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
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
be a necessary antecedent of salvation as other graces are which are necessary necessitate medii and are causae dispositivae of salvation but this is necessary by way of causality for the application of Christs righteousnesse unto justification And when we say that we are justified by faith we understand it not by faith as a work or a grace as an act or as an habit by vertue of any innate worth excellency and dignity in faith we do not take it sensu proprio in whole or in part as Arminians Papists and Socinians doe in making it the matter of our righteousnesse but when that is spoken of we understand it metonimicè tropically by relation to its object for what man that is not a professed Papist and enemy to the free grace of God did ever dreame of justification by faith without an object you may as well dreame of a man without a soul as to be justified without Christ Yet when we take faith tropically for the object of faith we do not take faith exclusively although we so apprehend it when you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse as if faith had no hand in justification no not by way of application of Christs righteousnesse as if by the word faith were understood Christ surely this were not to keep our wits company And if it were the Apostles meaning to exclude faith from having any hand in justification upon any tearmes whatsoever surely he would not so darkly have expressed himself by a figurative expression when he might have done it more clearly by putting in the name Christ for faith as Mr. Eyre would teach us to doe Wee willingly grant that Christ is the meritorious cause of justification which he seemeth to me to deny making justification an * Christis not the meretorious cause of any immanent act in God immanent and not a transient act as we doe we also grant that Christs active and passive obedience is the matter of our righteousnesse and the formal cause of justification is the imputation of this righteousnesse without any works of ours Yet this no way excludes faith from being an active instrument to apply this righteousnesse to us faith it is our act although it be Gods gift it is our instrument wrought in us by God for our benefit to apply by his ordination the righteousnesse of Christ unto justification For as the efficient cause excludeth not the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious exclude the instrumentall which in suo genere in its kind is as necessary as the other for bonum est ex integris causis but I shall more fully open this in stating of the controversy and will not therefore anticipate my selfe any further but shall referre the reader thither for further satisfaction where I intend to handle this controversy more largely though I desire the reader to take notice that I shall chieflly meddle with that in Mr. Eyres his book which relates to my selfe and purely belongs to this controversie leaving that which belongeth to Mr. Woodbridge that I may not falcem in alienam messem immittere put a sickle into another mans harvest And if any man desire further satisfaction why I publikely interpose in this controversie seeing Mr. Woodbridge so eminently qualified hath already undertaken this taske I take that of Hierom Hierom. to be a sufficient apology Nolo quenquam in suspicione haereseos esse patientem I would have none to beare the suspicion of heresie and Mr. Eyre hath both in the pulpit and presse rendred me to be heterodox in the point of justification he hath declaimed against my Sermon as anti-scripturall my arguments as irrationall and in his booke he saith I have delivered what was wide from the orthodox faith Mr. Eyres vindic p. 5 and contrary to many plaine scriptures derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death disconsolatory to the soules of men in laying the whole weight of their salvation upon an uncertaine condition of their own performing And should I be silent in such a charge the world would count me guilty therefore to purge my selfe from these crimes I have published my sermon with a vindication of it and a short refutation of the said book and although I have a little in one place digressed from the controversy spâ—aking more largly then I needed in the doctrine of Christs death and passion yet it is only to shew that I have delivered and hold nothing therein contrary to the orthodox faith as Mr. Eyre affirmeth which he is more able to say then prove And for as much as he hath wronged both me and the truth in relating what I said not viz. that I should say that the union between Christ and the Saints was a personall union which I called a union of persons but not a personall union and hath represented our conference in as unhandsome a dresse to render me contemptible I am the lesse troubled though I rejoyce at no mans sin knowing that he is a man of hard language and morose carriage unto many of my brethren of farr more eminent worth and esteem in the Church of Christ then my self And for that slaunder where he saith that I compared him to Judas and my self to Christ I doe solemnly beseech him to remember what God hath threatned to him that loveth and maketh a lie Rev. 22.15 and to take heed how he beareth false witnesse against his neighbour where he hath God angels and men and his owne conscience to contradict him least God impute that as sin to him which he feareth not to commit it may be upon this ground because he judgeth it to be antecedently pardoned before it is committed My expression for which he blameth me was this I said to him What are you come out against me as against an heretique before you know whether that which I hold be a heresy or that I am obstinate in the defence of it moreover at the request of friends that heard my Sermon with which Mr. Eyre hath dealt as Pharaoh with the male children of the Israelites having given way to the publishing of it not doubting but when it cometh under the censure of my brethren but they will do the same office for it that the religious midwives did for the male children to save it alive from the hand of the oppressour I conceive I was ingaged to some further act towards the ending laying this controversy asleep especially seeing Mr. Eyre saith Mr. Woodbridg did but blow the coales that Mr. Warren had kindled whereas this fire was kindled long before by himselfe and the pulpit turned by him into a cock-pit to defend this errour And because some are infected more are in danger the truth is oppressed the course of the Gospel like to be hindred and prophanenesse and Antinomianisme goe hand in hand and speake with one tongue as Mr. Baxter hath well observed I have put my selfe upon this taske of confuting his conceit Besides his dis-ingenious
