this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by Election but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification for God doth forgive us for Christs sake and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ when he seemingly pleads for it as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith wrought by himself as the effect of his death and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification Twelfthly He saith that Justification is by Faith evidentially and Faith is from Justification causally Mr. Eyre p. 79. and he seeth no absurdity in it p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head and his Hat upon his feet That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification I deny not but that it is the effect of Justification is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother Justification may be an effect of Faith and so the Scripture maketh it but not a cause of Faith For it is neither the efficient nor material nor formall nor final therefore it is no cause for all causes are reducible to these four Heads 1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith I hope he will not rob Gods free grace and the Holy Spirit of his Honour as he doth Christ of his merit of being the sole efficient cause of faith Faith it is the gift of God and the effect of the Spirit which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word it is a known rule Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus and if the act of Justification should be the cause of Faith then according to him being justified from eternity we must be Believers from eternity but how contrary this is to sense reason and experience I need not speak and no man did ever yet dreame much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith 2. It is not the formall cause of Faith for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum it is part of the substance of the thing or effect produced the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect and concurreth to the substance and essence of it but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse not in the act of Justification 3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith for the same reason above named the materiall cause is that which in union with the forme maketh up a substantial compounded body but Faith is no such thing it is not a substance but a quality and hath no matter properly so called and as for the matter improperly so called it is either materia in quâ or circa quam it is either the subject or the object but Justification is not the subject or object of Faith not the subject for the subject of Faith is a Believer nor is Justification the object of Faith for in things that have matter improperly so called the subject and the object are the same the object of Justification then is a Believer the person of a Believer not his Faith 4. And lastly Justification is not the finall cause of Faith for I am not justified that I might believe but rather I believe that I might be justified and salvation is made the end of faith Gal. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.9 and not faith the end of my salvation and thus it appeareth that Faith is not from Justification causally Thirteenthly He saith pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to rely upon him and him alone for this benefit but how contrary this is to his own principles let the Reader judge for he constantly affirmeth that the Elect are justified from eternity and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience Surely when you presse men to believe you presse them to believe they are already justified and not to rely on him for this benefit for if they be justified already what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it they may according to you rely upon him for the evidencing of this
pray tell me now what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person and of a Regenerate person Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God or that the want of faith hope and love maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate and unregenerate yet indeed maketh none and according to him it cannot be found Pag. 18. Thus the Reader may see that one truth of Mr. Eyre verified where he saith We may no more judge of Books by their Title then of strumpets by their foreheads and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification yet if thou read the Book thou shalt finde Esaus hands though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice And therefore the Reader that is judicious will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait though it swallow the hook I have given thee a few Animadversions but a judicious Reader will observe more This is enough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the infection of this aire And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity HERE I shall premise these few things First That as we hold Justification to be a transient act done in time so there is no transient act but it presupposeth necessarily an immanent act in God And therefore secondly I acknowledge there was an eternal and an immutable act of Gods will decreeing to justifie his Elect in time through faith in Christ Thirdly As for that conditionate decree which Arminians make in God making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will I no way acknowledge and judge it absolutely inconsistent with Gods Nature and Essence but such a conditional decree as is so called subsequently not in respect of God willing but in respect of the thing willed sive objecti voliti is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect which salvation they shall be brought unto by faith in Christ not that faith is the cause of the act of Election or God willing their salvation yet it may be the cause of the thing willed a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the obtaining of salvation for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 and belief of the truth and Peter saith The strangers he wrote unto according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree Because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy so I willingly grant it to be immutable for he that changeth his purpose doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating or for want of power to execute it neither of which can be ascribed to God without blasphemy And hence the Scripture saith The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his Fourthly I grant that Christ was elected and constituted to be a Head and all the Elect were predestinated to be his members and in this sense we were chosen in him not existing but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him And that this act was one in God in respect of whole Christ mystical although I deny that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ which is done upon believing yet I grant a certain relative respect and mutual relation between them In which sense the Elect are called his people before he saved them from their sins and while they were not yet converted and his sheep for which he laid down his life although not yet brought home to him yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election much lesse their foreseen faith or good works although he be the cause of the effects of their Election as therefore this salvation unto which we are predestinated is the act of God so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election and the means of salvation and our salvation is the end in respect of us but as this salvation is our good so Christ is the cause of it Fifthly Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head and the Elect his Members yet was not he a Head actually from eternity nor the Elect actual members because he had not a mystical body from eternity and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ yet were not they actually justified For * Praedestinatio enim anâ—e applicationemgratiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis sed latet solùm in praedestinante Ames Medul Theol. cap. 25. sect 2. Predestination maketh no internall difference between the Elect and Reprobate untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its terme * Praedestinatio enim nec terminum nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinationis ordinetur ut sit Amesii Medul c. 25. s 8. nor object but the futurity of both Having premised these things which I have the rather more fully done because he representeth me and such as differ from him as Arminians and Papists I shall now prove that we were not justified from eternity 1. Gods decree to justifie is terminus diminuens is a terme of diminution and therefore is not actuall Justification 't is amor ordinativus but it is not amor collativus it is a love ordaining and preparing good things for us but not an actuall bestowing them Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy a discharge from the guilt of sin and death a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life this may be intended but is not actually performed by Predestination for it 's a known rule Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two therefore I argue 2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification Therefore we were not justified from eternity The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre and a negative argument in matters of great
concernment is of necessary consequence 't is not written therefore there is no such thing now let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture wherein the decree of God to justifie is called Justification and I yield the cause 3. That that is an act of God done in time was not done from eternity But Justification is an act of God done in time Therefore it was not from eternity The Major needs no proof the Minor is no lesse evident Gal. 3.8 Gal. 3.8 The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through fainh preached the Gospel before unto Abraham saying in these shall all the nations of the earth be blessed where the Apostle maketh it a work to be done in time that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith not that he had justified them whereas if he had meant Justification was eternal it had been senselesse for him to say that God would do that which was done already nor is this meant of a declarative justification in foro conscientiae for it is such a justification as Abraham had but Abraham was not only justified in his conscience but before God So 2 Cor. 5.18 19. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. And God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their transgressions to them But Christ did reconcile us in time and not from eternity Therefore God did not justifie from eternity Christ reconciles us to God not only as God but as God-man by h s death but Christ was not God-man and died not from eternity Therefore c. 4. That action of God which maketh a real change in the creature is a transient action done in time because it passeth from God to the creature and some way worketh a change But Justification is such an action of God that maketh a present change Therfore it is a transient not an immanent act The Major is clear for what action soever is terminated in patiente or upon the creature is certainly transient because it doth not remaine in God and if transient it must be temporary for no creature did exist from eternity The Minor will invincibly remain a truth for it is most certaine that by Justification the state of a sinner is changed he that was in the state of condemnation is now in the state of salvation Justification is opposed to condemnation He that is under condemnation is not justified and he that is justified is freed from condemnation Now let us see what he answereth to this pag. 65. where he answereth this Objection that Justification imports a change which cannot be attributed to the simple decrees of God He answereth That if Justification be taken for the thing willed the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made c. but if we take it for the will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose a change as if God had a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will to a will not to punish Where let the Reader observe the vanity of his distinction in separating the thing willed from the act of Gods will for the whole nature of Justification doth not consist in the thing willed to wit a delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law but in some act of God as a Judge declaring his will to deliver Take a man condemned to die by a Judge this prisoner may by power be rescued from the sentence for the present but is he therefore justified and acquitted in Law by the Judge Justification is an act of God delivering the sinner or acquitting him from the crime or accusation laid to his charge and so from condemnation and where this is there is necessarily a change 2. Observe his equivocation and fallacy in the second member of his distinction if we take it for the will of God not to punish and then Justification doth not import a change as if God had a will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his will not to punish them we are speaking of a change made by Justification upon the sinner he saith there is none made in Gods will quid hoc ad rhombum and who said that God did first will and then cease to will and then take up a new volition truly Arminians feign such a mutability in God but the Orthodox abhorre it Nor doth Mr. Eyre rightly understand at leastwise represent the Orthodox Doctrine we say and that truly that God by one act of his will willed that he that is a sinner and remaineth so in unbelief should be liable to condemnation and that upon believing he shall be