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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
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
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
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
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not
since that o De traduct peccat ad vitam thes 5. 6. Conditio reconciliationis a parte nostra est Christi receptio the condition of reconciliation on our part is our receiving of Christ which must first be done Cum ex ea tanquam medio praerequisito reconciliatio ineatur because it is a means praerequisite to our reconciliation As for Dr. Twisse if he were capable of receiving any addition of honour by my testimony I should be more ambitious to perform it then Mr. Eyre could be desirous of the favour of his p Ep. dedic most noble Senatours I may not deny that I had bestowed some paines in comparing the Doctours expressions in several places but it pleased God to stir up a far better hand q In his Preface to Mr. Gâ—ayles book Mr. Constant Jessop a learned faithful suffering servant and Minister of Jesus Christ to do the Doctour the honour of vindicating his judgement and doctrine from those general misreports and misapprehensions that went abroad of him Something I should alsospeak concerning Mr. Eyres marginal quotations which are many of them false as I was once intended to have shewed the Reader in a List But considering that the difference of Volumes or Editions in which his Authors are extant may breed a mistake of some and that the Printer tells us Mr. Eyre was not able to overlook the Presse and so through the errour of that others might be mistaken I have thought fit to forbear 3. As for this my Reply though the Authors above mentioned and Mr. Eedes besides who yet hath misrepresented me in reporting that I deny faith to be an evidence of our Justification coming all out so long before me may seem to make my undertaking needlesse yet I was loth to deceive the expectations of so many as had so long waited for my Reply The truth is I had soon drawn up the summe of my answer so far as I was sure that I understood Mr. Eyre aright That I made no more haste to the Presse the Reasons were 1. The incessant emploiments I have had both at home and abroad which have made me uncapable of following works of this nature so close as they should be 2. The frequent and long-continuing bodily infirmities which have kept me from writing many weeks together 3. While the controversie was hot I was willing to see whether any thing would come out pro or con that might occasion any new enquiries I hear of none but Mr. Robertson who threateneth us with a few pedantick Scoticismes and Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter whom for the report I had heard of the man I greedily desired to reade But lighting by accident upon his discourse about the afflictions which befal the godly in this life I found him vox praeterea nihil and so leave him to those Readers who can be edified by his melody Mr. Eyres Comment upon the title page of my Sermon I passe over His digression in chap. 2. about publick disputes with the Ministers will have some more cautions before it passe for canonical if ever it be his lot to be exercised in that way as much as some worthy Ministers have been in some Churches which I have known In my Reply to his Arguments I have faithfully set down the strength of his argument though not every word in every place And so Reader I commend thee and this my writing unto the blessing of him who will one day owne it for his truth and thee for a childe of truth if thou walk in it BENJAMIN WOODBRIDGE THE METHOD OF GRACE IN THE JVSTIFICATION OF SINNERS CHAP. I. An Answer to M. Eyres 6. chap. The Question stated Justification what Justification by Faith what The consent of Protestants in making Faith the condition of Justification Or an instrumental cause thereof Proved also by the confessions of several Churches SECT I. IN our entrance upon the discussion of the present Question namely whether a sinner be justified in §. 1. the sight of God before he beleeve or not till he beleeve I must crave leave to digresse a little from Master Eyres method who first gives his answer to those Texts produced in my Sermon for proof of our Justification by Faith in his fifth Chapter and then states the Question in his sixth and seventh I shall therefore first examine those two Chapters beginning here with the former and so proceed to the entire Vindication of my Sermon by it selfe In the stating of the Question these three things are to be dispatched 1. What Justification is 2. What it is to be justified by Faith or what is the office of Faith in Justification 3. What is meant by the phrase In the sight of God or before God when we enquire concerning the Justification of a sinner before God or in Gods sight For the first when we enquire what Justification is it is supposed §. 2. that the word Justification is taken properly in sensu formali not in a diminutive comparative or tropical sense Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato The Reason why I observe this is because Master Eyre pretends to his Reader that I have no lesse then yielded the cause when I grant a Justification purposed of God and merited by Christ before Faith So then saith he pag. 147. by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed pag. 101. challengeth some one text of Scripture to prove that Justification doth in no sense precede the act of Faith Whereas I doubt not but the world may be said to be from eternity in some sense namely in reference to the counsel and purpose of God And he that is never justified at all simply may yet notwithstanding be said to be justified in some sense that is comparatively as being lesse unjust then another Jer. 3. 11. And many of those who are now alive and never yet tasted of death may neverthelesse be said to be already risen from the dead in some sense to wit in Christ the first fruits of them that slept And Justification it self may be called condemnation in some sense for the Scots say a man is justified when he is hanged and the word seemes to be used in a sense not much unlike Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified from sinne If Master Eyre do indeed think which I am perswaded he doth not that the Question between him and me is whether the wit of man cannot invent some sense wherein Justification may be said to go before Faith he should have acquainted his Reader with it here in the â—stating of the Question and not have kept him ignorant of any such controversie between us till he is come towards the later end of his book Wherein the particular nature and formality of this glorious blessing §. 3. of Justification doth consist is more particularly debated in
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
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
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-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
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
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
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
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 hold fast our confidence unto the end As to the former place it should have been proved and not said only that the particle If is not a note of a condition if to be a vessel of honour be to be glorified in heaven Or if to be a vessel of honour do signifie a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God sanctified and meet for the Masters use and prepared unto every good work as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it then the particle If is a note of more then a condition even of a true proper cause of an effect that follows naturally and not by Promise for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment The next place Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose if the particle If be there granted to be meerly a description of the person because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory but simply affirmative The text saith not whose house we shall be if we hold fast but whose we are if we hold fast Neverthelesse g Parall l. 3. in loc Junius upon ver 14. which in sense is much the same with this doubts not to affirme the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat scil Christus nempe ut maneamus in ipso atque hanc conditionem nâ—tat Apostolus his verbis siquidem principium illius subsistentiae c. which testimony I quote the rather that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition as he doth somewhere represent him yea and on this verse he is expresse that continuance in the faith is the condition of our continuing to be Gods house §. 4. And that the words Rom. 10. 9. If thou beleeve with thine heart c. cannot be a description of the person meerly I prove largely below in a particular debate of that place I have here only one word to speak against it Either it describes the person from his faith to signifie that as such that is as a believer he is the subject of Justification and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty to a blessing consequent by vertue of a promise then is it antecedent as a condition Or it is a meer description of the person shewing that that is the man that shall be justified though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification but may as well follow after it as go before it But 1. This cannot be current sense if Justification be either from eternity or immediately in the death of Christ or at any time before this description be made for example Is it sense to say If thou be the man that dost or at any time shalt beleeve thou shalt be elected or Christ shall die for thee when both election and the death of Christ are long since past or if a man should say If thou shalt be glorified thou shalt be justified would not such a speech suppose that the person to whom those words are spoken was as yet not justified though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place 2. Let us take some parallel place and see how it will accord with it As the words of Christ to the father of the childe that was possest Mark 9. 