sic reconciliaverit Christus ut inceperit amare quos oderat sicut reconciliatur inimicus inâ—â—ico ut deinde sint amici qui ante se odorant sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus non enem ex quo illi reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii nos coepit diligere sed ante mundum priusquam nos aliquid essemus ergo nos diligenti Deo sumus reconciliati propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias Paulò pòst reconciliat autem cum offendioula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei And Calvin concurreth in the same opinion Calvin instit l. 2. c. 16. Num. 2.3 In hunc ferè modum Spiritus sanctus in Scripturis loquitur Deum fuisse hominibus inimicum in gratiam Christi morte sunt restituti hujus generis locutiones inquit Calvinus ad sensum nostrum sunt accomodatae ut meliùs intelligamus quà m misera sit calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio Hence then we see that there is a reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ which imports not a change in Gods will as if God did then first begin to love or will well unto us as if he did hate and will to damne us before for then we must admit of a proper change in the will of God proceeding from an external cause which is contrary to Scripture and sound reason for as Rutherford hath well observed Ruth Apollexere p 37. Actus reconciliandi nihil novi ponit in Deo neque meritum Christi vel divinam voluntatem movet vel Deum ex nolente in volentem ex odio nos habente in diligentem ut fabulatur Grevinchovius transmature potest Grevinch pag. 109. 1. Quia Deus est immutabilis 2. Quia divinae voluntatis causa non magis dari potest quà m ipsius Dei But whereas we lay under wrath deserved by sin Christ hath causatively removed by his death the guilt of sin and so meritoriously reconciled us to God so that God is not only now placabilis by the death of Christ but placatus for he was placabilis from eternity or else he had never given Christ but now in respect of the satisfaction given he is placatus thus far that we lie no more that are the Elect under an indispensable necessity of perishing which we did before till satisfaction given and this is the formal effect of Christs death and this act of reconciliation which is a transient act done in time compleateth not the action of Election as Wallaeus seemes to affirme Wallaerus Cont Corvinum c. 25. p. 155. and superaddes no new thing in Gods will which was not there before but it removes causatively and meritoriously that that was the cause of enmity which hindred God from being able according to justice supposing his Decree to bestow the good things intended in Election and this reconciliation I grant is plainly held forth in these Scriptures Rom. 5.10 Isa 53.10 Col. 1.21 Col. 2.14 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Pet. 2.24 John 1.29 but this reconciliation is not our formal justification as I shall now prove but virtual only And therefore I adde Seventhly That this reconciliation wrought by Christ or removal of guilt causatively by his death and satisfaction is not properly and formally our justification I therefore affirme with Mr Rutherford Ruther Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 162. that this was a paying of a ransome for us and a legal translation of the punishment of our sins but it is not justification nor ever called justification but rather as he also judiciously hath observed it is justificationis fundamentum whose words are these Ruther Apol. exerâ— p. 42. Satisfactio ut à Christo praestita non est justificatio quia est Dei justificantis fundamentum And therefore his death was ever looked upon by Divines as the procatarctical or outward moving cause of the transient act of God in justification which is properly our justification it is a transient act of God upon Believers which he never did passe till then so saith Mr. Rutherford and therefore Mr. Eyre cannot shelter his opinion under Mr. Rutherfords authority Satisfaction Ru her Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 62. saith he is given indeed by Christ on the Crosse for all our sins before we do believe and before any justified person who lived these fifteen hundred years be borne but alas that is not justification but only the meritorious cause of it and a little after Justification is a forensical sentence in time pronounced in the Gospel and applied unto me now and never while this instant now that I believe Now for the further clearing and evidencing this truth that we are not actually justified untill faith Joh. 3.15 16. Mark 16.16 Acts 13.38 39. Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.9 I shall lay down sundry Propositions to make this manifest and that it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect that this benefit is suspended until faith besides the clear light of the Scripture as you may see in the Margin First Therefore there is a twofold payment of a debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation another of a thing not altogether the same That payment which is of the same thing either by our selves or our surety is not refusable by the Creditour so that if we had paid it or Christ had been constituted a surety by us to pay it then God could not have refused it And therefore Christ being constituted a surety by God and not by us and paying not altogether the same God might have refused the payment and therefore may also appoint how in what order and time it shall be accepted whether to a present discharge or upon a future condition of faith to be performed by us by the help of his Spirit working this in us 'T is true that Christ being admitted by the creditor and taken into bond with us God cannot refuse to accept of Christs death as a satisfaction yet he might appoint as you shall see he did how it shall be accepted whether absolutely or upon some condition afterward to be performed by us Here are three things then to be explained and proved 1. That the sufferings of Christ were not altogether the same in the Obligation 2. That therefore 't is in the power of the Creditour at whose liberty and mercy it is to accept or refuse it antecedently before his acceptation to appoint or ordain it to be immediately available or to be acceptable upon condition 3. That it was agreed upon between the Father and Son that it should not be available to discharge the sinner until actuall faith 1 Therefore I grant which Mr Eyre alledgeth out of Mr. Owen that if he speak in respect of the substance of Christs sufferings there was a samenesse with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the adjuncts or attendencies yea a supereminency of satisfaction