freed from condemnation that before faith he should be in a state of sin and consequently of damnation and upon faith that he should be justified and delivered from it Here is no change in Gods will but in the object a great change in man but not in God God may velle mutationem when he doth not as Aquinas saith mutare voluntatem God may will a change in the creature when he doth not change his own will as a Father may will at his death and accordingly bequeatheth an estate to a prodigal childe and in case he will become a new man he shall possesse and enjoy it but if he will not he shall go without it here he wills a change but doth not change his will So it is in the present case I will here also take notice what he addeth The change of a persons state ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man thereunto by whose sentence the transgressor is unjust but considered at the tribunal of Grace he is righteous which is not properly a different estate before God but a different consideration of the same person God may be said to look upon him as sinful and righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature as righteous to his estate by Grace I answer The change of a mans state ariseth not from the Law for that condemneth him but from an act of God acquitting him from the Law if God did not acquit him the Law would not 'T is true the Law pronounceth him guilty because a transgressor and so doth God whose Law it is for it was the will of God so long as he remaineth a transgressor without a righteousnesse to deliver him that he stould be in a damnable estate and upon such a righteousnesse as God hath provided in Christ if he believe and be cloathed with this righteousnesse he shall be saved Now 't is true this mans state is really changed but God is not changed for he willed according to his righteous Law his condemnation he willeth upon believing his salvation and this with one eternal unchangeable act of his will and whom he hath elected he giveth faith hence they are justified here is a new effect of Gods love but not any new immanent act Nor is there any truth in that that God looks
did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
faith which is his before the imputation of it is made to him and that is imputed for righteousnesse that is that act of Faith relatively considered is that that gives him a title to Christs righteousness and so that that is due to Christ is attributed to the act and hence that is said to be imputed for righteousnesse Now that Christ without faith justifies not I prove by these follow arguments 1. If Christs righteousnesse will not profit a man without faith theâ— Christ alone separated from faith doth not justifie But Christs righteousnesse will not profit any man without faith Therefore c. The Major carries sufficient light The assumption is proved because Christ saith to the Jewes John 8.24 John 6. If ye believe not ye shall die in your sins and Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life where though there be righteousnesse in Christ to justifie he saith If they believe not they shall die in their sins and He that believeth not shall be damned there was life in Christ but for want of coming or believing they did not partake of it I am not ignorant what Mr. Eyre will answer as I conceive to this That Christs righteousnesse will not profit him that is a final unbeliever and that Faith is a consequent condition of Salvation but not an antecedent means to apply Christs righteousnesse To this I answer that the Scripture speaketh of unbelievers indefinitely He that believeth not shall be damned and therefore it is understood of all unbelievers so long as they abide such they are under condemnation Let Mr. Eyre produce one Scripture that holds forth an unbeliever the subject of Justification or one instance of a justified unbeliever and if final unbelief will hinder salvation then temporall unbelief may hinder the application of it for the time present and so long as he continueth an unbeliever it is of the same nature with final unbelief because it keepeth the soul from coming unto Christ for life To the second exception that it is a subsequent not antecedent condition of Justification I answer by a second Argument thus 2. If Christs righteousnesse be the end of faith and is obtained by faith then it is antecedent unto the Application of it But it is the end of faith and obtained by it The Assumption only needeth proof and yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth it Rom. 20.10 With the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation And To him that believeth it shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse that is Christ apprehended by faith shall be imputed to him for righteousnesse It is not said man believeth with the heart to the manifestation of righteousnesse but unto righteousnesse righteousnesse being that which he attaineth by believing and hence salvation is called the end of faith 1 Pet. 1.9 receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls and life is made the end of believing John 20.31 John 20 3â— These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have life through his Name not that ye might know ye had life before ye believed but that believing ye might have life and Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that believeth God did therefore cause the Law to be delivered that by the knowledge of mens sinfulnesse manifested by the Law they might flie to Christ for righteousnesse 3. If no man have eternal life but such as eat Christs flesh and drink his blood then no man antecedently to faith hath eternall life and by consequence Christ justifieth not without faith But no man hath eternal life but he that eats his flesh and drinks his blood Therefore The Assumption are the words of Christ John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you where Christ compareth himself to food Now as food though never so good nourisheth not unless we eat and drink it and it be incorporated into our body and become one with us so unlesse we thus eat Christ c. that is unlesse we feed upon his death and sufferings by faith and apply them by faith so as to be one with him we cannot live by Christ where observe Christ is the Food Faith is the Hand to take this Food and the Mouth to eat it without which this food will do us no good so here therefore he hath no life and an unbeliever hath not yet eaten 4. Such whose mindes and consciences are defiled are not justified but the mindes and consciences of all unbelievers are defiled The Major appeareth because when Christ justifieth he * Heb. 10.22 purgeth from an evil conscience The Minor is expressed * Tit. 1.15 where he speaketh indefinitely of unbelievers and therefore it is understood of all 5. Such whose persons are abominable who are Reprobates to good works are unjustified such are unbelievers for he speaketh there indefinitely of all unbelievers Having then proved Justification not to be before faith I shall now prove the instrumentality of Faith unto Justification and the consistency of it with the free grace of God For the right understanding whereof we must know what an instrumental cause is and wherein the nature of it consists and whether an instrumental cause be in the number of true causes and to what it is reducible and then apply it to faith Now we must know that an instrument hath divers significations I will not trouble the Reader with all sometimes it is taken for any thing which is moved and directed by a superior agent thus the Platonists take it and according to this acceptation every agent but God is an instrument and God alone in this sense is the principal efficient cause of all things and thus Isaiah the Prophet seemeth to take it Isaiah â—0 15 when he calleth the King of Assyria Gods Axe and his Saw in respect of God that used him for the destruction of the Nations and in this sense all causes as they depend upon GOD in their working are instruments but we take it not in this sense 2. To omit the rest an instrument according to the vulgar and usual acceptation of it is any thing that is used by the superiour agent moving and directing it to the production of an effect superior to it self for if it be proportionated to the effect it is not an instrument but an efficient principal cause And I conceive five things are required to an instrumentall cause First That it be a necessary antecedent to the effect not a consequent of it and I say a necessary antecedent to distinguish it from a contingent antecedent not that the whole nature of an instrumental cause consists in this for a thing may be a necessary antecedent and yet not a cause of the thing as the opening of a mans eyes is a necessary antecedent to sight but not a cause of sight
that is the eye or the visive faculty Secondly It must be moved acted and directed by the superiour agent to its end as a Carpenter useth his artificial instruments to the building of a House Thirdly That it be used to produce an effect exceeding the efficacy and activity of the instrument so that the effect is more noble then the instrumental cause of it As a Minister is Gods instrument by whom men are converted and brought to faith but is not called an instrument in respect of the natural birth of a childe begotten by him because in the first the effect transcends the efficacy of the instrument but it is not so in respect of the natural birth because there is a proportion between the cause and the effect Fourthly It must be subservient to the action of the principal agent hence the action of the principal agent and the instrument is the same Fifthly That it have an influence into the effect by a proper causality I will apply this to faith only I will here adde whether it be in the nature of true causes and to what cause it must be reduced because there are but foure Heads of causes The Material Formall Efficient and Final * Scalig. Exer. 297. s 3. Some excâ—pt that an instrument is not in the number of true causes because it doth not move nisi moveatur unlesse it be moved but this is not essential to a cause to move and not to be moved for so the Efficient should not be a cause because it is moved by the end and so all adjuvant sociall causes should be excluded Therefore it is a true cause yet not a first cause as * Plato Galenus ut refert Scheib Met. l. 1. c. 22. p. 308. some imagine but is reducible to one of those foure Heads of causes which are generally acknowledged to be as above recited Therefore I take it to be reduced to the Efficient and so it is an instrumental efficient cause not the externall impulsive efficient cause of it that is peculiar to the merits of Christ Now that faith is such an instrumental cause I prove because all those properties of an instrumental cause above cited belong to it First It is a necessary antecedent unto Justification as I have already proved for without Faith no man is justified it is not barely antecedent as causa sine qua non as a cause without which a thing is not done which is only present in the action but doth nothing therein and therefore is an equivocal cause and that is indeed none having nothing but the name of it but is that by which it is done Secondly Faith is moved acted directed by GOD the superiour Agent unto this end GOD is the principall Agent in Justification Acts 13.48 Faith is wrought by GOD in the soul for it is his gift and directed by God to this end to bring us to Justification He hath ordained us not only to life but to Faith as a means to obtain it As many as were ordained unto life believed * And whom â—e predestinated them he also called and whom he called he also justified And if God had not appointed Faith as a meanes to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Faith could not produce such an effect and God hath expressed his will That he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth should not perish but have eternal life These two Propositions have been sufficiently confirmed already Thirdly That the effect to wit Justification doth exceed the efficacy and act vity of Faith I think none will deny so if we consider the excellency of the priviledges of Justification how thereby our sins are pardoned we reconciled adopted into the number of Gods children and so are made coheirâ—s with Christ of eternal life How could Faith merit or effect this There is no proportion between this grace and the great things received by it Fourthly It is subservient to the action of the principal Agent not that it is needful to God as if he could not produce the effect without it had it been his will and pleasure as a Carpenter dependeth upon his instruments in working without which he cannot build But God judged it the fittest means to apply Christs righteousnesse to Justification and hath given to Faith this peculiar office to apply it so as that God hath concluded with himself to justifie none unlesse they believe Hence though Justification be Gods act yet Faith which he worketh and freely giveth is the means by which Gods eternal will and purpose to justifie is executed not by working any new will in God but being that condition upon which God hath purposed promised and by Covenant obliged himself to performe it and thus it concurreth with God and God with it to the act of Justification Fifthly and lastly Mr. Ball p. 19. It hath an influence by a peculiar causality into Justification as Master Ball saith on the Covenant of Grace As the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is Faith for justifying Hence the Scripture frequently saith we are justified by and through Faith which indemonstrably sheweth the instrumentality of this grace And although this act be nothing but a receiving and so equivalent only to a passive instrument God effecteth Justification and passeth the sentence forgiveth the sinner Faith receiveth the mercy offered receiveth Christ and in him forgivenesse and so believeth unto Justification Nor do we in so saying Deify Faith nor commit sacriledge against Christ the power of life and death is Gods and he forgiveth not Faith Christ is our righteousnesse for which we are justified Faith is not our righteousnesse but an active lively instrument of the soul wrought by God to apply this righteousnesse and it is more properly called in reference to God his work then his instrument yet as it is subservient to his end or work of Justification I see not any reason why it may not as fitly be called his instrument to our Justification as any thing else he useth to produce an effect by may be called his instrument not because he needs it but because he will not do it without it And hence there is a twofold action in Faith as in other instrumental causes one instrumentall the other proper and peculiar to it self The instrumental action of Faith is that it helpeth the action of God in justifying because now God according to his own constitution in the Gospel may justifie which observing his own order he cannot do untill Faith that which is proper to it is as it relates to the subject and so it is an instrument of the soul to receive and apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Nor have I asserted any thing in this that is inconsistent with the freenesse of Gods grace For First I make not Faith an uncertain effect depending upon mans free-will upon which the act of Justification should depend Acts 13.48 but a certain
