salvation for us that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish The p Ibid. p. 128. â— 11. English consent Tantùm propter c. Onely for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits are we reputed just before God So q Ib. p. 157. 25. Scotland Sed qui corde c. They that do in heart sincerely beleeve and with their mouth confesse Jesus Christ do most certainly receive those blessings First in this life remission of sinnes and that by Faith alone in the blood of Christ The r Ib. p. 173 22 Belgick Confession in like manner Meritò igitur jureque dicimus c. We do therefore well and rightly say with Paul that we are justified only by Faith or by Faith without the works of the Law But to speak properly we do by no means understand Faith it self by it self or of it self to justifie us as which is onely as it were an Instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousnesse Christ then himself is our righteousnesse who imputes to us all his merits but Faith is the Instrument by which we are coupled unto him in the society and communion of all his good things and are continued therein Of the same Faith are all the other s Argent p. 223 c. 3. Paâ—t 2. August p. 22 c. 1. Saxâ—n p. 79 80 81. Wiâ—â—emberg p. 14â— c de justif Palat p. 210. si â—emissionem Churches whose Confessions follow Thus t Just lib. 3 c. 11. §. 10. Calvin Fateor hoc tam incomparabili beno nos privari donec Christus noster fiat Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur ut nobis imputetur ejus jusâ— itia sed quia ipsum induimus insiti sumus in ejus corpus unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est ideo justitiae societatem nobis cum to esse gloriamur Thus u Ubi supra Epist 45. Beza Quae obedientia Christi viz. nobis per fidem Christo unitis datur nostraque fit per imputationem x Loc. com clas 3. c. 4. §. 65. Thus Peter Martyr Si quid Deus condonat vel remittit id facit hominibus jam regeneratis non autem à se alienis filiis irae quales necesse est eos esse qui nondum sunt justificati Istis inquam nihil remittitur Quare obligati sunt ad â—mnia And thus all our more ancient Protestants that I can read but it is a tedious thing to me to transcribe so much of humane testimony and what is written is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Eyre differs from our ancient Protestants notwithstanding his pretended agreement almost as farre on the one hand as the Papists do on the other in the very foundations of his discourse For first it is manifest by the testimonies produced that our Protestants when they plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ intend the very first act of Justification which Mr. Eyre rejects and ascribes no more to the righteousnesse of Christ then that it obtaines the effects of our justification but not the Act pag. 62. § 4. 2. Our Protestants do so plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ as that they require and assert the necessary existence of Faith in us as the instrument or condition or antecedent of our Justification Mr. Eyre contends for a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith at present coexisting 3. They plead for a Justification which begins upon believing and therefore must needs be a transient not an immanent act of God He for a Justification which is an y Augustan Confes de fide p. 21. Non est hic opus disputationibus de praedestinatione aut similibus immanent act and included in the decree of election as part of it pag. 65. § 5. 4. They when they speak of Justification by Faith meane Justification before God He the manifestation and declaration thereof onely to the conscience So that Mr. Eyres opinion and that of the ancient Protestants look so little like Countrey-men that it may not expect to be owned by them though it challenge kindred of them CHAP. II. An Answer to Mr. Eyres seventh Chapter What is meant by Gods sight Two parts or degrees thereof Mr. Eyres Exposition contradicts it selfe and the Truth Gods Will or Purpose never called by the name of Justification in Scripture The consequences which Mr. Eyre denies to follow upon his doctrine necessary and unavoidable A large enquiry whether Justification consist in Gods Purpose not to punish Imputation and non-imputation what in the use of Scripture Gods electing love no Justification Rom. 8. 33. answered Several Arguments proving that Justification is not Gods purpose of not punishing The foure objections which Mr. Eyre makes against himselfe not answered by him Not the first Nor the second Nor the third Nor the fourth of Mr. Eyres second and third Proposition SECT I. NExt we shall enquire what it is to be justified before God or in Gods sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3. 11. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 20. by which the Septuagint render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 143. 2. a word that hath many faces and significations in a Drus observat cap. 17. Scripture But in the matter of Justification which is a forensical terme unlesse the whole body of our Protestants be mistaken it signifies as much as Gods judgement As to be justified in mans sight or before men is to be justified in mans judgement or for man to justifie and to be righteous in a mans own eyes is to be righteous in a mans own judgement or to justifie a mans selfe In like manner to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in Gods judgement or for God to justifie Compare 1 Cor. 4. 4. Luke 16. 15. Numb 32. 22. and many other places Now this judgement of God is either a judgement of justice by which no flesh living shall be justified Psal 143. 2. or a judgement of mercy and grace 2 Sam. 22. 25 26. Col. 1. 22. Heb. 13. 21. by which only a sinner can be justified or stand in the sight presence and judgement of God In this judgement of God we consider these two degrees or parts §. 2. The first is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle calls it Rom. 1. 32. Jus b Vid Joh. Driâ—d de capt Redempt c. 2. mem 3. de Reg. dogmat Sac. Script l. 3. p. 96 97. Dei that Rule Law or Constitution of God determining of rewards and penalties whence Gods Precepts Statutes Threatenings and Promises are so often called in Scripture his judgements The second is the sentence which God the righteous Judge shall passe upon all men according to this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the day of judgement Accordingly my opinion is that a sinner is justified in Gods sight either ipso jure
came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God whereas saith he we say that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others And 2. Their notion who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature c. Answ Here is the foundation of all the following obscure discourse which I perceive Mr. Eyre had rather we should take for granted then he be put to prove I do therefore deny 1. That Justification doth any where in Scripture signifie Gods eternal Will or Purpose not to punish of which more presently 2. That it is any where in Scripture put pro re volitâ for the thing willed formally and under that habitude or relation Justification is the discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment whether it were willed or not willed from eternity is but extrinsecal and accidental to the Act it selfe 3. That Justification is any where used in Scripture for the effects of Justification though I deny no man the liberty of making use somtimes of such a trope but we are now enquiring de nomine concerning the use of the Word The Apostle makes that one Act of Election the cause of all spiritual blessings Eph. 1. 3 4. of which our Justification is one ver 6 7. no lesse then Adoption ver 5. which is an Act of the same common nature with Justification and by some eminent d See Dr. Reignolds Life of Christ page 402. Divines made a part of it and that suitably enough to Scripture phrase even when it is made consequent to our faith John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 25. with 4. 5 6. 4. Our discharge from the curse is either our discharge from an obligation to it or from our actual suffering it In this latter sense it is indeed an effect of Justification but in the former sense it is the very life being and forme of it unlesse it be understood passively and so that also may be called an effect of Justification because the immediate effect of a discharge active is a person discharged These observations Reader thou wilt finde useful in the following debate That absurd conceit as he calls it that some have inferred upon §. 5. an eternal Justification viz. that then Christ came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God is so natural a consequence of his doctrine that it will never be put off with a cold Negatur And I presume Mr. Eyre is not ignorant that it is a maine principle upon which the Socinians deny the satisfaction of Christ And if he will owne what himselfe hath wrote in this book he must joyne with them He affirmes that Gods eternal Will not to punish is the very essence of Justification page 64. 2. That by this Will men are secured from wrath and discharged and acquitted from their sins that it is a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin page 67. § 6. upon which premises I demand Whose debt did Christ pay his own That 's little lesse then blasphemy Ours why our bond was cancelled long before and our selves discharged and acquitted from all sinne and death really actually compleatly if Mr. Eyres doctrine be true And where then is any place left for satisfaction e De satisfact p. 119. Grotius hath well observed Obligationis destructio liberatio dicitur Hanc praecedere potest solutio sequi non potest quia actus nullus versari potest circa id quod non existit amplius To the same purpose f In tert Tho. tom 1. disp 4. sect 8. p. 58. edit Venet. Suarez Propriè non dicitur satisfactio quae post remissionem debiti sit sed quae fit ad debiti remissionem Est enim remissio debiti terminus satisfactionis non principium ut communi sensu omnium hominum constat Nec dici potest eandem peccati remissionem quae facta fuit gratis ante satisfactionem postea etiam fieri per satisfactionem quia repugnat idem debitum gratis remitti per justam solutionem But what need we the testimony of man the testimony of God is greater The text is plain Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sinne Ergo if sin were remitted from eternity Christ neither did nor could make any satisfaction If it be said that God did discharge us upon the foresight of Christs satisfaction I beleeve it to be most true of all the godly that lived before Christ but Mr. Eyre that makes this discharge to be an immanent not a transient act in God will not may not endure that it should be caused by the foresight of Christs satisfaction The next grosse mistake which Mr. Eyre tells us some have fastened §. 6. upon the doctrine of eternal Justification is theirs who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature thus If men are justified from eternity they are from eternity And I confesse Mr. Eyre hath well removed this consequence if his principle be good that esse justificatum is a terme of diminution But verily if the Scriptures have rightly informed us in the nature of Justification I do not see how the consequence can be avoided for Justification is one of the most eminent blessings contained in that Promise I will be their God So Paul Rom. 3. 29 30. Is he the God of the Jewes only and not of the Gentiles also yea of the Gentiles also seeing it is one God who shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living Matth. 22. 32. And if not the God of the dead who yet live as to their soules then much lesse is he the God of them that are not nor never were Ergo he doth not justifie them that are not Again He that is justified is blessed Rom. 4. And he that is blessed from eternity is from eternity for he that is not is neither blessed nor miserable To say he is blessed from eternity in Gods intention is no more then that there was a preparation of blessednesse for him in Gods intention which I readily grant and it profits Mr. Eyre nothing But it little concernes me to make good the foresaid consequence something more of it the Reader shall finde a little below in the mean time we come to the great Question whether Justification consist formally in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish SECT III. THe Will of God as Divines are wont to distinguish is either §. 7. voluntas beneplaciti or voluntas signi The former is the Intention Decree or Purpose of God concerning some Act of his owne to be done by himselfe in his due time The latter to confine it to our present use is his signal legislative revealed royal Will by which
imputation be ab aeterno non-futura then is it ab aeterno undeprivable of its futurity for nothing but that which is future can be deprived of its futurity and if it be future ab aeterno then it cannot be made ab aeterno non-future for to be future and non-future ab aeterno is a contradiction 3. But if Mr. Eyre by his privative non-imputation mean no more then a positive act by which that punishment is kept off which is or will become due to a sinner I answer farther That the very essence of the pardon of sin consists in making that punishment undue which before was due and consequently in freeing the sinner from all actual suffering for sin for the remission of sin is opposed to the retaining of it John 20. 23. or else in preventing that that punishment shall never become due which otherwise would be due If in the former sense sin be pardoned from eternity for non-imputation and pardon are all one both in Mr. Eyres sense and of the Scriptures Rom. 4. 7 8. then cannot punishment become due in time but it is from eternity non futurum debitum even as the pardon of sin present and actually committed makes that punishment remaines no longer due to a person which till then was due And if it be from eternity a non-futurum debitum then neither can it be pardoned from eternity pardon being essentially a discharge from punishment due actually or in futurition nor if it could can that pardon be an act of grace because it is no grace to pardon him who neither is nor never will or can be punishable Yet here Reader distinguish of the duenesse of punishment which may arise either from the nature of sin in it self and in this sense it is impossible that sin should be pardoned either from eternity or in time because it is impossible but that sin should be in it selfe punishable or worthy of punishment even as on the contrary vertue is in it self essentially laudable or rewardable Or it may be the act of God by his Law making punishment due to the sinner or obliging the sinner unto punishment for his sin and in this sense only is it pardonable and if it be actually pardoned from eternity then is punishment made from eternity non debita which as I said before destroys both the substance and grace of pardon let us see if we can clear it by Mr. Eyres comparison This Will of God saith he is like the will of a man not to require that debt that shall or is about to be contracted Come on then Titius knows that Caius will be indebted to him and his purpose is before-hand not to require this debt I ask Is this purpose the pardon of the debt or no if not the cause is yielded if it be we will suppose that Titius makes this purpose within himself in the moment A the debt will be contracted in the moment C. All the space of time that is between A and C the debt is not actually a debt but only future If then this future debt be forgiven in the moment A then from thenceforth it ceaseth to be future and so cannot exist in the moment C because for a debt to be forgiven is to be made no debt if it be forgiven at present it is none at present if it be forgiven for the future it is not in futurition to be a debt 4. I will only adde this That according to Mr. Eyres own principles punishment doth never become due to the Elect so as that they stand obliged before God to suffer for any of their sins for that which in the protasâ—s of the similitude is a debt between man and man is a sinners obligation to punishment in the reddition Now Mr. Eyre denies that an elect sinner is at any time unjust simply and absolutely but only in a diminutive sense that is unjust by nature or of himself but positively just by grace at the same time which is but the carcasse of unrighteousnesse making the sinner unrighteous no otherwise then as it were materially he doing that which on his part is sufficient to oblige him to condemnation but he is never formally unjust because the grace of his Judge prevents his actual obligation Ergâ— he doth never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment nor is ever actually and formally indebted And whose debt then it was that Christ paid or what debts they are which we are to pray for forgivenesse of Matth. 6. 12. I must confesse I cannot tell which is all I shall need to speak of that second sense in which some may take the pardon of sin Nor will I adde any more animadversions upon these passages though I had once intended it because some have been mentioned already before and others we must make use of in that which follows SECT IX SO much for Mr. Eyres first Proposition upon which I have been §. 26. necessitated to dwell the longer because his discourse is so perplexed and intricate In that which follows I shall be more brief His next Proposition is this If Justification be taken not for the Will of God but for the thing willed to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from Punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Jesus Christ Answ The substance of this Proposition I could gladly close with but something is first necessary to be animadverted 1. Whereas Mr. Eyre here makes the satisfaction of Christ the adequate and as in his Explication he tells us often the immediate cause of our Justification if by adequate and immediate he mean only in genere causae meritoriae I consent because there is no other meritorious cause that comes between the death of Christ and our Justification But if he mean that the death of Christ is simply the adequate and immediate cause then I deny it because the act of God as Justifier comes between the death of Christ and our Justification Rom. 3. 25. 26 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood that he might be just and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus And the Lord Jesus himselfe also as Lord of soules and having all judgement committed to him by the Father joynes in putting forth the same act of Justification which was merited in his blood as we before observed 2. Mr. Eyre hath been disputing hitherto that Gods Will not to punish is our Justification That by which we are secured from wrath discharged and acquitted from all sin and wrath yea that it was a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin But now he tells us that the death of Christ is the adequate and immediate cause of our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment I think for my part it is beyond mans ability to invent or utter more palpable contradictions To be secured from wrath and not secured acquitted
rewarding of the believer with a right to blessednesse I gather from ver 4 5. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse Where the imputing of faith unto righteousnesse is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works Ergo as the imputing works unto righteousnesse were to give a right to blessednesse according to works sub ratione mercedis so on the contrary to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to give the beleever a right and title to blessednesse sub ratione mercedis The difference only is this the former is of debt the latter of grace as we shall further shew anon 2. Thus also we finde the Apostle interpreting the phrase for after he had said that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them also ver 11. he explains himself ver 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law but by the righteousnesse of faith The reason whereof he renders ver 16. That it might be by grace that the Promise might be sure to all the seed So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham and all that walk in the steps of his faith by which a right to life is given both to him and them is the imputation Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exâ—lic in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteousnesse to them 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse unto all generations for evermore The meaning of which words is easie to be learned from the story it self Numb 25. 12 13. Wherefore say Behold I give unto him my Covenant of Peace And he shall have it and his seed after him even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line from one generation to another as the reward of his zeal is that which the Psalmist calls the imputing it to him unto righteousnesse to all generations Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing and so could not constitute him righteous universally but only in part and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to Yet it shews the Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith to shew that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousnesse 4. The imputation of righteousnesse in respect of the terminus à quo is all one with the non-imputation of sin ver 6 8. and what is it to non-impute sin but not to render the wages of sin by destroying the guilt and punishment of it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessednesse though this reward be not of debt but of grace This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter we leave Mr. Eyres glosse to go seek entertainment where it can finde it SECT V. THere remain three texts more which I mentioned in my Sermon §. 13. to prove that Justification follows faith namely Acts 10. 43. Through his Name whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sin And 26. 18. To turne them from darknesse to light and from the Power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith And 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses To the two former Mr. Eyre answers That the giving of remission and receiving it are two things The former is Gods act and the latter is ours A Prince may pardon a Malefactour and he thereby is secured from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively as when we are said to receive God and Christ and his Word Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely by believing Sometimes it is taken passively in which sense giving and receiving are not two acts but one and the same as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold Matth. 19. 29. In all which and the like places our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance eternal life a hundred fold And thus to receive remission of sin is all one with Gods giving remission or to have our sins remitted and pardoned In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith as was before observed out of Contarenus So do the Scriptures also Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin That the Promise to wit of Justification by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve In which place Gods giving righteousnesse by the Promise and our receiving it are one and the same act compare ver 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life c. Whence also it is manifest that Gods giving and our receiving are both one act Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousnesse is called the coming of grace or righteousnesse upon us ver 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense as the receiving of the inheritance for they are joyned both together in the text Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance But for us to receive the inheritance is no more then to be made partakers of the inheritance not by any act of ours but by the free and effectual gift of God 3. To receive remission what act of ours is it Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly but by his answers to former texts and his instance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it I presume he meanes that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do unlesse it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge till after long searchings and experience and it is very improper to say a man receives such an act of his own which himselfe works out with much labour and travel of minde if our knowledge of remission were by immediate
revelation or enthusiastical inspiration the expression were much more tolerable 4. To the instance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned though he do not know it till a great while after I answer in the words of k Christ set forth p. 26 â—7 Reverend Dr. Godwin Gods Promises of forgivenesse are not as the pardons of a Prince which meerly contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitour upon marriage with his childe whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation So as all that would have pardon must first seek out for his childe and thus it is in the matter of believing The Promises hang all upon Christ and without him there is no interest to be had in them He that hath the Sonne hath life 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle shews §. 14. the excellency of the Gospel above the Law in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin 2. And but in an external typical manner 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice c. Rep. All which things I readily grant Yet 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned and then came to the offering of sacrifice or to the Priest So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true High-Priest the Lord Jesus that sinners may partake therein 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification and faith only for proof of which Mr. Eyre confesseth my Concordance would furnish me with many more places then I have taken notice of I will never be brought to beleeve that it is required as a consequent of Justification for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents as well as faith even by Mr. Eyres grant Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance that we are justified because unto that also many other things may be required and not faith only As for example self-examination and proving of our selves 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence in adding one grace to another 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 10. a good conscience towards God and man and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ 1 John 3. 20 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren 1 John 3. 18 19 14. and the like And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts proving Faith's antecedency to Justification By all which the Reader may see that when I said the only answer made to these Texts was That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience this account is true and perfect though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect there being not one of all the places mentioned but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification It was therefore necessary that I should prove that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon the asserting of which against Mr. Eyres exceptions is my next undertaking CHAP. IV. An Answer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter and part of the Ninth His saying and unsaying Many Arguments proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is to be taken proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is be taken properly for the faith in us and not for Christ Faith and works how opposed in the matter of Justification That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification virtually or axiomatically or syllogistically Sinners according to Mr. Eyre the causes of their own Justification Nor is Justification taken properly in all the Scriptures as he expounds it SECT I. THe first Argument proving that when the Apostle §. 1. pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God or in the sight of God and not in the Court of Conscience is this The Question between him and the Jewes was not whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God And he concludes that it is by faith and not by works Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand not the act or habit of faith but the object scil Christs righteousnesse or righteousnesse imputed His reason is because else there were no opposition between faith and works seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no lesse then love Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works and for the imputation of faith unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. still as opposed to works ver 4 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation But now we have another answer which overthrows the former namely that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousnesse What aileth thee O Jordan that thou art turned backward Yea he will not allow that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when or the conâ—tion upon which we are justified Yet I think all men besides himself will grant that his designe is to shew the way and meanes by which a sinner may come to be justified Though I confesse I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this For if the Justification of all that are justified be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ as he supposeth then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner no counsel given him what course to take that he may be justified Only he may be told that if he be justified the way to know it is to beleeve And when the Jewes say We must be justified by works and the Apostle By faith they are both out for we are justified by neither And the Gentiles were in an errour in seeking to be justified by faith as well as the Jewes in seeking it by works if they seek any thing more then to know that they are justified But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion §. 2. that saith is put for its object Christ and his righteousnesse though he give us not one text that may convince us of it we must of necessity examine the truth of it And yet when I consider how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it selfe and how solidly already confuted by Mr. a De reâ— onâ— pâ—c par 2. l 1. c. 15. Wotton who also hath set down the testimonies of no lesse then fourty Authours Fathers and Protestants besides Papists all
else for then should be but one man in the world to whom the righteousnesse of Christ were imputed The Proposition is manifest because the faith here spoken of is determined to the person of the beleever To him that beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision ver 11. And the truth is that otherwise I mean if His faith be His Christ Abrahams faith or Davids faith or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us with the very same propriety of speech as it is said to be imputed to him or them 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness the words are non-sense Put faith for righteousness and the words run thus But unto him that believeth his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness What sense is that or put it for Christ and they run thus But unto him that believeth his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousnesse I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctiâ—ication that is the Authour of both but to impute him unto righteousnesse is a barbarisme To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase His Christ in Scripture and of making Christ as distinct from his righteousnesse the object of justifying faith 3. We have already proved that to impute faith unto righteousnesse §. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life If then faith be put for Christ to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward Christ with righteousnesse And if for righteousnesse it is to reward righteousnesse with righteousnesse both which are absurd 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousnesse was the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised ver 10 11. If faith do here signifie Christs righteousnesse the words sound thus The righteousnesse of Christ which he had in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse And because he could not have it but by imputation therefore the full sense will be this The righteousnesse of Christ which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Spectatum admissi c. 5. Consider we also what is said ver 9 10 11 12. from whence §. 6. we advance three Arguments more 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful was the habit or grace of faith not the object A conjugatis Even as it is the habit of wisdom goodness temperance c. from whence a man is denominated wise good temperate c. but the faith which was imputed to him was that from whence he was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful for faith was imputed to him unto righteousnesse saith the Apostle ver 9. and that in his uncircumcision ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might become the father of all the faithful that are in uncircumcision that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ver 11. for so stands the connexion of the sentences and the beginning of this ver 11. And he received Circumcision c. is answered immediately by ver 12. And the father of circumcision c. The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith be blessed with faithful Abraham 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing then Abrahams faith signifies his believing and not Christs righteousnesse The reason is because to be a childe of Abrahams faith is to follow or imitate him in that which is called his faith as when Mr. Eyre calls me a sonne of Mr. Baxters faith And if we are like him by believing then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists between him the Father and us the children But we become the children of Abrahams faith even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse by believing ver 10. The father of all them that beleeve ver 11. That walk in the steps of father Abrahams faith Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham ver 16. 3. And I would that Mr. Eyre or some body else would make sense of the Apostles words if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse ver 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision to them that walk in the steps of his faith What is that Why to them that walk in his Christs righteousnesse I am even sick of this non-sense let me adde one word more that I may rid my self of this nausâ—ous work 6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter is that which is §. 7. described at large from ver 18. to the end where it is said that Abraham against hope believed in hope And being not weak in faith he considered not his own nor Sarahs age ver 19. That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith ver 20. And was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform ver 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse is manifest from the very next verse ver 22. And therefore it â—as imputed to him unto righteousnesse To make this the description of Christs righteousnesse would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous that I professe Reader I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase lest some prophane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt I might adde that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousnesse of Christ another may make as bold to interpret it of the Wisdome Power Goodness Faithfulness or any other Attribute of God for these also are the objects of faith and so to be justified by faith is to be justified by the Wisdome of God or by his Goodness c. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith will be as good sense thus expounded as if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse unless it be in those places where faith is particularly and expressely determined to Christ as its object and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act not for the object SECT III. NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth to §. 8. prove that faith must be put for its obiect the righteousnesse of Christ Else saith he the Apostle contradicts himself in opposing Justification by faith to Justification by works because faith it selfe is a work of ours Answ But by his favour I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apostle and that as perfectly as if he had studied to do it on purpose then that the Apostle contradicts himself For it is as manifest as light can make it that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works Rom. 4.