23. If thou canst beleeve all things are possible to him that believeth Or the same words to his disciples Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustard-seed nothing shall be unpossible unto you If faith do here only describe the person and not propound the condition then whether the father had at present believed or no his childe must have been presently healed notwithstanding supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe and whether the disciples beleeve or no at present all things are possible to them presently they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other But more of this hereafter Another note of a condition is the particle if not or except which §. 5. we finde also used in Scripture in this matter for men are threatened that they shall not be justified except they beleeve John 8. 24. If you beleeve not or except you believe you shall die in your sins when men are threatened with damnation except they believe are they threatened absolutely or conditionally if the first then all the men of the world shall be damned for this is to be preached to all men that if they believe not they shall be damned If conditionally then faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you you shall see my face no more Josh 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more except you destroy the accursed from amongst you Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament then it is clear from hence that their destroying the accursed from amongst them was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of Gods Presence Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved See also Luke 13. 3 5. Rev. 2. 5 22. and multitudes of other places In all which the same particle is a note of a condition unlesse we shall have the modesty to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to §. 6. them that believe prove the same thing particularly Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life with many places of like nature To all which I guesse what Mr. Eyres answer will be by what he saith of the last of these chap. 13. § 14. pag. 135. This text saith he and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit They that beleeve Many such cathedral determinations we have from him without §. 7. so much as a pretence to proof especially in his answers to Scriptures alledged against him yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense 1. It
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
hath been transacted between God and Christ And doth not Mr. Eyre see that if he yield it to have the nature and operation of a Law in discharging sinners he contradicts himself in his next answer wherein he denies that Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a declared act that is by a Law Indeed such a Gospel as he here speaks of may declare the sinner to be discharged by some former act but it selfe cannot be his discharge and therefore the answer is nothing to the purpose 2. The atonement made by Christ may be said to be perfect two wayes 1. In respect of it self and so it was most perfect as wanting nothing that was requisite to constitute or make it a compleat cause of our peace 2. In reference to its effects and so it is yet imperfect and shall continue so till the Saints be glorified because till then they shall not have the full effect or perfection of peace purchased in the death of Christ If Mr Eyre mean this latter sense when he sayes the Gospel declares a full and perfect atonement made by Christ he begs the question In the former I grant it 3. And so that the Elect were cleansed from their sins in the death of Christ quoad impetrationem because he obtained eternal redemption and cleansing for them but not quoad applicationem till they do beleeve because the remission purchased in the death of Christ is not applied or given to us till we believe 4. Though the Priest made an atonement for all the sins of Israel upon the day of expiation Lev. 16. 30. yet did God require the concurrence of their afflicting themselves and humbling their soules on that day ver 23. otherwise they should have no benefit by that atonement Lev. 23. 29. Whatsoever soule shall not be afflicted on that same day he shall be cut off from among his people Is not this to teach us that without faith and repentance we shall not have remission by the death of Christ Secondly Mr. Eyre denies the Proposition which stands upon §. 2. this ground That Justification is the discharge of a sinner by a published declared act Where note Reader that by a declared act I mean not an act of God declaring and manifesting to a sinner that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth willingly mistake me and thereupon patcheth a non-sequitur upon me which I intend not to unstitch but such a declaration of his will as is essential to make it a Law for the very essence of a Law consisteth in this that it is the declared will of the Law-giver Deut. 29. 29. and 30. 11 12 13 14 15 16 c. which is the only rule that determines both de debito officii of what shall be our duty to do and de debito poenae praemii of what rewards or penalties shall become due to us Accordingly the thing I maintain is that our discharge from punishment due by Law must be by the revealed will that is by some contrary Law or Constitution of God And I very well remember that in private conference with Mr. Eyre about nine or ten yeares since I told him my judgement was so then and that our Divines were generally dark in opening the nature of Justification for want of taking notice of it to which he then consented But Tempora mutantur c. the thing it self I thus proved Sin is not imputed where there is no Law Rom. 5. 13. Ergo neither is righteousnesse imputed without Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves where there is not a Law to convince them of it yet God may for his hating of a person is his imputing of sin The scope of Rom. 5. 13. is not to shew when God begins to impute sin to a person but that sin in being supposeth a Law and consequently that there was a Law before the Law of Moses Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre indeed think that when it is said Sin is not imputed where there is no Law the meaning should be men will not impute sin to themselves where there is no Law To impute sin hath but two senses in Scripture 1. To punish it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. and then the meaning is that men will not punish themselves where there is no Law and because the punishment which the Apostle doth here instance in is death therefore the full sense will be this that men will not kill themselves where there is no Law a very probable glosse Or 2. To accuse or charge the guilt of sin upon a person But the use of the Word will not allow us to understand it of a mans imputing or charging sin upon himself a Vid Guil. Esthi in loc For it is never used in all the Scriptures to signifie the act of a man upon himself but perpetually the act of another as Paul to Philemon ver 18. If he owe thee any thing impute it to me especially when it is put passively as here it is sin is not imputed See Rom. 4. throughout 3. And I do heartily wish Mr. Eyre would have given us a short paraphrase upon the thirteenth and fourteenth verses that we might have seen what tolerable sense could have been made of them according to his Exposition and whether the Apostle do affirme or deny that men did impute sin to themselves before the Law especially if the Apostles scope be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely to shew that sin in being supposeth a Law how can it be conducible to that scope to speak of mens not imputing sin to themselves without a Law 4. The grand designe of the Apostle is plainly to illustrate our salvation by Christ by comparison of contraries and the similitude in its full explication stands thus As by the disobedience of Adam sin and death entred upon all his children so by the obedience of Christ life and righteousnesse betides all his The Proposition is set down ver 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entred into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned This is proved ver 13 14. and the summe of the proof as I take it is this Sin was imputed and that unto death from the beginning of the world Ergo there must be some Law in being according to which sin was imputed for it cannot be imputed where there is no Law ver 13. This Law must be either the Law of Moses or the Law given to Adam The former it cannot be for sin and death were in the world long before that Law was given even as long as from Adam to Moses ver 14. Ergo it must be the Law given to Adam And so hath the Apostle his purpose That it was by the disobedience of one namely Adam that sin entred into the world and death by sin From whence it is manifest that God doth never impute sin without a Law that is doth