effect of Gods eternal purpose and a fruit of Christs death which shall infallibly in Gods due time be wrought Now all Gods purposes of grace are free Secondly I make not Faith the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified but ascribe that to the active and passive obedience of Christ Thirdly Though Faith be our act yet is it Gods gift and therefore salvation is no lesse of grace though by Faith then if it were without it and if it be an instrument helping the principal Agent yet being wholly wrought by God and all the efficacy and activity that Faith hath it hath it not by any thing intrinsecal to it but extrinsecâ—â— and by Gâ—d◠〈…〉 the Covenant of Grace and merciful aâ—ceptance oâ— it this â—o way obscâ—â—eth the grace of God and therefore Paul â—â—â—th â—he inheritance is therefore by faith that it might be of grace and Rom. 4.16 Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through faith it is the gift of God Faith it is an emptying soul-humbling and a Christ-exalting grace it renounceth all its own righteousnesse it goeth out of it self into another relieth wholly upon Christ for righteousnesse and receives heaven as an almes and all from God as a free gift and the more faith there is in any the lesse pride and resting upon any thing in our selves Therefore hereby the grace of God is no way the lesse free though that be the instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Fourthly we do not make Faith an antecedent condition moving and inclining Gods will to receive us into Covenant with himself but we make it antecedent to our being admitted to partake of the benefits of the Covenant CHAP. IX Shewing how weakly he hath defended himselfe against the charge of Antinomianisme and likewise manifesting that the Authors brought by him in defence of his Errour do some in the same place and most of them joyntly bring in evidence against his cause MAster Eyre Page the 19th complaineth that his Doctrine is called an Antinomian Error pag. 19. which is somewhat like the temper of such evil men pag 27. which the world is too full of that are more ashamed to be thought to be evil then to do it And he saith if it be an Error it is an Anti-evangelical Error Is not this a good * Incidit in Scyllam c. choice to choose rather to be accounted a corrupter of the Gospel then an enemy to the Law which is by so much the greater sin as the Gospel excelleth the Law and although I willingly grant and judge his Error to be diametrically opposite to the Gospel yet if the Antinomist be cast into his right tribe he will derive his pedigree from this Anti-evangelical principle and therefore this childe will lie at his door still but he purgeth himself from this crime by saying that it hath been an old designe of Satan to blast the truths of God with odious nick-names This I acknowledge and he verifieth it himself by stiling the Doctrine of Justification by Faith to be a joyning in confederacy with Papists Socinians and Arminians for such he maketh all that distâ—r from him and enemies to the free grace of God yet he will not see this beame in his own eye when he can see a mote in his brothers 2. He saith that by all the Diagnosticks which Divines have given us to discerne between Truth and Error it hath the complexion of a saving Truth by which I am contented to try it and let me bear the blame of it if the beauty of that complexion vanish not at the warme breath of the nexâ— Argument as much as Jezabels painted colour faded when the heat did transforme her again into her first deformity I admit of the rule that he giveth to try it by That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ is certainly true and the contrary is as certainly false Now let such as he saith that are least in the Church judge which opinion giveth most glory unto God his or ours Either his which asserteth That an Infidel and an ungodly person * Mr. Eyre p. 10. so remaining under the reigning power of sin even while he lieth like a swine wallowing in the mire of sin committing uncleannesse and that with greedinesse yea in the very act of it if an Elect person he was justified from * Page 64. eternity in the decree of God and from the time of * Page 67 68. Christs death being united to him because they were then in him as a * Page 7. common person and so while they are thus in their * Pag 60 61. unregenerate estate being thus considered God beholds them as righteous persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them and Divine Justice cannot charge them with the least sin nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve so that while they are thus they have as much * Master Eyre page 122. right to salvation as ever they shall have though they may by faith have more knowledge and comfort of their happinesse yet they have no more right nor is their estate changed before God upon believing as to Justification but only their former blessednesse is made * Page 66 evident to their consciences This is the soile of that brutish opinion and although in so many words together Master Eyre * Page 76. hath not expressed his minde yet it is fairely without any wrong to his opinion without wire-drawing per fidiculas consequentiaruâ— by threeds of consequences which he disclaimes collected as may appear by comparing it with the places quoted in the Margin Now we hold and maintaine God purposed in his eternal decree to justifie his Elect in time to that end he sent Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for their sins that a full satisfaction might be given to his Divine Justice as a foundation of Gods gracious act of Justification which is not immanent but transient and now by Christs death the price is paid and we are meritoriously redeemed but it was the will of the Father and the Son that none should have actual benefit as to a present discharge from the guilt of sin untill faith which faith is not the effect of free-will but a certaine effect of Gods decree and fruit of Christs death which shall be given to all the Elect for application of the righteousnesse of Christ and his satisfaction unto their actual Justification By which faith we are united to Christ and so partake of the saving benefits of his death Now let the Reader judge which giveth most glory to God in Christ his or ours First Doth he ascribe the whole work of salvation to the grace of God and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ so do we Nor Secondly Do we as he falsly accuseth us make men moral causes of their salvation let him prove it if he can Thirdly Nor do we
his person are removed for the merit of Christ but then you fraudulently withold the latter part of the sentence which makes against you as he did that cited Scripture to Christ but not by vertue of that signal promise of the Gospel He that believeth shall be saved for the effects of Gods anger against the sins of the Elect are not removed by vertue of that promise till he actually believe for hence the Elect have no consolation till faith Now if you say he meant our Justification was not evidenced to our consciences till faith and that is all he meanes Ruth Apol. Exercit. p. 44. Hear what he saith Pag. 44. Dicent ergo Arminiani nos hîc Justificationem sumere pro sensu notitia Justificationis remissionis ideòque homines fide Justificantur idem valet ac homines tum demum Justificantur quandò credunt hoc est sentiunt se justificari cum anted essent justificati Nugae tricae Siculae Nam justificari plus est quà m sentire se justificari Nam 1. Est actus Dei absolventis terminati in conscientiam hominis citati tracti ad tribunale tremendi Judicis qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiam 2. Deus hoc actu certum facit conscientiae citati innitenti fiducialiter in Christum jam etiam in Christo plenam expiationem omnium peccatorum factam Ipse peccator actu fiduciali recumbit in Christum sufficientem Salvatorem credentium at verò actus Dei terminatus in nos non potest esse nudus sensus illius actûs quis sanus ità argumenta retur cui paulò magis sobrium est sinciput The Arminians will say for against them he principally dealeth in that Book and therefore opposeth an Arminian condition of faith and not ours that we take Justification for the sense and knowledge of Justification and pardon and therefore to say men are justified by faith it is as if we should say that men are then justified by faith when they believe that is when they perceive they are justified when as they were justified before These are but fables and trifles for to be justified is more then to know we are justified For First It is the act of God absolving terminated in the conscience of a sinner cited and drawn to the tribunal of a dreadfull Judge which act before this instant was not terminated upon the conscience Secondly In this act God assureth the conscience of a sinner cited to his barre fiducially trusting upon Christ that now a full expiation is made of all his sins Thirdly The sinner by a fiducial act relying upon Christ as a sufficient Saviour of Believers But the act of God terminated upon us cannot be a bare sense or knowledge of that act what sound man that hath a sober brain would so reason And immediately followeth Quamvis itaque in mente Dei peccata c. Although therefore sins were remitted in the minde of God from eternity where let the Reader observe he is speaking against the temporal and conditional decrees of Arminius making God to elect upon foreseen faith yet is not a man justified from eternity that is declared to be just in Christ in his conscience when he is cited to Gods tribunal where he taketh declared to be just for a transient act of God terminated upon the conscience fotgiving and declaring this forgivenesse and not for a bare knowledge of this by a reflex act of faith for although that act of justifying in God note an immanent and an eternal act of God yet notwithstanding that act is not the whole integral and formal reason of the Justification of a sinner of which Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and the Scripture speaketh Formaliter enim justificare c. For for God formally to justifie is to declare actually to wit in a judiciall act that the guilty sinner trembling before his Judge now hath the benefit of eternal absolution and now first of all and never till now that the effects of his divine displacency against their sins do now cease by vertue of that divine promise wherein Christ and all his benefits and an actuall right to the Kingdom of God and the dignity of Adoption or Son-ship are promised to the Beleever Indeed he saith Pag. 43. N. 20. that faith is not the instrument of Justification actively taken as an immanent eternal act of God for no man saith he by believing doth make God to have a will not to punish sin or to have a will to love us which the Arminians plainly make and therein he saith true yet he maketh faith the instrumental cause of Justification passively taken as a declared act of God terminated upon us as that place declareth and in expresse words in pag. 37. Ruther Apol. Exer. p. 37. which Mr. Eyre in his 32. pag. of his Book when he boasted that Master Rutherford made the opinion he did oppose the chief of the Arminians and Socinians and Papists Errors could not be ignorant of for he there maketh faith the organical cause of Justification In that place he saith the Arminians would desire nothing more then this that remission of sin is not before actuall faith And that the Remonstrants in their Apology do say that nothing is more false Socinus part 4. de Salv. c. 10. then that men have sinnes remitted before they believe in which they make Socinus more plausible who saith that sinnes cannot be forgiven by an act of believing if they are remitted before they believe and Bellarmine who hath these words how is that faith true whereby I believe my sins are forgiven if while I therefore believe they are not forgiven but are to be remitted by the act of faith because every object is before his act so the Remonstrants urge to which he saith I would have these three acts distinguished 1. The act of satisfying for our sins performed by Christ and of reconciling us to God 2. The act of God the Father accepting it wherein he doth acknowledge that he is abundantly satisfied for all the sins of the Elect. 3. The act of Justification cui fides subordinatur tanquam organica causa to which faith is subordinate as an organical cause in all which Mr. Rutherford meaneth nothing but this that God did not take up a new volition but sins were intentionally pardoned from eternity Ruth Apol. page 4. which yet in his judgement is not justification for pag. 43. Homo non est justificatus ab aeterno quia homo non est ab aeterno homini credenti non sunt remissa peccata ab aeterno qumiam non estab aeterno nam justificatio remissio hoc sensu-non sunt termini diminuentes A man is not justified from eternity because a man is not from eternity sins are not remitted to a Believer from eternity because he is not from eternity and Justification and Remission passively taken are not termini
grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were justâ—fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The sixâ—h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why
premise that we understand not by qualifying us for Justification any moral disposing and qualifying us sensu pontificio in the Papists sense inchoating our Justification as if we were to be justified by something inherent in us but by qualifying we mean nothing but this that according to the tenour of the Gospel and New Covenant it makes us subjects capable of the act of Justification for as much as the condition required is now fulfilled and as faith is Gods gift so it is a passive condition as it is our act so it is an active instrument not elicited by the power of free will but by assistance of special grace whereby we apprehend Christs righteousnesse for Justification and in this sense we are justified by faith according to the Scriptures Now let us consider his Arguments First That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in way of opposition to other workes of Sanctification but to interpret Faith meerly thus that it is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification We shall reverence the Major and let it go but must commit his Minor to the Marshalsie as a Rebel against reason For though we make Faith a condition and a passive condition in the sense explained yet this hindereth not but that it may be an instrumental cause of Justification and in this sense we give more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Besides we make not as he affirme works necessary antecedents to Justification necessary antecedents to Salvation we do but not unto Justification For we acknowledge that of August to be true opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum And now I shall retort this Argument upon himself That Interpretation of the phrase which giveth no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in a way of opposition to other works of Sanctification but to interpret Faith subjectively taken thus that it justifieth us only because it evidenceth our Justification is to attribute no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Ergo. If he answer that faith subjectively taken for the grace of faith is not opposed to works because it is a work I answer 1. If it be a work yet it is the work of God and not ours 2. It justifieth not as a work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse Nay 3. I see not but the opposition stand as strongly as if he took faith objectively for Christs righteousnesse or obedience for certainly the matter of our Justification is the obedience of Christ to the Law and so we are justified by works properly in the person of another Secondly That Interpretation which gives no more to faith then to works of nature such as are found in natural unregenerate men is not true but to interpret faith a necessary antecedent of our Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature I deny the Minor for conditio sine quà non a condition whithout which a thing is not done may be a necessary condition yet it is not so necessary as that is which is a cause by which the thing is done the eye-lids must be opened as a necessary antecedent unto sight But will you therefore say it is as equally necessary as the eye it self so it is in the present case sight of sin sorrow for it are necessarily required in the subject where God will work faith but it followeth not that they are as equally necessary and have as much influence into Justification as Faith The third Argument is this That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a passive condition is not a proper efficient cause of Justification I answer by distinguishing upon the word by That by which we are justified as the material cause of our Justification or the matter for which we are justified is the meritorious proper efficient cause of Justification and in this sense we are not justified by faith 2. It may be taken for the instrument by which that righteousnesse for which we are justified is apprehended and applied and in this sense we are justified by faith and taking it in this latter sense I deny the Major Nor is faith only the instrumental cause of Justification in foro conscientiae as a little after you affirme though it be taken properly for the act of believing but in foro Dei nor a bare condition without which but a condition by which by vertue of Gods Covenant it is obtained and therfore I acknowledg a true causality in faith unto Justification Fourthly That which maketh us concurrent causes in the formall act of Justification with God and Christ because our Justification in respect of efficiency is attributed to them is not true but to make faith morally disposing us to Justification maketh us concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification I answer 1. He attributeth more to us then we affirme we say not that faith doth moraly dispose us to Justification as he taketh it in the Argument it is no meritorious moving cause of Justification nor is all moral disposition a morall causality 2. The Major is not universally true for Faith is a social cause but not a co-ordinate cause of Justification Besides what Faith doth it doth it virtute agentis principalis and by vertue of Gods Covenant not as our act nor by any inherent worth in it self 1. Nor doth it follow from hence that if any condition be required in order to our Justification then it is not free for the very condition is freely given nor is it left to be performed by the power of our free-will this would hinder the freenesse of Justification 2. It is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ but Christ and Faith are not causes ejusdem generis for Christs righteousnesse is that for which we are justified Faith is only that whereby this righteousnesse is received and applied unto Justification Fifthly That Interpretation which makes Works going before Justification not only not sinful but acceptable to God and praeparatory to the grace of Justification is not according to the minde of the Holy Ghost but to interpret Justification by faith that faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a work or works which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace The Major we shall let passe as innocent the Minor hath guilt and weaknesse more then enough to be imputed to it 1. We say Faith doth not us qualifie as an inherent disposition preparing us for a
non-imputing them to us it was a paying the ransome for us a legal translation of the eternal punishment upon Christ a laying help upon one that was mighty but this was not nor is ever called in Scripture Justification here is no formal imputation of any righteousnesse to us who are not yet borne much lesse cited before a Tribunal and absolved from the guilt of sinne Besides 't is not the charging of a surety with the debt bue the discharging of him rather that carries the force of an Argument to prove our discharge but although Christ in his Resurrection was legally discharged as a publik person and all that he did represent fundamentally meritoriously and causally yet not personally and formally which is necessary to Justification Thus have I answered his Arguments which he hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to Faith there remaineth yet one Argument and Objection behinde with which I shall put an end to this discourse leaving that which relateth to the Covenant to Mr. Woodbridge to whom it peculiarly belongeth from whom I doubt not but the world will receive a satisfactory answer The Argument yet unanswered is this If a man have the Spirit of God given him before he beleeve then he must needs be justified before he doth beleeve because then he is in Covenant before he beleeveth and he that is in Covenant is justified To this I answer First by Concession willingly acknowledging faith to be the Spirits work and that no man can beleeve without the help of the Spirit working Faith Secondly I deny the Consequence that although the Spirit worketh Faith before we can beleeve yet doth it not follow that a man is justified before beleeving And the reason of the Consequence I deny also it followeth not that he is in Covenant before beleeving for there is no distance of time between the giving of the Spirit our beleeving and being justified and in Covenant or being passed from the state of death into a state of salvation because there is a synchronisme in these in respect of time they being altogether as soone as ever there is fire there is heat so as soone as the Spirit is given Faith is wrought and the person justified and in Covenant and sanctified at the same time for God is able to act in instanti in a moment the Spirit is then said to be given to us when he doth manifest his Divine presence by working somthing in us peculiar to the elect for though those that shall perish may be enlightened and taste of the powers of the world to come and may be said to be partakers of the holy Ghost yet properly none receive the Spirit but the Elect and what others have is not a true saving work now because no work before Faith is truly saving and have a necessary connexion with salvation therefore the Spirit is not received before Faith and so they are simultanea all together the Spirit Faith and Justification and being in Covenant and therefore though there may be a precedency of nature in this gift of the Spirit before Faith yet followeth it not that we are justified and in Covenant before Faith but at this very instant is the beleever taken into Covenant and justified and thus I willingly acknowledge the first grace is absolutely given to wit effectual vocation or Faith by which the soul is brought into an estate of Justification and Faith is made the condition though wrought by God of our Justification So that our being in Covenant and justified follow Faith in order of nature which is contrary to that which Master Eyre hath all along contended for that a man is justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death antecedently to our birth and faith and that the unregenerate so remaining if elected are justified in that estate which opinion if it be received how it should not destroy the vitals of Religion is past my understanding to imagine Having therefore had the glory of God the vindication of this blessed truth the salvation of the souls of Gods Elect the preserving them from Errour that are yet free from the infection of it the reducing those that are gone astray before mine eyes and having with earnest prayers unto God sought for guidance herein I undertook this task and through his grace have finished it and I trust I have not I am sure I have not willingly departed from the truth and if in any thing I have written I have erred from the truth as humanum est errare upon the first discovery of it I shall through the grace of Christ become a thankful Proselyte in the meane time I commend the Christian Reader to the grace of God in Christ And the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory tread down Satan under our feet establish and settle us in the truth and give us to receive it in the love of it and grant to us the Spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of him that the eyes of our understandings may be enlightened that we may know what is the hope of his calling and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints and by the exceding greatnesse of his power work Faith in the hearts of his Elect where it is yet wanting according to the working of his mighty power and fulfil that which is lacking in our faith with power and so keep us by his mighty power through faith unto this salvation which is ready to be revealed at the second coming of Christ Amen A Postscript of the Authour by way of advertisement to the Reader WHereas it is said pag. 238 that it is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in the work of Justification least Mr. Eyte in particular or any other should through wilfulnesse or weaknesse mistake the minde of the Authour he is desired not to dismember the sentence but to take it as it is there explained And I further declare that I understand by it no more but that faith is a concomitant social cause with Christ in the work of Justification but not a co-ordinate or meritorious cause of the same kinde but a subordinate instrument appointed by God for the receiving and applying of Christs righteousnesse unto Justification and that this faith is Gods Almighty work and free gife without which no man shall ever have benefit by Christs righteousnesse and because it is our act though it be Gods gift for it is we that believe and not God in this sense alone it is said that we are concurrent causes with Christ not that we are justified by faith as our act but as it is an organical instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse for this end and this I conceive is the unanimous opinion of all the Orthodox FINIS