convenientis as a most suitable good and thus it is a knowledge antecedent to faith or at most but the beginning of faith it self Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have believed Or it is an act of the Will embracing delighting and taking complacency in the Promise as his best good and then it follows immediately not upon our right and interest in the Promise but upon our knowledge of that right for as we desire not that which we do not know so neither can we rejoyce in a right which we know not The Question then returnes viz. how the soul comes to know its right and interest in the Promise To say it knows it by taking complacency in it is to say it delights in it knows not what for the will follows the judgement and to take complacency in a good which we do not know we have a right in is naturally impossible Mr. Eyre therefore may speak truly when he sayes He that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-grace knows his interest therein such the taste may be but we are never the wiser in the understanding of the main question viz. How the soule comes to the knowledge of his interest in that Promise in which he tastes so much sweetnesse from answer to this Mr. Eyre makes an escape under the darknesse of his metaphorical expressions 5. I desire also to know whether it be the Promise of pardon and Justification in which the soule tastes such sweetnesse as thereby to have the evidence of his Justification or some other If some other how is it possible that faith should evidence to me my pardon and Justification by tasting sweetnesse in that truth which promiseth no pardon or Justification at all If it be the Promise of pardon let Mr. Eyre see that he consist with himself Promises are essentially boni futuri of a future good Therefore according to Mr. Eyre there can be now no Promise of pardon or Justification Not of the Act for that is past from all eternity not of the Effect for that is past as long as since the death of Christ and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promise It remaines then that it is the Promise of manifesting and declaring Justification But then behold the sense My faith doth evidence to me that I am justified by relishing the Promise which God hath made of manifesting and declaring Justification Hence it follows that I have the evidence of my Justification by beleeving that I shall have it And then either my faith must be false or the Promise must be false for if I do already know that I am justified that knowledge cannot be future else the same thing might be and not be at the same time But there can be no falshood either in a divine faith or in a divine testimony And I desire also Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he speaks of faiths evidencing with the Interpretations given before of those sayings in Scripture whosoever beleeves shall receive remission of sins Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving saith he is our act not Gods namely our knowing our selves to be justified Here he makes it intrinsecal to faith to beget assurance as it is a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise that is in the Promise of manifesting Justification for no other Justification is capable of being promised Lay all this together and one or both these two things must be the result either that I know I am justified before God manifest it to me for I beleeve and thereby know that I am justified and the Promise which I beleeve is that God will manifest my Justification to me Ergo he hath not yet manifested it or else the great Promise of justifying them that beleeve must be resolved into this ridiculous piece of non-sense He that hath the evidence of his Justification shall have the evidence of his Justification for in that he believes he hath this evidence and the thing that is promised is that he shall have this evidence Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith to its relishing §. 21. the sweetnesse of indefinite and general Promises but there must concurre withal a secret and inscrutable work of the Spirit to make these general Promises particular It is not the first time I have been acquainted both at home and elsewhere with Pretenders to assurance in such a way whose lives and ends I have known so well that I shall for their sakes esteem it no other whilest I live then a carnal groundlesse enthusiastical presumption Two Authours Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin as countenancing his doctrine namely k Of faith sect 1 cap 9 ◠4. Dr. Jackson and l Sound Bel. pag. 220 221. Mr. Shepheard But the former hath not a word of making the general Promise particular but saith only That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our soules namely that now we relish spiritual things which naturally we taste no sweetnesse in is a mystery inscrutable to which I consent The latter whose memory is very honourable and precious to me was the most violent opposer of this doctrine of any man on earth that ever I knew or heard of his works shew something of it but they that knew him can testifie more I heartily consent to him that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular according to the sense in which he explaines himselfe in the place quoted The soule saith he at this instant feeles such a special stirring of the Spirit upon it which it feeles now and never felt before as also its particular case so spoken to and its particular objections so answered and the grievousnesse of its sin in refusing grace so particularly applied as if God spake only unto it All this I beleeve to be true but it is nothing in the world to our purpose To make the common motives and invitations unto faith to become in this manner particular in their operation upon particular persons doth neither affirme nor deny any thing concerning the state and condition of those persons But to evidence to a man immediately that he is justified must be by a particular testimony and that as distinct from the testimony of Scripture which saith only that believers are justified as a proper or particular Proposition from a general I say therefore 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is §. 22. justified who hath not at the same time the evidence of his faith and so is this evidence of the Spirit alwayes at least implicitly syllogistical And the soule can have no setled comfort in it but by analysing the crypsis and resolving the whole evidence into its parts after the manner below specified He that beleeveth is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The case is so plain to me that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself for
article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
believe c. Answ I am sure he knows that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place and of the last also that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ till they beleeve But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument §. 38. wherein I say that neither Justification in conscience nor before men are of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer § 11. which I am apt to think he would have taken no notice of but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me He refers me to some texts of Scripture to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men and in conscience though I cannot learn what account he had of the former from any of the texts mentioned But be it what it will be I give him this brief reply That in comparison of Justification before God neither the one nor the other are much worth though they may be of some worth in these inferiour Judicatories Not only children but grown persons for ought I know may be saved without being justified of men or of their own consciences And I will never beleeve that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith which one may live and die without and yet be saved Who will prove to me convincingly that a Christian may not live many years and die at last in melancholy or madnesse under which distempers the judgement of men or of conscience is not much valued and yet be saved or that a soul may not for some grievous sin go with sorrow and darknesse to the grave and never see light till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light CHAP. V. An Answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter whether faith be the condition of Justification The Affirmative proved from Scripture Mr. Eyres Arguments to the contrary all invalid SECT I. TO Mr. Eyres Argument That if we were justified by §. 1. faith we were not purely passive in our Justification I gave this answer That to beleeve is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico but the use of it in Justification is to qualifie us passively that we may be morally orderly capable of being justified by God or though physically it be an act yet morally it is but a passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God As the reading of the book or acceptance of a pardon amongst men is a condition without which an offendor is not pardoned Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is not the condition of Justification wherein I do the more gladly joyne issue with him because upon this assertion of ours doth he take occasion to asperse the received doctrine of Protestants with the reproachful names of Popery and Arminianisme Here therefore I shall shew three things 1. What a condition is 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification 3. That all Mr. Eyres Arguments §. 2. to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive A condition then is diversly described by divers Authours Some describe it thus a Navar. Enâ—hâ—r page â—8 Conditiâ— est suspensio ali cujus dispositioniâ— tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Others thus b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist in verb Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam dispâ—situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum Others thus c Pet. de Perus ibid. Est verbâ—rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam dâ—â—ponens vult dispositum regulari d In L. 1. F. de â—oud demonstr Bartolus thus Conditio est quidam futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditur Any of these will serve my turn these things being agreed 1. That it pertaines to him that disposeth of any thing to propound upon what condition his will is that it be disposed of or not disposed of 2. That the nature of a condition consists mainly in suspending the actual obligation of the disposer until the condition be performed 3. That it is the will of him that makes the condition which is the cause of the obligation that comes upon him when the condition is performed of which we shall see more anon Now that faith is the condition upon which God hath suspended §. 3. his actual donation of righteousnesse to a sinner is so plain and evident to me that I confesse I cannot but wonder that men acquainted with the Scriptures should so much as question it Several expressions there are taken notice of by e Vide Bartelum late in L. 1. F. de cond Demonstr Azor. Inst Moral par 3. l. 4. c. 24. Civilians and Moralists as signes or notes of a condition and scarcely one can I finde which the Scripture doth not use somewhere or other in describing the order and habitude of faith to our Justification But I shall instance but in one or two I begin with that Rom. 10. 6 9. The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved That salvation here includes Justification appears from the very next words ver 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse And I appeal to common sense whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest signe of a condition upon which Justification is suspended or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words that can more plainly expresse the matter of a condition Try it by comparison with other Scriptures Gen. 43. 4 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us we will go down but if thou wilt not send him we will not go down and Gen. 34. 22. Only herein will the men consent to us If every male amongst us be circumcised Herein will they consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is upon this condition will they consent as we render that word 1 Sam 11. 2. on this condition will I make a Covenant with you See Gen. 18. 26. 28 30. Exod. 4. 23. Prov. 2. 1 4. Jor. 18. 8 10. and hundreds of other places In all which the particle If is manifestly conditional nor upon the strictest observation which I have made in reading the Scriptures am I able to espy so much as one place wherein the said particle hath any other use when it supposeth to any thing that is future by vertue of a Promise Indeed Mr. Eyre did f Chap. 5. §. 6. before mention two places wherein he will have the particle If not to propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but only to describe the person to whom it belongs viz. 2
decies cocta that it will inferre justification by works for answer to which I referre the reader to chap. 4. and 5. having proved in the former that it is the Act or grace of faith which the Apostle perpetually opposeth to works and in the latter that benefits may be given of grace which yet are given upon condition His second Argument therefore is this If justification be by that signall promise he that beleeves shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published But the Fathers of the old Testament were justified before the publishing of that gracious sentence or any like it Ergo. Rep. A particular explicite faith in Christ was not absolutely necessary §. 9. to salvation till the times of the Gospel and the doctrine of faith and remission was in former times very sparingly and darkly revealed especially in the time between Adam and Moses Yet was the faith of the ancients the same for substance with the faith of Christians and of a like necessity to justification and salvation For Abel was justified by faith Heb. 11. 4. and Enocâ— v. 5. and Nâ—ah v. 7. and Abraham Rom. 4. sic de caeteris and surely they could not believe without a Preacher by whom they might heare of him on whom they beleeved But supposing the promise of remission to be suitable to those times of darker dispensation and the condition of that faith which was then required as sufficient to salvation I passe the proposition 2. I deny the assumption which hath here no other proofe then the old Argument so t is namely that there was not a promise of forgivenesse preached unto the world upon condition of repentance and returning unto God which is the substance of faith before the incarnation of our Lord. There were many Preachers of righteousnesse in the old world Noah d See Dr Golls Sermon before the Astrologers p. 28 29. Manasse Ben. Israel Concil in Gen. 4. 26. 3. is reckoned the eighth 2 Pet. 2. 5. beginning at Enos Gen. 4. 26. And he no question preached faith and repentance to the world that they might escape the destruction of soul and body at once who notwithstanding his preaching perished by their disobedience or unbelief the Greek word signifieth either 1 Pet. 3. 20. and he by his faith is said in a comparative sense to have condemned them Heb. 11. 7. And in the book of Job who lived before the law we finde the world had notice of such a conditionall promise though not from any written word but by tradition or by Preachers immediatly raised up Job 8. 4 5 6. If thy children have sinned against him If thou wouldest seek unto God betime and make thy supplication to the Almighty if thou be pure and upright surely now he would awake for thee c. and this he tells us was the faith of the Fathers many generations before v. 8 9. compare v. 20 21. So chap 33. 27 28. he looketh upon men and if any say I have sinned he will deliver his soul from going down into the pit So chap. 22. 21 22 23. Acquaint thy self with God lay up his words in thy heart If thou returne to the Almighty thou shalt be built up c. see also chap. 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. And what lesse doth the Lord say to Cain Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted namely if thou dost well as Abel did shalt thou not be accepted as well as he And wherein Abel's well doing consisted the Apostle tells us Heb. 11. 4. By saith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice then Cain So that from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Moses the world was not altogether without notice of the promise of salvation upon condition of faith and repentance c Vide Mos â—myrâ—â— Spec. anima lâ—er special pâ—r 3 anima i. General par 3. 4. In Moses's time the matter is clearer then to need proofe Heb. 4. 1 2. Let us therefore feare least a promise being left us of entring into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it for unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them being not mixed with faith in them that heard it Hence 1. it is manifest that salvation was promised Israel under the type of rest in Canaan 2. That it was not promised them absolutely but upon condition whether the condition were expressed or understood otherwise their non-entrance into Rest must have been imputed wholly to Gods unfaithfulnesse and not to their unbelief whereas the text sayes expresly it was their unbelief which made the promise of no effect to them and they could not enter in because of unbelief chap. 3 19. 3. That the Gospel is preached to us as it was to them and therefore the same condition is required of us as was required of them namely faith otherwise we also shall fall short of the promised rest as they did v. 1. The third Argument is this If justification be only by a declared §. 10. discharge then elect infants that die in their infancy have no justification Rep. I deny the consequence where 's the proofe I can find no other but this that infants are insensible of this declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise which is nothing in the world to the purpose Cannot infants have right to a benefit by law or the declared act of a Rector or Lawgiver because they are unsensible of it and cannot plead it They are condemned by law whiles infants Rom. 5. 14. They may be servants or free by law Do not our laws provide for the rights of Minors Pupils and Orphans even in their infancy 2. It doth also ruine the maine pillars of Mr. Eyres discourse All the places which I before alledged to prove justification by faith according to him are to be understood of the manifestation of justification to the conscience Give me leave then to retort his owne Argument The justification spoken of in the places aforesaid Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39. c. is that without which no man can be saved But some may be saved without justification manifested and declared to the conscience as infants Ergo the justification mentioned in those places is not justification in conscience or manifested unto conscience The fourth Argument succeeds The making justification a §. 11. declared discharge detracts from the majesty and soveraignty of God for it ascribes to him but the office of a notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or supream Magistrate Rep. If this Argument be cast into forme it runs thus He that forgives sin by a declared Act is but a notary or subordinate Minister for their work it is to declare and publish the sentence
brazen Serpent else they could not have seen it so they that look upon Jesus Christ i e. beleeve in him are spiritually alive or else they could not put forth such a vital act Rep. But wherein doth this make against me The most that follows from hence is either that the habit of faith is before the act as the faculty of sight before the operation of it which is no part of the Question between Mr. Eyre and me or that a man is quickened internally by faith before he is quickened morally by Justification and pardon even as they put forth the vital act of seeing before they received that healing which prevented their approaching death which is the very thing I am proving 2. But in every similitude there is some dissimilitude and if Mr. Eyre will instance in things that do not come into the comparison he may as well inferre that faith is an act of natural power because their looking to the brazen Serpent which represented faith was so I say therefore that they that were stung with the fiery Serpents though they were not dead as to the utmost and last act of death which consists in the separation of the soule from the body yet they were dead in effect and as much as the nature of the type and the scope of the comparison requires as having received their deaths wound which would soon have prevailed over the remainders of their life if it had not been prevented by looking up to the brazen Serpent And therefore of him that looked on the Serpent of brasse 't is said that he lived Numb 21. 9. That is saith Mr. Eyre he had ease from his anguish And §. 4. so by looking up to Christ by faith we finde ease and rest to our wearied soules A man is said to live when he lives comfortably and happily Rep. Which is neither true in the Proposition nor Reddition of the comparison Not in the first for in the type the opposition is not between ease and paine but between life and death Numb 21. 6. The fiery Serpents bit the people and much people of Israel died and ver 9. It came to passe that if a Serpent had bitten any man when he beheld the Serpent of brasse he lived as Hezekiah is said to live Isa 38. 21. when he recovered of a mortal disease not only from the pain and anguish of it but principally from the mortality of it Nor in the second for though life in Scripture may sometimes signifie a happy prosperous and comfortable life yet in our Saviours use of it it hath not that sense precisely though that may very well be included consequently partly because the life obtained by looking up to Christ is opposed not to pain and sickness precisely but to the death and destruction of the whole person John 3. 15. The Sonne of man must be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have everlasting life partly because the same life is called salvation ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him should be saved Now though a man may be said to live when he lives comfortably yet he is never said to be saved in Scripture precisely because he lives comfortably When Paul sayes Now we live if ye stand fast 1 Thes 3. 8. I think he is to be understood of a joyful comfortable life But it had been very uncouth to expresse the same life thus Now we are saved if ye stand fast But Mr. Eyre hath a sad quarrel against me for reading that §. 5. text John 6. 40. thus It is the Will of God that he that seeth and beleeveth the Sonne shall be justified whereas the words are That whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life Herein he saith I have corrupted and falsified the text Rep. What you please Sir provided you take in all manner of Commentators as well as my selfe for I know no man but you that excludes Justification from being there contained in eternal life As when the Law sayes Do this and thou shalt live the life promised includes Justification primarily so when it is said He that believes shall have eternal life life includes Justification in like manner And though there be many more blessings included then that single one of Justification yet that only being to my purpose I thought I might mention it only without being guilty o◠corrupting or falsifying the text I had thought also the believer may be said to have eternal life in right as well as in possession as the Lord speaks a little below ver 47. He that believeth on me hath everlasting life And to have right to life or life in right is to be justified and therefore is our Justification called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. And grace reignes through reghteousnesse unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord ver 21. SECT II. THe next comparison I made use of for illustration and proof §. 6. of this matter was out of John 6. 51 52 53 54. where faith is compared to eating and Justification to the nourishment we receive by our meat As then we are not first nourished and then eat the meat that nourisheth us but we eat our meat that we may be nourished by it so neither are we first justified and then beleeve on Christ that hath justified us but we beleeve in Christ that we may be justified Mr. Eyre answers That this is a mistake like the former for it is Christ himself who throughout that Chapter is compared to bread and food whom by faith we receive for our refreshment consolation and spiritual nourishment Rep. As if Justification were none of that nourishment which we receive by faith because Christ himself is the meat on whom we feed This answer is a plain yielding of the Argument unlesse Mr. Eyre intend that it is only comfort and refreshment and not Justification and pardon which is the nourishment we receive by feeding on Christ which if he doth intend we oppose from the text 1. That Christ invites us to eat of his flesh that we may live not simply that we may be refreshed and comforted it s in vain to talk of refreshing and comforting him that is dead ver 33. The bread of God giveth life to the world the very substance and being of life not only the well-being which consists in refreshment and consolation And though life may now and then though very rarely signifie precisely a comfortable life yet here surely it signifies more as being opposed to eternal death under which the world is supposed to be till Christ give them life ver 50. to be I mean in respect of guilt and that very life in the losse of which consists the whole misery of unbelievers ver 53. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood you have no life in you 2. And that Justification or
faith is rather a hinderance then a furtherance of their happinesse for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodlinesse only that which hinders their enjoyment is that there is a purpose of giving faith which must be accomplished before they can inherit were it not for that purpose they might go to heaven presently and as they are 4. And that without all gain-saying of the Law which though it be a bug-beare even to the elect themselves to terrifie and affright the conscience while they live in sin and ungodlinesse yet hath no authority it seemes to debarre them from entrance into heaven no more then if it never had been violated And so if it might be supposed per pâ—ssibile vel impossibile that an unrighteous man might go to heaven yet were this no impeachment to the justice of Gods government but would argue at most some kind of mutability in God in not doing according to his purpose Whereas the Lord himself professeth that if he should give life to an impenitent sinner it were against his equity The waies of the Lord are equal Ezek. 18. throughout Fiftly If ungracious men have a right to heaven onely they cannot §. 25. possesse it till they have the evidence of faith either this evidence is of such necessity that if they have it not they shall lose that life to which they are adjudged or no. If not then whether they believe or no they shall be saved if so then there is no absolute justification before faith and justification must be conditional To this Mr. Eyre answers 1. By this Argument not only faith but all other works of sanctification and perseverance in them must be the conditions of our justification and then we may be said to be justified and saved by them but this is no good Argument No man is saved or glorified without works Ergo men are saved by works 2. This reason makes as much against absolute election before faith as against absolute justification 3. The answer is election and justification are absolute because they depend upon no antecedent condition not because they are without consequents that depend on them Rep. To the first we reply That if the question be concerning our first entrance into a state of justification we have already with the Apostle Rom. 10. 10. excluded works from being at all necessary thereunto But if the question be of our last and universal justification at the day of judgement which the Apostle there calls salvation Mr. Eyre knows we maintaine that perseverance in the faith to the end and in a Christian conversation is a necessary condition of salvation according to Scriptures Rev. 2. 17. and 22. 14. Colâ—s 1. 23. 2 John 8. Heb. 10. 26 36. and the places quoted by M. Eyre Prov. 28. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Matth. 24. 13. And the consent of c Ames Bellar. enervat tom 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de nâ—ces oper ad salut ad obj ex Rom. 8. 13. Mortific tio igitur est conditio aâ— vitam quis negat Gerhard de bonâ—â— operib c. 9. §. 55. 4. Zanchius Gry 〈…〉 Sohnius Piscator ibid. §. 45. Chamier 〈◊〉 de bon Oper. Neceâ—â— cap. â— sect 7. 11 15 17 20 〈◊〉 c. appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus non 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Davenant de 〈◊〉 Act cap. 〈◊〉 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestants But when he infers then we may be said to be saved by works I deny the consequence partly because of the ambiguity of the word works which in our use generally hath another sense then with the Apostles who oppose them not only to faith as we have largely proved before but sometimes also to sanctification Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghost partly because the works of saâ—ctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining but of not losing our right to the heavenly Kingdom As if Titius upon 〈◊〉 his intreaty give him a farme to be held by him jure feudi the non-performance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to forfeits his right neverthelesse his title is grounded in the Donors benevolence In like manner we are saved by grace through faith though if we do not by the spirit mortifie the deeds of the flesh we forfeit our life Rom. 8. 13. To the second I reply That there is no comparison between §. 26. election and justification as is at large above demonstrated Let us set Mr. Eyres parallel before us that the dissimilitude may the better appeare Thus then he argues Faith is of such necessity that they that have it not shall lose the life to which they are elected or not if not then whether the elect believe or no they shall be saved if it be then there is no absolute election before faith Here 1. The comparison is between an Act that giveth a right to life such is justification and an Act which giveth none such is election which indeed doth make the donation of right to be a thing future but is not it selfe the Act which giveth it as we have shewed before Now if a sinner have a right to the inheritance and yet it be necessary for him to believe that he may inherit then is his inheriting suspended upon believing that is faith is the condition of his inheriting and so the right he had to it before must needs be conditional more then this neither reason nor the civil Law requires to denominate a gift to be conditionall In election the case is otherwise which because it doth not transmit or conveigh any right but is only a preparation or preordination in the mind of God of those causes by which it shall be made to exist in time therefore may the purpose it self be absolute yea though it be of things which do not exist but upon condition Thus Dr. d In Coâ—vin dofens Armin. Cont. Tilen pag. 355. Twisse Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scil neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit nec damnatio c. and particularly of justification or pardon of sin he addes Remissionem peccatorum salutem omnes consentiunt nemini contingere nisi sub conditione fidei i. e. All agree that pardon of sin and salvation betides none but upon condition of faith God may absolutely will or purpose to give a right to life upon condition of faith but he cannot absolutely give a right to life and yet afterwards require us to believe under a penalty of forfeiting or losing that life for then the gift is not absolute but conditional 2. The word necessary must be distinguished for it may be understood either in reference to God and so whatsoever he purposeth is necessary because his purposes being immutable and his power irresistable it must needs be that whatsoever he purposeth