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
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
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
is a Tanner but it is given the Tanner Quatenus he is the man whom Peter meant in his will In like manner when it is said if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved if the meaning be this if thou be one of them that do or shall believe thou shalt be saved then salvation pertaines not to men as believers but to believers as men under some other notion and capacity And that must be either 1. As they are men simply or 2. As they are sinful men or finally which I suppose Mr. Eyre will say for to affirme either of the former were intolerably absurd as they are elect And so the issue will be this believers Quatenus they are elect Specificativè are the objects of salvation Now see Reader what this will come to at the long runne 1. Hereby is faith devested of all necessity and usefulnesse in order to salvation farther then it is a mark or sâ—gne as all other saving graces are of a man that shall be saved Even as the profession and place of the Tanner forementioned contributed nothing to his obtaining of Peters legacy it served only to describe the person to whom it was given And is this that precious faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. more precious then gold 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Christians riches Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtaines and inherits promises Heb. 11. 33. 6. 12. righteousnesse Heb. 11. 7. salvation Eph. 2. 8. and all good things whatsoever 2 Pet. 1. 3. so highly every where commended in Scripture and urged upon such tearms of necessity How can we be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse and salvation by faith if faith serve only to describe the person It may be this new divinity will shortly produce a new Rhetorick and that is no more then needs 2. If the elect had been described by their names parents time and place of their birth and habitation they might be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse salvation by these as well as by saith if there be no other necessity of faith to righteousnesse and salvation then as it is a description of the persons that shall be saved 3. And according to this glosse there can be no ground of exhorting beseeching and commanding sinners to believe on and accept of a Saviour no more then of exhorting or commanding them to be elected as we have demonstrated in the place before mentioned 4. Nor have the words according to the same glosse the forme and nature of a promise but of a meer conneâ—e Axi me affirming the consequent upon supposition of the Antecedent For if thou beleeve that is if thou be such a one as art or shalt be a believer is but a periphrasis of election unto faith for the down right meaning without circumlocutions is this If thou be one of those whom God from eternity purposed to make a believer thou shalt be saved And why not because of the Promise by which God hath obliged himself to give salvation upon their believing who before had no right to it that will infer a conditional Promise which Mr. Eyre abhors but because he that purposed the one purposed the other also and this he commanded to be declared and published to the world And I say in like manner If the Sun rise we shall have light upon the earth and if God make stones the children of Abraham they shall be able to speak But we know from the Scriptures that the inheritance of life and salvation is given by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 13 16 20. Heb. 6. 13 15. 5. And we know from the same Scriptures that righteousnesse and salvation is not given to believers quatenus they are elect but rather to the elect quatenus they are believers that is they are not only given to the men that are believers but given to them as they are believers It was Abrahams faith that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. and the Promise was to him and to his seed through faith ver 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve where we have distinctly set down the righteousnesse which justifies us The persons justified They that believe The means or condition of their Justification By faith of Jesus Christ The same distinction is accurately observed Gal. 3. 22. That the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve The Promise is that of salvation and blessednesse Compare ver 6. 9 18. Here then we have again the persons to whom the Promise is given namely believers the condition or meanes by faith To teach us that the Promise of life and salvation is not only given to men that are believers but given to them as believers Righteousnesse not only upon them that are faithful but righteousnesse by faith a Promise not only to them that do beleeve but a Promise by believing 6. If thou beleeve thâ—â— shâ—lt be saved or Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Life and salvation is here promised as the reward of faith a reward I mean not properly but metaphorically as the word is used in Scripture often not for a reward of debt but for a reward of grace Now I would ask why it is called a reward Mr. Eyre will tell me because it follows faith Be it so though I think there is much more in it But faith may be conâ—dered either as an act required of us or as the work of God in â—s Now I would know whether life and salvation be the reward of faith as it is our act or as it is Gods work If the former as most certain then Mr. Eyre must quit his beloved glosse for if salvation by the Promise be made consequent to faith as an act required of us and performed by us then faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to salvation by the same Promise and so salvation pertaines to us as believers formaliter and not only as to the men whose property and priviledge it is to be believers sooner or later If the second be said namely that salvation follows faith and so is the reward thereof as it is the work of God in us then God rewards himself he doth not reward us Even as if I should call Gods preserving the world the reward of his creating it or the destruction of the world the reward of his preserving it or his glorisying our bodies the reward of his raising them out of their graves or his calling us unto faith the reward of his predestinating us for each of these actions is consequent to the foregoing And yet I doubt not but if a man should talk after this rate he would be accounted to utter strange kinde of tropes 7. Mr. Eyre may do well to remember that he hath yet given me no similitude of Answer to the main Argument When the Law sayes Do this and live or If thou do this thou shalt live or He that doth these
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
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
degree according to that authority dignity or eminency in any kinde wherein he is exalted above him And this for example is the friendship between h Aristot ibid c. 8 11. a Prince and §. 25. his subjects consisting on his part in his providing for their liberty and welfare by and according to Law and on their part in their subjection and obedience to him according to the same Law As on the contrary the enmity between them consists on their part in their breaking of the Laws established and maintained by his authority and on his part in the egresse and exercise of his authority in inflicting punishment upon them for their offence according to the same Lawes so that a supream Governour as such is at peace with all those against whom his Lawes have no quarrel and an enemie to all with whom his Laws are at enmity Thus stood the case originally between God and man God being engaged by his Covenant to reward obedient man with life and to punish him if he should be disobedient in the least the former of which was his friendship and the latter when the Law was broken his enmity Rom. 5. v. 10. 13. 15 16 17. compared As on the other side mans love and friendship to God consisted in his obedience to the Law Matth. 22. 37 39. and his enmity in rebellion against it Rom. 8. 7. From which grounds it will be easie to understand how God may §. 26. be a friend an enemy reconcilable and reconciled with the same persons successively for while the Will of God I mean his revealed royal Will or Law is to do good and nothing but good to man God is so long his friend when upon mans disobedience the same rectoral Will of God was to inflict evil upon him he was an enemy When the New Law of grace is enacted detracting so far from the rigour and poremptorinesse of the former as to make it possible for the sinner to obtain life upon other termes God is said to be reconcilable when upon the intreaty of those Ambassadours whom the King and Lawgiver sends into the world sinners are prevailed with to accept of and performe the termes of peace then is God said to be reconciled Reconciliatio saith judicious i Antisynod de morte Christi c. 1. p. â—5 12â— Davâ—n dissert de mort Christi p. 65. 68. Ames non infert aliquam intrinsecam mutationem in Deo sed talem mutationem in dispensatione extrinseca quâ fit ut influentia propensae ejus volunt atis in peccatores ordinatè possit derivâ—ri ad eorum salutem perficiendam Sicut post Augustinum Lombardum Thomam Commentatores omnes Calvinus instit lib. 2. cap. 16. c. Yea so farre is all this from making any change in God that he must of necessity be changed unlesse this be true Should he be an enemy to man perfectly righteous or not an enemy to him while a sinner or not reconciled to him when penitent and a believer he must deny himself so little cause hath Mr. Eyre to charge us with Vorstian Divinity Then for the second thing I wish Mr. Eyre had told us more §. 