lovingly Christ invites us to come and how willingly he will imbrace every soul that comes John 6.38 For this is the will of the Father that whosoever come he should in no wise cast out The Spirit saith come Rev. 22.17 and the Bride saith come Whosoever will let him come and drinke of the water of life freely And to that end that faith may be wrought attend upon the Word of God for faith cometh by hearing it is the power of God to salvation and desire the Lord to draw thee unto Christ tell him thou art undone without Christ and there is nothing that thy heart is more set upon then Christ and if he will give thee Christ thou wilt be conntented whatever he do with thee and when the Lord seeth thee hunger and thirst after Christ and his righteousnesse and that nothing but a Christ will content thee he will say Be it unto thee according to thy desire if nothing but a Christ will satisfie thee why take Christ and let him everlastingly become thine and with his Christ he will give his Spirit if thou aske it to seal up this gift to thy heart to thy everlasting comfort Thus then being come to the end of this Sermon as it was delivered with as little variation as I could I shall prosecute this argument no further and if friends and enemies would have been so satisfied I had not troubled the Presse with this Sermon but I and it had been yet buried in silence but since it is the will of God I here submit it to the judgement of my Brethren and I doubt not but I shall receive from them a quietus est to discharge me from Mr Eyre's Arrest who hath in the Pulpit and Presse condemned this Sermon as wide from the Orthodox Faith which if he will undertake to shew and convince me wherein I promise him through the grace of Christ to be a thankful Proselyte Now the God of peace tread down Satan under your feet rebuke that spirit of Errour and division that is among you settle and confirme you in the truth as it is in Jesus to whose grace I commend you and rest in hope of your establishment JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH OR UNBELIEVERS NO SUBJECTS OF Justification CHAP. I. Being a Vindication of my Sermon preached at N. Sarum shewing that Union to Christ and Justification by Christ is not Antecedent to Faith ABout April which was Anno 1652. according to my course in the Lecture at New Sarum I preached the foregoing Sermon grounded upon the second to the Ephesians the 12. vers That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world From which words the Point observed was this That a Christlesse estate is a Hopelesse estate for the explication and proof of the Point I referre the Reader to the Sermon it self That which I chiefly aimed at was to shew that the very Elect are said to be without Christ or in a Christless estate untill actuall faith because without union to Christ there is no communion with him but this union is the formall effect of faith or is made by believing After the Sermon Mr. Eyre took liberty to remonstrate and since in his Vindiciae Justifie he hath declared to the world that I said That the Elect themselves to whom Christ was peculiarly given by the Father before the foundations of the world for whom Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour whose sins he bare on his body on the tree even to a full propitiation had no right or interest in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who conceit the contrary To which I answer that as he hath a faculty to speak of others what they never said so he can hear what they never spake he hath innovated my tearmes of which as in our conference so in his Printed relation where he is no lesse peccant he was always wittingly as I conceive guilty which because I minded him of before the people he stiles in his Book a provocation of language which I gave him But to the matter because I intend not a strife of words I shall first readily grant him that the Elect were given to Christ by the Father before the foundations of the world and Christ to them if he understand it onely of an immanent act terminated in God himself and understand by it no more then an eternall purpose in God to give Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for those whom in his eternal counsel he had fore-ordained to eternal life and to give them faith whereby they may become his members but if he judge this to be actually done and that Christ and all the Elect were one mystical body and so justified from eternity I wholly dissent from him Predestination is only a love of purpose and intention not of execution it being an immanent act leaveth no positive reall effect upon the person predestinated Hence when God is said to give Christ to the Elect from eternity it signifies only the will and purpose of God constituting and appointing Christ to die for the Elect but he was not actually given till in the fulnesse of time he sent him into the world and although in his death he gave him to die for them yet was he not actually given to them that they should possesse the benefits of his death until actuall faith and I shall further manifest this when I shall prove that an immanent act of God purposing to justifie us is not our formal justification Secondly Whereas he saith that Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and bare our sins in his body on the tree even to a ful propitiation This I willingly acknowledge and blesse the Lord for if he understand it only of the fulness of satisfaction and not of an immediate discharge of the sinner for whom he died Christ did not satisfie the justice of God by divine acceptation but he satisfied the justice of God fully the dignity and excellency of his person did no way dispense with any degree of the extremity of the punishment due to our sin which was consistent with his Godhead and holynesse to suffer but it was to make the sufferings of one available for many And Scotus gives a considerable reason for it quia poenâ ab unà eximere Christum si valuisset valuisset etiam ex duabus Scotus in quar Sentent dist 46. Q. 4. Art 4. atque ita ex omnibus eum emancipare And I acknowledge there was not a deficiency but a redundancy of merit in his sufferings the justice of God cannot require any thing more at the hands of Christ our surety or of the sinner by way of satisfaction and in this sense he is well pleased with Christ as a publick
Law in whole as the Arminians and in part as the Papists But we take faith for a condition in this sense for an Evangelicall qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified nor saved and shall not enjoy the benefits and blessings of the new Covenant as a cause of life not efficiently as works in the old Covenant but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his benefits to the Believer And thus the Scripture saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned and that the wrath of God abideth on him * There it was and there it shall rest till by faith it be removed works are required as conditions of those that shall be saved but faith is a condition of Justification And because this faith is freely given salvation is no lesse of free grace then if this condition were not required nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God and yet required as a duty of us 't is we are bound to believe and repent and yet faith is Gods gift and Christ is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opinion shewing wherein he departeth from the Orthodox faith together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors unsound opinions and selfe-contradictions that he hath intangled himselfe in in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde inconstant to himself Vide Mr. Eyre pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre so farre as relates to his Book I trust in Christ to manifest and therefore let the judicious Reader observe and judge Now for his opinion as farre as I can gather from his Book I conceive it to be this First He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously pro volitione Divinâ pro re volità 1. For the will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people And 2. For the effect of Gods will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law that is Justification is taken by him actively for Gods eternal will not to punish and passively for the effect of that will as it is terminated upon the Elect or Believer And he saith that he looks upon Dr Twisse 's judgment as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines except three or four in making Gods eternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists it is well known that unanimously they agree that Justification is not an immanent but a transient act done in time And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this it is marvell the Scripture should never call it so and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification should speak of it in an improper sense passively taken as terminated upon us Besides the will of God not to punish is but terminus diminuens a decree or will not to punish in time Besides this is not the whole of Justification for it is a will not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace which requireth faith But I shall argue against this in a more proper place Now if we take it thus as Mr. Eyre will have it his opinion is this Justification is an eternall immanent act or will in God not to punish and impute sin unto his people antecedently not only to their birth and faith but to the death of Christ nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification though with him Justification thus taken is most accurate and properly taken and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification for he will acknowledge no other transient act and immanent there is none 1. And this act is not purely * Page 67. negative as the non-imputation of sin to a stone but privative being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse which how Scholastically it is spoken being a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God when neither the subject nor the sin are in being and as if sin were debitum inesse that that ought to be in us for privation is properly understood of these 2. And this non-imputation is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being a will not to impute it hereafter may be actual but to call that an actuall non-imputation is improperly spoken 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a satisfaction for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship and many thanks for a gratuity And yet he addeth that this renders not the death of Christ uselesse surely as to this act it is uselesse * And Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification and if it be the meritorious cause of the effects of this Justification how was that Justification compleat whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God Where let the Reader observe also that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election for he addeth by way of similitude As the love of God is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Moreover he saith That the Lord did not impute sin to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ and so Christ was man and a sinner from eternity and crucified from eternity and all this in Gods minde and there Judas and Pilate and those that murdered Christ did exist too and what will not this bring in And * Mr. Eyre p. 8. the ground of this is that he conceives God constituting and ordaining Christ a Head and the Elect his Members they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne even from eternity And Justification thus taken saith he makes no change in God nor
yet if it be acknowledged a transient act Mr. Eyre p. 65. would it make a change in him it would adde a relative respect and an extrinsecall denomination and so in making it an immanent act there must be a new relation of the person justified to God but he addeth it maketh a great change if you take it for the delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law Surely he that is not is not capable of an actual change which you must hold or your justification is not compleat because the deliverance is not a present deliverance Secondiy Let us come to his passive Justification If Justification saith he be taken as most commonly it is for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation but an actual and immediate reconciliation Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance but not in respect of any act of Gods deliverance as if we could be justâ—fied and none to justifie for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish and that justly and yet he will not acknowledge another act as we do a transient act of God whereof Christs death is the cause and yet some act he must finde out or we cannot be justified Now his opinion from hence is this That Christ at his death standing as a common person and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice by which they satisfied in him and in his Resurrection receiving a publick discharge for himself and them and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God even while they remaine unregenerate persons Wherein in two things he differs from us and departs from the truth 1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith 2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled both these I have already disproved in the Vindication of my Sermon but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter Thirdly When it 's said we are justified by faith he taketh it altogether objectively He saith Faith is taken objectively for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God if taken for the act it only evidenceth justification page 76. as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from any hand in Justification which if it were the Apostles meaning he might have put in the Name Christ and left out Faith and his meaning had been more plaine which in this weighty controversie of Justification though the Trope be more elegant had been more needful And in many places where he speaketh of Justification he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith and yet addeth faith as that grace by which this object is apprehended Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15 16. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the wo ks of the Law Here the Apostles Scope is to shew that the believing Jewes into which number he puts himself and Peter and Barnabas seeing that they could not be justified by the Law did for this end that they might be justified believe on Christ that they might be justified by the faith of Christ where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith and the matter of their Justification and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ and not for the Grace of Faith as if the meaning should be that they were justified by the Christ of Christ where he must exclude Christ or Faith for one is redundant nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification for then there is no reason nor truâ—h in it for to say that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification these being as able to declare it as faith as it is said Little children let no man deceive y u he that doth righteousnesse 1 John 3.7 is righteous that is is declared thereby to be righteous Besides to make Paul to say that they believed that they might be justified that is that they may know by believing that they had been justified before had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe as if the doing a thing for a certaine end were a certain means to assure that the end hath been obtained already Besides it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument in reproving Peter for his dissimulation building up that in his Practice which in his Doctrine he did destroy the Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvation and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gentiles and eating things forbidden by the Law but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Law and therefore did renounce hopes of salvation by that and believe in Christ for Justification and this he taught And when he came to Antioch before certain Jewes came down from James he used his Christian liberty and did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come down he withdrew himself he separates from the Gentiles by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation Now Paul blames his practice that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Christ he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation but how salvation is obtained So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified in Rom 3.11 saith Rom. 3.11 it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even a righteousnesse that is of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ where by Faith is necessâ—rily understood the grace of Faith and not Christ who is expressely set down in the next words where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified and he saith not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ if Christ without Faith justifie why doth the Apostle mention Faith for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification but by what we are justified I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre he saith Mr. Eyre p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is
upon a man at the same time as sinful and righteous if you mean by it an estate of sin and a righteous or justified estate for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement to judge them otherwise then they are but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature and what they are by grace 't is not denied but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate and in a state of grace at the same time implies an errour in his judgement which is blasphemy to imagine and is a contradiction in adjecto 5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose Therefore that immanent act or eternal purpose of God to justifie us is not our justification The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture Eph. 4.32 2 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12 God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians God was in Christ reconciling the world c. and whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us c. And to deny it were with Socinus that cursed Heretick to deny the satisfaction of Christ The Minor is acknowledged by himself page 67. It may be he will answer as he saith in pag. 66 67. If Justification be taken for the will of God so Christs death is not the * Nihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art 2. cause c. but if you take it for the thing willed or effect of this will by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Argument and here the Reader may see he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken but of no act of God in justifying Besides our deliverance from the Law is an effect of Justification not Justification it self which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us upon which followeth our delivery from the Law 6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity then Christ died in vain or his death was not to purchase forgivenesse but to apply forgivenesse or to manifest Gods love not to satisfie Gods justice But Christs death was not in vaine he died not only to apply but to purchase forgivenesse not to manifest Gods love only but to satisfie Gods justice Therefore the first consequence is evident because his death was in vain as to the act of Justification for as in the former Argument Christs death was not the cause of that act and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will how can it cause the effect and be no cause of any act of Gods will for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will which is properly our justification which act he will not acknowledge The second inference is evident for if we were justified from eternity then we were forgiven from eternity and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most for he did not purchase it or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world but the Scripture is evident That he hath purchased forgiveness In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of our sins and he died to satisfie Gods justice hence he is a propitiation for our sins 7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death because if we were justified from eternity then Justification is a due debt to the Elect and then what place is left for Christs merit for it must be bonum indebitum that that is properly merited was not due before but if we were justified then it was due and so no roome is left for Christs merits 8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath is not Justification But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath The Major is evident for how can he be justified that is not secured from condemnation The Minor I prove because notwithstanding Gods decree Christ must die there was a necessity of Christs death supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect but not actually it is true because a man is Elect he shall not as to the event be damned but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse but this is not an actual acquittance or discharge from sin when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect that is to such as are declared or evidenced to be Elect by believing or effectual vocation And that the Apostle must mean so is evident the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation Now this he proveth because they are Elect The Elect shall not be condemned but you are Elect Now how shall this be known by faith and our effectual vocation Hence in the 30. ver he speaketh of effectual vocation as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure Why is Calling put before Election because our Election is unknown to any till it be evidenced by their effectual Calling Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification without some means to know it for how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifested and how shall it be manifested but by Faith and Sanctification therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse must be understood by the Elect Now if you take the Proposition as an universal Negative or universal Affirmative No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin or All Elect Believers are freed from the charge of sin both are true but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith the Proposition is not true for the Word may and doth charge him with sin for it threateneth damnation to him but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin and God doth look upon him as a sinner and he ought to charge himself with sin therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin yet all the Elect are not formally discharged from sin As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre that he should speak as weakly as if he said Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it should say that by omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the expression legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus His opinion is as
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
till they are able to plead their discharge Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redemption If you take the wrath of God in the first sense for the will of God to punish according to the tenor of the law so they were not under wrath if you take it in the third sense for the execution of wrath they were never under it for how could they be under it when God never intended it what then did Christ redeem them from only the bare threatenings of the Law why so long as it was only a threatening and God intended not to execute it what need Christ have died according to him surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath and there was a will in God to punish theiâ— sins as well as the sins of the Reprobate though he would punish their sins in Christ the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect person still lieth under till he be delivered through faith in Christ and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus 10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling then were not they justified from eternity But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath The consequence of the Major is evident because a man cannot lie under the effâ—cts of wrath and yet be delivered from that wrath The Minor I prove thus by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture which are many 1. To be in a state of alienation from God so as to have none of their persons nor services accepted Thus God is * Psal 7.11 angry with the wicked every day yet so are the unregenerate though Elect they are under the power of sin And their prayers are rejected The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8 And so are all the services of unregenerate men though Elect persons which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth and they are truly called wicked persons because they are under the reigning power of sin 2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth for so saith the Apostle Rom. 3.19 Rom. 3.19 where he sheweth all persons in their natural estate are under the Law that is the damning power of it and become guilty before God there was a time that this was true but if they be justified from eternity then they never were under this damning power nor were guilty before God for if they were freed from eternity when were they guilty if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free then they were not justified from eternity 3. They are subject to the curse of the Law Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law therefore there was a time the Elect were under it and if under it they were not justified from eternity Acts 26.18 Heb. 2.14 Tit. 1.15 4. Yea they are under the power of Sathan but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power they are in bondage to death they have no outward enjoyment sanctified these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath and how can they be justified where these effects remain and these all remain till faith Acts 13. 11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity therefore were not the Elect justified The consequence appeareth Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio by Election the Elect are ordained to life by reprobation men are ordained to condemnation these are contrarie and among contraries there is the same reason Now if the Elect be justified because of Gods decree then are the Reprobate condemned but the Reprobates are not condemned actually therefore neither are the Elect actually justified Now this assumption is evident for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation yet sin is the cause of the Reprobates condemnation but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of it 's true God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done good or evil they had not then according to Scripture done evil and then God could not condemne them though he might passe them by and not Elect them which is negatively or privatively called hatred 12. If Gods decree to create the World was not Creation nor his will to call Calling nor to glorifie Glorification then his will to justifie was not Justification To this Mr. Eyre answereth There is not the same reason for Creating Calling Glorifying all which do import an inherent change in the person Created Called Glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being compleat in the minde of God To which I answer that his reason is of no force for to be the subject of a moral change doth as necessarily require the existence of the person as to be the subject of a physical and natural change for though the act may be perfect in Gods minde yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act because he hath not existence can he be pardoned and acquitted and declared just that is so farre from being an offender that he never yet was a man The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being but he is not a subject capable because as yet he is not so God may will Justification but he cannot justifie deliver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation till the person exist who may be the subject of this change CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death I Shall here first premise a few things that it may be known what we affirme and what we oppose First Then it is willingly granted that Christ in his death was a Mediator and surety and publick person and that what he did and suffered was intended for the benefit of the Elect. Secondly That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect so that the whole satisfaction is made and the price paid and quoad meritum the work is done and in this respect he hath made an end of sin because he hath fully satisfied for it so that there need no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 1.3 Dan. 9.24 but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood Thirdly God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ that in respect of Christ our surety God requires no more at his hands nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction it being the full value that his justice did require Fourthly By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation in an Arminian sense as if our redemption were
