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
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
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
Covenant I mean any saving benefit before faith Therefore Mr. Eyre answers secondly That though the Spirit be not given us one atome of time before faith yet it is enough §. 3. that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that faith is not before the Spirit Rep. Neither for if the Spirit be not said to be given to us but in reference to his working of faith in us then faith is wrought in nature before the Spirit can be said to be given to us as if the Sunne be said to dwell or be in my house because it enlightens my house then in order of nature my house is first enlightened before the Sun can be said to be or dwell in it There is but one thing more in this Chapter that needs answer and that is this I had said the Spirit is not given us but in reference to some peculiar operation of his working faith in us and added for illustration that as a man doth first build himself an house and then dwell in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organize and prepare the soul to be a house unto himself and then dwells in it Mr. Eyre answers But is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of faith Rep. If these interrogations have the force of an affirmation Mr. Eyre should have proved them and not barely asserted them I have answered sufficiently already There is no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in a hypocrite who hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God Ergo there can be no work of the Spirit before faith it self in reference unto which the Spirit can be said to be given to us Preparative works do not difference a beleever from an hypocrite and therefore in themselves are no fruit or benefit of the Covenant So much â—o thâ— sixteenth Chapter CHAP. XIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Seventeenth Chapter Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us SECT I. HAving thus shewed that we receive not the Spirit before we beleeve §. 1. it remains that we enquire whether faith it self be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyres purpose to shew that we are in Covenant before we beleeve as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we beleeve For answer therefore to the question understand Reader that it may have a double sense 1. Whether the Covenant of grace that is the Gospel have any efficiency in converting the * â—id Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful of siâ— page 337 Mr. bâ—lk 〈…〉 oâ— the Covenâ—â—â— pâ—â—t 4. page 318. soul and working it to beleeve and in this sense I readily grant that faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant Or 2. Whether God have engaged himself by Covenant to any sinner in the world to give him faith so that if God should not give him faith he were unfaithful and a breaker of his own Covenant In this sense is the question to be understood and my answer to it was a Faith is not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ God hath promised Christ that sinners shall beleeve on him Isa 53. 10. and 55. 4 5. Psal 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Psal 89. 25 26. c. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is given to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant made with them the sense of which we have already explained that the Elect are supposed to be in Covenant with God before they beleeve and so God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith I deny it See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it First a similitude at the end of his first section If one promise §. 2. another that in case he shall bear so many stripes or perform any other condition he will then take care of and provide for his children doth not this promise made with the father most properly belong to his children The case is the same between Christ and us He performed the condition and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant Answ Whether the case be the same between Christ and us is the proper debate of the next Argument in the mean time this comparison is not to our case because the Promâ—se made to Christ that Jews and Gentiles shal come into him by faith is a promise that he shall have children spiritual that he shall have a numerous seed even like the stars of heaven for multitude But as the promise made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he should have was no promise to them that they should becom children which were promise to nothing that it should become something so the promise to Christ that many Nations shall come unto him and becom children to him in a spiritual sense is no promise to them nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers but unto him and in gratiam sui for his own honour and glory Much lesse doth such a promise hinder that that faith by which they become children unto Christ may not be enjoyned them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Christ and blessednesse by him The serond and great Argument is this If there be but one Covenant §. 3. of grace which is made both with Christ and us then faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us Ergo Hence a little before I am bid to shew that there are two distinct Covenants of grace one made with Christ and the other with us or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect then that which is made with Christ c. Answ Before we can give a distinct answer to this we must first enquire how we may conceive of the forme and tenour of the Covenant of grace The tenour of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible Do this and live But it seems there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all though some men are the intended objects of the blessings therein contained but only with Christ with whom we are to conceive the father striking a Covenant to this sense If thou wilt make or do thou make satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and I will give them grace and glory where the condition is Christs death or rather his satisfaction for his death if it had not been satisfactory had availed nothing and the promise is that the Elect shall have grace and glory This being explained I do utterly deny that there is but one Covenant of