27. plainly what he would have when he contends for the reconciliation of the elect immediately in the death of Christ Doth he mean that they were then perfectly reconciled This I am so farre from believing that though I thankfully acknowledge that Christ merited a perfect reconciliation as he did also a perfect sanctification yet I cannot beleeve that the elect are perfectly reconciled during this life no nor till the Resurrection For 1. If the elect be already perfectly reconciled then Christ is no longer a Mediatour between God and them But Christ is most certainly a Mediatour between God and them not an arbiter only or internuntiâ—s but a Mediatour The Assumption all Christians yield The reason of the Proposition is because it is the very nature and work of a Mediatour to k Vide Hug. Grot. de satisfact p. 172. ex Suidâ make peace and common sense informes us that there is no need of a Mediatour where there is no disagreement and the Scripture is expresse Gal. 3 20. A Mediatour is not of one that is of them that are at perfect friendship and agreement one with another And therefore when all enmity between God and man shall be destroyed perfectly Christ shall cease to be any longer a Mediatour For he must reigne till all enemies be put under his feâ—t and then shall Christ deliver back his mediatory Kingdome into his fathers hands 1 Cor. 15. 24 25 26 27 28. To say he a Mediatour still not to perfect but to manifest reconciliation is to say nothing For the want of the manifestation of reconciliation is some part of enmity or not If it be then God and believers are not yet perfectly reconciled if not then shall not Christ need to be a Mediatour between God and them for that end 2. If it be the work of Christ in heaven to make reconciliation for sinners on earth then those sinners are not perfectly reconciled to God at present But the first is true Ergo. The text is plain Heb. 2. 17. It behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining unto God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people The Apostles scope is to shew the necessity of Christs sufferings on earth before he went to heaven ver 9 10. namely that from the experience of his own sufferings and temptations here he might be the more merciful and faithful to make reconciliation for our sins Compare Heb. 4. 15. Nor can this be meant of making known or manifesting reconciliation For 1. The Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes such an act as is conversant first about God that he might be faithful in things pertaining to God sayes the text even as the object of the service of every High Priest ordained for men is things pertaining to God primarily and in the first place Heb. 5. 1. But to manifest reconciliation is an act primarily and totally conversant about us not an act to God-ward for us 2. The manifestation of reconciliation being wrought by the Spirit of Christ is most properly an act of Christ as King but the reconciliation here spoken of is precisely and formally the act of Christ as Priest 3. And as the Greek word is not so much as pretended to signifie a manifestation in any other place so in this especially it cannot have that sense because the construction will not bear it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reconcile sins is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make a reconciliation or propitiation with God for their sins But if Mr. Eyre mean no more then that the death of Christ did immediately effect an imperfect and initial reconciliation he knows that I yield it in part viz.
that God through the death of Christ hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel that if now they be not reconciled it is because they wil not be reconciled if they die it is because they will die But if his meaning be that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees let him demonstrate that it must-be understood not of the first degree which I stand for but of the second which begins in application 2. I desire also to know by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christs death Is it by some act of his minde surely that will be very dangerous to affirme that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ Is it a transient act shew us then its object it is past imagination how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object which it selfe hath no existence Lastly iâ— the benefits purchased in the death of Christ be none of them applied or actually given us before Christs sitting down at the right hand of God then neither was reconciliation applied to us or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ But the first is true Ergo so is the second Heb. 5. 9. Being made perfect that is exalted into glory see chap. 2. 10. he became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him without this we could have received l See Dr. Reynolâ—s in Pâ— 110. p. 427. 429. Dr. Goâ—win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71 177. none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth he should not be a priest Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised you are yet in your sins And a general rule it is amongst Divines that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death Seeing then it is certaine that our reconciliation though purchased in the death of Christ yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation I answer in the words of the Apostle Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sin which is the reconciliation we speak of and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be you reconciled unto God And now I returne to Mr. Eyre SECT VI. I Had said in my Sermon that it is through the death of Christ that §. 29. the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do beleeve This after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased and charged it of course with the imputations of Arminianisme and Popery at last he advanceth foure Arguments against it as he saith but if the Reader will peruse them he will find there is not one I say againe not one but all of them levelled against a position which never came into my mind to owne viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise Si sat sit accusasse quis erit innocens I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant but I say withal that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some namely the elect If this be Arminianisme I am an Arminian yea and so strong in the persuasion that I cannot hope of my self that I shall be altered by any mans writings which I have seen or am like to see while I live But what cannot a general pardon be purchased for all because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation because other things are purchased as well as it more then this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyres Arguments nor do I intend to say more to the three last the first because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ I shall answer to particularly The Argument then is this The Scripture no where saies that Christ died to obtaine a conditional grant but to make an end of sin Dan. 9. 24. By the blood of his crosse he hath made peace Colos 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the elect Answ Of the first part of the answer more anon As to Dan. §. 30. 9. 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin m Vide Jâ—nium Willet Hexapl. in loc some interpreting it of that end of sin not which Christ made but which sinners themselves make by repentance n Vid. Rolloc comment in loc some of restraining and confirming the godly that they might not be guilty of a defection from God But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ what is the inference Ergo it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proofe If this text afford him any thing for his purpose it will exclude the intercession of Christ and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin To Colos 1. 20. It pleased the Father having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to reconcile all things to himself c. The answer is ready That the making of peace in the death of Christ is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself which the Father intended thereby for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God as the first and principal cause and the latter the effect and end of the former God hath made peace in Christs death that he might reconcile us to himself I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is whether it will