propriè dicitur caput Ecclesiae suae Membra verò corporis cùm fiant per vocationem unde dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ãdque per vocationem efficacem consequenter per fidem apparet ergo Christum non prius posse dici caput quà m sint aliqui qui credunt in ipsum loquor de Christo Mediatore Redemptore I confesse saith he Christ is the Head of the Elect and of those that are predestinated but not formally of the predestinated For neither are the predestinated as predestinated members of his body wherein he differeth from Mr. Eyre toto coelo Vide Mr. Eyre page 8. but they shall be his members for whosoever is a member of Christ without doubt existeth Nor is a member of Christ a term of diminution lessening his existence but the predestinate as predestinate do not exist for predestination was from eternity but the predestinate did not simply exist from eternity This day there are many Elect without doubt which are not yet borne Again That union by which we are made the members of Christ is made by faith Therefore as many as are Christs members it is needful that they be Believers but not all the predestinate as soon as they are predestinate do presently prove Believers Moreover seeing a head cannot be a head in respect of others before they are made members of his body it followeth that Christ was not a head from eternity seeing he had not a mystical body from eternity or members in which respect he is properly called the head of his Church seeing therefore men are made members of his body by calling whence the Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a company of persons called out from the rest of the world by the ministery of the word and that is by effectual vocation and consequently by faith it appeareth that Christ cannot first be called a head before there are some that believe in him I speak of Christ as Mediatour and Redeemer Where let the Reader observe that he plainly affirmeth a predestinate person is not a member of Christs body and that the mysticall union is made by faith and surely none are properly justified or saved before they are members and therefore before faith there is no Justification nor Salvation His next Author is Learned and Holy Mr. Parker who saith in his Book de descensu Christi ad inferos that Christ was justified in his Resurrection and we in him c. I acknowledge the testimony rightly cited but he understandeth no more then that we were meritoriously causally justified in the Justification of Christ but this is also a terme of diminution in respect to a formal and actual Justification till it be extra causas it doth not exist And that this Reverend man means no otherwise then we that untill faith we are not justified or saved Parker de descens Christ ad inferos lib. 3. sect 49. may appear from another passage in the same Book Nullâ siquidem ratione aliâ salutem ad suos derivare poterat quà m quâ ipsam damnationem transfudit Adam nempe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illâ quâ omnes homines qui ei per fidem coadunantur in eo satisfecisse quemadmodum per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem omnes Adami successores in eo peccâsse reputantur Christ could no other way derive salvation to his then that wherein Adam transmitted damnation to wit that communion wherein all men who are united to him by faith are said to satisfie in him as by the like communion all Adams successors are reputed to have sinned in him Where you may observe 1. That as Adam derived condemnation to none but such as were in him so Christ communicateth salvation to none but such as are in him And 2. That this union to Christ is made by Faith hence by necessary consequence none are saved and justified until faith and he sheweth plainly that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we were in Adam therefore he setteth down faith as the means and none satisfied in Christ but Believers therefore none are justified but such for Christ cannot derive salvation to any but such as are in him and before faith they are not in him His next Author is judicious Mr. Calvin * Fides porro ita justificationem praecedit ut tamen dei respectu sequatur Calvin Antid conc trid sess 6 p. 282. who saith that our Justification in respect of God doth precede our faith to which I adde you might have had the ingenuity to let your Reader know that he saith immediately fides ipsa nos in possessionem justitiae mittit that faith sends us into the possession of righteousnesse And he meaneth nothing but this that seeing God doth offer forgivenesse in Christ and we receive and accept it by faith that in this respect Justification precede faith but we are not actually justified untill faith where I will by the way minde you of a passage of learned Rivet Rivet Advers Baily Jesuit Tom. 2. p 245. against Baily the Jesuâ—t Ne quidem dicimus Christi justitiam esse causam formalem justificationis diximus eam consistere in relatione inter dantem accipientem sive inter condonantem eum cui condonatur uno verbo imputatione à parte dei receptione ex parte nostri Truly we do not say that Christs righteousnesse is the formal cause of Justification we have said that it consists in the relation between the giver and the receiver or between him that pardoneth and him that is pardoned in one word in imputation on Gods part and receiving it on our part so that now it is true God offering pardon his act precede our part of receiving but yet we are not in the judgement of this Learned man justified formally till we receive it And this is Calvins minde and many passages in the same discourse make against you I will take but one which Mr. Baxter hath observed to my hand Nos autem meminerimus fidei notuum à Christo estimandam esse quia quod nobis offert Deus in Christo non nisi fide recipimus proinde quicquid nobis est Christus id ad fidem transfertur quae nos compotes est Christi omnium ejus bonorum facit neque aliter verum esset illud Johannis fidem nostrum esse victoriam quâ mandus vincitur nisi nos in Christum inserereret qui solus est mundi victor But we have remembered before that the nature of Faith is to be estimated from Christ because what God offers us in Christ we receive it not but by faith whatsoever therefore Christ is to us that is imputed to faith which maketh us partakers of Christ and of all his good things Neither otherwise can that of John be true that faith is our victory whereby we overcome the world unlesse it did ingraf us into Christ who is the Victor of the world And the truth is
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this
Justification to be effected by it as an inherent grace only it puts the subject into a capacity of being actually justified by the righteousnesse of Christ according to the tenour of the Covenant 2. Faith doth not justifie as a Work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse 3. Though Faith be a Work it is not ours but Gods and therefore none of our Works justifie 4. Though there be a priority of nature in Faith unto Justification yet there is not any priority of time but the same moment that Faith is wrought we are justified Sixthly That Interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involveth a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction I subscribe the Major with both hands and should be loth such a pouring showre of contradictions should fall from my pen as have done from yours which were enough to drown the reputation of a man that would be counted one of the more manly sorts of Divines And I deny your Minor it implieth not a contradiction to say Faith is a condition of Justification Your proof is this to be both passive and active in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect a condition hath not the least efficacy I answer therefore it is peccant against the Law of opposition for iâ— is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Praedicatum non disponitur cum subjecto secundum eandem subjecti partem naturam For faith is active and pâ—ssive in a different sense if you take faith in genere physico it is actâ—ve if you take it in genere moris it is passive for it is only a condition making us câ—â—â—ble according to the Covenant of Juâ—â—ification not meritoâ—â—ously deserving or by it self effecting Justification but it is not aâ— the same time active and pâ—â—sivâ— in genere phisico nor active and passive at the same time in genere moris and therefore here is no contradiction Besides faith as it is an act it is active and some way helpeth the agent not that God needeth it but because he will not justifie us without it but in regard that this is a receiving it is equivalent to suffering and is a going out of our selves renouncing our own righteousnesse and so is rightly judged passive though formally it be an action yet virtually it is but a passive reception In the next place we shall consider his Arguments which he bringeth in the 14th Chapter to prove that there was no Covenant between the Father and the Son to suspend the effects of his death untill faith and that it was the will of God that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation and Justification of all the Elect antecedent to Faith Now because these Arguments are his Triarii his Souldiers in the rereward in which he puts most confidence if we can but rout these the day will be our own His first Argument runs thus There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none A negative Argument I acknowledge in matters of great consequence is availeable Therefore I deny his Assumption and all those Scriptures which promise Justification upon believing and that limit the benefit of Christs death unâ—ill faith is proof enough to prove there was a Covenant between the Father and Christ to suspend the benefits of Christs death untill faith but because he will see the place we referre him to Isa 53.10 When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand He shall see the travel of his soul and be satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth this place holds forth the Covenant between God and Christ about the effects of his death if you take the words as a prediction of the Prophet they hold forth a promise of God to Christ of the fruit of his death when God should make his soul an offering for sin or when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin for the words will bear it Now this promise is virtually a Covenant and doth not limit the benefits of his death to the present time but first presupposeth this work to be done and then as a fruit of this he shall see his seed not all his seed presently but he shall see it and prolong his dayes the pronoun is wanting and therefore the words have a twofold sense given them some expound them of Christ who after his Resurrection should die no more others of his issue and race of the Saints and say the Authors of our English Annotations the ancient Greek and old Latine go both that way and so take the meaning he shall see his seed that shall prolong its dayes with a supply of the relative and if so this maketh clear against Master Eyre But however take it which way you will there is enough to evince it He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied that is he shall see that as the fruit and effect of his death which shall give him full content he shall be much refreshed and gladded as a woman after hard travel that seeth the fruit of her womb and he shall live to see it And then follow the words which are the words of God delivered as in his person for Christ was not the Prophets servant But by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him not his knowledge taken subjectively but objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him where knowledge is put for faith as This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent and so Paul counted all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ his Lord. Now here God describeth how Christ shall justifie many by his knowledge or by faith on him Whence I argue If God in the Covenant made with Christ did mention faith as a means by which he should justifie many that is all his seed that should be the travel of his soul then was there such a Covenant that the fruits and benefits of Christs death should not be enjoyed untill faith for it is added that he shall bear their iniquities not that this should be a present discharge but to signifie that none else but Believers should be pardoned because he shall bear their sins and theirs only but if they be justified before faith then he beareth the sins of unbelievers and so unbelievers and Believers are the subjects of Justification contrary to the Scriptures But God made such a Covenant and made mention of Faith in it as a means whereby he should justifie