his dealing with other Infants who are the children of his servants and of such as believe on him after the example of Abraham Their father Abrahams faith was the condition of their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt Deut. 10. 15. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them and he chose their seed after them And because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto your fathers hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen chap. 7 8. Neverthelesse after they had been farther instructed in and known the Will of God he required of them that they should feare him and walk in all his wayes and love him and serve him with all their heart and soule Deut 10. 12 16. Otherwise they were liable to a returne to the same or a worse bondage then that out of which they had been redeemed chap. 28. 65 68. And it is also observable that the Infants in Israel continued their right to the promised land while their Parents were cut off for rebellion Numb 14 30 31. As to the second exception That we may as well assert works §. 19. of supererogation as that one is justified by anothers faith I had thought Mr. Eyre had better understood what works of supererogation are then to trouble us with such an impertinency But to the two texts of Scripture in the margine to which he refers us Ezek. 18. 20. and Hab. 2. 4. to prove that a mans faith or righteousnesse is available only to his own salvation they are both to be understood pro subject â materiâ He that is furnished with meanes and abilities for the exercise of a faith of his owne or for performing works of righteousnesse cannot expect salvation by the faith or righteousnesse of his Parents while himself lives in unbelief and unrighteousnesse The eighth Argument is the old postulatum that faith cannot be §. 20. the condition of our reconciliation but it will then needs share with Christ in the glory of this effect which we have shewed already at large to be contrary to the judgment of Scriptures Reason Lawyers Divines I may adde of all sorts of persons All men will acknowledge that the freest Promise imaginable becomes not obligatory but upon supposition of acceptance by him to whom the Promise is made e Vide D Marta Neapol Digest Noviss Tom 3. Tit. Donatarius and the freest donation becomes invalid if he to whom it is given will have none of it And faith being no more then an acceptance of Christ John 1. 12. Rev. 22. 17. one would think it might be made the condition of the gift of righteousnesse and life without danger of sharing in the glory of Christ More of the unreasonablenesse of Mr. Eyres crude assertion though it be more then needs and more then once I intended the Reader shall finde below in answer to Mr. Eyres nineteenth chapter Enter the ninth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 21. his people should have strong consolation and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their peace and reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves for it is impossible that any soul should enjoy a firme and setled peace whose confidence towards God is grounded upon conditional Promises and says the Apostle our salvation is by grace to the end that the Promise may be sure to all the seed Rom. 4. 16. Answ We expect other manner of proof of the consequence then what is here presented us It is most true that Gods Will is that his people should have strong consolation not without faith but through faith as is most expresse in that very place which Mr. Eyre quotes Heb. 6. 18. That we might have a strong consâ—lation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us Also the Apostle John 1 Ep. 1. 4. gives the reason of his writing the doctrine of the Gospel namely that through the faith thereof our joy may be full But it is the wildest reasoning that ever I met with to inferre that if the gift of peace and reconciliation be suspended upon believing then he that believes cannot have strong consolation just as if I should inferre because the Lord sayes John 16. 24. Ask and ye shall receive that your joy may be full Ergo He that asketh can never attain to fulnesse of joy The strength of our joy and consolation depends upon the immutability and faithfulnesse of the Promise which we beleeve and by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve by so much the more do we partake in the comfort of the Promise But that is above all that Mr. Eyre should quote Rom. 4. 16. to prove that if our salvation depended never so little upon our works we could not be sure thereof Amongst which works he includes faith absurdly enough but suitable to his dealing with the Authours whom he quotes here and elsewhere applying to faith what they speak against works when the very words of the text are expresly and purposely against the inference which he makes from them Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed Since man was borne upon the earth was it ever thought possible that these words should yield this inference Ergo if salvation depend on faith we can never be sure of it Though neither doth the text speak of the certainty of the subject or of our being sure of salvation but of the certainty of the object or of salvation's being sure to us Let us hear the tenth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 22. the death of Christ should be available for the reconciliation of the elect whiles they live in this world then it was his Will that it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation without the intervention of those conditions supposed to be required of them The reason is because they cannot perform all the conditions required of them till their last breath this being one that they must persevere to the end Answ This Argument with many of the rest if it prove that sinners are reconciled without any condition performed on their part yet it doth not prove what it should do that they are reconciled immediately in the death of Christ or before they beleeve If we contended for no more then that faith were antecedent to Justification not the condition thereof this Argument would not hurt us and therefore is not like to be very serviceable to Mr. Eyre 2. Nor doth it so much as pretend to disprove Justification upon any condition as suppose upon the first act of faith and therefore is yet farther impertinent 3. But that which it would disprove if it had strength enough is the conditionality of final perseverance unto Justification But neither do we make final perseverance the condition
by the Law or Constitution of grace the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity and to the heavenly inheritance or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day by which he is adjudged unto the immediate full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel John 3. 16. He that believeth on me shall not perish but shall have everlasting life Even as amongst men an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present and legally future punishments though the effects of this right he do not possesse any otherwise then in hope till his cause be tried and himself absolved in Court by the sentence of the Judge In reference to the former a sinner is justified presently upon believing in reference to the latter he is not justified till the day of judgement Therefore Peter exhorts the Jewes to repentance that their sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God And he shall send Jesus Christ Acts 3. 19 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus that God would grant him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day And in the name of all Christians he tells us Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith that is Justification through faith as it stands in opposition to Justification by works ver 4. and throughout the whole Epistle So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh a white stone Rev. 2. 17. c Vid. Paraeum Aretium Brightman Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie that eminent eternal and universal absolution from all guilt which shall be given to the Saints that overcome and continue faithful to the end So Rom. 2 13 16. Not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified In the day when God shall judge the secrets of meâ— by Jesus Christ the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis This is my opinion in this matter which I have therefore set down the more distinctly that Mr. Eyre may understand how ignorant or impudent his Informer was that told him I maintained that we were not justified till the day of judgement page 19. Now to Mr. Eyre he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods knowledge 2. As it signifies his legal justice 3. As it signifies his making of us to see To which I shall need to give no other answer then his own words in the same paragraph of the last thus he speaks This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei in foro Conscientiae would be a meer tautology Of the first thus Although in articulo Providentiae in the doctrine of divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo Justificationis in the doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other Thus of three senses of the phrase himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre it to the justice of God we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood 3. If we referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres own confession such is the first sense which is here the last then thus But if you take it in such a sense in which it may not be taken in the present question such is the last of the three which is here put first then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in his knowledge 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction because the members thereof do interferre for Justification in the death of Christ and in our own consciences is Justification in Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods Will I ask then whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice if it be then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction if it be not I would know how God doth justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to us 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be Indeed he may well know that he intends to justifie us but if he know that then he knows we are not yet justified for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse for the better understanding of these mysteries I attend his motion that I may spare tautologies as much as I can SECT II. He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions The first is this Justification is taken variously in Scripture §. 4. 1. For the Will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people 2. For the effect of Gods Will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law That Justification is put for this latter act he supposeth none will question The only scruple is concerning the former which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification because some grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
nothing for never man was nor ever shall be the better for this supposed Will of God precisely of not punishing for if it produce us any good it is either from eternity or in time Surely from eternity we are never the better for it if in time what is that good I suppose it will be said freedome from punishment Well But doth it effect this freedome mediately or immediately mediately it can do nothing for it is determined precisely to a non-punition and containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of our deliverance Election indeed may very well concurre to our discharge wrought by the death of Christ because it is a pre-ordination of Christ himself and of all other more immediate causes that work in their several orders and dependances for our dâ—scharge If immediately then the death of Christ interposeth no cauâ—ality for the effecting of the said freedome of which notwithstanding Mr. Eyre asserts it to be the adequate and immediate cause in his next Proposition 3. To give a peculiar name to the volition of one part of the meanes as distinct from the volition of all the rest unlesse there be some special reason of such denomination is but to impose upon our understandings for why may not Gods Will of sending Christ of publishing the Gospel of renewing our natures of raising our bodies of glorifying our whole man each of them deserve a more proper and significant name then Election as well as his Will not to punish for as to the act of this Will eâ—dem mâ—do se habet circa omnia objecta volita it respecteth all the meanes willed equally and in the same manner the persons to whom this impunity is willed lay under no other consideration as the objects of this will then as they are the objects of the will of calling sanctifying glorifying so that neither from the act nor the object is there any reason of such denomination Indeed the objects I mean the media volita of election and reprobation being contraries in the utmost degree and irreconcileable in the same person our weak understandings do therefore conceive of those acts as differing specie and accordingly we diversifie their names But the objects of Election being amongst themselves consentanies and subordinate in their execution one to the other and having no other entity or modality before their own existence in time then precisely ut volita it is altogether beyond the reach of my understanding to imagine any reason why the volition of one meanes should have a name proper to it self incommunicable to the volition of any other means willed by the same act to the same end 4 But the answer yields as much as the objection seeks for it grants Justification to be part of election namely Electio ad impunitatem Whereas 1. Scripture-Justification is a forensical act say all our Protestants against the Papists I spare quotations because the thing is too well known to be denied This cannot be affirmed of Election 2. The object of Election is neither a sinner nor a righteous person precisely but one that is not for we are chosen before the foundation of the world Eph. 1. 4. before we have done good or evil Rom. 9. 11. but the object of Scripture-Justification is a sinner Rom. 4. 5. whether believing or unbelieving we dispute below 3. Election is not properly an act of mercy but of absolute dominion and liberty scripture-Scripture-Justification is every where reported as an act of mercy Psal 51. 1. Luke 1. 78 79. Matth. 18. 33. Luke 18. 13 14. Heb. 8. 12. Eph. 2. 4 5. Ergo Justification is not Election nor any part of it If it be said that the name of pardon and Justification in these and other places signifies not the act but the effects I shall refer to my vindication of the next objection which is as followeth SECT VI. THe second objection therefore is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum Which cannot be §. 15 attributed to the decrees of God I shall divide Mr. Eyres answer into two parts First saith he if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them Rep. Plain dealing is best in a good cause If Mr. Eyre had told me roundly that the effects of Justification make a change in a persons state but the act doth not I had then known what I had to do But I know not very well what to make of these lines 1. The objection in forme is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum But velle nen punire or any other eternal purpose of God makes no such change of a persons state Ergo To say now that the Will of God not to punish supposeth no such change is to yield the Conclusion that therefore it is not Justification 2. What means he by a sinners delivery from the curse of the Law either it supposeth that a sinner doth actually suffer the curse of the Law or some part of it till Justification deliver him but this he denieth of such persons for whom Christ hath satisfied namely the Elect page 60. 61. § 2. or it supposeth an obligation of such persons by Law unto future punishment till they be justified But this he denieth too of the same persons page 110. 111. § 2 3 5. and what it is to deliver a sâ—nner from the curse which he neither suffers at present nor is obliged to suffer for future I want an Interpreter to tell me 3. Nor can I tell in Mr. Eyres sense what it is to have peace and reconciliation with God If he meane it of peace of conscience through the sense of reconciliation himselfe will deny that that is the immediate effect of our delivery from the curse for faith apprehending reconciliation doth intervene and that as a true proper cause of such a peace If he mean it of a state of peace and reconciliation before God he should not need to ascribe that to the thing willed seeing the erernal Will of God is most sufficient unto that according to him as being a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin and he layes it down for an undeniable truth That the Elect were in Covenant with God before the foundations of the world page 170 171. 4. The great change which he speaks of made by this delivery from the curse of the Law viz. That he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with
as the righteous But I will puzzle my selfe no longer with these ambiguous Oracles SECT VII THe third objection succeeds and that is this If justification be §. 22. an immanent act in God it is antecedent not only to faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause Mr. Eyre answers That although Gods Will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that Will is by and for the sake of Christ As though electing love precede the consideration of Christ John 3. 16. yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1. 4. because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Reply Here again I must complain of Mr. Eyres mincing Had he said the Act of Justification goes before the death of Christ but the effects follow he had spoken plainly But when we are disputing that Gods Will is not our Justification because our Justification according to Scripture is a fruit of Christs merit which an immanent act of Gods Will cannot be to tell us now that indeed Gods Will is antecedent to Christs merits is to yield the Argument that therefore it is not our Justification for nothing more certain from Scripture then that our Justification is the fruit of the merits and blood of Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 8 9. and 4. 25. and 8. 3 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. Gal. 3. 13 14. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. Heb. 9. 12 22. and 10. 14 18. and sundry other places 2. It is also unworthy of the precious blood of the Sonne of God to ascribe no more to it then that it merits the effects of our Justification seeing it is a farre lesse matter to purchase the effects then to purchase the act which is the cause of them as I have before observed from the Apostles manner of arguing Rom. 5. If while we were sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified shall we be saved from wrath 3. It is also no little undervaluing of the glorious blessing of Justification to suppose it so impotent as that it cannot produce its own effects nor do the sinner any good at all unlesse the Son of God interpose by his death to make it effectual I desire to speak of spiritual things with feare and trembling But I am not afraid to say such a Justification as this is not worth grammercy If it be objected that I may say as much of Gods electing love for neither doth that produce its effects without the death of Christ I answer no such matter for the death of Christ it selfe and all other particular causes of our salvation are the effects of election which it selfe produceth in their respective subordinations But Justification is a particular cause determined precisely to a non-punition which yet it cannot effect Nor doth Mr. Eyre himself make the death of Christ an effect of Justification and if he did he must reade the Scriptures backward but of this more by and by 4. I deny that the effects of Justification can be merited without the act for this eternal Justification according to Mr. Eyres theologie is an actual and real discharge from all sin and condemnation a compleat non-imputation of sin and imputation of righteousnesse Therefore it is impossible but that by this act the Elect must have a right given them to deliverance from wrath which is so evident that himselfe contendeth that the Elect even whiles they are in actual rebellion against God have a right to salvation grounded in the Purpose of God page 122. And what then did Christ merit for them Not a right to deliverance from wrath for that they have already and o Vid. Aquiâ— 1. q. 62. 4. â— 12. q. 1 â—4 5. â— 3. q. 19. 3. â— Nullus meretur quod jam habet what one hath already that cannot be afterwards merited Christ is dead in vain as to the purchasing of this right if they had it before Upon this ground do our p Jun. Animad in Bell. l. 5. c. 10. Divines deny that Christ merited any thing for himselfe because there was no advancement of soule or body but was due to him upon an antecedent title Nor yet doth Christ merit the continuance of this right for it is impossible it should be forfeited for a man can forfeit nothing with God but by sin and sin if it be pardoned as here it is supposed to be even all sins and that from eternity hath no strength to work such a forfeiture no more then if it never had been committed Nor doth he merit the possession of that which they have a right to for the effect of merit is properly acquisitio juris the acquiring or obtaining of the right it selfe q Duranâ— â— 2. dist 5 q 3. 8. Nullus meretur id quod est suum sed per meritum facit quilibet ut aliquid efficiatur ei debitum per consequens suum quod ei prius non erat debitum nec suum Indeed men may by violence be kept out of the possession of that which is their own But God is not wont to deny possession where himself hath given a right and if sinners have from eternity a firme and valid right to life and salvation Christ should not need to have put himself to the expence of his blood to have purchased possession Wherefore the effects of Justification being inseparable from the act Christ merited the act as well as the effect or else he merited neither The comparison brought in for illustration makes the matter worse §. 23. then it was before For 1. It is utterly false that all the effects of Gods electing love are given for the merits of Christ for the giving of Christ to death is an effect of Gods electing love and yet Christ did not merit his own sending into the world 2. That the parallel may consist it must be first supposed that the intention of particular meanes have particular names as so many particular acts or causes and then determined that Christ merited not those acts but their effects As for example That Gods intention to make us his children is our Adoption and Christ merited not our Adoption but the effects thereof His intention to sanctifie us is our sanctification and Christ merited not our sanctification but the effects of it His intention to glorifie us is our glorification and Christ merits its effects even as his intent to pardon us is our Justification and Christ doth afterward merit the effects but not the act Thus must the comparison run or it leaves the matter darker then it found it If Mr. Eyre will not allow of this let him acknowledge his doctrine to be without parallel 3. The effects of Christs merits are also the effects of Gods electing love
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
coâ—senting with him I confesse I can hardly think it worth my labour yet something must be done this only being premised which hath also been before observed That when our Protestants sometimes say the word faith in this Proposition we are justified by faith is to be taken objectively they intend not to exclude faith it selfe from its concurrence to our Justification as Mr. Eyre doth for we have shewed in the first Chapter their unanimous consent in making faith the instrument or condition of our Justification But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cause of our Justification which they truly say is only the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ who is the object of our faith So that we are justified by Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and yet by faith as the instrument or condition upon which the righteousnesse of Christ hath effect upon us to our Justification And so I come to prove that faith is to be taken subjectively for the grace or act of faith not objectively for Christ throughtout the Apostles discourse for Justification by faith SECT II. 1. SUch an Interpretation of the words as makes non-sense of most §. 3. of the Scriptures which speak of Justification by faith is not to be admitted But to put faith for Christ beleeved on makes non-sense of most of those texts which speak of Justification by faith Ergo. For proof of the minor we shall begin where the Apostle begins to dispute for Justification by faith Rom. 3. 21 22. But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ put faith for Christ believed or and the words run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by Christ of Jesus Christ or put it for the righteousnesse of Christ and they run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by righteousnesse of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve Almost the very same words doth this Apostle use Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found in him not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Where in like manner if faith be put for righteousnesse we must reade the words thus Not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through righteousnesse I hope the Reader doth not expect that I should spend time in confuting these absurd paraphrases I count that sufficiently done in mentioning them In the same Chapter to the Romanes ver 25. Whom God hâ—â—h set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood According to Mr. Eyre we must reade it Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Christ in his blood or at best through righteousnesse in his blood But his blood being here set forth as the object of the faith mentioned in the text the blood of Christ must be made the object of his righteousnesse if by faith be meant righteousnesse which will resolve the words into a pretty piece of sense Again ver 26. God through the death of Christ is said to be the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus What 's that of him that christeth in Jesus or what is it It is an easie matter to say that faith is put for Christ or his righteousnesse but the mischief is the substantive cannot be varied into a verbe or participle to make an intelligible Proposition for example We are justified by faith that is will Mr. Eyre say by Christ or his righteousnesse But then change the substantive into a verbe or participle and give me the sense of it As He that beleeveth in Christ is justified If faith be put for Christ what is it to beleeve in Christ or what do we mean when we say We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ We are justified by Christ in Jesus Christ or by righteousnesse in Jesus Christ This latter I confesse hath a more tolerable sound but not a grain more of sense For when we say We are justified by faith in Christ Christ in that Proposition is the object of faith and we the subject But if faith signifie righteousnesse then Christ is the object of his own righteousnesse Of the non-sense of this Interpretation the Reader shal see more in that which follows 2. Justification by Christ or his righteousnesse was finished in his death according to Mr. Eyre Ergo if faith signifie Christ or his righteousnesse we were justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead But many yeares after Christs death there were many who were to be justified by faith Rom. 3. 30. It is one God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future tense which shall justifie the circumcision and uncircumcision that is Jewes and Gentiles by faith which is the application of the general Conclusion ver 28. We conclude That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Ergo they were not justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead 3. But because Mr. Eyre by his marginal Annotation referres us §. 4. to Rom. 4. let us make some enquiry into that Chapter And if we prove that faith in that Chapter is meant of the act not of the object this controversie is ended We begin with the third verse Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse What can be more plain then that it was Abrahams believing which was imputed to him of the sense of that phrase we have spoke already even as when it is said of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse I appeal to common sense whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse or if something be to be understood which is not expressed let every mans fancie be left to its liberty to supply what he sees sit and we shall be much the better for the Scriptures 2. The same is also delivered more generally of all believers ver 5. To him that worketh not but beleeveth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse If there had been no more spoken in all the chapter this had been enough to prove that by faith here is meant the act not the object For 1. It is the expresse letter of the text To him that worketh not but believeth 2. That faith is here meant which is a mans own before it be imputed His faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is no mans before it be imputed If it be let us know what act that is distinct from imputation and antecedent to it by which Christs righteousnesse is made ours 3. That faith is here meant which is so a mans owne as that in individuo it is no bodies else But Christs righteousnesse is not so any one mans as to be no bodies
judgement If a man shall come to him and say Sir I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified and that all my sins are pardoned but whether I beleeve or no or ever did that I cannot tell Would he allow this perswasion to be of God If not then doth not the Spirit testifie to any man immediately that he is justified but the evidence of the Spirit as I said before is if not expressely yet implicitly syllogistical If so I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles He that doth not believe cannot be assured that he is justified But thou dost not believe Ergo thou canst not have assurance from the Spirit that thou art justified What will be here denied Not the major for that 's an undoubted truth grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation Not the minor for the man whom we are now convincing of his errour in pretending to assurance by the Spirit is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo he cannot truly say he hath faith though he have it because to affirme that for truth which we do not know to be true is a lie though the thing should be so as we say Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion that his assurance is not from the Spirit else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture Secondly Mr. Eyres words do also contradict themselves notoriously §. 23. First he tells us that faith evidenceth our Justification by assenting to and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever otherwise he could taste no sweetnesse in them To tell us that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions and then to say in the same breath that it can taste no sweetnesse in general Propositions but they must be first made particular by the Spirit is to say and unsay 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel must first be made particular by the Spirit before the soul can taste any sweetnesse in them for which I confesse there is all the reason in the world for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending the Proposition assented to and tasted must be before the act assenting and tasting But then hence it will follow that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit that he is justified For this Proposition thus made particular by the Spirit is the object of his assent and taste that is of his faith Ergo it exists before his faith even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them But to say it is evidenced to any man before he believes that he is justified is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned as well he may A mans faith suppose Peters can evidence no more to him subjectively §. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest But this Proposition He that believes is justified doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified for the former is general and the latter is proper And otherwise every one in the world that believes that Proposition might thereby have the evidence of Peters Justification as well as of his own Even as we know by faith that they to whom the Lord said Your sins are forgiven you were justified as well as themselves And all believers one as well as another know by faith that the world was made by the Word of God Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so Object But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter Answ I ask whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all mens faith If not then neither of their obedience which will introduce Antinomianisme with a vengeance If so as most undoubtedly so then this particular testimony of the Spirit is no object of Peters faith which I farther argue thus It is no object of Pauls faith that Peter is justified Ergo it is no object of Peters faith The reason is because the rule of all mens faith is one and the same equally Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect ibid. ver 1. which is but one Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the testimony of the Spirit that which Paul cannot or hath no ground to beleeve upon the testimony of Scripture then Peters faith doth not act by the same rule that Pauls doth but there will be as many rules of faith as there be persons in the world that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit 5. To conclude to make a general Proposition particular is to §. 25. change the substance and nature of it for it cannot be general and particular too though I readily grant as before that a truth proposed in common may be made particular in respect of its effectual operation upon one and not upon another but the Proposition it self remaines general still Ergo this particular testimony of the Spirit must be some other then that of Scripture unlesse by being made particular be meant no more then that a particular is inferred out of a general which is a syllogistical evidence not axiomatical which Mr. Eyre now disputes for But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and Mr. Eyre I think is of the same mind for he produceth not one text for it That which seemes most to favour it is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention and therefore I answer it for the sake of some others Compare this verse with the foregoing and with a parallel place to the Galatians and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sonnes God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts crying Abba Father So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Then it followes ver 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very same Spirit so I render the words beareth witnesse c. Hence I gather that this witnesse of the Spirit is not any secret revelation of a Proposition as this Thou Peter or Paul art justified made by the Spirit to the soul But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument that we are the children of God And because Arguments by themselves do not m Argument◠non arguunt extra dispositionem evidence actually but virtually therefore the Spirit by this work helping us to conclude our selves the children of God doth thereby witnesse that we are Gods children SECT VI. MY second