that the sufferings of Christ though in themselves they be adequately proportionable to the justice of God should be accepted for us therefore God may at his pleasure appoint the manner how whether absolutely and immediately or upon a future condition For as Scotus saith well Meritum Christi tantum bonum est nobis Scotus lib. 3. dist 19. qu. vind p. 74. pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo The value of Christs merits is to be accounted to us only so farre as God accepteth it and therefore to that which Mr. Eyre and his adherents urge that satisfaction was given and accepted I answer by distinguishing upon acceptance This may be taken in a two fold sense either in respect of the surety Christ and the price paid or in respect to the sinner and the actuall application of it 1. In respect to Christ and the value of his sufferings it was a full satisfaction that God neither can having admitted Christ a surety require more at the hands of Christ nor any thing else of the sinner by way of satisfaction to his justice but he never accepted it in respect of the sinner to effect his freedome and present discharge without some act of his intervening to give him interest in this satisfaction Nor do I judge faith to be a moving cause or organical instrument either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation of it for us Faith doth not make Christs satisfaction to be meritorious Faith is not the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon the dignity and worth of Christs merits and satisfaction arise from the dignity of his person nor is faith the moving cause of Gods will to accept of Christs satisfaction for us that ariseth from Gods will of purpose ordaining it for us And therefore Mr. Rutherford speaks appositely Ruth Apâ—â— p. 42. Nos credendo non efficimus vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Deus Christi mortem pro peccatis nâ—stris acceptet neque ulla causalitas externa movere potest Dei voluntatem 4. It is of great consequence toward the clearing of this that the death of Christ doth not procure an immediate discharge to the sinner to consider that the death of Christ is not a naturall and physical cause of removing and taking away sin for then the effect must immediately follow but it is a meritorious cause which is in the number of morall causes and here the rule is not true Positâ causâ ponitur effectus for here the effect is at the liberty of the persons moved thereby and hence sometime the effects of morall causes precede the cause as for the death of Christ God pardoned the sins of such as died in the faith long before Christ was borne and sometime it followes a long time after at the agreement and liberty of the persons that are perswaded thereby to do any thing 5. Christ by his death did not absolutely purchase reconciliation and an actual discharge from the guilt of sin for any whether they believe or not believe for then faith were not necessary to salvation but at the most to consolation and finall unbelief would condemne none of those for whom Christ died but the Scripture saith He that believeth not shall be damned and Mark 16.16 John 8.24 If you believe not ye shall die in your sins and it makes faith necessary to salvation hence when the Jaylor said What must I do to be saved Acts 16 3â— 1 Pet. 1.9 Paul and Silas answered Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved And salvation is expressely said to be the end of faith when therefore we say that Christ died absolutely we must know that the word absolutely may be taken two wayes 1. As it is opposed to an antecedent condition to be brought by us by the power of our own free-will so that upon this shall depend the fruits of Christs death Or 2. Absolutely may be taken as opposed to any prerequisite condition ordained by God as a certain order and meanes to obtain the fruit of Christs death which condition is the fruit and effect of Christs death and in this latter sense the death of Christ was not an absolute purchase of reconciliation 't is true the Arminians hold that Christ hath purchased pardon for us upon condition of believing which believing they make not a fruit of Christs death but of their own free-will and thus they make Christ to open a door of hope for us but it 's possible that no man may enter in and be saved and thus by them we have only a salvability by Christ but no certainty of salvation but we affirme no such matter and say that Christ satisfied Gods justice so that God is not placabilis but placatus not appeasable but appeased and God is now reconciled and will give pardon but in that order and method himself hath appointed which is faith which faith God hath predestinated us unto that shal be saved Christ hath purchased it for us as well as remission of sins and therefore it shall infallibly be wrought that there may be an actual application of Christs death unto justification now in this sense the death of Christ is not absolute so as to exclude any condition and qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ to apply his death Johan Cam. opus misc p. 5.32 col 2. And to this purpose learned Camero hath expressed himself A Christo satisfactio exigi non potuit nî Deus eum considerâsset ut eorum caput pro quibus satisfecit fructus ergo satisfactionis ad eos solos redire potuit qui membra forent hujus corporis ii autem sunt soli fideles credo igitur Christum prâ— me satisfecisse quia verè satisfecit sed satisfactionem illam deo novi mihi esse salutiferam quia mihi fidei meae sum consciu Neque tamen fructum satisfactionis ab ipsa satisfactione divello Christus enim pro te satisfecit sed eâ lege si tu id factum credas ut si captivum redimerem pretio numerato ìta tamen ut nî ille se redemptum agnoscat meo beneficio habeatur pro non redempto Et paulò post pag. 534. col 1. sect 4. Illud nempe est quod dixi pro nemine Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfecisse verùm hà c lege additâ ut qui naturà sumus è mundo mundo exempti verá fide Christo inseramur That he was no Arminian is evident to all that have read him And a little after in the 2. Col. p. 534. he answereth an Objection Sed ais in omni satisfactione tria tantùm requiri 1. Vt numeretur summa quae contractum aes exaequet 2. Vt numeretur creditori 3. Vt numeretur ejus nomine qui eam debebat Id quidem verum est quoties creditor non id praecipuè spectat in satisfactione ut cujus nomine satisfactum est is beneficium