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
because the merits of Christ themselves are the effects of the same love and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused But if our Lords death had been only from his own will not pre-ordained of God in the decree of election all the benefits purchased by it must have been ascribed to it as the first cause and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal but meerly concomitant or consequent Now his will not to punish containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of this impunity Ergo if Christ merited it it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause and not to Gods Will of not punishing because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ as being determined precisely to a non-punition And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident or rather doth not produce them at all but stands by without efficacy whiles another cause doth the work Therefore herein also the comparison halts The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself §. 24. is this We may as well call Gods Will to create Creation and his Will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his Will to justifie Justification His answer is Creating calling and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God Rep. 1. The answer contradicts it selfe for it yields it to be a proper speech to say that God doth will or purpose to justifie even as proper as to say he doth will or purpose to create to call to glorifie and yet beares us in hand that Justification is perfect and compleat in the minde of God Whatsoever is purposed is future If it have already an actual existence it is not capable of being purposed to exist But the immanent acts of Gods minde are not future but from eternity 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change yet it makes an adherent change as was largely proved from Scripture but now even as if a Malefactour be condemned and afterwards pardoned his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change that is a relative though he remain the same man that he was and be not changed inherently and really And I wonder why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent relative change should be called by the name of that act rather then the purpose of such an act which makes an inherent real change should be called by its name Ars posterior utitur prioris operâ— Morality supposeth nature 3. It is true that Creation c. do make an inherent change But the question is whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words as signifying not the act but the effect of Creation c. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture for the effects not for the act Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety as to say the words Creation Vocation Glorification and what of like nature signifie not those several acts but their effects what could Mr. Eyre say against it To say Creation c. makes an inherent change is to say nothing for it will quickly be answered that the effects of Creation Vocation c. do make an inherent change not the acts If he tell me the words are never used in Scripture but as importing such a change I answer still as he doth of Justification that the words where-ever they are to be found in Scripture are to be understood of the effects not of the act If he yet say that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines I say so too Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te Thus much for the vindication of the foure objections which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himselfe He concludes this discourse thus SECT VIII HOwever were it granted that there was in God from everlasting §. 25. an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this controversie were ended Answ Such a purpose I acknowledge in God to justifie his Elect when they should beleeve and being justified not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons yet so as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment till they do beleeve and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin If this will satisfie Mr. Eyre let him make his most of it But let us see how it ends the controversie First saith he Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely negative but privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of righteousnesse is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual though the â—â—n not to be imputed be not in actual being So is the imputation of righteousnesse 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it selfe Answ If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversie we have done It is here supposed that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousnesse and the non-imputation of sin which should have been proved and not begged And therefore the foundation failing there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure yet a word or two of that also 2. I say therefore that an eternal actual privative non-imputation of future sin is either non-sense or a contradiction let Mr. Eyre take his choice and consider withal what he is like to make of Justification at last for that which is only future can be deprived of