Argument to prove that faith doth not evidence Justification §. 26. axiomatically was this The faith which justifies is that which is to be preached and pressed upon the whole world But we cannot presse it upon every man in the world to believe that he is justified and that if he doth not beleeve this he shall be damned Understand Reader that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove that justifying faith is not a mans assurance that he is justified which I presumed was Mr. Eyres judgement because that Justification which is in Scripture made an immediate consequent of believing is with him a knowledge that we are justified I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an assurance because otherwise a man might beleeve and yet not be justified by faith And so the proving that faith was not an assurance would withal have proved that it doth not evidence Justification axiomatically or immediately But now I perceive that he doth not place the formality of faith in an assurance but rather makes this an essential property and effect of that if I understand him And so I confesse this Argument is not directly against him Neverthelesse it will not be amisse to examine his answer for if I mistake not either he must make faith to be an assurance tantamount or else he contradicts himself His answer therefore is this We do not presse every man to believe that he is justified but to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners 2. Amplexu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth but Mr. Eyre cannot §. 2◠own it if he will be true to his own principles 1. He hath told us before that faith is essentially assensus cum gustu an assent with a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise assented to But this circumstance must concurre to make the Promise an object of my faith namely that I have right and interest therein otherwise I can taste no sweetnesse in it that is otherwise I could not truly beleeve it for to taste sweetnesse is essential to faith Wherefore when we presse all men to believe and all men equally and that with a true faith it is supposed that all men have equally a right in the Promise or else they are commanded to beleeve without an object to be believed for the object of faith is the Promise in which I have right and interest according to Mr. Eyre And this is that which I say is tantamount to a perswading of all men to beleeve that they are justified To argue it a little farther The right which I have in the Promise is either antecedent to my faith or consequent to it If antecedent I have what I would for then when in the preaching of the Gospel the Promise is proposed as an object of that faith which we perswade all men to the right of all men equally in that Promise must be presupposed it being not the Promise simply but the Promise in which men have right that is the object of faith If consequent then the first act of faith cannot be a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise because till I beleeve I have no right in the Promise and therefore can taste no sweetnesse in it according to Mr. Eyre To what he here sayes that we presse all men to believe there is §. 28. a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners because it is the summe of that which the soul assenteth to and tasteth sweetnesse in and thereby immediately comes to know its own Justification we must endeavour to understand more particularly 1. By sinners he meanes all or some only 2. The sufficiency of the merits of Christ must be understood either as distinguished from their efficiency and then the meaning is That Christ merited Justification for men sufficiently yet they are not thereby actually justified or as including their efficiency and then the meaning is that men were actually and most sufficiently justified in the meritorious death of Christ 3. The same sufficiency of Christs merits may be considered either absolutely and in themselves in respect of their own intrinsecal worth and value or relatively and ordinatively in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death and of Christ in giving up himself which distinctions being premised it were an easie matter to ring the changes upon the foresaid Proposition and vary it into innumerable formes but I shall mention no more then I must needs When then it is said that every man is to beleeve that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners the meaning must be either 1. That the merits of Christ were of themselves sufficient to have purchased Justification for all sinners though they did not purchase it de facto for any This is false Or 2. That Christs merits are indeed sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but the effect which is the actual Justification of sinners is suspended till we beleeve Nor can this be proposed to be believed by all men equally for it is false in respect of the Elect who according to Mr. Eyre were justified actually sixteen hundred yeares ago in the death of Christ Or 3. That the merits of Christ were sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but were never ordained to be effectual to the Justification of all upon any termes or conditions whatsoever Nor can this be the Promise or Proposition which is the object of our justifying faith according to Mr. Eyre The reason is because supposing that every man in the world should beleeve this which is no contradiction and therefore may be supposed as possible yet they should not be justified notwithstanding seeing Christ never intended that every man should be justified by his blood upon any termes Or 4. That the merits of Christ were ordained of God and Christ to the obtaining of Justification for every sinner most sufficiently if they should or would believe This is most true but Mr. Eyre rejects it as too much gratifying those that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sense which is a needlesse feare and the two Arguments which he here proposeth against it he might have seen long since answered by Reverend and Learned Bishop Davenant of famous memory in his Dissertation De Morte Christi cap. 3. page 22 23 30 31. In short let Mr. Eyre state his Proposition how he will To say the merits of Christ are sufficient and but sufficient before faith to Justification is that which the Elect cannot believe without errour To say they are sufficient in reference to their own value and intrinseca◠greatnesse n Vid. Job Raynoll Apolog. thes parag 14. can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Christ for righteousnesse nor can the believing it ever evidence
any mans Justification I am perswaded the devils beleeve it and it cannot be denied but that the merits of Christ were a price of themselves sufficient to have purchased salvation for them yea and to have turned all the stones in the streets into men and to have glorified them in Heaven And it is very strange that a soule should be drawn to Christ upon a ground common to divels with himself or have the evidence of his Justification by believing such a truth in which the devils have as much interest as himselfe SECT VII THe third branch of my Argument succeeds Namely that we §. 29. cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification syllogistically Two Reasons I gave of this The first is because there cannot be found out a medium before faith it selfe c. The farther Explication the Reader may see in my Sermon Mr. Eyre answers That it is not needful It is sufficient that faith it selfe is the medium as thus He that beleeveth was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo. Rep. The Argument remaines good for the purpose for which I advanced it For I not knowing certainly in what sense Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence could conjecture at none more probable then that he placed the nature and being of justifying faith in the evidence knowledge or assurance of our Justification Upon which presumption as I had before proved that it was not assensus axiomaticus an axiomatical and immediate assent to this Proposition I am justified so in this Argument my intent was to prove that neither was it assensus syllogisticus an assent to the same Proposition deduced by way of Conclusion out of premisses And this the Argument proves invincibly Let us set Mr. Eyres syllogisme before us and the matter will be plain He that beleeves was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo I was justified before faith Hence it is manifest that the faith which I affirme of my selfe in the minor cannot consist essentially in my assent to the Conclusion for then the Syllogisme would consist but of two Propositions This is the manifest scope of the Argument which now I know Mr. Eyres minde better I see well enough doth him but little hurt and therefore I insist not on the vindication of it Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently seeing it was necessary I should suppose and confute what might be said when I did not know what would be said I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his sense of faiths evidencing Yet because I did easily foresee he might give that answer which here he doth I added the next Argument which meets with it to the full If we are said to be justified by faith because faith doth evidence §. 30. Justification syllogistically then may we be said as well to be justified by sense and reason as by faith because sense and reason concurre with faith in a syllogistical evidence As thus He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The Proposition only is the assent or act of faith The Assumption an act of sense or spiritual experience The Conclusion an act of Reason Mr. Eyre answers That the Conclusion is of faith As in this Syllogisme All men shall rise from the dead I am a man Ergo I shall rise from the dead Rep. That the Conclusion is de fide is said not proved and I would that way of disputing were lesse frequent with Mr. Eyre I acknowledge the Conclusion to be partly of faith and partly of reason and experience as Mr. o Vindiâ— grat pâ—g 41. fol. Pemble determines it And that the Schooles determine otherwise I will beleeve when I see That it is not purely of faith I thus prove The assent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine testimony But the assent to a Conclusion is grounded in the necessity of its p Vid. Frâ—â— Bâ—ur Meneriz dâ—f P. Râ—dial l. 2. c. 9. disquis 1 2. consequence upon such and such premisses which forceth the understanding to assent to it whether of it self it be of necessary or contingent truth or in what matter soever it be whether grammatical physical theological or the like So that a Conclusion is said to be de fide because it depends upon some principle of saith in regard of its supernaturality but formally Et quâ—tenus attingitur per actum Conclusionis Reason is principium assentiendi proximum the nearest q De Mendâ—z loq disp 1â— de demonstr sect 3. â— 47. principle and cause of my assent otherwise we must have some other definition of a syllogisme then our Universities have hitherto been acquainted with 2. In the present case the matter is clearer then Mr. Eyre is aware of We will suppose Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogisme He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified When he faith in the minor I beleeve he is supposed to speak not only of that faith which sin the Will accepting and embracing a promised good but of that ialso which is in the understanding assenting omni credibili to all truths proposed to be believed But according to Mr. Eyre it is a truth proposed to Peters faith that himself is justified Let it be expressed then in the Syllogisme and it runs thus He that beleeves all the objects of his faith and particularly that himselfe is justified he is justified But saith Peter I beleeve all the objects of my faith and particularly that my self am justified Ergo I am justified If the Conclusion be here de side then Peter beleeves he is justified because he believes he is justified which Conclusion I confesse is no act of reason Neverthelesse if Reason be yielded to be principium assentiendi the principle of assenting to the Conclusion there will be better sense in his Argumentation namely that Peter knows that he is justified or is perswaded thereof with a certainty of Reason because he beleeves it with a divine Faith and that he could not do if he were not justified As to the Syllogisme which Mr. Eyre proposeth for Illustration §. 31. All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again The Conclusion is partly of faith and partly of reason Of reason formaliter elicitivè of faith fundamentaliter imperativè as I may so speak it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith for I could not have this knowledge unlesse I did by faith assent to the Proposition But that it is not purely of faith I thus prove If a man be sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise then to assent that himself shall rise is not purely an act of faith Because a man cannot at the same time be sound and unsound in the faith of the same
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
life and no more In the former it is of a great deal more worth and value then in this because proportionable to a greater reward Yea and it will be impossible that there should be any cheating in buying and selling or any other contract if things of themselves unequal become forthwith equal by vertue of a contract Suppose a man give a great price for a Jewel and the Jewel prove counterfeit yet by vertue of the contract it becomes equal to the price he gave for it and the buyer may not complain of the injustice of the couzenage Several other Arguments may the Reader see to this purpose in learned a De Just Act. c. 63. Voss The sâ—de bon oper merit p. 72. Davenant Here it may be demanded whether works in the first Covenant §. 18. were proportionable to the reward promised which with some limitations I shall answer affirmatively But because Mr. Eyre gives me here no occasion to speak to it but urgeth it strongly in another place the Reader must have patience till he come thither In the mean time let us see whether it cannot be proved that a gift may be given of grace and yet upon condition 1. I put this case Philemon promiseth Onesimus upon condition he will acknowledge that he neither hath nor can merit any good of him but rather that for his thievery and several other injuries which he hath done him he hath deserved to be quite cast out of his favour that he will forgive former injuries and moreover make him heire of all he hath That he may give it upon such a condition is unquestionable for a man may make what he will the condition of his owu gift Voluntas regit conditiones saith the b L. in conditionib F. de Cond domonstr Law Onesimus accepts and performes the condition I do ask whether he do thereby merit his Masters favour and estate or no If not the question is yielded if so then contradictions and impossibilities may be true For he confesseth that he neither hath nor can merit any thing of his Master and yet in so saying he doth merit even all his Master is worth Now faith is a condition of like nature as being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despaire a renouncing of all worthinesse in our selves as Mr. Eyre expresseth it page 76. and this doth the Lord require as the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy Jer. 3. 12 13. I am merciful saith the Lord and I will not keep anger for ever only acknowledge thine iniquity that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God But let us search the Scriptures Jer. 18. 7 8. At what instant I §. 19. shall speak concerning a Nation and concerning a Kingdome to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy it If that Nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I will repent of the evil which I thought to do unto them A famous instance we have of it in Nineveh against which Jonah cries Yet fourty dayes and Nineveh shall be overthrown Jonah 3. 4. In the former place God gives us a general rule to understand his threatenings as having a tacite condition of repentance by which the evil threatened may be escaped Otherwise Janas had spoken false in the Name of the Lord in threatening destruction to Nineveh within fourty dayes for the city was not then destroyed but upon their repentance what the Lord promised in Jeremy he performed upon them Jon. 3. 10. God saw their works that they turned from their evil way and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them and he did it not c Vide Krakevitz in loc p. 341. Repentance then if God be a God of truth and cannot lie is the condition of our deliverance from threatened evils suitable to that of our Lord Luke 13. 3. Except you repent you shall all likewise perish Yet Gods saving men Nineveh in particular upon their repentance is an act of his grace not of their merit and unto that grace of God doth Jonah ascribe it Jon. 4. 2. I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful In like manner is Israels deliverance from the judgements threatened ascribed to the free grace and mercy of God as the only cause though not without their own repentance and returning unto God as the condition thereof Joel 2. 12 13 14. So 2 Chron. 30. 19. For if you turne again unto the Lord there 's the condition your brethren and your children shall finde compassion before them that lead them captive so that they shall come again into this land for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful there 's the cause and will not turne away his face from you if you return to him Deut. 4. 30 31. When all these things are come upon thee even in the latter dayes if thou turne to the Lord thy God and shalt be obedient to his voice for the Lord thy God is a merciful God he will not destroy thee neither forsake thee c. So chap. 30. 2 3. Indeed the word grace or gracious is not expressely mentioned in this text but mercy is which is tantamount to it and likely they go both together as before Jonah 4. 2. Joel 2. 13 14. 2 Chron. 30. 9. Exod. 34. 6. And if their returning unto God be here denied to be the condition of their deliverance from destruction of which notwithstanding the mercy and grace of God is asserted to be the only cause I must professe for my own part I shall think it a hard matter to prove that there is one intelligible sentence in all the Scripture yea and let me speak my judgement freely though I detest the Papists doctrine of merits yet if Mr. Eyre will make good his position d Donationi potest apponi conditio nec ideo minùs pura vera donaâ—io dicitur dummodo ex illa commodum non accedat donanti Greg. Tholos Syntag juris l 28 c. 7 §. 7. â—x C. L. 8. tit 55 that every condition is a meritorious cause it must of necessity be granted that they have done more for the proof of merits then all the protestants on earth will ever be able to answer for I do not know one Protestant but yields that there are many Promises of grace which yet are conditional And thus much for the first Argument by which Mr. Eyre endeavours to prove that we are concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification if faith be made the condition thereof The second succeeds and that is this If faith be a condition §. 20. morally disposing us for justification we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification for the merits of Christ are not a physical but a moral cause Now by ascribing to faith a moral causal influxe in our Justification we do clearly put it in eodem
genere causae with the blood of Christ Answ 1. The merits of Christ do not concur in our Justification as any part of that formal act by which we are justified It is God as Supreme Lawgiver and Judge and Christ as King under him who is our Justifier The merits of Christ are a cause of themselves moving God to put forth that act 2. I would ask Mr. Eyre whether the death of Christ be no more then a condition without which we are not justified if it be he doth ill to talke of my putting faith in the same kinde of cause with Christs death for I ascribe no more to faith then that it is a condition without which not If it be not Mr. Eyre I doubt will be found guilty of degrading the blood of Christ more then I of advancing faith beyond its due place 3. By faith we concur to our own Justification not causally but objectively terminativè as the earth concurs to my going as the thing I walk upon a visible object to my sight as the thing seen and other objects to the acts that are conversant about them 4. And the Argument at last begs the question for it supposeth that we ascribe to faith a causal influxe into our Justification which is the thing I dispute against SECT IV. THe fifth Argument succeeds That interpretation of this §. 21. phrase which makes works going before Justification not only not sinsul but acceptable to God and preparatory 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 qualifying us for Justification doth so Ergo. The tree must be good or else the fruit cannot be good Luke 6. 43 44. Mat. 12. 33. John 15. 5. So Augustine Parisiensis the Articles of the Church of England c. Answ The substance of this is answered already chapt 5. works are taken largely or strictly in the former sense faith is a work in the latter it is opposed to works The Authours whom Mr. Eyre mentioneth as e Aug. Serm. 96. de Temp. Nemo bono operatur nisi fides praecesserit de Spirit lit c. 8. opus non fit nisi à Justificato Justificatio autem ex fide impetratur Augustine c. Take works as they are opposed to faith whereof the words quoted are an uncontrollable evidence If Mr. Eyre had shewed us that his legion of Orthodox Writers did as much oppose the antecedency of faith as of works to Justification he had spoken to purpose The tree indeed must be good before the fruit can be good But the tree is made good by faith and the Spirit of Sanctification which is the good treasure of the heart which bringeth forth good works Luke 6. 45. John 15. 5. I never heard before that Justification which is a grace without us was the roote and inward principle of good actions The sixth and last Argument is this To say that faith is a passive §. 22. condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction Answ I deny it Mr. Eyre proves it thus To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction and yet this also should be delivered with a little more caution a Christian is both active and passive in all the good works he doth but I stand not on it A condition is a moral efficient cause of that which is promised upon condition in the use of the Jurists though in the logical notion of it it hath not the least efficiency Answ And why may not we be permitted to use it in its logical notion the most logical sense is the most rational And seeing Mr. Eyre confesseth that in its logical notion a condition hath not the least efficiency he must give me leave to account his Argument illogical that is irrational that proceeds upon supposition of the contrary 2. It is also notoriously false that a condition is a cause in the use of the Jurists for they do perpetually distinguish a cause from a condition as appears by the very title of the thirty fâ—fth book of the Digests De Conditionibus Demonstrationibus Causis Modis eorum quae in Testamento scribuntur Which the f Dyon Gotho â—red Not. in hunc tit Wâ—semb paratit in eund Cujac l. 2. observ c 39. G. Tholos Syâ—t juris l. 42. c. 32. Jurists thus distinguish Causa exprimit rationem quae nos movet ut alteri legemus Demonstratio rem ipsam legatam notat designat §. 51 52 53. Azor. Instit mor. par 3. l 4. c. 24. ao dâ—pingit Conditio suspendit transmissionem legati c. Which differences they fetch out of the Law it selfe 3. If all conditions be causes then such as the Law calls g C. de caduc tollend §. Sin autem contingent and casual are causes also as having as much of the nature and use of a condition as that which they call arbitrary or potestative But that a condition meerly casual should be the cause of a giâ—t is that which the h Vide P. Nic. Moz de contract c. 2. de do nat p. 141. Ratio est quia cum conâ—itio dependet à caâ—u fortuito non censetur donaâ—s moveri ad donandum contemplatione illius casus sed ex suâ liberalitate non tamen donare vult nisi casus eveniat De quo etiam Riminal Instit de donat in princip n. 59. Jurists will never endure As if Titius promise Seius five hundred if the ship called Castor and Pollùx come into the river of Thames by July next Or if he give him the same summe with a Proviso that if he die before the age of twenty one then it shall come to Caius his younger brother That an accidental effect should be a meritorious cause is not imaginable 4. The case is the same again in all arbitrary or voluntary conditions If they be meerly such and have nothing beyond the nature of a condition added or concurring for the distribution of conditions in casuales potestativas is not generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta for a condition is one and the same in its nature and use whether the act or event which is made the condition be meerly casual or voluntary And therefore when Mr. Eyre sayes that if a man do any thing for obtaining a benefit he is active in procuring it if he mean physically I grant it if morally I deny it because a voluntary act when it is a condition contributes no more to the obtaining of a benefit then a contingent act being also a condition and yet by such a casual condition doth a man obtain a benefit and yet acts nothing toward it Let us for clearing and concluding this dispute again resume the §. 23. instance given before Philemon promiseth Onesimus that if he will confesse his fault he will pardon him and
the same in our justification before God which consists in a Law of grace and in sentence passed according to that Law which because we must purposely prove by and by I shall here supersede for a while One thing more I added for illustration in these words It is God §. 28. that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we beleeve Mr. Eyres answer consists of two parts the one is a concession of what I say with an explanation how glory is called a reward and sayes That a reward is for a work two wayes 1. When a work is proportionable to the wages 2. When it is not answerable to the wages yet is due by Promise as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an houres labour though the work be not worth it yet it is a due debt and he may challenge it as such Rep. Against which I have not much to oppose yet if the houres work neither in respect to its selfe nor any circumstance that attends it as the Art Danger Detriment of the Labourer or the necessity pleasure profit c. of him for whom he labours all which corne into the m Less de just jured 2 c. 18. d. 3. value of the work deserve the said twenty shillings then is the reward though partly of debt quia operanti aliquid abest because the workman puts himself to expence of time and strength and he for whom he worketh hath the benefit and advantage thereof yet is it also of grace n Azor. Insiit Mor. p 3. l. 11. c. 3. quatenus excedit meritum inasmuch as it exceeds the value of the work And that the Labourer may challenge it ariseth from civil not from natural justice But I readily grant that glory is not our reward in this sense But how then is it a reward Because it comes after and in the place of the work saith Mr. Eyre Rep. Of which I shall speak more hereafter for the present what is said sufficeth me viz. That the reward follows the act whereof it is the reward for hence it follows that if Justification be given as the reward of faith then must it needs follow faith But we have proved before that Justification even the imputation of righteousnesse is the gracious reward of faith Ergo it must needs be consequent to it His second answer is this Though the blessings of the Covenant be given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order in bestowing them first he gives grace imputed and then inherent Rep. My Argument is à pari we are not glorified unlesse we believe §. 29. yet by beleeving we cannot be said properly to glorifie our selves so though we beleeve that we may be justified yet will it not follow that we may be therefore said to justifie our selves properly the reason is the same on both sides Now whereas Mr. Eyre will have us when beleevers yet to be passive in our glorification meerly because God doth first give faith and then afterwards give glory I wonder he sees not the insufficiency of such answers and how the Arminians get ground by them Say plainly Doth God require and charge us to beleeve and repent that we may be saved or doth he not If he doth then doth he require a condition to be performed on our parts in order to our Justification though he give it us for as o Dr. Twisse observes often Medium ad aliquid obtinendum o Vindic. Grat. de crrat p. 163. ex contractu vel foedere illud demum est conditio A means ordained to obtain any thing by Contract or Covenant is a Condition If he doth not what shall become of those many places wherein God exhorts and commands men to repent and beleeve that they may be saved Then unbelief and impenitency are no sins nor are men thereby the causes of their own ruine and destruction contrary to Scriptures John 3. 19 and 8. 24. passim The reason is plain because man 's not being the object of a gift of God precisely cannot be meritorious of his damnation Indeed Mr. Eyre told us before that he that doth the least work towards the procuring of a benefit is not only physically but morally active in obtaining it I wonder at my heart then why we pray for grace and salvation or why we do or suffer any thing for obtaining a Crown and Kingdom p Authores elus primi fuere Sadoc unde Sadducaei Baythos de quibus videsis Joh. Drus de trib sect Judaeor l. 3. c. 3. 4. Joh. Cameron Myroth in Mat. 22. 23. This very conceit was that which drew many in former ages to deny any resurrection other then what was past already and by some improvement may bid faire for a resurrection of that and like consequences The very substance of Religion and the vital act of faith consists in looking to the reward promised in Heaven Heb. 11. 6 26. 2 Cor. 4. 16 18. And had I not known some Christians fallen and falling off from prayer and ordinances and other spiritual duties upon this very ground that they are passive altogether in their salvation and that they neither can nor must do any thing toward it I would not have lost so much time as to have taken notice of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to Mr. Eyres tenth Chapter My first Argument against Justification before faith vindicated from all Mr. Eyres exceptions SECT I. HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justification §. 1. from many expresse testimonies of Scripture and discovered the fruitlesnesse of all Mr. Eyres attempts against them We proceed to the Vindication of the Reasons added in my Sermon for proof of the same point These Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter They are five in number and the first is this If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word that may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he remains in unbelief Ergo. Mr. Eyre first denies the Assumption For the Gospel declares that God hath transacted all the sins of the Elect on Jesus Christ and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby they are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Lev. 16. 30. Rep. 1. Supposing the tenour of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this yet I deny that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law to absolve the sinner from the sentence of a former Law The Reason's plain because it is but narratio rei gestae a meer historical narration of what
of our first Justification but the first simple act of faith and perseverance in the faith to the end the condition of final Justification as Paul also doth 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I have fought a good fight I have finished my course I have kept the faith From HENCEFORTH there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousnesse c. So Rev. 2. 17. To him that overcometh will I give a white stone c. of which we have spoken before Wherefore I deny that which should be Mr. Eyres Assumption viz. That it was the Will of God that the elect should be perfectly and compleatly reconciled or justified whilest they live in thâ—â— world The reasons of which denial I have already given at large and shall not now repeat them And whereas Mr. Eyre thinks much â—â—at the elect should be denied perfect reconciliation not only till they beleeve but not till death He may be pleased to understand that I deny them to be perfectly justified or reconciled till the resurrection For as long as any enmity remaines undestroyed they are not perfectly reconciled But all enmity is not destroyed till the resurrection 1 Corinth 15. 25 26. And what hath Mr. Eyre against it words and nothing else §. 23. 1 Saith he innumerable Scriptures declare that the Saints are perfectly justified Aâ—sw But doth not quote us so much as one and a good reason why 2. That nothing shall be able to separate from Gods love Answ Not for ever but for a time it may tilâ— all enemies be subdued the last of which is Death The happinesse which the soule enjoyes in the mean time is its own not the happinesse of the person as our Lords Argument supposeth Mâ—t. 22. 31 32. 3. Justification is as full and perfect as ever it shall be it doth not grow and increase but is perfect at first â—nsw Prove it it grows in the renewed acts of pardon Hâ—l 12. 17 1 Johâ— 2. 1. 2. â—or God doth multiply â—orgivenesses Isâ— 55. 7. It grows in the perfection of its parts whereof the most absolute and compleat is our Justification in the day of judgement It grows in the perfection of its effects which are begun in the soule first and so take place upon the body and the whole man Râ—m 8. 10 11 23. Paul expected a farther participation in the righteousnesse of Christ then he attained to in this life Gal. 5. 5. Phil. 3. 8 9 11. 4. Baptisme saith Mr. Eyre which seales to us the forgivenesse of all our sins is administred but once in all our life-time to shew that our Justification is done all at once Answ Baptisme seals that Promise by which all sins past are forgiven f Luke 3. 3. Mâ—rk 1. 4. and all sins future shall be forgiven when committed the sinner continuing in the faith of Jesus Christ from which if he fall away it is impossible that he should be renewed again to repentance Hebr. 6. 6. or be capable of having another Covenant made or sealed to him by which his sins may be remitted Heb. 10. 29. Mr. Eyre here addes some texts of Scripture Ezek. 16. 8 9. Acts 13. 39. 1 John 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. to what purpose I cannot imagine unlesse it be to prove that all sins are forgiven at once for neither of these texts speak a word of Baptisme If he mean all sins past are forgiven upon the first act of faith I have granted it but if he mean all sins to come also it lies upon him to prove it that is that sins not committed are sins SECT IV. THe eleventh Argument proceeds thus If it were the Will of §. 24. God that the death of Christ should certainly and infallibly procure the reconciliation of his Elect then surely it was not the Will of God that it should depend on termes and conditions on their part because that which depends upon future conditions is as to the event altogether uncertain Answ 1. Neither doth this Argument prove that we are justified immediately in the death of Christ or before we beleeve 2. I deny the consequence with the proof of it for although that which depends upon future conditions as to the event be uncertain as the word uncertain signifies the same with contingent for it is a true rule in the Civil Law f L. Si pupillus ff de N vat Conditio necessaria non suspendit dispositionem yet is this uncertainty or contingency to be understood in reference to man and the second and immediate causes of a things existence not in reference to God to whom even contingent events g Vidâ— doctisfimum D. Ramum Schol. Dialect l. 5 c 6. are as certain as if they were necessary we shall make strange work in Divinity if events shall be denied to be contingent in their own nature because in reference to Gods Will or knowledge they are certain and infallible and so far forth necessary for example God did will the certain and infallible saâ—ety of all those that were in the ship with Paul Acts 27. 24. yet neverthelesse it came not to passe but upon condition of their abiding in the ship without the performance of which condition they had perished ver 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved And Mr. Eyre might easily have foreseen that this Argument wounds himself as much as us He acknowledgeth the Covenant made with Adam to have been conditional and in that very thing placeth the main difference between it and the Covenant of grace obedience then was the condition of Adams continuance in life and sin of his death But did not God know that Adam would sin and will to permit it or will Mr. Eyre deny this because his death was suspended upon a future condition and therefore was altogether uncertain as to the event Physician heal thy selfe It is by the Will of God that contingent things come to passe contingently Nor is the twelfth argument more happy If God willed this §. 25. blessing to the elect but conditionally then he willed their reconciliation and Justification no more then their non-reconciliation and condemnation for if he willed their Justification only in case they should beleeve and repent then he willed their damnation in case they do not beleeve and repent Ergo he willed their Justification no more then their damnation contrary to John 6. 38 39. and 17. 21 22 24. Answ h Vide Amyrâ—ldâ—m Spâ—â—im Animâ—d Speciâ—l coâ—tra Spâ—â—hâ—m à p. 146. ad siuâ—m libri Out of doubt God willeth the damnation even of the elect themselves in case they do not beleeve and repent though that case supposeth what is not to be supposed without more dâ—stinctions then my present matter will permit me to digresse into but Mr. Eyres inference that therefore he wills their damnation as much as their Justification is meerly drawn in without any disposition in it selfe to follow for the Promâ—se of remission upon condition of faith