valued by the time of application it being a moral cause and not a physical or natural cause of justification but by the powerfulnesse of the impetration and the certainty of application now we grant that it hath by way of merit procured reconciliation and hence our deliverance is called redemption Rom. 3.24 which was made by the payment of a full price now the price being paid for the Elect the effect shall follow in the time appointed Gal. 3.13 Eph. 1.7 Heb. 9.12 â— Pâ—t â— 18.19 1 Cor. 6 2â— hence we grant that there shall be a certain application oâ— the benefits of Christs death to all the persons for whom it was intended though they have not actuall possession and that leads me to the last particular that Mr. Eyre layes to the charge of this Doctrine that it is disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the weight of their salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing To which calumny I might returne no other answer then the Senate of Rome is reported to have given to a certain Oration made by Julian the Apostate to the dishonour of Constantine and repeated before them Ames Coro praefa ad eccles belgicas Modestiam majorem optamus Authori we wish more modesty to the Author But that I may for ever silence this objection I reply that Mr. Eyre cannot but know that the Orthodox that maintain Justification by Faith do yet utterly disclaime faith as a condition either in an Arminian or a Popish sense 1. The Arminians hold that Christ died indefinitely for all without distinction and that he died no more for Peter then for Judas and that he paid a sufficient satisfaction for all so that God may now freely remit the sins of all 2. They maintain a potestative or voluntary condition which they borrow from the Jurists whereby it being left free to their own will whether they will believe or not the effect of Christs death is rendred uncertain whether they shall be saved or not and so they affirme all to be redeemed so as that it is possible none may be saved they hold as it were a potential reconciliation which is by the act of faith to be compleated which faith they affirme not to be the effect of Christs death but of their own free will So the Remonstrants Nihil ineptius Rem Apol c. 8. p. 95. nihil vanius quà m fidem merito Christi tribuere si enim Christus meritus est fidem tum fides conditio esse non poterit They say Nothing is more foolish nothing more vain then to ascribe faith to the merit of Christ for if Christ hath merited faith then it cannot be a condition and they laugh at it as a ridiculous conceit Rem Apol. c. 9. p. 105. that God should work the condition which he prescribeth Their words are Anne conditionem quis seriò sapienter praescribet alteri sub promisso praemii poenae gravissimae comminatione qui cam in eo cui praescribit efficere vult haec actio tota ludicra vix scenâ digna est And this Mr. Eyre takes notice of as the Remonstrants opinion pag. 145. where he reciteth the same passages 2. The Papists make faith a meritorious condition which justificeth us per modum causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause this is the Doctrine of the Papists as Bellar. Bellar. Lib. pr. de justifica c. 17 setteth himself to prove in his 17. Chap. Libr. pr. de justificatione Now we utterly disclaime faith to be a condition in either of these senses we say that Christ died only sufficienter for the Reprobate but efficiently for the Elect Christ did not die indefinitely and indis criminatim alike for all but he died effectually for Peter and not for Judas and whereas we make faith the condition of the Covenant without which the benefits of the death of Christ is not applied to us we mean not in an Arminian much lesse in a Popish sense that faith is an uncertain condition left to the power or freedome of our will but we constantly affirme that God hath infallibly ordained such unto faith as shall be saved Acts 13.48 John 6.37 Master Eyre p. 144. sect 9. and Christ hath merited this grace of Faith for us which Mr. Eyre is pleased without all charity to affirme that his adversaries cannot mean faith a condition in this sense as that which God will bestow and is the fruit of Christs death And he saith Mr. Woodbridge denies it to be a fruit of the Covenant and well he might as it is a Covenant made with us for it is an absolute promise made by God as a fruit of his Election and Christs redemption that he will work this faith whereby we shall be brought into Covenant with him for when God promiseth to write his Laws in their mindes in so promising he promiseth faith Jer. 31.38 Heb. 8.10 and then addeth And I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people And we affirme as Christ hath merited this grace for us so he is become a surety of the Covenant to see all that God requires on our part be performed and hence as a head he will by his Spirit in due time infallibly and efficaciously work this faith and so become a Saviour not only by his merit but by efficiency actually applying the fruit of his death And this he will irresistibly work Eph. 1.18 putting forth the same Almighty power that was put forth in raising himself from the dead so that we do not as Mr. Eyre falsly affirmeth which I believe he was not ignorant of lay the whole weight of our salvation upon an uncertain condition of our own performing we make faith to be Gods gift though it be our act And we make the salvation of the Elect as sure as himself and therefore our doctrine is no way disconsolatory to the soules of any only we do not strengthen the hands of the wicked making them to refuse to returne by promising them life as he doth Ezek. 13.22 23. by telling them of their eternal justification and of their being actually reconciled from the time of Christs death Isa 48.22 for we know of no comfort belonging to the wicked while unregenerate for There is no peace saith my God to the wicked but so are all unregenerate persons Antecedently to their faith And for a further clearing of my minde in this particular I adde that if by uncertain Mr. Eyre mean as oftentimes the word is so taken for that which in its own nature is contingent in respect of the second cause because what is contingent usually among men is uncertain and not in respect of God to whom by his predeterminating will even contingent things come to passe necessarily though they come to passe contingently in respect to us I deny not but in this sense it may be