nothing but its futurity and if it be ab aeterâ—o deprived of its futurity then it is ab aeterno non futurum and if ab aeterno non futurum then it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity for that which is never future is never capable of being made non-future unlesse we could in eternity concâ—â—e one moment wherein it is made future and another moment wherein it is made non-future which cannot be because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius Now this privative non-imputation of future sin what doth it privare Not the futurity of sin for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world for nothing exists in time which before its existence was not future That then which this non-imputation is privative of must be the imputation of sin to a person cui debitum est imputari for that is the habit which only is contrary to it for as the privative non-imputation of sin present and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae so the like non-imputation of sin future is privative only imputationis futurae debitae The Argument therefore returnes for if this
notion includes shame and sorrow and self-abhorrency c. which faith precisely doth not As to the Conclusion of this paragraph which concernes my subscription to the testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ a book so called I do not remember that ever I subscribed it in this or any other County The second Argument is this To interpret Justification by faith §. 9. that faith is a necessary antecedent condition of Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature as to sight of sin legal sorrow c. for if these be conditions disposing us to faith and faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causa causae est causa causati Answ This Argument at the long run overthrows all humane contracts at least it fights as strongly against them as against us Titius gives a hundred pounds per annum to Sempronius upon conditon he give two pence a week to Maevius This two pence cannot be paid unlesse the silver be digged out of the mines and melted and stamp't and delivered out of the Coyners hand c. Ergo Sâ—mpronius his giving two pence a week to Maevius is not the condition of his holding his 100. li. per annum at least no more then the mine or bank is Is not this gallant Logick 2. I deny that legal sorrows and the sight of sin c. are necessary conditions disposing to faith because God hath not promised to give faith if we be convicted or legally sorry These Preparations are necessary physically not morally because the soule cannot seek out for life and salvation in another while it hath confidence of sufficiency in its selfe If any man beleeve without these he shall be saved notwithstanding 3. The answer therefore is that the things which are necessary naturally are not the conditions of gift but those only which are made necessary by the will of the Donour h L. conditiones eztrinsec F. de cond demonstr and so doth the Civil Law determine Caius gives Seius all the fruits that grow upon his farme the next year it is necessary that fruits grow upon the farme or else Seius cannot have them yet Caius his gift is not conditional but absolute 4. As to that logical axiome Causa causae est causa causati Mr. Eyre knows it must have more limitations then one or else 't is dangerously false But in the present case 't is altogether impertinent for neither are legal preparations the cause of faith nor faith the cause of Justification but the condition only and so the causa causatum may go whistle The third Argument is this that by which we are justified is the §. 10. proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification Faith as a condition is not so Ergo. Answ I deny the major Mr. Eyre proves it by a threefold Argument 1. By the use of these Propositions particles he would have said by and through in ordinary speech which note a meritorious or instrumental cause As when we say A souldier was raised by his valour a tradesman lives by his trade 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works and by the Law he excludes works from any causal influxe into our Justification Now that which he denies to works he ascribes to faith 3. From other parallel phrases in Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera Answ These are i De Justif l. 1. c. 17. Bellarmines wise Arguments to prove that faith doth justifie per modum causae dignitatis aut meriti by way of causality worth or merit which it seems Mr. Eyre accounts unanswerable otherwise he would not have brought them again upon the stage in an English dresse when our Protestants have beat them off so often in Latine 1. To the first I deny that the particles By or Through are alwayes the notes of a cause meritorious or instrumental How many times do we finde them in one Chapter where they are not capable of any such signification Heb. 11. 5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death and ver 11. Through faith Sarah received strength to conceive seed ver 30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down ver 33. By faith they stopped the mouthes of Lions ver 35. Women by faith received their dead raised to life again with many other passages in that Chapter That it is the grace of faith which is here spoken of appears from the description of it ver 1. will Mr. Eyre grant the Papists that faith was the meritorious cause of these effects I hope then he will no more reproach me as popishly affected It may be he will say it was the instrumental cause But let him shew how What instrumental efficacy did faith put forth in Enochs Translation did it either subtilize or immortallize his body or how was faith an instrument in throwing down the walls of Jericho It is naturally impossible agere in distans to act upon an object which the Agent toucheth not formally or virtually or what efficiency did faith put forth upon dead bodies to raise them to life again These effects are no otherwise ascribed to faith then as the condition upon which they were wrought and without which they could not have been wrought according to Gods ordination As it is said concerning the Lord Jesus That he could not do many mighty works in his own countrey because of their unbelief Mark 6. 