Indeed it were ridiculous to suppose that God should make any action which is wholly and immediately from himselfe the condition of any blessing he gives as that he should promise to glorifie us upon condition he raise us from the dead to raise us upon condition he justifie us to justifie us upon condition he give us faith But the same faith which God worketh in us is also our act for it is we that beleeve and not God though he make us to beleeve and as it is our act so is it performed voluntarily and a fit object of a command or promise I mean capable of being commanded or rewarded or of being made the condition of a reward And thus for example obedience was the condition of that life which was promised to Adam this Mr. Eyre grants Neverthelesse to the exercise of that obedience the concurrence of God was necessary as of the first cause for creatures essentially depend on God not only for their being but for their motion and operation Acts 17. 28. Ergo a voluntary act of ours may be the condition of our salvation though God work that act in us How many orders doth God give to Joshua Gideon David and others concerning the times and places when and whither they should remove their host that they might put their enemies to the rout or escape an overthrow by them These motions were the conditions of those special victories or deliverances which God would give them yet by the efficiency of Gods power and providence did they move from place to place Hundreds of like instances are obvious One thing more Mr. Eyre addes If saith he any shall say that §. 28. God did will that by Christ we should have faith and after that reconciliation yet 1. It will follow notwithstanding that our reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ as Owen proves against Baxter page 34. And 2. Then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs death Answ That reconciliation is an immediate effect of the death of Christ may be understood in a double sense either 1. By comparing the effects with the cause and then the meaning is that the death of Christ contributes an immediate efficiency to our reconciliation whensoever it is that we are reconciled and this is all that Mr. Owen sayes in the place mentioned Meritorious causes saith he do actually ipso facto produce all those effects which immediâ—tâ—ly slow from them not in an immediation of time but of causality I doubt not but the death of Christ hath in its kinde an actual and immediate influence upon our eternal glorification which yet is the last effect or benefit we receive by him Or 2. By comparing the effects with the cause and one with another and so that is the immediate effect of the death of Christ which exists immediately upon the death of Christ without the interposition of any other cause to produce it Of this only is the Question as also Mr. Eyre himself hath hitherto understood it otherwise I am perswaded himself will grant that all the Arguments he hath hitherto used one or two at most only excepted come not within sight of the Conclusion they aime at As to the second thing that then all the controversie will be about Gods order and method in conferring on us the effects of Christs death though if there were nothing else but this in question it will be of very dangerous consequence to pervert and trouble that order which God useth in bringing sinners to life yet is there much more in question viz. whether upon supposition of Christs Purchase and Gods special purpose of giving faith to some the same faith as it is a voluntary act of ours may not by Gods Will of Precept be made the condition of our partaking in righteousnesse and reconciliation by the death of Christ This is the thiâ—g which Mr. Eyre should have disproved if he had intended his Argument should have concluded any thing We have already shewed at large the monstrous inconveniences that attend the denial of it and so much hath been spoken by those that are for the middle way of universal redemption especially the French Divines that I cannot think it worth my labour to adde any thing more The Lord Jesus hath put the matter out of Question to me John 6. 39 40. And this is the Fathers Will which hath sent me that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day And this is the Will of him that sent me that every one that seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life and I wil raise him up at the last day The former verse declares his own and his fathers special Will to save the elect The latter that yet the condition of beleeving is imposed on all men the elect as well as others that they through the performance thereof may be saved And so we are come to the last Argument which in brief is this §. 29. The imputing of our sins to Christ was formally the non-imputing of them unto us But our sins were accounted or imputed to Christ without any condition on our part Ergo they are discounted or non-imputed to us without any condition performed by us Answ I deny the Proposition namely that the imputing of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputing of them unto us because 1. If this be true then doth not God for Christs sake forgive any mans sin as the Apostle saith he doth Eph. 4. 32. the reason is plain because it was not for Christs sake that himself was punished Our pardon is not the effect of Christs punishment but on the contrary his punishment is the effect of our pardon if the imputation of our sins to him be formally the non-imputation of them to us 2. What then is the meaning of Pauls prayer for them that deserted him 2 Tim. 4. 16. The Lord grant that it may not be imputed to them that is the Lord grant that Christ may be punished for them or what is the meaning The Lord grant they may be some of those for whom Christ hath been punished that were all one as to pray that they may be elected from all eternity Whatsoever sense M. Eyre will put upon the words it will either not agree with sense or not with himself or not with the text 3. Upon the same principle it will follow that the death of Christ as it was a satisfaction and his resurrection from the dead contributes nothing to our justification neither by way of influence nor by way of evidence for might it be supposed that the Lord Jesus had lyen for ever under the power of death that had been the best evidence to us that we should never be punished if his punishment were formally our nonpâ—nition and by way of influence it can do nothing because
There can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was viz. to abstaine from the fruit of one tree Rep. 1. Our Divines are not wont to place the whole of the condition required of Adam in that one precept of not eating the forbidden fruit any otherwise then symbolically for as that tree had the nature of a Sacrament and the not eating of it a visible profession of vniversall subjection unto God so the eating of it was a visible and universal renouncing of his authority and of that obedience which Adam owed him 2. The objectors who they are I know not have I presume this sense 1. That if we compare the nature of the acts it is farre easier to beleeve then to keep the law and this is certaine for de facto multitudes beleeve who never kept the Law perfectly 2. That it is an easier way of salvation to be saved onely by committing our selves to Christ in his way that he may save us then to have the whole care and burthen of so great a work upon our selves this also is true because in this way our salvation is sure in the other it was uncertaine even when man was righteous as the event proves sadly and unto sinners impossible 3. That the commands of Christ are nothing so grievous to be borne as those given to the Church before his coming this also is undoubted Act. 15. 10. 4. That faith in exercitio or to beleeve is farre easier to us through the strength of God enabling us then it was to Adam to keep himself in that state of righteousnesse in which he was made for it is God which enables us to performe those acts which himself hath made the conditions of our interest in his covenant So will Mr. Eyre say Adams ability to keep the Law was given him of God True But 1. Not of grace but ut naturae debita as we maintaine against the Papists as due to his nature out of that common goodnesse which furnished every creature in its kind with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created which if they had wanted the work of God had been imperfect and unlike himself but the creature had been in no fault 2. The use and improvement of those abilities was left to Adams free will supposing that common concourse of divine providence without which no creature can move in its kind toward its own end But to quicken us when we were dead and restore lost abilities yea to vegetate and maintaine them against contrary principles and inclinations from within and oppositions from without is such special grace as Adam in that state received not Some other reasons Mr. Eyre adjoyns but he tells the Reader that he hath mentioned them before more then once or twice and I also have answered them before and therefore shall referre the Reâ—der thither and so passe on to his twentieth chapter CHAP. XVI A reply to Mr. Eyrs twentieth chapter containing the solution of his Arguments tending to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve SECT I. FRom the Apostles description of the New Covenant §. 1. Heb. 8. I retorted this argument upon Mr. Eyre If God be not the God of any nor they his people before they beleeve then none are in Covenant with God before they beleeve But God is not the God of any before they beleeve Ergo. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes against the assumption largely and advanceth many arguments to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve Let us take them in their order First If God be their God whom he doth peculiarly love §. 2. and whom he hath chosen then is he a God to some before they beleeve But God is their God whom he hath chosen Answ If by choosing be meant from eternity of which the Apostle speaks Eph. 1. 4. I deny the Minor God is never said in Scripture to be the God of any in reference to his eternal election of them that being no more then a purpose of making them his people and of becoming a God to them God is not the God of them that are not Matth. 22. 32. Let us see the proofes God was the God of Israel now he became their God by setting his love upon them and chusing them and by separating them from other people Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Lev. 20. 24 25. Answ 1. I deny that either the chusing of them Deut. 7. or the separating of them Lev. 20. are to be understood of eternal election of which neverthelesse Mr. Eyre pretends to be understood in his Major by quoting for proof Eph. 1. 4. otherwise I would have denyed the Major for even in vocation which also is sometimes in Scripture called choosing as we have shewed elsewhere God separates men to himself from the rest of mankind yet will it by no means follow that therefore he is the God of some that believe not for vocation is the giving of faith As to the texts before us it is manifest that the chusing spoken of Deut. 7. is a temporall act for the cause of it is set down ver 8. Because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto their Fathers expressed more plainely chap. 4. 37. Because he loved their Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them So also chap. 10. 15. 2. Much lesse is it said that this love or chusing them was the thing in respect of which he is said to be their God and they his people but the contrary is implyed verse 6. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself above all people c. Where the making of them to be his people which also includes the correlate of becoming their God is mentioned as the end and effect of his chusing them which effect when it is wrought is easie to learne from Exod. 19. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people Again saith Mr. Eyre the Lord Ezek. 16 8. declares concerning spiritual Israel that they became his whilest they were in their blood that he sware unto them and entred into Covenant with them which swearing as it referres to spiritual Israel must be understood of the oath which he made to Christ concerning the blessing of his seed Answ Nothing but uncertainties 1. It is not faire in a dispute to ground a conclusion upon Types unlesse we have firme demonstrations of the Antitype Mr. Eyre should therefore prove that the words there spoken are not peculiar to Israel in the letter 2. That the spiritual Israel typified are the Elect as such and not believers as such 3. That the Israel there spoken of were his before he entred into Covenant with them The text is expresse against it I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine
the following discourse Yet that the Reader may know what Justification it is which we speak of I shal here speak something briefly for explication of it leaving whatsoever is controverted to be proved in its proper place Justification then by our late Reverend a Larger Catech pag 94. in 12. Assembly is thus defined An act of Gods free-grace unto sinners in which he pardoneth all their sinnes accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them and received by Faith alone This for substance is the Justification which the Question speaks of if thou wouldest have it Reader more particularly take it as followeth The efficient ut quod of our Justification is God himself that justifieth §. 4. and his grace the efficient ut quo for he justifies us freely of his grace Rom. 3. 24. Jesus Christ also as King and Lord of life is joyned by special commission with the Father in his great Act of justifying sinners John 5. 22. 26 27. Acts 5. 31. Matth. 28. 18 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. and Luke 24. 47. The righteousnesse and obedience of Jesus Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification but whether his active or passive obedience either or both I do not dispute nor do I account it needful because all the active obedience of Christ was passive for it was part of his humiliation that being b See Bp. Usher Imman pag. 10 at the end of his Body of Divinity a Son he would subject himself to the payment of that tribute of obedience which was due onely from servants and all his passive obedience was active for he laid down his life of himself John 10. 18. The formality of Justification consists as I take it in a legal discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment and a donation of right and title to eternal life which discharge and gift because it was merited by the obedience of Christ without any contribution of merit from the sinner himself is truly called the c Christi justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th 12. imputation of Christs righteousnesse and this is the sense of that phrase in the use of our Divines And these things I here take for granted reserving the proof of what is disputable in them to its proper place SECT II. THe second and more material labour is to explain in what sense §. 5. we are said to be justified by Faith Mr. Eyre gives us five senses of the phrase first of those that take Faith in a tropical and figurative sense as thus We are justified by Faith i. e. by the obedience and righteousnesse of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we rest for life and righteousnesse Secondly of those which say we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively Thirdly Of the Papists who ascribe a meritoriousnesse to Faith and do also make our Justification to be by inherent righteousnesse or doing of righteous actions Foutthly of the Arminians who explode the word Merit and deliver their opinion to this effect That God in the legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to performe Fifthly of those that say that Faith doth justifie as a condition or Antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The last of these is that which I contend for according to the explication given of it in my Sermon pag. 9. 10. which why Master Eyre should account a new opinion and charge it here upon Master Baxter and elsewhere upon Doctor Hammond as the first parents and patrons of it I know not much lesse why he should so very often accuse it as a piece of Arminianisme and Popery seeing it is a thing so well known that the Synod of Dort and almost all our Protestants do very frequently call Faith the condition of our Justification d De reconcil pecc par 1. l. 2. cap. 18. pag. 99. 100. Mr. Wotton doth purposely dispute for it and hath saved me the labour of transcribing the testimonies of many famous Protestants who say the same either in expresse termes as Fox Perkins Paraeus Trelcatius G. Downham J. Downham Schaâ—pius Tho. Mathewes or equivalent as Calvin Aretius Sadeel Oleviaâ— Mâ—lancthon Beza to whom I might adde e Disser de morte Christi pag. 63. Est autem hic ordo stabilitâ—s haec conditio expresse posita in â—vangelio quod reconciliationis gratia beneficium vitae aeternae ad peccatores ex morte Châ—isti redundaret si crederent Idem in praelect de Just Habit. act pag. 395 396. Davenant f Collat. cum Til pag. 6â—7 â—taque in vocatione aliam habet fides rationem quam in Justificatione nam in Justificatione conditio est praerequisita ut ita dicam in vocatione gignitur fusius in Disput de satisfact pag. 365. Cameron g Praelect Controv. 2. de not Eccles Q. 5. pag. 331. in 4. Cum primùm credo tum justus sum cum justus sum tum credo veluti si malefico cuiquam veniz cum hac conditione proponatur si eam amplecti velit c. Praelect de Sacram. cap. 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. Whitaker h De vocat pag. 16 17. Reliquum est ut videamus foederis gratuiti conditionem ea auâ—em sola est sides Deus promittit justificationem vitam sub conditione fidei passim Rollock i Syntag. Theol. l. 4. c. 10. de Evang. pag. 1106. Promissiones Evangelii de remissione peccatorum vita aeterna pertinen quidem ad omnes homines non tamen abâ—olutè sed sub conditione apprehensionis per fidem infra ibid. verum absolutae tamen non sunt sed hac conditione circumscriptae ut credant in Christum Grotius k De Evang Decad. 4 â— 1. pag. 238 Proposuit enim Deus Christum propitiationem nimirum ut is esset râ—conciliatio nostra propter quem placatus nos adoptat in filios Dei Verum non alia ratione quam per fidem in ejus sanguinem id est si credamus c. Bullinger l De remiâ—s peccat cap. 6. pag mihi 621. Discernendum inter eam gratiam Dei quae nullas haber adjectas conditiones qualis est quòd sâ—lem suum producit super bones malos pluitque super gratos ingratos eam quae conditionaliter confertur ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit cap. 4.
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he
told them If Christ were not risâ—n they were yet in their sins seeing they were discharged and acquitted from them so long before 3. His intercession is also vain for he lives to intercede for us to save us from wrath Rom. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 17. and 7. 25. We are secured from wrath before sayes Mr. Eyre 4. Our preaching is vain for we are to preach to every creature under Heaven That except they beleeve they shall be damned Mark 16. 15 16. and multitudes even all the Elect are secured from wrath before 5. It doth also imply a contradiction that a man should be acquitted from sin who was never a sinner or discharged from condemnation who was never condemned If it be said the Elect were sinners and condemned in Gods fore-knowledge Mr. Eyre is better read in Dr. Twisse then to be ignorant of what inextricable inconveniences that answer is liable to But let us heare Mr. Eyres proofes of his Assumption God saith he loved the Elect from everlasting and his love is velle dare bonum c. Answ Which as was observed before is one of the g Vid. Croll Cont. Grot. cap 5. par 6. 7. cap. 1 p. 1. Socinians weapons by which they attempt the ruine of Christs satisfaction against which our Divines have provided sufficient armour A love of benevolence or good will moving God to seek out a way of satisfaction to his own Justice and of Justification of a sinner we readily grant h Vid Joh. Cameron oper p. 361. f. But his love of friendship and well-pleasednesse with a sinner was not from everlasting but in time as being a consequent of the death of Christ in whom he hath made us accepted Eph. 1. 6. as Mr. Eyre doth not only yield but contend below from Mat. 3. 17. and so saith the Apostle Rom. 9. 25. I will call her beloved who was not beloved out of the Prophet Hos 2. 23. and as for the text which Mr. Eyre quotes Ezek. 16. 6. I cannot divine to what end it is unlesse it be to finde me work seeing the love there spoken of is manifestly temporal ver 8. and the life mentioned ver 6. in the latter is the flourishing and honourable condition unto which God had raised Israel both in respect of their Politick and Church-State who were originally the fewest and meanest of all people and in a spiritual sense is the life which he breaths into sinful soules But what Mr. Eyre would inferre from hence himselfe best knows In short I readily grant that Gods eternal love doth concurre ut causa universalis prima as the first universal cause not only to our Justification in time but to all other our spiritual blessings but an universal cause produceth nothing without particulars and the quality of the effect is not to be ascribed to the universal but to the particular cause 2. Mr. Eyre is proving that Gods velle non punire is that act by which we are discharged and acquitted from sin and secured from wrath I wish he had shewed me how this Conclusion issues from these premisses His Argument in forme must run thus Gods eternal love discharges the Elect from sin and secures them from wrath Gods velle non punire is his eternal love Ergo. The major is already disproved The minor if understood of the love of God in whole confounds Election and Justification which yet Mr. Eyre is careful to distinguish a little below for what is Gods Election but his Love or his velle dare bonum If of the Love of God in part the Argument will run thus That which is part of Gods eternal love is a sinners discharge from sin Gods velle non punire is part of his eternal love Ergo. If the major be true Gods purpose of giving Christ of calling sinners of sanctifying them yea of afflicting them and of administring any Providence towards them which in the issue proves for their good may as well be called their Justification as his velle non punire 3. Mr. Eyre hath already granted at least verbo tenus that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish the Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others If this be true then the eternal act of Gods Election in it selfe considered gives the Elect themselves no more security from wrath then if they had not been elected Surely that concession will never be reconciled with the doctrine here delivered But we come on to Mr. Eyres second proof and that is from §. 10. Scripture Rom. 8. 33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Proposition is either an universal Negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or an universal affirmative All elect persons are free from the charge of sin Answ Mr. Eyre should have put in the Apostles answer to the Question and then he had prevented mine The words are these Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that justifieth Hence it follows either negatively that no elect person being justified can be effectually charged with sin or affirmatively that all the elect that are justified are free from such a charge free I say not because elect but because justified for the charging of sin is manifestly opposed not to their Election but to their Justification but that their Justification is their Election or any part of it or contemporary with it as I may so speak is an inference without any foundation in the text 2. Yea it cannot be inferred according to Mr. Eyres principles though we should grant the Election here spoken of to be that which is from eternity of which presently for the Justification here spoken of is that which is grounded in the death of Jesus Christ Who shall condemn it is Christ that died But the eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre is pleading for from the text is not grounded in the death of Christ for it is an Act in God from eternity Now observe Reader that Mr. Eyre denies Christ to have merited the Act of Justification but only the effects I would know then whether the Apostle speak of the Act or effects of Justification in those words Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect if of the Act then the Elect were from eternity unchargeable and whose charge then did Christ beare and why doth Mr. Eyre all along tell us that our discharge from the curse is the fruit of Christs merits yea and what more as to the tâ—rminus à quo of our salvation I say what more could Christ merit possibly then that we should not be chargeable with sin And if that were done before by an eternal act there will be no effects of Justification left for Christ to merit as to our deliverance from sin But if the Justification here spoken of be meant not of the act but of the effects Mr. Eyre will grant me without
farther disputing that this place is insufficient to prove that Gods eternal purpose of not punishing is our Justification 3. But I am out of doubt that the Elect here are not so called in reference to Election from eternity but rather in reference to election temporal as our l Dr Twisse in â—orv defens Arm. Cont. Til. pag. 202. Divines distinguish namely in respect of their effectual separation unto God and forsaking the conversation of the world and their admittance through faith into a state of favour and precious esteem with God as election doth sometimes signifie in Scripture See 1 Cor. 1. 26 27 28. James 2. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 4 6. The reason is plain because such Elect are here meant who were the present objects of the worlds reproaches injurious sentences false accusations and slanders c. for whose comfort in this their suffering condition the Apostle speaks these words to assure them that all the malice and abuses of the world should do them no harme so long as God justified them and approved of them Compare ver 21 35 37. And this also is the intent of the words in the Prophet who speaks them as in the Person of Christ when he was delivered up into the hands of wicked men Isa 50. 8 9. Now the Elect themselves before Conversion have their conversation according to the course of the world and are not the objects of persecution from the world Eph. 2. 23. SECT IV. WE have heard what Mr. Eyre can say for himself Before I §. 11. go any farther I shall set down a few Arguments to prove that the essence of Justification doth not consist in Gods eternal Will or Purpose of not punishing And first from the efficient cause Justification is such an act whereof Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King is the efficient cause with God the Father He is also the meriting cause as Priest by the offering or sacrifice of himself But of this we speak not now Acts 5. 31. John 5. 19 22 26 27. Luke 24. 47. and other places before quoted But Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King doth not will or purpose with God from eternity not to punish sinners The reason is plain because himself from all eternity was purposed of God to be Lord and King Ergo Justification doth not consist essentially in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish 2. Justification is an act of God purposed Ergo it cannot consist in his purpose The reason is because else God must purpose to purpose which is inconvenient The Antecedent is almost the words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham We have scarce more evidence of any truth upon which we lay the weight of our salvation then this text affords us of the point in hand saying that God would justifie in the future tense making Justification the object of divine foresight affirming the Gospel to have been preached to Abraham many yeares before it 3. If there be no such act in God at least that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely and formally then our Justification cannot consist in that act the reason is plaine because then our Justification were precisely nothing But there is no such act in God that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely Ergo. For proof of the Assumption Reader thou must remember that the foregoing Argument proves that there was in God from eternity a will to justifie believers in time that is 1. To discharge them from the obligation of the Law by which that punishment becomes legally undue which before was legally due and hence it follows 2. That they are not punished de facto so that impunity simply is no part nor effect of Justification but as following upon a legal disobligation otherwise every sinner in the world that were not presently punished were justified The impunity of a sinner therfore that it may be an effect or part of Justification must be considered with its modus as the impunity of a person discharged from the obligation of the Law for God doth so free us from punishment as may be without the least prejudice to the truth or justice or authority of his Law Accordingly I affirme that God never purposed not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo as impunity is severed from the manner in which it is given but he purposed not to punish modo congruo in a congruous way by disobliging first from the threatning of the Law and thereby giving them a legal right not to be punished and not to let them go unpunished while the Law stands in full force against them 1. That which was never executed was never purposed But never sinner went unpunished while the Law stood in full force against him Ergo. The Proposition is unquestionable In the Assumption Mr. Eyre will agree with me for he contends that all the Elect were discharged from the Law and had a right given them to impunity in the death of Christ and no elect person ever had or shall have impunity in any other way Ergo it was never purposed that they should have it in any other way that is that it was never purposed precisely that they should not be punished 2. Gods Purpose and his Laws will else be at enmity one with another for if he purpose not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo and yet do punish then he crosseth his purpose and if he do not punish the Law being supposed to remain in full force he is unfaithful if not also unjust as some k Dr. Oâ—en â—â—atr de Just vind learned men think 3. If non-punition l Vid. Tâ—oiss â—ind dâ— prâ—dest lib. 1. par 1. digr 9. c. 1 2 3. 4. precisely tend not to the glory of Gods grace then did he not will precisely not to punish for such a will were neither of the end nor of the meanes but non-punition precisely is no congruous meanes to glorifie Gods grace Ergo. For if a man had continued obedient and had never broken Gods Laws in the least tittle his impunity had not been of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. as it is with the holy Angels at this day Therefore we cannot conceive of any act in God purposing precisely not to punish in which yet Mr. Eyre placeth the very formality of our Justification 4. If Justification be velle nâ—n punire then condemnatiâ—n is vâ—ll◠§. â—â— punire for oppositorum eadem â—st ratio But condemnation is not velle punire Shall I need to prove this who ever said that Gods eeternal purpose of punishing men for sin was condemnation 'T is an expression that neither God nor man will owne so farre as I can finde Dr. Twisse is known to reject it often not without some passion and detestation Condemnation is every where in Scripture made an act of justice Rom.