charge of Gods Elect it is God that justifieth Prov. 17.35 He that justifieth the wicked and condemneth the just they both are an abomination to the Lord. And so it is opposed to accusation or condemnation and thus it is an act of God judicially declaring a Believer to be innocent or righteous and acquitting him from all blame and punishment I need not spend time to open this it is sufficiently done already by our * Justificatio est sententia Dei gratiosa quaÌ„ propter Christum fide apprehensum absolvit fidelem à peccato morte justum reputat ad vitam Ames Medul ch 27. sect 6. Divines against the Papists Justification therefore is a gracious sentence of God the Father wherby for Christs sake apprehended by faith he doth absolve a sinner from sin and death and doth esteem him righteous unto eternal life It is a sentence pronounced as the use of the word declares which makes not a natural but a moral change in the person justified for it is not as Aquinas and his followers imagine a physicall motion by a real transmutation from a state of unrighteousnesse to a state of righteousnesse so as that the terme from which this motion is should be sin the terme unto which it tends and ends in should be inherent righteousnesse as if it stood partly in remission and partly in infusion of righteousnesse What act this is I will declare by and by or let me describe it thus with Mr. Hooker It is an act of God the Father upon the Believer whereby the debt and sins of a Believer are charged upon the Lord Jesus and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed he is accounted just and so is acquitted before God as righteous First It is an act of God the Father a judicial act acquitting and absolving the sinner and an act of God the Father not to exclude the Son and Holy Ghost for Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa The works of the Trinity terminated upon the creature are communicable to all three persons For the Son and Holy Ghost were offended by mans sin as well as the Father being one and the same God with the Father but it is called an act of the Father and rightly applied to him because of that old and known rule among Divines Wheresoever we finde the Name of God put in opposition to Jesus Christ it must not be understood essentially but personally Hence when it 's said God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their sins and that God sent forth him to wit Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood it must be understood of God the Father and so John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish c. And plainly Christ saith Father forgive them c. And Christ is an Advocate with the Father 1 John 1.2 Now it is applied to the Father because the sin of Adam was directly against the Fathers work for Vt res se habent ad esse ita ad operari every thing doth work according to its being Now the Father being the first person in the Trinity he works in order first and hence Creation is attributed to the Father and Redemption attributed to the Son and Sanctification to the Holy Spirit Now Adams sinne was directly against the Fathers work for his work appeared in Adams Creation after the Image of God therefore the Father being principally offended forgives Secondly It is an act of God the Father upon the Believer therefore it was not an immanent but is a transient act done in time for a man is not a man much lesse a Believer from eternity and what this act is I shall here a little explain It is some act of God done upon believing and never till then for although we acknowledge no new immâ—nent act in God which cannot be admitted without a change in God with whom there can be no variablenesse nor the least shadow of turning yet a transient act may be safely acknowledged which leaves a change upon the creature and not in God And here I willingly acknowledge we are all much in the dark not being able to understand how God doth act or work and therefore would not over-confidently assert how he doth it or what that transient act is but when God worketh faith I am sure there is a morall change wrought in the sinner there is not only a new relation put upon the sinner but a reall righteousnesse is imputed yea a physical change is wrought at the same time for all grace habitually is infused together with faith And I willingly acknowledge this transient act of God doth presuppose an immanent act in God for he worketh nothing upon the creature but what he first purposed in himself to act and God doth upon believing actually remit sins and accept as righteous the person that believeth which termes of remitting sin not imputing it or imputing righteousnesse though they sound as immanent acts yet are to be sensed as transient because done in time and leaving a reall change upon the creature and it is utterly impossible that any new act of understanding or will should be in God unlesse therefore with Vorstius we assert the mutability of God which is horrible blasphemy to imagine we cannot acknowledge any new immanent act in him And the truth is we must with sobriety sit down and count it knowledge enough to know what is written and be contented that an infinite God should do something which our finite understandings cannot comprehend for if he shall act or do nothing but we must know how it is done and why this is to make God finite and not infinite And to give in the utmost of my thoughts in this I conceive the case is in this transient act of forgivenesse as in the creation of the world God did do that which he did not do before but he did not then begin to have a will to create but he willed from eternity that the world should exist in time as an effect of that will it was made whether by an executive power distinct from that will I dare not determine but made it was and was not from eternity and here is a new relation unto God he is a Creatour that before was not this is but a relative respect and an extrinsecal denomination and there is no intrinsecall mutation in God but a great change is wrought for that that was not now is So when God forgiveth a sinner upon believing God doth do that which he did not do before he doth not begin upon believ ng to have a will to pardon him but he willed from eternity to give him faith and forgivenesse of sins upon believing now in time the sinner elected is brought to faith and the sinner is actually and formally discharged according to the tenor of the New Covenant for the righteousnesse of
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