of this we have spoken more largely before The sixth Argument follows If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately §. 11. available for the typicall cleansing under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately availeable to make a real atonement for all those sins for which he suffered The reason of the consequence is because the real sacrifice is not lesse efficacious then the typical But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part Lev. 16. 30. Ergo. Ans 1. I except against the proposition because there is no necessity of the consequence The atonement made by sacrifices might be available to an immediate cleansing though Christs be not because 1. God might will the former though not the latter 2. The people cleansed by sacrifice were all in being 3. And all actually guilty of those sins from which they were cleansed by sacrifice 4. And the punishments from which they were delivered were for the most part carnal and outward and as it were present being either actually upon them as their separations from the congregation for leprosie or other defilements suddaine plagues destroying multitudes of them c. or in sight as it were and neere at hand in which respect it was necessary that the atonement made by sacrifice should have the more immediate effect But they who are purged by the sacrifice of Christ many of them were not in being when his sacrifice was offered nor multitudes of them yet much lesse had they then committed those sins from which his sacrifice doth afterwards purge them nor is the punishment of their sins already upon them but put off in expectation of repentance If Mr. Eyre will give me that liberty which â—e takes himself I might as well argue thus If the sacrifices under the Law obtained no pardon but for sins committed then neither doth the sacrifice of Christ obtaine present pardon for sins to come not yet committed But the first is true Ergo so is the last I doubt he would not grant my proposition The reason which he addes for confirmation of his own hath no weight for the efficacy of the sacrifices typical and real is rather to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect wrought then by their quicknesse in working them That sacrifice is of greatest efficacy which produceth the greatest effect whether it produce it immediately or no for example The sacrifice of Christ is of greater efficacy then those under the Law because they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh but the blood of Christ purgeth the conscience Heb. 9. 13 14. But it did not purge our consciences immediately as soon as it was offered for we had then no consciences to purge Yet I hope Mr. Eyre will not say that Christs sacrifice is therefore of lesse efficacy then the other But the assumption is that which I do most except against viz. §. 12. That those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition performed on the sinners part How doth Mr. Eyre prove this Thus it is said Lev. 16. 30. the Priest shall make an atonement for you Ergo there was no condition required on the peoples part But neither was the atonement perfectly made by the offering of the sacrifice but it was moreover required on the Priests part that he entred into the holy of holies and made atonement there to v. 12 15. a type of our Lords entrance into heaven to make reconciliation there for our sins Heb. 9. 24. and 2. 17 18. and 4. 14 15. and on the peoples part that they did upon that day humble and afflict their soules otherwise they could not have any benefit by that atonement as we have observed before out of v. 29 30. and Lev. 23. 27 28 29. We have also already shewed that in some other cases some actions were required as conditions without which sinners received not the benefit of that typical atonement But for the general this may suffice that the people who received the benefit of those sacrifices were a people in Covenant with God and worshippers of him Heb. 10. 1 2. which was the grand condition of their partaking in the effects of that whole ceremonial service and were therein types of the spiritual worshippers of the new Testament who come by faith to the blood of sprinkling even to Christ crucified for a spiritual and eternal cleansing SECT III. WE come now to Mr. Eyres seventh Argument Some of §. 13. the Elect are reconciled to God immediately by the death of Christ without any condition performed by them viz. elect Infants Ergo all the elect are so reconciled Answ I deny the consequence because it infers an universal from a particular The Apostle sayes It is appointed unto all men once to die Heb. 9. 27. and through death to enter into Heaven shall I say this is false because Enoch and Elijah went to Heaven and never saw death If the general directions commands and promises in Scripture must all be arraigned of falshood if they be not applicable to Infants as well as unto persons that have understanding to know their Masters will we shall make sad work exceptions of particular persons make no breach upon a general rule The Apostle sayes He that will not work must not eat If we should give Infants no more food then they work for the world would be soon at an end 2. But I deny the antecedent also viz. That elect Infants are immediately reconciled to God by the death of Christ without any condition performed on their part A double answer therefore are our Divines wont to make to this objection 1. That Infants may have the seed or habit of faith though it be not wrought in them in the ordinary way of preaching 2. That their Parents faith is the condition of their salvation if they die before they are capable of putting forth the act of faith themselves Mr. Eyre will not hear of either of these answers but invades them both The former 1. Because Infants have no knowledge of good or evil §. 14. Deut. 1. 39. and there cannot be faith without knowledge 2. Faith cometh by hearing of the Word preach't Rom. 10. Now Infants heare not or if they do they understand not what they hear Answ 1. Wilt thou see then Reader what is the aime and upshot of all Mr. Eyres discourse this it is that there is no necessity of believing or repenting that men may be saved for Infants are saved without it as not being capable of so much as the habit of either and God doth not give salvation unto Infants in one manner and to men in another these are his own words therefore men also may be saved without it 2. Or if he shall say as he doth somewhere else that God hath purposed to give faith to all that are of yeares of discretion before he give them salvation yet still we retort upon him what he
requires of us Let him clear it up from Scripture lâ—t him shew us the text that saith that God hath purposed to have Infants in one way and men in another 3. And yet I know not whether he hath so much charity to Infants as to allow them any room in the Kingdome of Heaven he cannot if his Argument be good for the text is expresse Mark 16. He that believeth not shall be damned and Infants are uncapable of believing for they cannot hear the Word nor have they any knowledge of good or evil nor doth God save them in one way and men in another 4. But to what he speaks here of the incapacity of Infants having the seed or habit of grace the answer is easie It is true they know neither good nor evil but it will not follow I trow that they are neither good nor evil They have the habits of sin in them even whiles they are uncapable of the act Ergo they are capable of the habits of grace too otherwise sin and grace were not contraries for contraria tribuuntur eidem And it is certain that as all are now borne in sinne so all should have been borne righteous if Adam the father of us all had not transgressed And to the second exception viz. That faith cometh by hearing §. 15. of the Word preached Rom. 10. 17. the same answer will suffice faith may be considered either in its compleat act and so no doubt it comes by hearing the reason is rendred by the Apostle in the same chapter ver 14. How shall they beleeve on him of whom they have not heard Or 2. In its seed root or habit and so I deny that it is alwayes and in all persons wrought by hearing of the Word preached The Christian and godly instructions of Parents as they are ordained of God to be a meanes of instilling his feare into the hearts of their children Eph. 6. 4. Isa 28. 9 10 11. so are they not unfrequently blessed with successe according to the capacity of children as in Timothy 2 Tim. 3. 14 15. And sometimes God by his own immediate working may inspire that grace into the heart of an Infant which it is not possible any means should be used by men to effect David seems to have been gracious from a childe Psal 22. 9 10. and 71. 5 6. and Isaac Gâ—l 4. 29. and Christ blessed Infants Mark 10. 16. and he blesseth by doing or working that in them which godly Parents can do no more then desire may be done when they are said to blesse their children But we have a famous instance which puts all out of doubt of John §. 16. the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mothers womb Luke 1. 15. What sayes Mr. Eyre to this He cites these words and gives answer to others a great way off ver 41. whereupon Mary's salutation of Elizabeth the babe is said to leap in her wombe and tells us That this exultation Divinitús facta est in Infante non Humanitùs ab Infante and therefore is not to be drawn into an example or urged as a rule to us what to think of others Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus We cite the words of v. 15. and so doth Mr. Eyre too to prove Infants capable of the habit of grace and he answers to v. 41. which is no part of the objection he had proposed against himself But whereas he sayes it is not to be urged as a rule to us what to think of other Infants he should have given us the reason too for it proves invincibly that Infants are capable of the habits of grace which is all intended to be proved by it and by consequence that Mr. Eyres two Arguments to the contrary from Infants want of knowledge and inability to hear are nothing worth d Viâ—â— Bâ—coâ—m de side â—ustif Q â—1 per tot Ergo the Scriptures contradict not them that say Infants may have the seed of faith Nor yet do they say any thing contrary to Scripture who assert §. 