3. 8. and 2. 2. Matth. 23. 33. 2 Pet. 2. 3. and multitudes of other places But Gods purpose of punishing is no act of Justice Both these Propositions doth Dr. Twisse prove Vind. lib. 1. par 1. digr 10. cap. 1 2 3. 5. That which destroys not a sinners obligation to punishment is not his Justification The reason is because Justification is causa câ—rrumpens obligationis ad poenam a discharge and acquittance from sin and condemnation saith Mr. Eyre see Rom. 8. 1 33 34. and 5. 8 9. But Gods velle non punire destroys not a sinners obligation to punishment which I thus prove The obligation which this Will of God destroys either is that which lies upon them from eternity by some immanent act of God I speak now in Mr. Eyres Dialect for to me 't is very absurd to talke of an actual obligation upon a person not existing but this will never be endured that Gods immanent acts should destroy one another or else it is the temporal obligation which comes upon them by the Law other obligation in time there is none Now the foresaid Will of God destroyes this legal obligation either from eternity or in time How it should do it from eternity I cannot imagine because neither the Law nor the sinner nor the obligation do exist from eternity and what it is to destroy an obligation that is not nor never was upon a person that is not nor never was by a Law that is not nor never was is a mystery beyond humane comprehension If in time I would know when either as soon as the Law is made or as soon as it is broken or in some period of time after Not as soon as the Law is made for a sinner is not obliged to punishment by the Law till he hath broken the Law and where there is no obligation there can be no destruction thereof If as soon as the Law is broken I would know how for if notwithstanding the foresaid Will and Purpose of God the Law have power to oblige the sinner to punishment it hath power also to hold him under the same obligation notwithstanding the same purpose If it can oblige him for a minute then for two then for ten then for an houre then for a yeare then for ever unlesse there be some other act besides the bare purpose of God to abrogate or relaxe the Law Causa eadem semper facit idem Gods purposes make no changes immediately upon his Lawes or any other external objects 6. If there may be a will or purpose not to punish where yet there §. 13. is no Justification or pardon for these two words are of the same importance in this debate then Justification doth not consist essentially in a purpose not to punish But there may be a will not to punish where there is no pardon Ergo. The Assumption is manifest There may be hundreds of men at an Assizes suppose they all resolve not to punish the Malefactors that are then and there to be tried Are the said malefactors therefore pardoned No. Then there may be a will not to punish which is no pardon Ergo. Pardon is not essentially a will not to punish Definitio reciprocatur cum definito If it be said that pardon is not an act of the will as a natural power or faculty but as the will of a man under some other moral condition or qualification namely as having jus ad poenam exequendam a right to inflict punishment which because it is peculiar to the Judge therefore his will not to punish is pardon but not the will of the rest that may be present in the Court this is as much as I expect for hence it follows if the case be applied to God that the name of Justification cannot be given to his eternal Will or Purpose I will not meddle with the Question An Deus possit creaturam immerentem affligere But jus puniendi a right of punishing accrews to none whether God or man but upon supposition of some offence committed But from eternity there was no sin Ergo the will or purpose of not punishing was not voluntas habentis jus ad poenam infligendam Ergo it may not be called by the name of Justification When I speak of a right of punishing which results from an offence committed understand it not de jure potestatis as if the said offence gave any authority to God or man which they had not before but de jure exercitii inasmuch as that authority cannot be justly exercised in the punishment of a person but upon such offence committed by him 7. If notwithstanding this velle non punire God be bound in justice to punish the Elect for their sins unlesse his justice be satisfied some other way then his velle non punire is not their Justification The reason is 1. Because Gods justice doth not binde him to punish those whom he hath justified but rather not to punish them 2. Because his justice doth not binde him to punish another for their sins whom he already hath justified supposing their Justification to be as well in order of nature as of time before the others punishment But Gods justice bindes him to punish the elect for their sin unlesse his justice be satisfied in some other way as namely by the death of Christ This appears because de facto Christ bare that punishment which in justice was due to sinners Ergâ— this velle non punire was not their Justification One thing more I long to know Whether velle non punire do define Justification in general as it containes these two notable species Justification by works and Justification by faith or grace or whether it define Justification by grace only particularly and in specie If the former shew us that special forme by which Justification by works and by grace are immediately differenced and opposed If the latter shew us the genus or common nature wherein they agree If neither of these can be done as it is impossible either should then we have here a definition without genus and forma that is a thing defined without a definition or a definition that defines nothing SECT V. BEsides these Arguments there be found more which Mr. Eyre §. 14. objecteth against himselfe as disproving his position that Justification is the Will or Purpose of God not to punish which though they be not of my making yet because they are all very material for support of the truth I shall here undertake their defence The first objection then which Mr. Eyre proposeth against his owne doctrine of eternal Justification is this viz. That it confounds Justification and Election His answer is That Election includes the end and all the means but Gods Will not to punish precisely and formally only some part of the meanes Reply 1. Then the act of Justification is precisely nothing as we have above demonstrated 2. And the effects of this act are like it selfe just
God this great change I say is a huge nothing for saith he a little below to be just and unjust is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person The Elect themselves then even when believers are children of wrath by nature yea of the Saints in glory considered according to what they are by nature it may be said that they are children of wrath And is not that a great change from wrath to reconciliation which leaves a man every whit as much a childe of wrath as he was before 5. I beleeve with Mr. Eyre that the Will or Purpose of God makes no change in a persons state but I wonder what he meanes by the reason added As if saith he God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them As if God could not will a mutation in the creature without a mutation in his own Will He made the world by his Will and he also wills the dissolution of it after such a period of time this is a mutation in the world but none in God In like manner he may will that the elect for a time shall stand obliged by Law to the suffering of condemnation and yet also will that after a time this obligation shall cease and all this without any change in his will But we shall prove hereafter that is not the Will of Gods purpose but his declared Lawes by which a sinner is constituted just or unjust But let us come to a more close encounter Justification saith the §. 16. objection imports a change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum And if Scriptures be intelligible by the sons of men it cannot be denied Rom. 5. 8 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified in his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him Whether we are justified by the blood of Christ without faith or through faith we reserve to be debated in its proper place for the present it sufficeth us to observe from hence that Justification makes a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum in sensu forensi And what can mans reason require more for proof of it then these words afford Had the Apostle said You were sometimes cold but now you are hot you were sometimes servants but now you are free you were sometimes enemies but now you are friends he would scarcely be accounted a reasonable creature that should deny such expressions to import a mutation from one terme to another And must not then the like change be signified when he saith You were sometime sinners but now you are justified especially if we consider which I perceivâ— all men do not observe that the word sinners by which the Apostle expresseth their state before Justification doth not signifie precisely transgressours of the Law for even they that are justified are in that regard sinners 1 John 1. 8 10. Nor yet only and precisely such as are under the reigning power of sin though it be true that all the unjustified are so because their sinful condition is here opposed not to Sanctification formally but unto Justification And they of all men that maintain Justification to be perfect in the death of Christ may not so understand the word sinners in this place For these Romanes for example were not sinners after their Justification in that sense in which the Apostle tells them they were sinners befâ—re their Justification for the time of their being sinners is directly opposed to the time of their Justification But if they were justified immediately in the death of Christ it is beyond dispute that sin might and did reigne in them after this Justification even until the time of their Conversion unto the faith By sinners therefore in this place are meant such sinners as were by Law bound over to condemnation and had not at present any right to deliverance from wrath for that right was given them in their Justification as appears by the Apostles arguing à majori ad minus being now justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much more shall we be saved from wrath Nor is it unfrequent in Scripture by the word sinner to signifie a maâ— obliged to punishment see 1 Kings 1. 21. Gen. 43. 9. Rom. 5. 15 Gal. 3. 22. especially as m Inâ—iâ— l. 3. c. 11. â— 3. Calvin well observes according tâ— the Hebrew Dialect Vbi etiam scelesti vocantur non modò qui sibi conscii sunt sceleris sed qui judicium damnationis subeunt Neque enim Bersabe 1 Reg. 1 21. dum se Solâ—monem dicit fore scelestos crimen agnoscit sed probro se filium expositum iri conqueritur ut numerentur inter reprobos damnatos Hence the Hebrew n Vid. Joâ— Merâ—er Hâ—u Aâ—n w. iâ— Gâ—r 43 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sin doth sometimes signifie precisely an obligation yea when it results from a fact which is not sinful As the Nazarite that was defiled against his will by the touch of a dead body is yet commanded to offer a sin-offering the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the reason is added because he sinned by the dead Numb 6. 11. that is Reus est tacti cadaveris And what was offered for the cleansing of leapers and of men and women for natural and unavoidable defilements is called an offering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lev. 14. 19. and 15. 15 30. If now Mr. Eyre shall say that when the Apostle sayes much more §. 17. being now justified c. he speaks not of the act but of the effects of Justification I reply 1. It is not lawful for man to teach the Holy Ghost to speak The Apostle tells us that God commendeth his love towards us in giving Christ to die for us while we were sinners that we might be justified in his blood ver 8 9. therefore that which in God is the cause of our Justification in the blood of Christ is his love and so to be called 2. If yet it shall be said that that love of God is our Justification then whereas it is said God so loved us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne it must be said henceforward God so justified us as to justifie us in the blood of his Sonne which is ridiculous 3. If temporal Justification in the blood of Christ be but the effect of a former Justification which was from eternity what an empty noise hath the Apostle made in amplifying the love of God in giving Christ to die for the Justification of sinners and enemies whosoever is justified is not a sinner in the Apostles sense of that word but righteous not an enemie but reconciled 4. The Apostle if his judgement may be taken doth thus distinguish the act and the effects of Justification that the act is that by which of sinners we are made
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him 5. And his discourse supposeth that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects as by putting forth the act of Justification for herein God commends his love towards us that while we were yet sinners he gave his Son to death for our Justification and then as a lesser matter he infers much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath So also ver 10. Now if by Justification in Christs blood be meant the effects and not the act of Justification then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ as in justifying us before without his blood But this is most notoriously false as is manifest not from this text only but from all the Scriptures which proclaim that temporal Justification which we have through the blood of Christ to be an act of greatest love and richest grace Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 20 21. Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 4 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4 5 6 7 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity and without impediment Ergo the Justification here spoken of is not the effect precisely but the act The reason of the consequence is because the Justification mentioned in the text follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty that it required no lesse then the precious blood of the Son of God to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence and to make it to exist The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus being now justified much more shall we be saved implying that salvation follows as it were necessarily upon the position of the act of Justification Yea and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himselfe or any man else whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification and consequently unworthy of that name which being put in actu completo can yet produce no good effect to a sinner nor set him one degree farther from wrath then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes me of another Argument and that is this 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply but of powerful grace or of grace prevailing against the power of sin for this is that which creates the difficulty and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification that it is the Justification of sinners Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned but had been perfectly righteous there were no such difficulty in that And therefore in the following part of the Chapter the Apostle expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie above the ability of sin to condemn ver 15 17 20 Ergo the Justification here spoken of is the very act of Justification or there is no such thing at all for if we place it in a simple eternal volition there could be no moral difficulty in that no more then in the will of creating the world because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance for an act of grace to overcome 8. The Justification merited by Christ is not the effect but the act The reason we shall shew anon because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects when the act is in being before his merit But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ Ergo I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter from the opposition between Justification and the act of condemnation which passeth upon all men by vertue of the first transgression and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam in sin and the effects thereof before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam in Justification and the effects thereof but these Arguments out of the text it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie that Justification §. 18. doth make a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses To be dead in sins in this place is clearly to be dead in Law that is to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you but ye are justified of which place more hereafter See also Rom. 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24. and 5. 18 19 20 21. Eph. 2. 12 13 14 15 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with may they have joy of it that have discovered it But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyres answer The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the creature much lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then all the book besides Before I can give any answer to them I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust their importance in this place is no more then to have or be without a right to salvation and life Now to be unjust by nature or in our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
it is the very thing which he intends to deny by these obscure expressions as he also often doth in other parts of this book for it is impossible that a man should stand before God obliged to punishment and disobliged at the same time 2. Or purely negatively as denying nature to be the cause of our Justification But neither do I think this to be Mr. Eyres meaning because the sense will be so pitifully jejune for thus to be just by grace and unjust by nature is no more then that it is grace and not nature which justifies us and he that sayes a man is justified by grace and not by a piece of bread and butter or by the flying of the clouds over his head speaks every whit as much to purpose 3. Diminutively in sensu diviso secundum quid that if we suppose there were no act of grace to hinder men must needs be condemned there being in themselves sufficient cause of condemnation and in the Law sufficient power to oblige them to it but the grace of God doth hinder both the one and the other from coming forth into act so that they never stand actually obliged to the suffering of punishment notwithstanding their own sinfulnesse and the Lawes rigour This if any thing must be our Authours meaning as best suiting with what he sayes here and elsewhere as page 111. § 5. By nature or in reference to their state in the first Adam the Elect were children of wrath they could expect nothing but wrath from God And again beleevers considered in themselves and as they come from the loines of Adam are sinful and cursed creatures And again page 113. § 7. The Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law Let us see then what Mr. Eyre would have this I think it is That there is in all men even the Elect themselves sufficient cause of condemnation that is sufficient cause on their part why they should lose all right to salvation and life and be actually damned and also that there is nothing wanting in the nature and constitution of the Law which is required in a Law to make it able to binde or oblige men even the Elect themselves unto punishment And all this is true questionlesse But it is withal affirmed that the Elect by the gracious and eternal act of Gods Will are absolutely just before God and by the same Will is the Law though broken by them disabled from binding them actually unto punishment So that they are said to be unjust by the Law or in themselves or by nature not that they are at any time absolutely unjust or without all right to life for they are supposed to be absolutely just from eternity but as it were materially because if the foresaid act of Gods Will had not prevented they had been unjust simply and absolutely Against which doctrine I have several things to oppose 1. In §. 20. general whereas the intent of it is to prove that a sinner may be justified and unjustified both at once it is manifest that these words are used in some other sense then what the Scriptures are wont to take them in because to be a sinner and to be righteous to be justified and to be condemned to have ones sins retained and remitted according to Scripture are contraries and never agree to the same person at the same time John 3. 17 18. Rom. 8. 1 33 34. and 5. 8 9. John 20. 23. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. and many other places 2. If an elect sinner be never unjust but in this respective diminutive sense then it is impossible for the act or effects of Justification to make any change upon him because it is impossible but that he who is justified meerly of grace should be unjust in himself even glorified Saints are to all eternity unjust by nature or of themselves or in reference to their state in the first Adam 3. If this be the whole of a sinners unrighteousnesse then by the Law of nature sinners are not unjust simply and universally so as to have no right at all to life but only in some respect so as to have no right by that Law which they have transgressed But all sinners are universally unjust by the Law of nature which I thus prove 1. If Adam while he continued obedient had by his obedience a right to life and had no right at all but by his obedience according to the Law then upon his disobedience he became universally unjust by the same Law The reason 's plain because if there be but one rule of righteousness in being then he that is not righteous by that rule is not righteous at all Sublat â causà totali tollitur effectus totaliter But Adam whiles he continued obedient had by his obedience and by the Law a right to life and had no right at all but by his obedience Ergo. The Assumption is thus confirmed If Adam had any other right then by the Law then it must be by some grace of God But this cannot be according to Scripture because to have a right by grace and works too is inconsistent according to Scripture Rom. 11. 6. If by grace then not of works otherwise grace is no more grace If by works then not of grace otherwise work is no more work How long Adam continued innocent I cannot tell If but half a day if but half an houre it is all one to my purpose it being concluded by Divines that Adam and Eve one or both were saved and therefore were elect and Adams case was then the case of all men one as well as another he being as it were the epitome of all mankinde in what he did and in what befell him 2. The Apostle also witnesseth that the Gentiles whiles they continued in their Gentilisme were all of them equally alienated from God Col. 1. 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separate from Christ strangers from the Covenant of Promise and without hope Eph. 2. 11 12. till by the faith of that Gospel which the Apostles preached ver 20. they ceased to be any more strangers and forreigners and became fellow-Citizens with the Saints and of the houshold of God ver 19. Had the Apostle spoke these words concerning reprobate Gentiles I am perswaded it would never have come into any mans minde no not Mr. Eyres himselfe to deny but that they did signifie those Gentiles to be without all right to life and salvation and other priviledges immunities and dignities given by the great Charter of the Gospel to the City and Family of God But the Apostle doth here describe the miseries of a Gentile state and therefore of every one that was a Gentile for their condition is equally the same till they turne Christians Ergo these Gentiles that now beleeved were yet sometimes without all right to life that is they were universally unrighteous or unjust
because the merits of Christ themselves are the effects of the same love and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused But if our Lords death had been only from his own will not pre-ordained of God in the decree of election all the benefits purchased by it must have been ascribed to it as the first cause and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal but meerly concomitant or consequent Now his will not to punish containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of this impunity Ergo if Christ merited it it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause and not to Gods Will of not punishing because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ as being determined precisely to a non-punition And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident or rather doth not produce them at all but stands by without efficacy whiles another cause doth the work Therefore herein also the comparison halts The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself §. 24. is this We may as well call Gods Will to create Creation and his Will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his Will to justifie Justification His answer is Creating calling and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God Rep. 1. The answer contradicts it selfe for it yields it to be a proper speech to say that God doth will or purpose to justifie even as proper as to say he doth will or purpose to create to call to glorifie and yet beares us in hand that Justification is perfect and compleat in the minde of God Whatsoever is purposed is future If it have already an actual existence it is not capable of being purposed to exist But the immanent acts of Gods minde are not future but from eternity 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change yet it makes an adherent change as was largely proved from Scripture but now even as if a Malefactour be condemned and afterwards pardoned his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change that is a relative though he remain the same man that he was and be not changed inherently and really And I wonder why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent relative change should be called by the name of that act rather then the purpose of such an act which makes an inherent real change should be called by its name Ars posterior utitur prioris operâ— Morality supposeth nature 3. It is true that Creation c. do make an inherent change But the question is whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words as signifying not the act but the effect of Creation c. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture for the effects not for the act Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety as to say the words Creation Vocation Glorification and what of like nature signifie not those several acts but their effects what could Mr. Eyre say against it To say Creation c. makes an inherent change is to say nothing for it will quickly be answered that the effects of Creation Vocation c. do make an inherent change not the acts If he tell me the words are never used in Scripture but as importing such a change I answer still as he doth of Justification that the words where-ever they are to be found in Scripture are to be understood of the effects not of the act If he yet say that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines I say so too Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te Thus much for the vindication of the foure objections which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himselfe He concludes this discourse thus SECT VIII HOwever were it granted that there was in God from everlasting §. 25. an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this controversie were ended Answ Such a purpose I acknowledge in God to justifie his Elect when they should beleeve and being justified not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons yet so as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment till they do beleeve and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin If this will satisfie Mr. Eyre let him make his most of it But let us see how it ends the controversie First saith he Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely negative but privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of righteousnesse is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual though the â—â—n not to be imputed be not in actual being So is the imputation of righteousnesse 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it selfe Answ If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversie we have done It is here supposed that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousnesse and the non-imputation of sin which should have been proved and not begged And therefore the foundation failing there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure yet a word or two of that also 2. I say therefore that an eternal actual privative non-imputation of future sin is either non-sense or a contradiction let Mr. Eyre take his choice and consider withal what he is like to make of Justification at last for that which is only future can be deprived of nothing but its futurity and if it be ab aeterâ—o deprived of its futurity then it is ab aeterno non futurum and if ab aeterno non futurum then it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity for that which is never future is never capable of being made non-future unlesse we could in eternity concâ—â—e one moment wherein it is made future and another moment wherein it is made non-future which cannot be because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius Now this privative non-imputation of future sin what doth it privare Not the futurity of sin for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world for nothing exists in time which before its existence was not future That then which this non-imputation is privative of must be the imputation of sin to a person cui debitum est imputari for that is the habit which only is contrary to it for as the privative non-imputation of sin present and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae so the like non-imputation of sin future is privative only imputationis futurae debitae The Argument therefore returnes for if this
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
the Apostle were not whether a man be justified simply by faith or works But whether a man were justified by faith by faith or works and the Apostles answer is to this effect That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith we are justified by faith and not by works He that hath nothing else to do may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen if he please If Mr. Eyre mean no more then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe as the latter words of his answer seem to import then is this second answer a meer tautologie as being the very same with the former SECT III. THe next Scripture alleged is Rom. 8. 30. Whâ—m he predestinated §. 7. them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified From whence it is manifest that as glory follows Justification so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the order of words in Scripture doth not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our consciences Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors that ever I met with or heard of ancient or moderne Papist or Protestant Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place to be principally to shew the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us And though I will not build my faith on humane authority yet neither do I account it â—ngenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis without pretending at least some reason for my singularity but to the matter I acknowledge that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact do frequently use a Hysteron prâ—teron reporting those things first which it may be were acted last or è câ—ntra as in 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. Also that in a copulate axiome where many things are attributed to one subject the order many times is not attended but the connexion only as if I should say of God as the Apostle doth of the Law that he is holy and just and good or the latter is exegetical of the former as in that of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath saved us and called us But 2. I do utterly deny that such manner of speech as is here used Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation where several Propositions are linked together the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter is any where else to be found but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare not only the connexion but specially the order of the things themselves h Vid. Vâ—ssâ—um instit orat lib. 5 cap. 8. And. Talâ—um Rhetor â—x P. R. cap. â—1 Examples hereof out of Poets Oratours Greek and Latine and Ecclesiastical Writers the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician Ovid. Mars videt hanc visámque cupit potitúrque cupitâ Cicero In urbe luxuries creatur ex luxuriâ— existat avaritia necesse est ex avaritiâ â—rumpat audscia c. But let the Scriptures determine it Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Affliction worketh patience and patience experience and experience hope and hope maketh not ashamed that is for the words are a Meiosis giveth boldnesse and joy which is the thing the Apostle is proving ver 3. so Rom. 10. 14 15. where the order is retrograde How can they call on him on whom they have not believed how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard how can they heare without a Preacher how can they preach unlesse they be sent The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically to shew the orderly dependance of things one upon another As in the former example of patience on affliction experience on patience hope on experience joy on hope And in the second example of invocation on faith faith on hearing hearing on preaching preach 〈…〉 3. In the present text the matter is yet more clear because Predestination §. 8. Vocation Justification and Glorification are all of them actions of one and the same efficient tending unto one and the same end and every second action cumulative to the former as the partitle also doth evidence Whom he predestinated them he also called whom he called them he also justified whom he justified them he also glorified And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts yet from the termination of each former act upon him he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom Them So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated of Justification a person called of glorification a person justified or else those particles are utterly superfluous and the whole sentence ridiculous 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge that in two of these Propositions not only connexion but order is observed namely in the first whom he predestinated them he called and the last whom he justified them he glorified Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these as the middlemost And if Arminians who acknowledge no absolute election before faith should deny the first and a Sadducee who confesseth no resurrection but what is past already should deny the last he could not vindicate the text against either but by the same Arguments which will convince himself of errour in denying the second 5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve when he §. 9. tells us he can see no inconvenience at all in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared in conscience whereas one would think it had been easie to see that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying the one is of contradicting himself the other of abusing the text 1. The Apostles scope here saith he is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us I wonder in which of them he breaks order In the first and last Proposition as was but now observed it will surely be granted that he keeps order punctually and when he saith in the second Proposition whom he called them he justified I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge that he hath hit the order as right as can be if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience as he speaks And why then doth he deny that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits belike though his scope were not to do it yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it quite besides his purpose and intention 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience for the Justification here spoken of is only and entirely Gods act no lesse then Predestination Vocation