voluntary act of condescension on Gods part which is expressed by way of Covenant there is not therefore a mutual obligation of debt between God and man for that is founded on equality but there is no such equality between God and the creature much lesse between God and the sinner it is therefore a free Covenant that God maketh with man and of his abundant rich grace in Christ The Author of this Covenant is God our merciful Father in Christ-Jesut the impulsive moving cause from within was his own free love the outward moving cause was mans misery and Christs merits Ezek. 16.6 When I passed by thee I saw thee polluted in thy own blood I said unto thee live The fall of man was the occasion of this Covenant God permitted man to fall that he might shew the abundant riches of his mercy in our redemption For mercy might have freed us from misery by preventing our fall but the exceeding abundance of Gods rich mercy is more seen in recovering us out of the misery into which we were fallen And the grace of God was much seen in the time of giving this Covenant at the very fall before judgement was given upon the delinquents that they might not be swallowed up with wrath and before Satan had made too great a waste upon the creation and especially upon man drawn by his temptation into condemnation with himself This Covenant was made with Christ * Vide The Assemb larger Catechisme and in him with all that believe for since God and man were separated by sin there was no Covenant could passe between them * With Christ personal that is considered as a publick person but not with Christ mystically considered but in and through a Mediatour reconciling both parties The first Covenant was a Covenant of friendship the friendship between God and man was broken off by sin this is a Covenant of reconciliation There is no reconciliation to God but by Christ therefore this Covenant was made in Christ and for the sake of Christ with us so that there are three parties contracting 1. God the party offended 2. Man the party offending 3. Christ the Mediator between both The Scripture saith Gal. 3.16 The promise or Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed He saith not And to seeds as of many but as of one And to thy seed which is Christ This Christ was not Christ mystical as Beza Piscator and many expound it as Mr. Rutherford hath well observed but Christ personall The reason which they alledge is because if it be meant of Christ personally considered so it would not agree with the scope of Paul who proveth that life eternal is promised to all Believers 2. It would follow say they that life eternal is given to Christ only But with their leave saith * Ruth Trial and Triumph of Faith Serm. 7. pag 5â— Mr. Rutherford this is not sure for the truth is the promise is not made to Christs person singly considered nor to Christ mystical For 1. The promise is made to Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed vers 17. 2. In whom the Nations were blessed vers 14.3 In whom we receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith vers 15. Who was made a curse for us ver 13. Now not any of these can agree to Christ mystical Christ mysticall did not confirme the Covenant nor give the Spirit nor was he made a curse but Christ Mediatour is he to whom the promises are made and in him to all his heirs and kindred not simply in his person but as a publick person and Mediatour and upon believing we are truly in him and so Abrahams seed and so heires according to the promise And here it will be good to consider the relations of Christ to this Covenant 1. Heb. 8.6 As he is the middle person between contrary parties he is the Mediator of the Covenant 2. As he dealeth between both parties Mal. 3.1 Heb. 7.22 he is internuncius the Messenger of the Covenant 3. As he undertaketh for the parties at variance he is the surety of the Covenant And Heb. 9.16 17 Isa 55.4 Rev. 1.5 4. As he signeth the Covenant and confirmeth it with his blood he is the Testatour of the Covenant 5. As he saw and heard and testifieth all that the Father hath promised to believers he is the witnesse of the Covenant Now as the Covenant was made with Christ in the behalf of the Elect yet it followeth not they were in Covenant before they believe for God Covenanted with Christ to be their God that shall believe in him hence untill we believe we are not actually in Covenant with God and Christ contracted with the Father not only to die for us but to bring us to faith he is a surety to see the condition of the Covenant performed on our part and therefore we must be brought to faith before God is properly said to be in Covenant with us and faith then is the condition of the Covenant in reference unto us Now in what sense faith is the condition of the Covenant I shall here explaine First Faith is not the condition of the Covenant in a Popish sense as if by the performing this condition of believing we did merit and earn eternal life and salvation were the wages of faith and God ex debito bound to give it Secondly Faith is not an Antecedaneous condition * Dicunt nostri fidem non esse conditionemmo ventem Dei voluntatem tamen salutem nostram esse conditionatam quod est verissimum nam Deus non vult nobis aliam vitam quà m quae antecedanem habet fidem tamen nullo modo movetur Dei voluntas à fide nostrâ Ruth Apol. Exerc. p. 3â—4 moving God to give Christ to redeem us and to propound the Gospel to us as if God did not or could not propound the Covenant of Grace to us nor offer the Covenant to us till we believe the price of redemption was paid without any condition that it should be paid though not without a condition for the application of it Thirdly We do not understand faith a condition in an Arminian sense for such a condition by way of contract and bargaine by a free voluntary act of our own performed by the power of free-will withour the predeterminating and assisting grace of Christ by vertue of which God is oblidged to save us and give us the benefits of the Covenant We take it not in such a juridicall sense as the Jurists do for a condition in a strict proper sense upon which the benefits of the Covenant depend nor do we take it in that manner as the first Covenant did that as our workes personally performed by us in obedience to the whole Law were the condition of the Covenant and the matter of our righteousnesse that so the Tò credere or act of believing performed by us should stand instead of the righteousnesse of the
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
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
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