5 6. with Matth. 13. 58. Not that their faith had contributed any thing to his ability but that their unbelief by vertue of Gods ordination made them uncapable of being the subjects for and amongst whom those works were to be wrought To the second I deny that Justification is ascribed to faith in the §. 11. same sense in which it is denied to works though it be the same Justification as to its common nature which is ascribed to that and denied to these and therefore cannot be meant of a Justification manifested to conscience as Mr. Eyre interprets it when he comes to particular places 'T is confessed that when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works he excludes works from any causal influx into our Justification But it will by no means follow that when he ascribes it to faith he doth therefore acknowledge faith to be a cause No more then the like opposition in Scripture doth denote the same kinde of cause on both sides Râ—m 9. 8. Nâ—t the children of the flesh but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed and ver 11. Not of works but of him that calleth and ver 16. Not of hâ—m that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy and Rom. 11. 6. Not of works but of grace Estne inter Pontisicios quisquam tam excors â—t audeat affirmare in istis oppâ—sitioniâ—us
idem planè genus causae utrinque notari Is any man amongst the Papists so sottish saith k Bell eneâ—v Tom 4. c. 4. p. 3â—6 dued Dr. Ames as that he will dare to affirme that in these oppositions the same kinde of cause is signified on both sides The like I say to the third when we are said to be justiâ—â—ed by Christ by his death by his blood c. the particle By doth denote the proper meritorious cause of our Justification But that it may not in other sentences signifie some other Argument as well as a cause must remain to be proved till the time when we are to expect Mr. Eyres Rejoynder SECT III. THe fourth Argument succeeds To make faith a condition morally §. 12. disposing us to Justification makes us at least concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification Answ I deny it utterly A double Argument Mr. Eyre presents us with for proof 1. We should not be Justified freely by his grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification for a condition whensoever it is performed makes the thing covenanted a due debt which the Promiser is bound to give and then Justification should not be of grace but of debt Answ Gladly am I come to this objection and I shall give it a large answer not for any strength there is in it but because Mr. Eyre pretends in his title-page and the inscription of his book throughout to oppose the ancient Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith upon the quarrel of free grace And it is upon the point the total summe of all he hath to say for his neoterick notion but they may be taken with words that will The place which he alludes to in the objection is Rom. 3 24. Being justified freely by his grace But which of these two words is it that excludes conditions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace or freely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l Vide â—rist Rhet. l 2. c 7. Grace as it is a vertue or affection in man is that which enclines us to bestow of what we have to them that are indigent and necessitous not for any thing we have received nor for any profit and advantage we expect by what we give from him to whom we give but that he may be beneâ—â—ted by us Accordingly it is accounted great and the Scriptures amplisie the grace of God from the same Arguments either in respect of the persons that receive our gratuities if they be extream m Ezek 16. pertot Rom. 5. 6. indigent and impotent or in respect of the things given if they be Eph 7. Rom. 5. 7 8. and v 6. 0 1 John 4. 19. John 3. â—6 great difficult or seasonable or in respect of the giver if â—e be the first or only or principal But surely this grace doth not exclude all manner of conditions Jacob sent a present to Esâ—u that he might sinde grace â—â— in his sight Gen. 32. 5 21. and 33. 8. the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Prov. 3. 3 4 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee So shalt thou finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 grace in the sight of God And the Apostle exhorts that we come to the throne of grace that we may finde grace Heb. 4. 16. Is grace any whit the lesse gracious because we are required to seek it that we may finde it Rom. 4. 16. Therefore it is of faith that it may be by grace And more places which we shall mention below The Adverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but a qualification of the former and expresseth §. 13. the freenesse of grace by removal of worth and sufficiency in the person who of grace receives a benefit Thus Mat. 10. 8. Freely you have received freely give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As their power cost them nothing but was freely given them so should they do good with it freely without payment or recompence So the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expresseth an act which is only from the will and inclination of the Agent without any sufficient external meritorious cause Psal 35. 7. Without cause have they hid for me their net Psal 69. 4. They hate me without a cause and 119. 