for the want of Faith as a meanes to unite the soul to Christ hindered it for as none are partakers of Adams sin but such as were in him so none are partakers of the reconciliation wrought by Christ but such as are in him Now it is by Faith that we are implanted into Christ and therfore until Faith we are not partakers of the benefit of actual reconciliation Mr. Eyre doth erre toto coelo when he thinketh we conceive a new will and affâ—ction to be in God upon believing which was not before for we acknowledge no new immanent act in God this were to make him mutable but we acknowledge a transient act of God to passe upon the believer and that there is a change of Gods dispensation toward the believer though not a change of affection and God loved them before with the love of benevolence not with the love of complacency and delight which he could not do while they remained unjustified The first love is terminated upon their persons yet the nature of Justification consists not in it because it is a love of good-will and purpose to do them good The second is a love terminated upon their graces and so a delighting in his own work so a loving them for what he hath wrought in them and now he pardoneth by vertue of the Covenant of grace and the promise Whosoever believe shall not perish but have everlasting life Fourthly If it were the will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was the will of God that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect This consequence is denied the reason that he bringeth is that there is the same reason for the immediat transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.14 both of them were Heads and Roots of mankind To which I answer deny that there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both for though they be both Roots of mankinde yet we are in the first Adam in a naturall way and so sinned in him before we had a being and were formally and actually sinners as soon as we had an actual being but we are in the second Adam by a supernatural work of the Spirit working Faith and this is not wrought alwayes at our birth but a long time after Besides the scope of the Apostle is not to compare Adam and Christ as causes in eodem genere of the same kinde that did in the same manner in every respect communicate the issues of their actions to their respective members but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious nay more powerfully efficacious to save all that are in him then Adams sinne were to condemn all that are in him and the efficaciousnesse of Christs death consists not in the immediate conferring of the things purchased for though in regerd of causality the effects are immediat yet not in respect of application but in the certainty of collating the things purchased and the excellency of the things obtained for it is farre moâ—e efficacious to save one man then to damn all the world The first is an act of Impotency this an act of Omnipotency and they for whom Christ died shall as certainly be justified and saved as if the work were already done Fifthly If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sinnes for which he suffered The reason of which consequence is this because the real sacrifice is no lesse efficacious then the typical Heb. 9.14 But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition perfermed on the sinners part Lev. 16.30 I answer that the consequence of the major may justly be questioned for if they were immediate it followeth not that therefore Christs sacrifice must be so or else it is of lesse efficacy First because that such as brought those sacrifices were actually the people of God and professed faith in Christ and if the Profession were outward only they had an outward cleansing if real they had by faith in Christ a spiritual cleansing signified by the outward cleansing but all that shall be cleansed by the sacrifice of Christs death were not in being much lesse had an actual faith to apply it nor is the death of Christ lesse efficacious because they did but typically cleanse they could not purge the conscience Heb. 9.25 26. hence they were often repeated but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath cleansed us they had their power and efficacy only in reference to Christs blood which was typified thereby Secondly we say that Christs death doth immediately cleanse in respect of causality though not in respect of actual application the defect is not in Christs blood but in the want of faith that it might be applied But Thirdly I deny the minor those legal sacrifices did not immediately make atonement without any condition on the sinners part for that is apparently false For First the man that would have an atonement made for him by sacrifice must have it be done by the slaying of a beast offered up and burnt with fire to signifie that without blood there 〈◊〉 no remission Levit. 1. and to set forth the grievous sufferings of Christ Secondly Levit. 1. he must bring his sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle without which it should not be accepted yea blood should be imputed to him and he should be cut off Lev. 17.4 this Tabernacle signified Christ Heb. 9.11 Heb. 9.11 by whom all services as a door must have passage to and acceptance with God and he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary Profession of faith though it were a duty commanded and a sin not to do it yet he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary service and profession of faith in Christ Thirdly he must put his hand upon the head of the beast Levit. 1.4 Exod. 29.10 Lev. 1.4 whereby he confessed his sins and worthinesse to die though through Gods mercy this death was inflicted on the beast by which was signified that he must confesse his sins and worthinesse to die and that God hath laid his iniquities upon Christ and by this laying on of the hand is signified his apprehending Christ Exod. 24.8 and likewise the blood was sprinkled upon the people Heb. 9.19 Heb. 9.19 The Priest took the blood of calves and of goats and he sprinkled the book and all the people under which is typified the application of Christs blood to the conscience upon believing Hence Calvin saith upon Heb. 9.19 Calvin apud marl Heb. 9.19 Quòd autem ex hyssopo aspergillum fiebat lanâ cotcinâ non dubium est quin mysticam asperginem quae fit per Spiritum representaverit
as absurd to pray for pardon of sin as for the incarnation of Christ and I may adde at for an immanent act in God as to pray for predestination because if it be a thing done already then it is in vaine to pray for that that is done Jameâ— 5.15 16. but we are commanded to pray for pardon as Peter taught Simon to pray for pardon Pray that if it be possible c. And though the Elders of the Church must pray for the sick and if they have sinned it shall be forgiven them And Christ teacheth us to pray Burgess Justifi page 199. forgive us our sins Now in that prayer we do not pray for assurance only but for pardon it selfe For as Mr. Burgess hath well observed to my hand that we must not depart from the literal sense of the words without an evident necessity But the plain sense is that God would forgive our sin our Saviour minding brevity would speak his sense in the most perspicuous and clear manner that may be And it is not as he observeth so taken in other places when the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites How their land was full of Idols Isaiah 2 94. and both great men and mean men did humble themselves before them prayeth Isa 2.9 that therefore God would not forgive them can any imagine that he meant that God would not give them assurance of their forgivenesse And so Matth. 12.32 the Evangelist saith All other sins may be forgiven but that against the Holy Ghost Now in that sense other sins are said to be forgiven in which sense that is denied to be forgiven and that is denied to be forgiven not in respect of assurance but really And so as he saith when it is applied to men it is not meant of assurance For we are commanded to pray that God would forgive us as we forgive others and this last forgivenesse it not meant of assurance therefore neither is the former Ninthly Such as are under the power of Satan are not justified But all unbelievers are under the power of Satan Therefore we were not justified from the death of Christ antecedently to faith The Major is not liable to contradiction because if a man be justified he is accquitted by the Judge then what power hath the Jayler to keep him in prison neither will God nor Christ permit a soul under Satans power that is discharged from guilt that very act of Gods is his deliverance from the power of Satan The Minor is evident from Scripture which saith of the Gentiles to whom Paul was sent by special commission from Christ to open their eyes It is said that he was sent to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light Acts 26.83 from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgivenesse of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Where it is evident that these Gentiles were Elect for whom Christ died that when he was in heaven yet appeared in a vision to Paul as he was going to Damascus to persecute the Saints And converts him and then sends him as a special Embassadour and Apostle to the Gentiles to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God c. If they were from the time of Christs death justified and pardoned then they were not under Satans power for that is inconsistent with Justification and if they were pardoned already what need he send him to open their eyes to turne them from Satan to God that they might receive forgivenesse this was the end why he was sent nor can it be meant of receiving the knowledge of their pardon assurance of their forgivenesse but that they might receive forgivenesse it self And to this end also the Apostle Paul saith of the Ephesians That they walked according to the Prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience intimating they were no lesse ruled and acted by Satan then other worldly men in whom he now effectually worketh Tenthly If we were justified from the time of Christs death then the Elect Jewes are already justified whom God will call in this latter age of the world But the Elect Jewes are not yet justified Therefore Justification is not from the time of Christs death The consequence of the Major will not be denied The assumption I prove 1. Such as are notingraffed as members into Christs body are not justified The Elect Jews yet uncaled are not yet ingraffed into Christs body The major is expresly confirmed because Christ is the Saviour of his body Eph. 5.23 that is only of his body that the Elect Jews are not members of his body Eph. 1.23 I prove because they are not members of his Church which is the body of Christ 2. They that are not called are not justified But the Elect Jewes are not called The Major is proved from Rom. 8.30 Whom he praedestinated Rom. 8.30 them he called and whom he called them he justified and none else and why Mr. Eyre should deny that the Apostle doth here set down the order of the causes of salvation contrary to all reason and authority I cannot imagine but that he is not able to answer the Argument and the contrary may be proved out of the Text for if in every thing else that relates to the salvation of man in this place the Apostle hath observed the due order why should we think he hath not assigned the right order of Vocation and Justification For here the Apostle setteth down the golden chain of salvation For the first cause is Gods foreknowledge not a simple prescience or foresight a foresight of approbation nor a foresight of mens faith or works but * Pet. Martyr-Bullinger Pareus Erasmus whom he thus foreknew or acknowledged loved and approved without all cause in them moving therunto whom he thus foreknew with the knowledg of approbation so as to choose unto himself by that foreknowledge so the Learned render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly whom God thus forknew he pedestinated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he predestinated that is certainly appointed and ordained unto the end by certain means he did infallibly ordain them unto glory as the end and appoint the means conducing to that end namely Christ and Faâ—th and whatsoever is needful to salvation Now when the Apostle speaketh thus who can judge but he meanes a special order in this place Thirdly in the next place he setteth down the means and that is effectual Vocation Whom he predestinated them he also called that is called them unto faith Fourthly Whom he called them he justified that is pardoned for Christs sake apprehended by Faith And lastly Whom he justified them he glorified under which is comprehended Sanctification which will end in glory which is the last link in this golden chaine and it 's against all reason to think the Apostle