say that Christ purchased onely a new way of Salvation whereby we may be saved if we performe the conditions required of us we acknowledge no condition to be performed by us by the power of free-will but a condition as freely purchased and given and as certainly bestowed as the Salvation it self so that Christs death is no way rendered uncertain or lesse sure Fourthly Doth he say that God justifieth the ungodly so do we but we dare not say with him that he justifieth the ungodly so remaining under the reigning power of sin but whom he justifieth he also sanctifieth at the same time for we think it dishonourable to God to the purity and holinesse of his nature to justifie a man while he is a servant of sin The Lord is of purer eyes then to delight in an unsanctâ—fied wretch and it is a wrong to God to make him a Father of such an unclean beast and such a prophane ungodly person his adopted childe though he did purpose to adopt him yet he did not he could not adopt him without changing his nature We judge it a wrong to Christ that a limbe of the devil should so remaining be made a member of Christ For he that committeth sinne is of the Devil or 1 John 3.8 if he that hath the Devil for his father should have at the same time Christ for his head but all sinners that are under the reigne of sin have the Devil for their father John 8.44 Ye are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do And thus you may see which Doctrine ascribeth most glory to God in Christ Thirdly He purgeth himself from this crime by describing Antinomists in Austins time from Eunomeus their leader of whom St. Austine saith Fertur usquè ad eo c. August de Haeresibus c. 54. It is reported that he was such an enemy to goodnesse that he affirmed though a man did commit or lie in any kinde of sin it should never hurt him if he had but that faith that he taught and of the same straine were the Gnosticks who for their filthy lives were called Coenosi the dirty sect And what saith Mr. Eyre lesse doth he not say that the unregenerate while they so remaine that is let them commit or lie in any kinde of sin yet if Elect they are justified that is secured from wrath and so it shall not hurt them yea though they have no faith if those were the dirty Sect I am sure this is no better And he further saith of the Corinthians whom the Apostle called unrighteous fornicators adulterers abusers of themselves with mankinde c. such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God That they had no more right unto salvation after faith then before 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Mr. Eyre pag 122. so then by him they had right unto salvation and these sins could not keep them out of Heaven when the Apostle saith as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Is not this as bad as the opinion of Eunomius nay of the two the first borne of abominations because he will make God the justifier of these while they so remaine Fourthly He vindicates himself from Antinomianisme by the authority of some godly men that have asserted Justification in foro Dei before faith who were never accounted Antinomians 1. From the authority of Mr. Pemble in his Vindiciae Grat. to which I answer That if Mr. Pemble saw reason to alter his judgement as it seemeth he did in his Treatise of Justification Mr. Eyre upon deliberate thoughts may finde as much reason if he hath as much ingenuity to change his minde although he hath doated upon an erroneous opinion as many persons do upon a vaine fashion when it is new yet let him have but a little more time and serious thoughts about it and he will see cause to lay it aside as men do when their fashions grow stale And that Mr. Pemble dissents from him I shall make to appeare by a testimony or two of Mr. Pembles in his Book of Justification which is directly contrary to what he formerly asserted in his first Sect. Cap. 3. pag. 22. of his Treatise of Justification he hath these words The condâ—tion required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification is true faith whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priviledge that by faith and faith only a sinner shall be justified and pag 23. speaking of the Covenant of Grace The other Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the tenor whereof is Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the condition of this Covenant is faith And pag. 24. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Christ Jesus believed on and embraced by a true faith where he taketh faith subjectively and objectively which act of Justification of a sinner although it be properly the onl wo k of God for the only merit of Christ yet it is rightly ascribed unto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that maine condition of the New Covenant which as we must performe if we will be justified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine Justification and life for when God by grace hath enabled us to performe the condition of believing then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant then is the sentence pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last judgement So in pag. 57. We confesse faith is a work and in doing of it we obey the Law c. but now we denie that faith justifieth as a work which we performe in obedience to this Law it justifieth us onely as a condition required of us and an instrument embracing Christs righteousnesse Thus his first authority is found to beare witnesse against him His second witnesse is Mr. Rutherford whom he scoffingly derided when in our conference he told me with contempt as appeared to them that heard him that it was Mr. Rutherfords judgement which he hoped I did like well enough and here he suborneth Mr. Rutherford to serve his turne and had he had the honesty to quote his Author and recite his whole minde he had found but little shelter for his opinion on his words the place cited is this Sanè prius quam Electus credit cessat ira Dei adversus ipsum Rutherford Apol. Exercit. pag 45. omnésque effectus irae erga ipsius personam Ãdque propter Christi meritum Sed non virtute illius palmaris promissi Evagelici Qui credit in Christum non venit in condemnationem nunquam enim removentur effecta irae Dei adversus peccatum Electi virtute illius promissi donec quis actu credit Verily saith he before an Elect person do believe the wrath of God ceaseth against him and all the effects of Gods wrath towards
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
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
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