161. Princes have persecuted me without a cause David saith He will not offer to God gratis or of that which cost him nothing 2 Sam. 24. 24. Thus servants went out freely when they did not purchase their liberty but it was given them without price Exod. 21. 2 11. as also the p L. mandatum F. mand contra C. L. 6. 7. §. Non est ignotum Civil Law determines And what in Isa 55. 1. is called a buying without money is expounded Rev. 22. 17. A taking of the water of life freely So that unlesse it can be proved of which more presently that all conditions whatsoever are meritorious causes proportionable in value to the benefit a man obtains upon performance of the condition the name of free grace will prove but an empty noise and a cloak of errour We must therefore with our Protestants distinguish of conditions §. 14. Thus q In disp de satisfact p. 365. Cameron Si multae conditiones requiruntur in justificandis quae habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei concedo Sed si conditiones quae requiruntur in justificandis nullam habent proportionem cum justitiâ Dei nego inde effici justificationem non esse ex mera gratia nam non excluduntur conditiones omnes sed eae quae possunt habere rationem meriti The sense of which words is given us by r Comment in Ep 250. Paul Bayne There are some conditions whereon they only interceding we promise and undertake to do a matter or bestow a kindnesse on any As Go with me to such a place and I will give thee hidden treasure or come to me to morrow and I will give thee a hundred pounds There are other conditions which have the reason of a cause meritorious such do not only intercede but deserve upon contract as much as we promise As Do my work well and I will pay you truly c. Thus he s Gerhard de Evang. cap. 3. §. 26. Quando Evangelicas promissiones conditionales esse negamus non quamvis conditionem sed in specie conditionem nostrorum meritorum excludimus Alia igitur est conditio fidei à conditione operum illa non opponitur gratuito dono haec verò opponitur In eundem seâ—sum Rolloc de vocat p. 16. and others to the same purpose A distinction which we are necessitated to make use of though it distinguish rather the matter of a condition then the formal nature of it for if any condition be proportionable to the reward promised that is not because it is a condition but because it is t Aliae sunt conditiones praeter causas efficientes Ames contra Bellarm. de neces oper ad salut
charity is cedendo de jure suo by bearing an injury and parting with that right which a man hath to require satisfaction and if God forgive after this manner the case is too plaine to need proofe that the satisfaction of Christ is of no use at all to make way for the forgivenesse of sin but rather a hindrance and contradiction thereunto Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that the whole weight of the cause between the Socinians us depends upon the truth of that which he here denies namely that condemnation and justification are the Acts of God as Rector and supream Judge of men If he will but review Cameron Gerhard Crotius Suarez or any other Papist or Protestant who is accounted to have wrote judiciously and orthodoxly upon that point he will see that they fetch the foundation of their defense from this very principle §. 14. 4. Rom. 5. 8. and Eph. 2. 4. The texts alledged to prove that Gods forgivenesse is no lesse an act of charity then mans prove it not They shew indeed that our justification in actu exercito is an effect of the love of God it being his love only which moved him to send Jesus Christ to purchase justification for us and thereupon to bestow it on us but with the preservation of the honour and authority of his Law Neverthelesse the same justification is an Act compleat in its kind nature definition and essentiall constitution without that love of God Even as a King out of special affection to a malefactour condemned suppose it be his owne sonne may find out a way to satisfie for his offence and consequently to discharge him here the discharge doth not exist but by virtue of the Kings love and good affection yet the pardon it selfe in actu signato for its kind and nature is a rectoral judicial act not of private charity 5. Mr. Eyre yeelds at last that God in the act of forgivenesse §. 15. may be looked upon as a Judge yet as such a judge as proceeds by no other Law then his owne will Where either the former part contradicts all that hath been hitherto said about Gods forgiving men as private men forgive personal injuries for as no man in the very same Act can be looked upon as a Judge and a private person for there cannot be two formal principles of the very same action so neither can God or the latter part contradicts the former for he that hath no other rule but his own will is neither a Judge who proceeds g L. A divo Pio. ff de re judic L. 7. ff ad leg Jul. Râ—pâ—tâ—nd exformula according to the prescription of Law nor an Arbitratour who determines ex aequo bono according to the equity of the cause depending 2. When he says God proceeds by no other Law then his own will if he mean by no other Law then what is of his own making it is true but if he mean by his own will as distinguished from a Law properly so called the Apostle contradicts him Jam. 4. 12. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy And hereby doth the Lord justifie the equity of his own dispensations in punishing and pardoning because he doth neither pro libitu but according to his own declared Laws Ezek. 18. 18 23 25 29 30. He doth not punish meerly to satisfy his own will as if he delighted in punishment ibid. v. 23 32. Lam. 3. 33 34 35. but according to the exigency of mens demerits so hath he declared that he will by no means cleare the guilty Exod. 34. 7. Which yet by his absolute liberty and soveraignty he is free to do if he had not confined himself to a Law M. Eyre answers secondly The promulgation of an act of §. 