17. that Infants performe the conditions of reconciliation and salvation by their Parents forasmuch as it is manifest throughout the Scriptures that Infants follow the condition of their Parents whether they be the Infants of Gentiles or of the people of God And as the former are strangers from the Câ—venant together with their Parents and thereby liable to all the evils that accompany such a condition Ezra 10. 3. Deut. 7. 2 3 6. Isa 56. 3. so doth the Lord claim a special right and propriety in the children of his people Ezek. 16. 20 21. in regard of which they are called holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. the greater is their sacriledge who refuse to giâ—e unto God the things that are Gods but will needs have their children kept at liberty to choose whether they will serve God or the devil when they come up to ripenesse of understanding which relation of theirs to God as some of his people and of him to them as their God by vertue of their Parents faith Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Nehem. 9. 8. for never since the world was made did God make a Covenant with a faithful man the blessings and beneâ—it of which should reach no farther then his own person witnesse his Covenant with Adam Noah Abraham Jacob Phineas David c. doth signally include the Promise of pardon of sin Jer. 31. 33 34. and 32. 38 39 42. And if Noahs faith was available to the saving not of himself only but his family also Heb. 11. 7. and the faith of godly Parents for the life of their children Matth. 15. 28. John 4. 50 51. I see no reason why it should be denied to be of as great acceptance with God for the salvation of such of them as die in their infancy Yet a double Argument Mr. Eyre hath against it 1. Hence §. 18. it will follow that all the children of believing Parents are justified which he supposeth no man will say Answ But he might have known that the Lutherans say so and that without any great inconvenience which I am able to foresee That which I apprehend will be readiest objected against it though Mr. Eyre object not it nor any thing else is that many children of godly Parents live and die in sin Ergo They were never justified But this inference will not passe for it will be answered That the Parents faith remains no longer the condition of his childes pardon and salvation then during the state of infancy when he is growen up to the use of his own understanding and will a personal faith of his own is required upon the same termes of necessity as of others who from their birth were without God and strangers from his Covenant Israel in Egypt is likened to a child Ezek. 16. 5 6 c. Hos 11. 1. and in Gods dealing with them there when they were in their Infant-age we have a type and embleme of
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
arguments advanced with my answers then given to them to which I do not intend to digresse so far as to reply 1. Because the Basis and foundation of his whole Argument as he hath now proposed in print is laid in this that we were justified in Christs Justification and therefore as to the summe is answered already 2. Because there is no proof of any particular branch of the Argument but is proposed again before he hath done and therefore must be answered hereafter 3. Because though I have altogether forgotten the order of his arguments and of my own answers yet I very well remember that as I understood his argument in no other sense then as it is set down in my Sermon printed so many things I spake by way of answer whereof his relation takes no notice but I must desire him to take more notice of before he and I part My answer then to the foresaid argument was double 1. That upon supposition that we were in Covenant before we beleeve yet would it not follow that we were justified before we believe because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another To this Mr. Eyre replies in the second paragraph of this his sixteenth chapter and says That though a man be not sanctified and glorified before faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. one of the elect he is certainly justified For 1. God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect which is real Justification Rep. To this Reader thou must expect no other answer from me then what I have at large given already 2. Saith he Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ for Justification goes before Sanctification and faith is a part of Sanctification Rep. I acknowledge that our English Divines whom I confesse in matters of this nature I preferre before any other are wont to place Sanctification in order after Justification which also is so plain from Scripture that it cannot be denied But Mr. Eyre also knows that they are wont to distinguish faith and sanctification as two things as the Scriptures also do 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 15. 9. and 16. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 13 14 15 16. though I do not finde that they do all expresse this difference in the same manner Should I interpose my own opinion it may be I should finde little thank for my labour and therefore I shall say no more then what others have said before me 1. It being plain that faith and holinesse are tâ—o things in the use of Scripture Mr. Eyre should have proved and not laid it down so rawly without any distinction that faith is a part of sanctification I deny it provided I may be tried by Scripture-language 2. As faith is in the understanding a perswasion of the truth of the Gospel and the Promises of life and glory contained therein so is it wont to be distinguished from sanctification 2 Thes 2 13. is not so much a part of it as a cause for by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve and see the glory of the Promises by so much the more are we changed into the image of Gods holinesse 2 Pet. 1. 3 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. and 7. 1. 3. As faith is in the will an acceptance of Christ that by him we may be brought unto God it hath much the same difference for as God hath made Christ to us sanctification 1 Cor. 1. 30. so doth faith receive him and in that respect is not properly any part of our sanctification but the turning of the soul to Christ as unto a most sufficient principle and authour thereof Acts 26. 18. and so much for the exceptions against my first answer My second answer was a flat denial of the Assumption viz. that we are in Covenant with God before we beleeve if the phrase of §. 2. being in Covenant be understood properly for such an interest in the Covenant as gives a man right and title to the blessings of the Covenant Mr. Eyres proof is this Some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which works faith is given us before we beleeve My answer to this was large and distinct though Mr. Eyre reproach it sufficiently with a designe of darkening the truth and blinding the Reader but that 's no matter I shewed 1. That the word Give had a double sense in Scripture 1. When no receiving follows and so it signifies no more then the Will of God constituting and appointing Acts 4. 12. Eph. 1. 22. and 4. 11. 2. Sometimes it includes a receiving and possession of the thing given Thus the Spirit is given when we receive him and are as it were possest of him and he dwells in us In this sense is the Spirit never said to be given in Scripture but unto them that do beleeve Luke 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 3. 16 17. with Rom. 8. 10. 11. 2 I shewed also that the Spirit may be said to be given three ways essentially personally or in regard to some peculiar operations which he worketh in us Now there being no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in an hypocrite which hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God therefore the Spirit is neither given nor received before faith be wrought but is given and received together with faith and not before This is the summe the further explication the Reader may see in my Sermon at leisure Mr. Eyre thus expounds the giving of the Spirit That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel to work faith in all those that are ordained to life Rep. Then see Reader what a proof we have that the Spirit is given us before faith Mr. Eyre should prove that we have some benefits of the Covenant before faith viz. the Spirit when he explains it he tells us the Spirit is given before faith not in that sense in which the word give or given includes our receiving but as it signifies the sending or constituting of the Spirit to be by way of specialty the efficient cause or worker of faith Mr. Eyre doth not so much as open his mouth against what I said before that the Spirit is said to be given to us in reference to some peculiar work of his upon or in us which work is faith Here when he should shew how he is given us before faith he says he is sent to work faith in which sense the Spirit may be said to be given in the first sense mentioned of that word but not given to us so as that we can be therefore said to receive him eo ipso because he is sent to work faith and therefore this is but a deserting of the Argument in hand nor are we yet proved to have received any benefit of the
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