Word which saith that God made the Heavens and the earth Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us unlesse we beleeve that Word And so in the present case if any person suppose Peter have by faith the evidence of his Justification immediately or axiomatically it must be by assenting to some Axiome or Proposition of divine revelation Thou Peter art justified These things being premised we come now to prove that we §. 19. cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification axiomatically Two reasons I gave of it 1. Because such an immediate evidence of a particular mans Justification cannot be had without a particular testimony from God Thou Paul or Peter or Thomas art justified But there is no such thing written in Scripture Ergo no such evidence can be had Mr. Eyre saith I mistake the nature of justifying faith conceiving it to be a bare intellectual assent to a Proposition which yet is quite against my judgement and that which I do purposely oppose in my next argument I consent to Mr. Eyre in placing faith partly in the understanding and partly in the will But our question is now concerning that faith which is in the understanding how Peter for example comes to know or to be assured by faith immediately that he is justified And this say I must be by the assent of faith to some such Axiome Proposition or Word of God as was but now mentioned Thou Peter art justified Even as Paul was assured that neither himself nor any that were in the ship with him should perish by beleeving the testimony of God sent him by an Angel Acts 27 25. And because there is now a dayes no such testimony of a particular mans Justification therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way at least ordinarily and if there were yet I would not call that faith justifying faith but rather evidencing faith His Answer to the Argument is large and to me very confused He excepts against my terme of an axiomatical evidence I would change it if I could devise any terme more significant but at last yields it me yet thinks it fitter to say faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or instrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Christ But we shall shew fully that this organical evidence must be reduced to one of those three by me mentioned and cannot make a fourth way of evidence distinct from them The summe of his answer is That faith is such an assent to the truth of the Gospel as that withal the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and he that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-Promises and grace knows his interest and propriety therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing which causeth it And so faith doth evidence our Justification axiomatically by assenting to and withal tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospel which by a secret and unscrutable work of the Spirit are applied and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them Rep. How truly did I say that Mr. Eyres doctrine would at last § 20. leave the poor doubting Christian without all evidence of his Justification I need no other confirmation of it then these words wherein are many things delivered not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyres bare word but directly against experience reason and Scripture 1. I deny that faith is alwayes accompanied with such a taste of sweetnesse in the Promises of the Gospel as will give an evidence to the soule of his Justification The reasons are set down already in this chapter § 12. I remember what holy i Neither the letters nor pages are numbred and therefoâ—e I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place Bayne sayes of himself in one of his letters I thank God in Christ sustentation I have and some little strength suavities spiritual I taste not any But indeed I often tell my selfe Physick purgative and restorative are not to be taken at the same time c. Neither do I dare to deny but that it may be the case of one that is saved to die in as much darknesse as Spira himself if any man can prove the contrary let him Yea so separable is sweetnesse from faith that sometimes on the contrary excesse of sweetnesse hath hindred and overcome faith as it was in the disciples who for very joy beleeved not Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like case Gen. 45. 26. 2. I also deny that there can be no manner of sweetnesse tasted in the Gospel but by such as have interest and propriety in the grace thereof A propriety in conceit though not in truth or an interest possible and attainable though not actually obtained may make the Gospel taste not a little sweet The Scriptures tell us that some may be enlightened and taste of the heavenly gift and of the good Word of God Heb. 6. 4 5. and receive the Word with joy Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not justified nor pardoned 3. A taste of sweetnesse in the Gospel doth evidence to the soule sensibly and experimentally that God and his Word are good which may be an Argument to prove that he is justified But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him unlesse there intervene another act of the minde concluding himself to be justified according to the Promise made to such a faith Sugar will evidence its sweetnesse to my taste but my tasting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature unlesse I conclude it by the discourse of my minde because according to the rules of Philosophy None can taste but a living creature Beasts can taste as well as men yet-they do not know that they are living creatures because they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act which ability in the reasonable soule is usually called a power of reflecting upon its own act The case is much the same in Infants Therefore Mr. Eyres organical evidence is the very same with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument or if he understand it of that which is not only affected to prove but doth actually prove then it is the same with that which I below call syllogistical as being an act of the soule concluding its own Justification from the sweetnesse it tasteth in the Promises 4. But the truth is it is a most preposterous course to send the soul for its evidence of right and interest in the Promises to a taste of sweetnesse in them which will quickly appear if Mr. Eyres metaphorical expressions be made more grammatical Wherefore to taste sweetnesse in the Promises is either an act of the understanding judging of the Promise sub ratione bâ—ni
neither charge persons as guilty of sin nor punish them for it other sense the phrase of imputing sin hath none in all the Scripture for from the imputation of sin unto death the Apostle infers the necessity of a Law according to which sin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moses 2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of sin as being §. 3. antecedent to any act of the creature whether good or evil Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwise why have we not one syllable of proof neither from Scripture nor reason to warrant us to call the acts of God by such new names as they were never known by before since the world was made The Apostle prayes that the sin of those that deserted him be not laid to their charge or imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the same sense hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers Acts 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their charge both which suppose the imputation or non-imputation of sin to be a consequent to it not antecedent And against the constant language of Scripture and of all men must we be forced upon no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word to beleeve the imputation of sin to be from eternity and when the Apostle says sin is not imputed where there is no Law we must beleeve for Mr. Eyre sayes it that the meaning is There is no sin where there is no Law Briefely if sin be imputed from eternity men are miserable from eternity which is impossible for he that is not is not miserable Mat. 26. 24. Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a second answer and that is That §. 4. there is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but righteousnesse is the gift of God Rep. What then yet there may be and is the same reason of imputing sin and imputing righteousnesse which are both Gods acts It is but changing the terme and the matter will be clear To impute righteousnesse and not to impute sin are termes much of the same signification with the Apostle Rom. 4. 6 8. Now to impute sin and to non-impute sin are contraries though the latter be expressed by a negative terme Ergo they are both of them actions of the same kinde and common nature Contraria sunt opposita sub eodem genere proximo Ergo there is the same reason for the one and the other that if sin cannot be imputed without Law then neither non-imputed More particularly thus I argued that as condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth so on the contrary our Justification must be some declared sentence or act of God which may discharge the sinner from condemnation Mr. Eyre answers That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam so our Justification descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the second Adam which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. Rep. The reason then is acknowledged to be the same on both § 5. sides Ergo as condemnation is by a Law so must Justification be which was before denied To what is here said for explication I reply 1. That the former part of it supposeth that which I will never grant nor Mr. Eyre ever prove and that is That there is no condemnation which comes upon sinners for moral transgressions but by the Law given to Adam Indeed that Law condemned him as the head of mankinde for his first disobedience and so condemneth all his posterity for original sin But his posterity are not concerned in those personal sins which he committed after his first transgression nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them no more then they are subject to condemnation for one anothers sins But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankinde and had effect upon him as such became afterwards of meer personal obligation both upon him and all men else for personal actual sins So that no man now is or ever was since the first transgression subject to condemnation by that Law quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick person for any personal sins of their own but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own person And therfore the Law of Mâ—ses speaks more personally Cursed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it Gal. 3. 9 10. And by this Law is every transgressour condemned not with a derivative condemnation such I mean as is derived and as it were propagated from another but such whereof every sinner in his own person is the first and immediate subject And unto this condemnation is our Justification most frequently opposed in Scripture The Argument therefore hath yet no answer nor nothing like it The condemnation of a sinner for his own personal sins is an act of God condemning by a Law Ergo the Justification which is opposed thereto is an act of God by a Law in like manner 2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man by vertue of the Law given to Adam till himself be borne a childe of Adam Ergo from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow that no man is justified by the Covenant made with Christ till himself be borne of Christ that is by faith Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. so that in this respect the Argument is yielded For clearing of the antecedent note That when it is wont to be said we were condemned in Adam it is not to be understood properly but with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an As I may so say to use the Apostles expression in a case not much unlike Heb. 7. 9 10. As I may so say Levi also paid tithes in Abraham for he was yet in the loines of his father Not as if we were then actually condemned who then had no existence for he that is not can be no more under Law then he that is dead and free from Law Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law being a transient act requires an object existent upon which it may passe But because the very same sentence which condemned him then takes hold without any renovation of all his posterity successively unto the same condemnation Even as when it is said in Adam all diâ— 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne but because it was appointed and determined by the foresaid Law that all borne of Adam should die Heb. 9 27. And in this respect our spiritual being in the second Adam is as necessary to our partaking in his
of the Court. But God according to me pardons sin by a declared Act. Ergo according to me God in justifying or pardoning sin is but as a notary or subordinate Minister I can scarcely believe that there is any reader will need my help to answer such arguings as these I deny the proposition The proofe of it is à baculo ad angulum It is the office of a notary to declare the sentence of the Court Ergo he that pardons offences by a publique Act or Law is a notary 2. And yet if God publish his owne Laws he doth nothing unbecoming his Majesty and Soveraignty He published his Law to Adam himself and will publish the finall sentence which shall passe upon all men at judgement and our Lord Jesus published the Gospel with his owne mouth Joh. 7. 37. and Rev. 22. 16 17. The fifth Argument is all one with the first and so is answered already The sixth and last Argument is à pari Forgivenesse amongst men is not necessarily by a declared discharge Ergo Gods is not for we are bid to forgive one another as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us Eph. 4. 32. Ans Supposing that the Antecedent speak of private men onely §. 12. forgiving personal injuries one to another I deny the consequence And one reason of my denial follows presently Eph. 4. 32. proves well that Gods forgiving us should be a motive to us to forgive one another but it doth by no means prove that our forgivenesse one of another is an act of the same kinde and nature with Gods forgivenesse of us 1 Joh. 4. 11. If God hath so loved us we ought also to love one another though our love one to another be not univocally the same with Gods love to us And yet as our love so our forgivenesse may in some respects resemble his as in the freenesse fulnesse and dureablenesse of it and in the effects which it produceth on the persons forgiven but every way like it it neither can nor ought to be 1. God forgives none without satisfaction we must 2. No private man is Governour and Judge of his brother Ergo his forgivenesse cannot be such as Gods is who forgiveth as supreame Judge and lawgiver Jam. 4. 12. 3. Nor can Gods forgivenesse be like mans if it consist in the act of his minde or will for if we will speak properly a mans will not to prosecute one that hath injured him is not called pardon and forgivenesse simply because it is an act of the will but because it is such an act as supposeth on his part that is pardoned some injury done and on his part that pardoneth some right to require or demand satisfaction neither of which can be supposed to be the will of God which was from eternity 4. Private forgivenesse is no justification of the person forgiven A man may forgive his murtherers as Stephen did yet neither the laws of God or man will permit them to go unpunished But Gods act of remission is withall the justification of a sinner Ergo is not such an act as private mens remission of personall injuries Other differences it were easie to adde but I shall insist only on that which followes The forgivenesse of a Magistrate being an act of authority must §. 13. be by some formal act of oblivion And so Gods forgivenesse being in like manner an act of authority must be also by some formall act of pardon that shall make the Law of condemnation to be of no force c. Mr. Eyre answers 1. That he sees no reason why God should not have as much power to forgive without a promulged Act as man and chargeth me with boldnesse for limiting God to such a way of forgivenesse because Gods forgivenesse is no lesse an act of charity then mans Rom. 5. 8. Eph. 2. 4. And though God in the act of forgivenesse may be looked upon as a Judge yet is he such a Judge as proceeds by no other Law then his own will Rep. The first part of the answer is ridiculous as if a private man had more power then the supream Magistrate because he forgives an injury without a promulged Act or as if it were through defect of power in the Magistrate that he forgives by a Law or Act of grace A private man remits an injury as it is an injury and hurt to himself but as it is a breach of the Law of God or man he neither doth nor can remit it as in the case before-mentioned of a man forgiving his murtherers Therefore it is but a very imperfect pardon which a private man can give But it argues eminency and perfection of power to pardon by an Act of grace because no Law can contradict it but it disannulls and invalidates them all according to that of the Apostle Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ the Law cannot disannul to make the promise of no effect The confirming of the Covenant according to the significancy of the Greek f words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an authoritative and authentique ratification of it as humane testaments before v. Budaeus Comâ—ent Grac ling. 1058. Bea in 2 Cor. 2. 8 15. are then ratified or confirmed when they want nothing which the Law of nature or particular Nations requires to make them valid Therefore to argue for a power in God to forgive as private men forgive is to plead for a power in God to become weak and to act imperfectly and unlike himselfe 2. When Mr. Eyre talkes of my boldnesse in limiting God I suppose it is for want of a better answer I never heard before that it was a limiting of God to determine his actions according to the relations which they flow from as their immediate principle Thus do we distinguish the actions of God as a Maker a Soveraigne a Father a Lawgiver and Judge as just as merciful c. Belike if I should say God cannot condemne men as a Father I limit God or that he cannot save sinners as just opposing justice to mercy or that he cannot act as the Governour and Judge of mankind in condemning and justifying without a Law 3 When he determines Gods forgivenesse to be an act of charity if he mean of charity as opposed to authority as he must do if he speak any thing to purpose he overthrows wholly the necessity and use of Christs satisfaction For if Gods forgivenesse of us be meerly an act of charity such as private mens forgivenesse one of another then satisfaction is no more necessary to Gods forgiving us then to our forgivenesse one of another Nor can it be of any use for it can neither put the beginning nor increase of love in God which is in him without beginning or addition nor doth it remove that which hinders the effects of his love from being communicated unto us for that forgivenesse which is purely an act of
charity is cedendo de jure suo by bearing an injury and parting with that right which a man hath to require satisfaction and if God forgive after this manner the case is too plaine to need proofe that the satisfaction of Christ is of no use at all to make way for the forgivenesse of sin but rather a hindrance and contradiction thereunto Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that the whole weight of the cause between the Socinians us depends upon the truth of that which he here denies namely that condemnation and justification are the Acts of God as Rector and supream Judge of men If he will but review Cameron Gerhard Crotius Suarez or any other Papist or Protestant who is accounted to have wrote judiciously and orthodoxly upon that point he will see that they fetch the foundation of their defense from this very principle §. 14. 4. Rom. 5. 8. and Eph. 2. 4. The texts alledged to prove that Gods forgivenesse is no lesse an act of charity then mans prove it not They shew indeed that our justification in actu exercito is an effect of the love of God it being his love only which moved him to send Jesus Christ to purchase justification for us and thereupon to bestow it on us but with the preservation of the honour and authority of his Law Neverthelesse the same justification is an Act compleat in its kind nature definition and essentiall constitution without that love of God Even as a King out of special affection to a malefactour condemned suppose it be his owne sonne may find out a way to satisfie for his offence and consequently to discharge him here the discharge doth not exist but by virtue of the Kings love and good affection yet the pardon it selfe in actu signato for its kind and nature is a rectoral judicial act not of private charity 5. Mr. Eyre yeelds at last that God in the act of forgivenesse §. 15. may be looked upon as a Judge yet as such a judge as proceeds by no other Law then his owne will Where either the former part contradicts all that hath been hitherto said about Gods forgiving men as private men forgive personal injuries for as no man in the very same Act can be looked upon as a Judge and a private person for there cannot be two formal principles of the very same action so neither can God or the latter part contradicts the former for he that hath no other rule but his own will is neither a Judge who proceeds g L. A divo Pio. ff de re judic L. 7. ff ad leg Jul. Râ—pâ—tâ—nd exformula according to the prescription of Law nor an Arbitratour who determines ex aequo bono according to the equity of the cause depending 2. When he says God proceeds by no other Law then his own will if he mean by no other Law then what is of his own making it is true but if he mean by his own will as distinguished from a Law properly so called the Apostle contradicts him Jam. 4. 12. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy And hereby doth the Lord justifie the equity of his own dispensations in punishing and pardoning because he doth neither pro libitu but according to his own declared Laws Ezek. 18. 18 23 25 29 30. He doth not punish meerly to satisfy his own will as if he delighted in punishment ibid. v. 23 32. Lam. 3. 33 34 35. but according to the exigency of mens demerits so hath he declared that he will by no means cleare the guilty Exod. 34. 7. Which yet by his absolute liberty and soveraignty he is free to do if he had not confined himself to a Law M. Eyre answers secondly The promulgation of an act of §. 16. grace is for the direction and limitation of Judges and Ministers of State But in the justification of a sinner God hath no need of such an act because he is the sole Judge and justifier himself and therefore the purpose of his will secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation of no force in regard of the reall execution of it Rep. If we can have no better answers then these yet we must be content for ought I see 1. Doth Mr. Eyre mean that the onely end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour officers If so why doth he mention another in his very next answer If not why doth he pretend that a Magistrate cannot pardon his subjects involved in common guilt by a promulged Act because one end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour Ministers of State 2. h Vid. Greg. Sayr Clav. Reg. liâ— 3. cap. 1. §. 12. Azor. Instit moral par 1. l. 5. cap. 3. Some degree of promulgation is essential to a Law Will unrevealed is will not Law It cannot rationally be imagined that Magistrates should intend to oblige their subjects by that will which they never intend to reveale and surely will without obligation is no Law And the first and immediate effect of this Law if it be a Law of grace is to give offendours a right to impunity any Act or Law to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding The direction of inferiour Judges is but the secondary use of it and in the case between God and us of no use at all because himself is both Lawgiver and Judge reserving each mans cause to his own peculiar cognizance for if it be for their direction what doth it direct them in surely in the administration of justice which consists in giving every man his due But impunity is not due to offendours but by virtue of some Act of grace Ergo the first effect of such an Act is to constitute such a right 3. It is necessary that such a generall pardon as is the Act of the supream Judge and Lawgiver should be by a Law of grace not that God needs it as Mr. Eyre insinuates but because the nature of the thing requires it If God forgives by the purpose of his will then he doth not forgive as a Rector Mr. Eyre hath before granted that his purpose not to punish is included in the decree of election as part of it but election is neither an Act of justice nor of mercy but of absolute dominion and liberty So that the summe of these sayings is this Though God forgive as supream Judge yet it is not necessary that he should forgive as other Judges do because he may forgive as he is not a Judge viz. by the secret purpose of his will And yet as God may very improperly be said to need that which is most conducible to the glory of his Government so is it needfull in respect of himself that his judgement whether of justification or condemnation proceed according to his revealed promulged Laws Himself doth hereby vindicate the equity of his dealings and Government over men as was before observed out of Ezek. 18. throughout
adde Dâ—ut 30 from v. 11. to the end of the chapter §. 17. 4. And whereas Mr. Eyre tells us again that the Purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure the sinner and make the Law of condemnation to be of no force as to the real execution of it we have before shewed at large the mischievous consequences of this doctrine If this be so to what purpose imaginable did Christ die at least there was no need he should die to redeem us from the curse of an abrogated Law which by an eternal Act was made of no force at all to condemne Before when the satisfaction and merits of Christ lay at stake for the credit of an eternal Justification Mr. Eyre was content to yield them this honour that they purchased the effects though not the act of Justification which effect he told us was our non-punition But here he tells us that the purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure us from punishment which though I confesse it be more rationally spoken because that act is most unworthy to be called the cause of our non-punition or non-condemnation which is not able to effect it without the help of another more sufficient cause yet is it most perniciously spoken as not leaving so much as the effects of our Justification and by consequence excluding both act and effects from any dependance upon the merits of Christ for their existence 2. Were Adam and Eve either or both obliged by the Law to punishment upon their disobedience or no If not their sin did them no harme nor was there any truth in that severe commination In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die and it is past dispute they died by force of that Law and all their posterity to this day Rom. 5. 12 13 14. 1 Cor. 15. 22 56. And if so then was not that Law made of no force by the eternal purpose of God for if that Purpose of God do not hinder but that men are legally obliged to condemnation upon breach of the Law neither will Gods Justice and Faithfulnesse permit that they go unpunished unlesse his Law be satisfied some other way Numb 23. 19. God is not a man that he should lie neither the Son of man that he should repent hath he said and shall he not do it or hath he speken and shall he not make it good Therefore it is that we have before denied that there is in God any purpose precisely of not punishing 3. The Supreme Magistrate may neglect the execution of Laws with impunity to himselfe because if he be Supreme he is not accountable to any other humane authority but not without such a Prostitution of the authority of his Lawes and the honour of his own Government to contempt and obloqâ—y as God will never endure to be cast upon Himselfe or his Law by men or devils His Honour and his Lawes are dearer to him then a thousand worlds M. Eyre answers thirdly the publishing of an act of grace is for the § 17. comfort of an offendor rather then for any need the Magistrate hath thereof as the act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House So the publication of the New Covenant was for the comfort of Gods Elect and not for their security in foro Dei Rep. Our question is not precisely what is the end of promulgation but what is the effect of the Law promulged which say I is to give offendors a right to impunity which Mr. Eyre cannot deny though it be very true that such a Law be also for the comfort of an offendor namely secondarily and consequenter for it comforts him in that it gives him a right to deliverance from deserved punishment His right and his comfort are not opposites but both the effects of the same Law and the latter subordinate to the former so that hitherto there is nothing that contradicts me 2. It is also true that it is not the Magistrate who needs an act of grace but offendors need it for if the same authority which bound them under punishment do not also discharge them from it they cannot legally escape it 3. When it is said the Act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House it hath reference to what I said in my Sermon That a Vote in the House or a Declaration that an Act of Pardon shall come out is no legal security to a Delinquent by which I intended to declare that neither the Purpose of God within himself but the Law of grace which in time he established according to his eternal purpose was that act which pardoned the sinner which if Mr. Eyre would have contradicted he should have affirmed that the meer purpose or resolution of the House to make such an Act is that very pardon which dischargeth Delinquents The Act it self being once passed may be yielded to be a Law as being the declared will of the Lawgivers constituting a right to impunity though by printing writing or proclamation it be afterwards made more publick Neverthelesse I expected some proof that it is a compleat Law before publishing if after the pâ—sâ—ng it had been i Nic. vig. de Drâ—is Iust Jur. c. 1. p. 8. c. 2 p. 1â— ordered not to be published till some moneths or a yeare after I much question whether in that interim it had been Law or no though I am not so well acquainted with the customes of our own Nation as to determine peremptorily The Senatus-Consulta amongst the Romanes had not the force of a Law before publishing But it is quite besides our question to debate what promulgation is necessary to the compleating of a Law It cannot be denied but that when subjects are involved in common guilt as all the world is before God their pardon must be by Law which is as much as I needed or intended for illustration of the way and manner of Gods forgiving us by the Gospel or Law of grace He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life which because Mr. Eyre denies not disproves for that 's impossible it being a truth of God we shall yet farther evince by the following Arguments SECT III. ANd first from Mat. 28. 18 19. compared with Mark 16. §. 18. 15 16. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned from hence I inferre 1. That God hath given unto Christ the Kingdome and Government over all men 2. That this Government containes a power of remitting sins 3. That this power is exercised in enacting that gracious Law He that believes shall be saved for so doth the Lord speak Go ye therefore into all the world c. which particle therefore I have borrowed from Matthew ver 19. and put it into
righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Hence it is manifest that faith and faith only is requisite to justification but confession also is required of them that are justified unto salvation according to what our Lord himself speaks whosoever shall confesse me before men him will I also confesse before my Father but whosoever shall deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father Matth. 10. 32 33. Luk. 12. 8. Indeed our compleat and final justification at the day of judgement is no small part of our salvation but the Apostle here distinguishing justification as a thing going before from salvation as a thing following after teacheth us to understand him of our initial justification or of the first right to the inheritance of life which by the promise is given a man as soone as he believes which yet is to be understood not as if confession were of as universal and absolute necessity to salvation as faith it self for if a man believe in the very last moment of his life when he hath neither opportunity nor ability of body to make confession he shall be saved notwithstanding but that it is k Vid. Amâ—s Cas Con. l. 4 c. 3. q. 2. necessary in its time and place but faith only absolutely universally and indispensably necessary as the Apostle also intimates in his proofe subjoyned v. 11. mentioning faith without confession whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed Even as our l Chaâ— pâ—nstrat de Baptis l. 5. c 9 §. 3. Spanhâ—â— dub evang part 3. dub 96. pag. 493 494. Protestants argue against the Papists that though it be said Mark 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet is not Baptisme hereby made as necessary to salvation as faith it self because it is not mentioned in the negative proposition presently added He that beleeveth not shall be damned Not he that is not baptized shall be damned Nor finally is confession required as by it self and in coordination with faith but as in subordination thereunto being indeed the natural effect thereof and that wherein the truth and life of faith doth exert it self To what is added that the Apostles scope is to answer that question §. 13. how a man may know that he shall be saved and that he doth describe the persons that shall be saved by two markes or characters faith and confession I reply we have been too often imposed upon by pretended scopes and Mr. Shepheard is falsly alledged as a witnesse that the Apostles scope is to answer the foresaid question for he saith it not but is purposely arguing in that very place which m Sound beleev p. 230. Mr. Eyre referres to out of this very Text that we are not justified before we beleeve Yet is it most true that a man may come by faith to know that he shall be saved and the ground of it is because faith is appointed of God to be medium fruitionis a means of obtaining salvation and therefore cannot be denied to be medium cognitionis a means by which a man may know that he shall be saved Even as the same Law which made workes the means of life do this and live if a man had kept it would have also bred the assurance and knowledge that he should have lived But 1. As it is not the knowledge of life simply but life it self which is promised in those words for it were too grosse to paraphrase them thus do this and thou shalt thereby know that thou shalt live so it is not simply the knowledge of justification and salvation but salvation it self which is promised in these beleeve and thou shalt be saved The righteousnesse which is of the Law sayes thus do this and live v. 5. But the righteousnesse which is of faith sayes this if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved v. 6 8 9. What can be more plaine 2. When it is said v. 10. with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the moutâ— confâ—ssion is made unto salvation must we read it thus with the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto the knowledge of salvation What will become of the Scriptures if men may interpret them after this rate 3. And here to see how it falls out Mr. Eyre is forced to contend that the Apostle mentioneth faith as that which evidenceth justification as a mark or character which way of evidencing he could by no means approve of when I urged it p. 77. § 3. and 4. of his book 4. If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved That these words propound §. 14. the condition or means of salvation and not only describe the persons that shall be saved we have proved n chap. â— sect 1. before by several Arguments And according to my promise there I shall adde something here that if it be possible Mr. Eyre may suspect the truth of that notion which he cannot defend but by turning the Scriptures into a nose of wax And 1. I say that if the foresaid words do only describe the persons that shall be saved then are they here used otherwise then the like words or manner of speech is used any where else in Scripture Mr. Eyre hath not yet produced us one place where such phrase of speech is a bare description of a person at least unlesse we will take his bare word that so it is meant And though it be hard to be peremptory in such a nicety and deny universally that there is any example in Scripture of such phrase of speech used in such a sense yet upon the most diligent and critical observation which I have made on purpose to discover it I can find none neither in the Old nor New-Testament and therefore shall deny it till Mr. Eyre not only say it but prove it For if the foresaid words If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved do only describe what manner of persons they are that shall be saved then do they not suspend salvation upon the act of beleeving but their meaning is this If thou be one of those who be or shall be believers thou shalt be saved Shew us the like in all the Scriptures And hence 2. It follows that these words do not present believers as such reduplicativè as the objects of salvation but only Specificativè the men that are believers but under some other respect and notion For example Peter gives a legacy to Simon the Tanner that lives in Joppa by the sea side The messenger that carries the legacy knows not the man but tells him if he be the Tanner of Joppa this legacy is his Which words do not indeed propound the condition but the description of the Legatee from his place and profession and the legacy is not given him in respect of either of these circumstances but immediately as the person whom these circumstances describe or it is not given the man Quatenus he