in the Papists sense not in ours And when the Apostle saith Rom. 4.16 Our salvation is of grace that it might be sure to all the seed the same Apostle saith in the same verse It is of faith that it might be of grace and yet you are willing to leave out those words because they make against you nor is it lesse sure by faith Acts 16.48 then if it were without it for faith is merited and shall be given As many as were ordained to eternal life believed Phil. 1.29 and To you it is given not only to believe c. Ninthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available while they live in this world then it was the Will of God it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation Ans This consequence is denied the argument maketh against a condition in an Arminian sense not in ours for upon the first moment that a man believeth he is justified and all his sins past are actually pardoned his sins to come virtually so that no following sin shall unjustifie him though it may take away his aptitude for heaven yet not his right and though his sin may deserve damnation and without actual repentance and faith he cannot be saved yet grace shall be given to inable him to repent and believe so that though there must be nova remissio yet there is not nova justificatio though a new remission is needful yet not a new justification pardon of sin is a continued act but our justification quoad statum is done simul semel once and for all this you know to be the Orthodox opinion yet you fraudulently conceal it and oppose us as if we held a condition in an Arminian sense and that so often as we fall into sin we fall from justification and so no man could be sure of salvation untill death Tenthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should certainly procure reconciliation then it was his Will it should not depend upon termes and conditions performed by us Answ Still your consequence doth halt down-right for the salvation of the Elect is not uncertain as to the event but as certain as the unchangeable decree of God can make it but this is Crambe bis vel ter recocta fastidium parit Eleventhly If he willed this blessing to his Elect by the death of Christ but conditionally then he willed the reconciliation and justification of the Elect no more then their non-reconciliation Answ If Mr. Eyre be not he may and I am ashamed of this grosse and wilful ignorance I beleeve he knows it as well as he knows there is a God that the Orthodox abhor these positions of the Remonstrants that we acknowledg that God willed the salvation of Peter with another manner of intention then of Judas and that we acknowledge no condition antecedently to their Election but that he hath absolutely predestinated the Elect unto the end and as absolutely to the meanes and that God did not stand indifferent to the event whether they shall be justified saved or no but absolutely decreed them unto life as the end unto justification as the meanes unto faith as a means to bring them unto justification so that though they be not justified nor reconciled actually yet he absolutely willed that they should be reconciled and therefore gave Christ to die for them and will give faith to apply the benefits of his death As for the proof of his consequence if he willed their salvation only in case they believe then he willed their condemnation if they believe not I distinguish upon Gods Will it is either secret or revealed voluntas signi or beneplacity praecepti or propositi if you look to the will of Gods purpose and his good-will and pleasure he absolutely willed their reconciliation so that nothing shall hinder it but he did not will an absolute reconciliation without Faith there was no condition of his will though of the thing willed but if you look to the revealed will of God the will of precept so he declareth it is his will that he that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and thus he willeth their damnation if they believe not Twelfthly If God willed unto men the benefits of Christs death upon any condition to be performed by them it will follow that God foresaw in them an ability to performe some good which Christ hath not merited conditional reconciliation necessarily presupposeth free-will Answ Still his arguments are guilty of this common fate to be lame in the consequence and to fall very short of the mark intended It doth not follow that God foresaw any such ability in man nor doth such a condition as we establish enthrone free-will we yield him that God willed this blessing upon a possible condition not possible to nature but possible by grace not because man can performe it for it requireth the same Almighty power that was required to raise Christ from the dead Eph. 1.18 but because God by his Spirit will work and give it And those he calleth his adversaries do mean it in this sense it is a fruit of a promise made to Christ and an effect of his death that Faith shall be given but not a fruit of the Covenant made with us but rather the condition by which we are really received into Covenant Thirteenthly If God did will that our sinnes should be accounted to Christ without any condition on our part then was it his will that they should be discounted without any condition on our part But the Antecedent is true Ergo. I answer 't is pity that a man whom we hope means well that his Arguments should go out like a snuffe of a candle in the socket as these do And I confesse it is a ridiculous argument and inference yet I will give a solution to it I therefore deny his consequence It is readily granted that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ did not depend upon any condition of ours for we had not then a being when this imputation was made nor was it needful either for Christ or us that any condition on our parts should be the ground of this imputation it was a free act of God in mercy taking off the guilt from us and transferring it on Christ and his sole will and pleasure was the cause of it but that therefore it was the will of God that it should without any ondition on our part be discounted to us is a miserable consequence more fit to be laughed at then refuted But to omit nothing that may have the face though not the force of an argument unanswered I deny the consequence and the reason of it and affirm that the charging our sins upon Christ was not our discharge formally considered the imputing out sinnes to Christ was not a formall non-imputing them to us virtually it was it was a foundation laid for the
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
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
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
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