See Downâ— oâ— Justâ—â— l. 8. cap. 5. sect 1â— works that God should reward them that have the greatest degrees of grace with the greater degrees of glory If this be so then glory is not called a reward meerly because it follows faith and Godlinesse for that it would do whether those graces were more or lesse But wherein then will it be said stands the difference between a reward of debt and of grace between a reward properly so called and a reward so called metaphorically Surely amongst other differences this is one that God dignatione suâ of his own grace and vouchsafeing is pleased to accept of our faith and imperfect obedience so as to reward them with eternall life not onely above but without all dignity and desert in them Whereas a reward properly so called hath always respect to some work as its meritorious cause from which also it hath its measure and proportion And whereas Mr. Eyre expects that I should have shewed that §. 6. there was one covenant of grace made with Christ and another with us it were strange if it should pertaine to me to prove any such thing I thought it had layn upon Mr. Eyre not onely to say but to prove that the covenant of grace was made with Christ It was alwayes very farre from my thoughts that the covenant made with Christ was the same with that which is made with sinners my reason is this Those covenants which agree not neither in the persons covenanting nor in their preceptive part nor in their promissory part are not the same The covenants with Christ and us disagree in all these Ergo they are not the same The assumption we prove by part 1. They agree not in the persons covenanting In the former the covenanters are God and Christ in the latter God and men One of these two things I guesse Mr. Eyre will say either 1. That though the whole covenant be not made with us because it is Christ and not we which performed the condition of it yet the promissary part of it pertaines wholly to us because it is our blessednesse which is promised therein Answ That is men are not the subjects or persons that joyne themselves in covenant with the Lord as the Scriptures speak Jer. 50. 5. but onely the objects concerning whom God hath spoken that he will do them good even as brute or inanimate creatures may metaphorically be said to be in covenant with God when he promiseth any blessing upon them for his servants sake as Hos 2. v. 18. God promiseth to make a Covenant for his people with the beasts of the field that they shall do them no hurt and with the heavens and the earth that they shall concurre to yeild them blessings v. 21 22. Or rather when God promiseth that the heavens and earth shall receive some farther persection then they now have for his childrens sake Rom 8. 21. In this case these creatures may but improperly be said to be in covenant with God and but more improperly that God hath made a covenant with them and the Scripture somewhere speaketh in a language very neere it But God governs men in a way suitable to their natures drawing them with the cords of men blessing them not as he blesseth the earth and other inanimate or bruite creatures but bestowing blessednesse on them as the reward of some former act or actions of theirs and so they are not onely the objects for whom God covenanteth but the subjects with whom Now if the constitution of the Covenant of grace be such that men are taken into it mediante actione voluntarià not without some voluntary act of their own intervening then Gods declaring concerning them that he will blesse them is not a sufficient ground upon which he can be said to have made the covenant of grace with them But such is the constitution of the covenant of grace that men are taken into it not without some voluntary act of their own intervening Ergo the assumption is plaine from the words of Moses Deut. 29. 12 13. That thou shouldest enter or passe into covenant with the Lord thy God that he may be unto thee a God as he hath sworne unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaack and to Jacob which to be the substance of the covenant of grace excepting the additions and explications peculiar to the times of the gospel appeares 1. In that it is for substance the same which was made with their fathers Abraham Isaack and Jacob which not onely the Scriptures witnesse but Mr. Eyre grants to be for substance the covenant of grace The promise to the fathers that they should have a seed was peculiar to themselves but the other blessings promised pertained to the seed as well as to the fathers onely the Lord requires of them to enter into and keep his covenant as their fathers did that they might inherit the blessing of their fathers 2. Because the covenant here mentioned is expressely distinguished from the covenant of the law made with them in Horeb v. 1. The words of the covenant made with Israel in the land of Moab beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 3. Because the Apostle calls this very covenant excepting as above excepted the additions of grace and explications of promises proper to the times of the Messiah the righteousnesse which is of faith and the word of faith which he and other Apostles preached compare chap. 30. v. 11 12 13 14. with Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9 Or else he may say that we also performed the condition in Christ But this I think he will not say because he so distributes the covenant of grace into parts as to ascribe to Christ the performance of the condition to us the receiving of the benefit Secondly the covenant made with Christ and that with us agree §. 7. not in their preceptive part Of him it was required that he should make his soul an offering for sin and give his life a ransome for many Isa 53. 10. Heb. 10. 5. 7. Of us there is no such thing required but onely that we beleeve as Abraham did so shall we pertake in the blessings of his covenant Rom. 4. 23 24. Gal. 3. 6 7 9 16 22. Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. 3. The promises made to Christ in the covenant of redemption are of a higher nature then those made to us in the covenant of reconciliation to wit a name above every name whether in heaven or earth the inheritance of all nations dominion from sea to sea See Philip. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and 2. 9. and the other places mentioned § 1. The most which is promised to us is a conformity in our measure unto him in glory SECT 2. Mr. Eyres second Argument proceeds thus If Christ merited §. 8. nothing for himself but onely for the elect then all the promises made to him do belong to them But the first is true Ergo. Answ I deny
so farre forth as they have other conditions or causes they are not the effects of purpose The existence and order of the things purposed is from Gods purpose For example he did purpose that first he would give up his Sonne to death for us then call us then justifie us then glorifie us and had there been nothing else but Gods purpose these foure had been the simple successive effects of his purpose but had not had the relation of cause and effect amongst themselves That Christs death merits our salvation is not from Gods purpose but from the convention between the Father and him That faith is the condition of justification and glorification is from the promise of grace made with us That glorification is also a reward is from the same promise That it is not only a consequent but an effect of our justification ariseth from the nature of that act as being an adjudging unto glory that it is an inheritance is because it is given by Testament Wherefore all these purposed acts of God may be considered either simply ratione existentiae in respect of their existence and so they have no other cause but his purpose or quoad modum essendi according to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 habitude or relation which they have one to another in their execution arising either from the nature of the things themselves or some Law Covenant and constitution of God and thus they are not the effects of his purpose But I have been two long in my reply to this answer of Mr. Eyres A word more to prove that Gods eternal purpose is not the New Covenant and I passe on That Covenant which is of the same common nature with those §. 15. Covenants that are wont to be made amongst men doth not consist ◠Vide Less de Iust jur lib. 2. cap. 13. D. 1. 5. Grot. dejure Belli lib. 2. cap. 11. 2. in the meer will or purpose of God The New Covenant or Covenant of Grace is of the same common nature with those that are wont to be made amongst men Ergo the New Covenant doth not consist in the purpose of Gods minde or will The proposition is certain Because whether Mr. Eyre will allow Gods Covenant to be a Covenant properly so called or will rather call it a promise it is certain there are no Pacts Conventions Covenants Stipulations Restipulations Testaments Pollicitations Promises or Contracts of any kinde made amongst men which consist in the internal purpose of the minde and therefore if Gods Covenant or Promise be of the same common nature with these neither can that consist in his purpose The assumption is supposed by the Apostle Gal. 3. 15. Brethren I speak after the manner of men though it be but a mans Covenant yet if it be confirmed no man disannulleth or addeth thereto and ver 17. And this I say that the Covenant which was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Where the whole strength of the argument lyes upon this supposition that the covenant made with Abraham was a true formall Covenant or Promise such as usually passeth between man and man See to the same purpose Heb. 9. 15 16 17. many more arguments I could adde if need were SECT III. The direct answer to the Argument and the proof of it out of §. 