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
to our Justification before God the contrary to which he had spoke but just before upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis Respondet in Christo nihil valere ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse c. Perkins his words are these in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words Faith worketh by love Paul saith he doth not shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love viz. not that it justifieth as working by love though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified to work by love But he was far from thinking that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God It is his own observation upon this very verse not far before The second Conclusion Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdome of Christ By it first our persons and then our actions please God and without it nothing pleaseth God And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to disputes for Justification by faith without works against the Papists The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40. the Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse which God hath given us in Jesus Christ ver 11. Ergo he that hath not the Son hath no benefit by him But he that believeth not hath not the Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifest 1. From the Apostles own interpretation for having spoke in general He that hath the Son hath life he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God that you may know that you have eternal life 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase throughout all these Epistles as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely in his Epistle 2 ep v. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HATH NOT GOD But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne Compare 1 ep 2. 24. 2. If we are said in Scripture any where to have the Son in any other sense then by believing or as excluding believing why have we no intelligence of it Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence partly in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith partly in not attempting to justifie it from the phrase of Scripture as an argument that himself is conscious that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures Briefly the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation He that hath the Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ But the antecedent is proved true from the text Ergo the consequent is true To these texts mentioned in my Sermon and now vindicated let §. 41. me adde one or two more If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood then was it not the Will of God that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ till he did beleeve But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ then is not Christ a propitiation z Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. Paraeus in loc through faith but without it Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cause of our remission but because God hath so constituted that our remission shall not follow and so our sins not be propitiated quoad â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking the work of Redemption is set down at large Isa 53. throughout particularly ver 10. 11 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned as the fruit and effect of Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him where knowledge as elsewhere in Scripture often signifies faith And what shall I say more we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures that God requires commands and exhorts all men to beleeve that they may be justified by the blood of Christ And what stronger evidence can we need then this that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
similitude So saith he the cloud of our sins being blotted out the beams of Gods love have as free a passage towards us as if we had not sinned What are these beams of love Is pardon of sin any of them if it be then behold the sense of the comparison viz. Christ having satisfied God can now pardon sin as freely as if men had no sin and so had never needed pardon This is a rare notion but there is yet something worse then non-sense included in it namely that sinners are discharged without pardon as having in Christ paid to the full the debt which they owed as swearers and drunkards are discharged upon payment of the mulct enjoyned by Law without the Magistrates pardon and become from thenceforth immediately as capable of the benefit and protection of the Law as if they had never broken it If immediately upon Christs satisfaction the elect become in like manner as capable of the blessings of the promise as if they had never sinned there is then no need that they should beleeve and repent in order to the obtaining of life and salvation The fifth Argument succeeds If it were the will of God that the §. 9. sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was his will that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect for there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both to their respective subjects for both of them were heads and roots of mankind But the sin of Adam did immediately over spread his posterity All men sinned in him Rom. 5. 12. before ever they committed any actual sin Ergo. Ans I deny both proposition and assumption First for the assumption I deny that any man is guilty of Adams sin till he exist and be a child of Adam He that is not is not under Law to be capable of breaking it or fulfilling it of receiving or enduring any good or evil effects of it And as to Rom. 5. 12. which M. Eyre quotes to prove that all men sinned in Adam before they had any being of their own neither doth the text say so but only that death passed upon all men fâ—r that all have sinned which if M. Eyre will render in whom all have sinned as I deny not but he may by the help of an ellipsis thus Death passed upon all men by him in whom all have sinned yet will it be short of his purpose Doth not the Apostle say in the same verse Death hath passed upon all men and v. 15. through the offence of one many be dead which many himself interprets of all v. 18. for as Beza notes well v. 15. many in this comparison is not opposed to all but to one Is it therefore lawfull to inferre that men are actually dead before they are borne Nothing lesse The meaning then of this speech All men are dead in Adam is no more but this That sentence of death passed upon Adam by virtue of which all that are borne of him eo ipso that they derive their being from him become subject unto the same death In like manner all are said to have sinned in him not that his posterity then unborne and unbegotten that is no body were immediately guilty of his fact but because by the just dispensation of God it was to be imputed to them as soone as they had so much being as to be denominated children of Adam His offence tainted the blood and according to Gods Covenant and way of dealing with him was interpreted as the act of the humane nature then existing in himself for tota natura generis est in qualibet specie but was neither imputed nor imputable to particular persons partaking in that nature before their own personal existence In short we sinned in Adam no otherwise then we did exist in him for operatio sequitur esse but to exist in Adam is not to exist simply but rather the contrary for when men are men and have a personal existence of their own they exist no longer in Adam but out of him as every effect wrought exists out of its causes but onely notes a virtue or power in him productive of us positis omnibus ad agâ—ndum requisitis So to sin or be guilty in him is not to sin or be guilty simply but onely notes the cause of the propagation of guilt together with our substance to be then in being If we apply this it will follow that as no man partakes in Adams guilt till he be borne a child of Adam so none partake in the righteousnesse of Christ nor the benefit of his satisfaction till they be borne unto him by faith And that doth the Apostle put out of question in this very dispute Rom. 5. 19. For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous which words were written many years after Christs death and yet then there were many who in times and ages to come were to be made righteous by Christs obedience Ergo they were not made righteous immediately in his death That for the minor The proposition comes next to be canvased where I deny that §. 10. there is the same reason for the transmission of Adams sin and Christs righteousnesse to their respective subjects for though both of them were heads and roots of mankind as the Apostle shews Rom. 5. 14. and so farre forth they agree both communicating their effects to their children Adam sin and death to his natural children Christ righteousnesse and life to his spiritual children yet the same Apostle in the same place shews that there is a divers dissimilitude or disagreement betwixt them and that in several respects v. 15 16 17 18. particularly in that he calls our justification by the obedience of Christ the gift and free gift in opposition to that judgement which by one came upon all to condemnation v. 15 16. implying the obedience of Christ to be so performed as that there is yet required an act of grace on Gods part to give us the effect of it as well as an act of faith on our part that it may be given to us or that we may receive it of which the Apostle speaks in the next verse v. 17. They that receive abundance of grace shall raigne in life for we receive the grace of God by faith 2 Cor. 6. 1. suitable to what this Apostle had said before chap. 3. 25 26. that Christ was set forth to declare the righteousnesse of God that he might be thâ— justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus But the effects of Adams disobedience came upon his posterity by the necessity of the same judgement which passed upon himself as the natural father of all men so as there needs no other act either on Gods part or on our part but eo ipso that we are borne of Adam we become liable both to guilt and punishment But
I thus proposed If we are justified in Christ then we are justified before we beleeve But we are justified in Christ Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument the summe is Christ was justified in his resurrection as a common person Ergo the elect were then justified in him My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct The summe is if justification be taken properly I deny that we were justified in Christ if improperly I deny that it will follow that we were justified before faith because we were justified in Christs resurrection no more then it will follow that because we are said to be risen with Christ Ergo men are risen from the dead before they are borne or dead or while they are lying in their graves But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it First then I say we may conceive of a threefold justification 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ who himself was justified in his own resurrection and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to beleevers by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time c. What says Mr. Eyre to this 1. He infers in general that then by my own confession justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered chapt 1. § 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God as purchased by Christ as exemplified in his glorification I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification tells his Reader before hand that That were a poore put off because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of justification simply there is no man but understands it of actual justification Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book at least some parts of it that it had cost him but little paines for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation and in the close of my answer oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called and this I may not be allowed to do because of Analogum per se positum c. Nextly He speaks something on each member of the distinction §. 2. and says 1. That which I called justification purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification Ans Thou hast then thy choise Reader whether thou wilt beleeve the Apostle or M. Eyre The Text quoted Gal. 3. 8. says thus The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The justification here spoken of is surely justification simply so called because it is put by it self without any Term of restraint or diminution and M. Eyres rule is Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato And this justification according to the Apostle was a thing foreseen a thing that God would do a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham all which notwithstanding M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification But of this we have spoken already as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction The great exception is against the third branch wherein I say that §. 3. Christ in his resurrection being himself justified became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it 1. Saith M. Eyre there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justiâ—â—cation Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person in which he so much delights attributed to Christ 2. If concerning that which is equivalent surely the Term of an exemplary cause is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ from the beginning to the end of our faith Rom. 8. 29 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image therein was he an exemplary cause for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it as its image and exist by virtue of it which I desire the Reader to observe because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause as if there were no difference between them If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours And whereas M. Eyre says that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary but a meritorious cause it is not universally true For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christs as Mediatour and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing He proceeds thus It was needlesse Christ should be a patern §. 4. of our justification for this patern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not to God because he needs no patern to direct him Rep. The disjunction is imperfect for it was needful for the glory of Christ as the Apostle expresly witnesseth Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did prâ—dâ—stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first born among many brethren It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead and a person so farre advanced above all others that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him and in being fashioned according to his image 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives or the influence which it hath upon our justification And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us because we do not justifie our selves
it is a strange kind of reason Cannot a soul by faith behold the certainty and glorious effects of his justification notwithstanding all the opposition of sense and reason by looking on Christ justified as an exemplary cause to whom himself also shall be conformed in one time Secondly Mr. Eyre argues against it thus He that pays our debts §. 5. to the utmost farthing and thereupon receives a discharge is more then a paterne of our release Rep. More then a patern of our release Is this all Mr. Eyre contends for upon what pretence then doth he oppose me I acknowledge Christ to be the meritorious cause of our release in his death and not only the exemplary cause of it in his resurrection As to the thing which I think Mr. Eyre intends I have told him often that Christ entred into an obligation of his own to make satisfaction for our debt from which obligation he was discharged in his resurrection God acquitting him as having paid as much as was demanded But if Christ had power to do what he would with his own then was it in his power and his Fathers to give us the effect of this satisfaction when and upon what tearms they pleased and to suspend our discharge notwithstanding Christ were long before discharged till himself should sit down at the right hand of Glory and give it us with his own hand according as sinners in successive generations come to him for it M. Eyre hath often said the contrary but proves it no where His third Argument chargeth high magnis tamen excidit ausis §. 6. take it at large If Christ were only a patern and example of our justification then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ was but a patern of our justification then was he justified as we are Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed Rep. 1. This the charge this the proofe But because M. Eyre is so carelesse of what he speaks let us see whether the matter be mended according to his own principles He then doth not only acknowledge but contend that the elect were justified in Christ as a common person Now what is a common person It is a general tearm and should have been described more plainly then it is but something he speaks of him § 1. Whatsoever is done by or to a common person as such is to be attributed to them in whose steed he stands and § 4. 1. The act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents The summe is A common person is he that represents another both in what he doth and in what is done to him Now then thus I proceed If Christ were justified as a common person then was he justified from his own sins and consequently was a sinner which is the most horrid blasphemy that can be uttered The reason of the consequence is evident for if Christ was justified as a common person then was he justified as we are for a common person is he that represents another both in what he doth and in what is done to him Now we are justified from our own sins which we our selves have committed Ergo. Let M. Eyre answer this for himself and he hath answered for me But because he hath put me out of hope of the former I will do the latter presently 2. In the mean time I will propose one thing to M. Eyres consideration If the justification of Christ as a common person were actually and formally the justification of the elect then are not the elect justified of grace but of works which is the most horrid contradiction to the Gospel that can be uttered the reason of the consequence is evident because Christ was not justified of grace but of debt Ergo if that act of justification which passed upon him be that which justifies us then are not we justified of grace But to M. Eyres Argument if it may so be called I deny his consequence §. 7. as evident as it is and the proofe of it To the former I say that Christs resurrection was his discharge from his own obligation which he voluntarily undertooke to suffer and satisfie for our sins and therein he became the exemplary cause of a like discharge which should follow on them that beleeve from that obligation which comes upon them involuntarily and necessarily because of sin To the proof I say that Christs Justification was such as ours is in regard of its common nature and effects which is sufficient to the agreement of the example and counterpart as the sacrifices of old represented Christ dying though he were a man and they were beasts not in its principle and special nature Surely it will not be denied that we beare the image of Christ in our resurrection from the dead but then will Mr. Eyre say he was raised as we are now we are raised from corruption Ergo he also was raised from corruption which is as horrid a contradiction to Scripture as can be uttered Psal 16. 10. or he was raised by his own power John 2. 19. Ergo if we in our Resurrection are conformed to him then are we also raised by our own power which is blasphemy as bad as the other that makes Christ as bad as sinners this makes sinners as good as Christ Did M. Eyre think it possible to convince mens understandings by such Argumentations as these His fourth Argument is upon the point all one with this and hath been answered already over and over in that wherein it differs from this His fifth Argument is That I recede very far both from the §. 8. meaning and expressions of all our orthodox writers who do constantly call our Saviour a common person but never the exemplary cause of our justification particularly my Grandfather Parker de descens lib. 3. sect 49 50 53. Rep. 1. I did not think before nor do I now that the affirming of Christ to be an exemplary cause of all those spiritual heavenly blessings which God bestows on us had been to deny him to be a common person The Scriptures call him the first borne amongst many brethren Rom. 8. 29. The first borne of every creature Colos 1. 15. the first fruits of them that slept 1 Cor. 15. 20. phrases importing that there are many others who by his power shall be conformed to his image in all his heavenly perfections which is all I seek by the tearm of an exemplary cause But he that calls Christ the first borne the first begotten the first fruits is so far from denying him as that he doth suppose him to be a common person in regard that the proper import of these phrases is to teach us that he hath received excellent blessings not for himself but for others also The reason why I use the tearm of an
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
grace made both with Christ and us which is Mr. Eyres Assumption And 1. I desire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles §. 4. and tell me whether pardon of sin be a blessing which God promiseth in his Covenant to give or the condition which Christ was to perform The former out of question if Scripture may be Judge Heb. 10. 16 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it or how he can allow it I cannot tell We have seen him before very peremptory in these two assertions 1. That the imputation of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputation of them unto us 2. That Christs satisfaction was formally the payment of our debt and so must needs discharge us ipso facto because the discharge of the debt is formally the discharge of the debtour How these principles clash one with another we have shewed already for Gods act in punishing of Christ is in nature before his bearing it or satisfying by bearing it as action is in nature before passion If then Gods act in imputing our sins to Christ that is punishing them in him be formally the non-imputing that is the pardoning them to us then the death of Christ as it was the payment of our debt is not the thing that dischargeth us and if this then not that But my business now is to infer if Christs death be the payment of our debt and so our formal discharge then our discharge from sin is the condition of the Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it not a promise upon the performance of the condition The reason is plain because Christs satisfaction which is the payment of our debt and formally the discharge of the debtour is the condition of the Covenant of grace according to Mr. Eyre But that cannot be the forme or tenour of the Covenant of grace which excludes the pardon of sin from being promised therein Ergo that is not the forme which Mr. Eyre presents us with 2. If the words aforesaid contain the substance and tenour of the Covenant of grace then the said Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as necessary meanes which we are bound to for obtaining the promise of life and salvation But whosoever shall preach such a necessity of faith and repentance doth in so doing contradict the tenour of the Covenant of grace The reason of the consequence is plain because to the obtaining of a Promise made upon condition nothing more is required then the performance of the condition If then Christ hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace nothing more can be enjoyned and required of us to the obtaining of any blessing of the Covenant and whosoever shall yet preach a necessity of faith and repentance as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be saved destroys the Covenant of grace But both these are desperate consequences which we shew thus The Gospel and the Covenant of grace are both one Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3 4. and Eph. 3. 6 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Gospel obligeth all men to believe and repent the elect as well as others that they may be saved and thus did the Apostles the special Ministers of the New Covenant preach wheresoever they came Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6 8 9. Col. 1. 23 28. c. Ergo the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance as necessary in point of duty that we may be saved or else the Apostle's Ministry had destroyed the Covenant Hence thirdly it will be impossible for any man to sin against the §. 5. Gospel or Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath framed it for none can sin against the Covenant but he that is a Covenanter either de jure or de facto I mean either such a one as actually is in Covenant or else is bound to enter into Covenant Now upon supposition that none are Covenanters but God and Christ there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts And consequently neither will it be any grace in God to preserve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant such being the constitution thereof that it is impossible ex natura rei that it should be broken but by God or Christ nor can any by unbelief or Apostasie violate the covenant seeing it hath no preceptive part which is surely contrary to Scripture Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing Hence 4ly No man becomes worthy of punishment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apostasy as the Apostle in the same place saith they do and that most justly and I shall farther shew when I come to it Nor 5ly Is salvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures the reason is because the covenant promiseth a reward to none but unto them that fulfill the conditions of it If Christ onely fulfill the condition then our grace and glory may be his reward but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience Mr. Eyre will say yes because glory follows our faith and obedience But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward onely metaphorically and one reason of the similitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions because glory follows our faith and obedience as wages follows the work yet is not that the onely or of it self a sufficient reason as we have shewed before nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to rest in it The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works See Rom. 2. 6 7 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. c. I acknowledge the sense in which our Divines understand the words viz. that the phrase according to his works doth not signifie the proportion of desert but the suitablenesse and agreeablenesse between works and the reward which God gives if the works be good the reward shall be good if evill the reward shall be evill also But this is as much as I need to shew that eternall life is not called a reward meerely because it follows faith and obedience For if so then a beleever quatenus a beleever or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward then if he had neither faith nor godlinesse upon any other score but this that these by Gods appointment are to go before the reward And if God had appointed that all that shall be saved should live to 20 or 30 years of age their arrivall at such an age had been every whit as conducible to their reward as now their faith and godlinesse is supposed to be Againe Our Divines account it no ascribing to the desert of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament may be taken in such a signification which appeare not either in the Old or New-Testament unlesse where they are used Metonymically or Metaphorically or other wayes tropically in any other sense then of a Law or a Testament or a Convention And most strange that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onely a parte post but a parte ante not onely as hauing no end but also as not having beginning when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it and it is most certaine that that Covenant made with David had a beginning recorded 2 Sam. 7. 16 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine as Gen. 17. 7. c. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants as we know were not without beginning And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternall yet there are more especially three periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam 2. At the death of Christ 3. When God bestowes on men the benefits of the Covenant If we are properly in Covenant from eternity there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant nihil agit in simile therefore these three periods of time are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant Accordingly as I argued before in the matter of Justification so now in the matter of the Covenant If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect then is not the word Covenant that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved taken properly in all the Scriptures forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose A thing as incredible and abominable as the former But let us farther examine this undenyable truth If the foresaid §. 14. purpose of God be the Covenant of grace then Christ did not obtaine by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect But the consequence is false and Socinianisme Ergo so is the Antecedent Mr. Eyre answers Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant he might have added and therein we agree with the Socinians yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ as deliverance from the curse inherent holinesse c. Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christs merits I remember we had before in the matter of Justification viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification not the act even as he merited the effects of election but not the act As if the reason were the same between a particular univocall cause such as Justification is determined to a particular kind of effect which causes do alwayes produce their effects immediately without the intervention of any other cause and an universal cause of severall heterogeneous effects such as election is and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those severall kinds of causes ordained to their severall kinds of works But the like distinction here between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not Therefore against Mr. Eyres answer I have these things to object 1. It makes void the death of Christ for if the elect before the death of Christ haue a foederall right to the blessings of the Covenant then they are righteous before his death for to be righteous by righteousnesse imputed and to have right to blessednesse are inse parable But Christ is dead in vain if righteousnesse comes by any other way or cause then his death Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulnesse at least upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant but he is Almighty or he is unfaithful but he is a God that keepeth covenant or our sin hinders but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ that sin shall not hinder for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ and no otherwise But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christs death and besides which I most stick at then the whole reason why God should punish his deare and only Sonne so grievously is this it was his pleasure so to do But surely he that doth not afflict men meerly because he will Lam. 3. 33. would much lesse deal so with his Son 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant or no. If they be then it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant for he did not merit that himself might merit or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings If not then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old The first covenant was faulty because it could not bring sinners to perfect happinesse Heb. 8. 7 8 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessednesse it promiseth unlesse Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ he performed the conditions and we receive the benefit Christs death was either the condition of the Covenant or of the effect of it Not the former if it consist in Gods purpose Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God And how it should be the condition of the effects when it is not the condition of the Covenant it self I cannot reach I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpose and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called Metaphorically it may be it may so be called but then it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ but with God himself being no more then his own resolution within himself And yet the foresaid position viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpose though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed had need of a distinction too for so farre forth as they are the effects of purpose they have no other cause or condition and