16. Heb. 8. I thus delivered in my Sermon In the Covenant as recorded in Heb. 8. There are three things of distinct consideration the confusion of which so it should have been printed not the conclusion and so it is printed in the second Edition of my Sermon is the only support of Mr. Eyres Argument 1. There is the matter and blessings of the Covenant on Gods part I will be their God and they shall be my people 2. The bond and condition of it on our part and that is faith in those words I will put my Lawes in their mindes c. In these two things is the tenor and formality of the new Covenant They that believe the Lord will be their God and they shall be his people 3. There is also a promise and declaration that God will work this condition by which men shall have an interest in this Covenant and a right and title to the blessings of it I will put my Lawes into their mindes that is I will give them faith which faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant already made but as a means by which we are brought into Covenant and thereby invested in a right to all the blessings of it c. That this is the true meaning of the text Reader thou shalt see proved below In the mean time according to my promise take a farther Explication of the words which I shall set down in distinct propositions that Mr. Eyre may see what little ground my words afford him of all his wonderments and paratragediations Prop. 1. The Old and New Covenant so called ver 8. and 13. §. 17. are not two Covenants opposed in their nature and substance but one and the same Covenant of grace under an Old and New Administration This many learned men have proved and our Divines generally grant it and Mr. Eyre himselfe for one in this his seventeenth Chapter § 2. and therefore I set it downe without farther proof Prop. 2. Therefore that which is called the New Covenant and described ver 10 11 12. doth not containe the form and tenour of the Covenant of grace but only the differences between the Old Covenant and the New and the matter wherein the latter excells the former And that the name of a Covenant is given to it doth not alter the case it being so frequent in Scripture to use the name of Covenant when not the forme but the matter or quality and efficacy of it is signified 2 Cor. 3. 14. Rom. 9. 4. 1 King 8. 21. Hos 2. 18. Job 5. 23 c. Prop. 3. The differences between the Old Covenant on the one side and the new on the other are thus stated in the text The Old in generall is called faulty ver 7 8. and the faultinesse of it described in two particulars 1. That it could not give strength and ability to the people to fulfill it and by consequence 2. That it could not make them blessed in the favour and enjoyment of God ver 9. They continued not in my Covenant and I regarded them not saith the Lord. In respect of which it is elsewhere called weak and unprofitable and unable to make any thing perfect chap. 7. 18 19. compare also Rom. 8. 3. and Gal. 3. 21. On the contrary the New Covenant in general is called better ver 6. and its betternesse beare with the Anglicisme expressed in two opposite respects 1. That it should minister ability and strength to keep Covenant 2. And by consequence perfect the people in the favour and enjoyment of God ver 10. I will put my Lawes into their minde And I will be
affirmed in Scripture or no I am content to referre to the judgment of any Reader that hath but understanding enough to see that two and two make foure But we do not conclude it from hence that the promise of a new heart is first mentioned but that the promise of Gods being our God is last mentioned unlesse it be in the place last debated And that as the happy issue and upshot of Gods giving a new heart and because it is first mentioned as to be given which elsewhere is required and commanded us for this end that God may be our God and we his people And what is required of us for such an end that if God promise to make us do is promised as a means to the same end Mr. Eyres 2. The promise of a new heart includes not only the first act of faith and repentance but the continuance and encrease of these gifts Ergo all the promises of Sanctification are either no part of the covenant or the same promise is both a means to bring us into covenant and also a part of it Answ This Argument if it may so be called 〈◊〉 in forme If the promise of a new heart include not only the first act of faith and repentance but the continuance and increase of these gifts then the new heart is not promised as a means of our entrance into Covenant with God If this be not the scope of the Argument it doth not touch the question if it be I deny the consequence The being or first act of faith and repentance is promised as the means by which we enter into covenant the continuance of these as the means by which we continue in covenant which continuance neverthelesse is part of the Covenant made with them that believe for unto him that hath shall be given and he shall have more abundantly Mr. Eyre 3. The promises of sanctification have the same ground viz. The merit of Christ the same end viz. Gods glory Faith and repentance are not promised only subserviently for our benefit but for Gods glory Tit. 2. 14. 1 Thess 4. 3. The same manner in which they are promised he doth nor say I will write my Lawes in their hearts that I may pardon their sins but I will write my Lawes c. and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more Ergo they are parts of the Covenant Answ If all this were granted yet I cannot see how this Argument concludes God promiseth to make a New Covenant thâ—s promise hath the same ground and end c. with the covenant it self Ergo the promise of making the New Covenant is part of the New Covenant Will Mr. Eyre allow of this 2. The maine thing also is left out in the enumeration The promise of faith is an act of Gods Dominion and Liberty at least as to us Rom. 9. 18. But the promise of righteousnesse and salvation is the act of God as a mercifull Governour Judge and Rewarder of his people 2 Tim. 4. 8. Jam. 4. 12. Who by these promises envites encourageth and drawes men to beleive 3. As to the particulars mentioned the first of them hath been answered often The second affords a canvase worthy of a deeper head then mine viz. whether repentance for example have any other preciousnesse excellency or beneâ—it in it then as it is a means appointed of God by which we obtaine precious and excellent promises The question is the same concerning faith in Christ as it is an affiance placed in him for life and salvation Neither of these were any part of that soul-perfection in which man was at first created neither any part of that Image of God unto which we are by Christ restored Eph. 4 24. Neither any part of our happinesse though the way thereto For they shall both cease in heaven Neither proposed to us in the Gospel ut propter se appetibile sed propter aliud Indeed it is good to repent and now of absolute necessity to salvation but it were better if it were possible to do nothing for which a man need to repent If then the whole benefit of these acts lay in the use to which God hath ordained them and in the promises which are made to them then it will be apparent that God hath not promised them any otherwise then as meanes of obtaining the blâ—ssings of his Covenant But I will not be peremptory 4. To the last indeed it is not said that God doth write his Lawes in our hearts that he may pardon our sins and good reason why Because the scope of the place is only to declare what shall be the effects of the Covenant not the manner in which it doth produce them Neverthelesse that the pardon of sin is one end of Gods writing his Lawes in our minde is apparent 1. Because as we have shewed already God is said in Scripture to write his Lawes in our mindes or to give us a new heart that he may be our God which promise as we have proved and Mr. Eyre confesseth includes the pardon of sin 2. From the contrary effects on them that are without Mark 4. 12. That they may not perceive nor understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them 3. God expecteth repentance that he may forgive sinnes Jeremiah 36. 3. and 26. 2 3. Ergo he promiseth it as a meanes to the same end His third and last general Argument is It sounds harshly that God promiseth faith as a means on our part to bring us into Covenant For if he promise to bestow it it cannot properly be called a meanes on our part Answ Sounds are to be judged by every mans â—are If God sometimes require us to walk in his statutes that we may be blessed and elsewhere promise to cause us to walk in his statutes to say that this is a promise of enabling us to do that which he hath appointed to be the meanes of our blessednesse sounds never a whit harsh in my eare no more then to say that the promise of giving speech to Moses Isaiah or Jerâ—my was a promise of enabling them to performe the meanes which they were to use for the discharge of their office or the promise of strength to Abraham and Sarah to become the parents of a child was the promise of the means which they were to use for that end And now I perceive I have prevented my self in what I should have replyed to Mr. Eyres answers to particular places there being nothing said to any of them but what is here already replyed too He concludes with a distinction of that promise I will be their God and which saith he may be taken either 1. More generally as comprehending all good things whatsoever and so faith is included in it Or 2. More restrictively as noting one particular beneâ—it and priviledge distinct from the rest c. Where the first member is to large and the second to narrow I
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
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