16. grace is for the direction and limitation of Judges and Ministers of State But in the justification of a sinner God hath no need of such an act because he is the sole Judge and justifier himself and therefore the purpose of his will secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation of no force in regard of the reall execution of it Rep. If we can have no better answers then these yet we must be content for ought I see 1. Doth Mr. Eyre mean that the onely end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour officers If so why doth he mention another in his very next answer If not why doth he pretend that a Magistrate cannot pardon his subjects involved in common guilt by a promulged Act because one end of promulgation is the direction of inferiour Ministers of State 2. h Vid. Greg. Sayr Clav. Reg. liâ— 3. cap. 1. §. 12. Azor. Instit moral par 1. l. 5. cap. 3. Some degree of promulgation is essential to a Law Will unrevealed is will not Law It cannot rationally be imagined that Magistrates should intend to oblige their subjects by that will which they never intend to reveale and surely will without obligation is no Law And the first and immediate effect of this Law if it be a Law of grace is to give offendours a right to impunity any Act or Law to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding The direction of inferiour Judges is but the secondary use of it and in the case between God and us of no use at all because himself is both Lawgiver and Judge reserving each mans cause to his own peculiar cognizance for if it be for their direction what doth it direct them in surely in the administration of justice which consists in giving every man his due But impunity is not due to offendours but by virtue of some Act of grace Ergo the first effect of such an Act is to constitute such a right 3. It is necessary that such a generall pardon as is the Act of the supream Judge and Lawgiver should be by a Law of grace not that God needs it as Mr. Eyre insinuates but because the nature of the thing requires it If God forgives by the purpose of his will then he doth not forgive as a Rector Mr. Eyre hath before granted that his purpose not to punish is included in the decree of election as part of it but election is neither an Act of justice nor of mercy but of absolute dominion and liberty So that the summe of these sayings is this Though God forgive as supream Judge yet it is not necessary that he should forgive as other Judges do because he may forgive as he is not a Judge viz. by the secret purpose of his will And yet as God may very improperly be said to need that which is most conducible to the glory of his Government so is it needfull in respect of himself that his judgement whether of justification or condemnation proceed according to his revealed promulged Laws Himself doth hereby vindicate the equity of his dealings and Government over men as was before observed out of Ezek. 18. throughout
doth afterwards expresse himself they are as lyable to such an arrest of the Law after they believe as before even by Mr. Eyres concession And that word is not like to move a sinner very hastily to seek a change of his condition which will pursue him as much after his condition is changed as before When it is said that the elect are never under the execution of the §. 15. threatnings of the Law that is that the punishments threatned in the Law are never executed upon them if it be meant of the punishments reserved to the world to come it is true but if it be meant of those which are proper to this life it is utterly false Isa 57. 17. and 47. 6. and 54. 7 8. Job 36. 7 11 12. Rom. 5. 12. and 8. 10 20 21 23. 1 Cor. 11. 30 31 32. and 15. 22 26. Jam. 5. 15 16. 1 Joh. 5. 16. and hundreds of other places And this section I have written to follow Mr. Eyre what is his intent in all this himself best knows His conclusion is that the consciences of the elect before faith are under wrath not their persons though it be a rule in Logick that e omnis actio passio est proprie totius compositi and therefore to say the conscience is under wrath e Vid. Ames Thes Log. thâ— 76 in distinction from the person is none of the neatest expressions and then tells his reader that against this I have several exceptions Whereas I never excepted against it at all in the generall but onely as not being sutable to that particular text in John 3. 18. Which I had urged to prove that all unbelievers are in a state of condemnation Nor doth Mr. Eyre answer this text by this distinction though I think I was informed that he was wont so to do which was the reason that I laid in the following Arguments against it and therefore Mr. Eyre might have spared his paines of attempting to answer the said Arguments as not prejudicing that interpretation which he gives of the text Neverthelesse it may be usefull to examine his answers SECT IV. THe first Argument then proving that the condemnation mentioned §. 16. Joh. 3. 18. cannot be meant of condemnation in conscience meerly was this The condemnation which the unbelievers there spoken of are under is the condemnation of the Law which pronounceth all men guilty not only in their own conscience but before God Rom. 3. 19. Mr. Eyre answers that the voyce or sentence of the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are guilty and damnable in themselves if God should deal with them by the Law But the elect are discharged from this rigorous Court their cause is judged at another Bar. Rep. The words of the text are these Whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them that are under the Law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God The thing which I inferre from this Text compared with Joh. 3. 18. for illustration of which I mentioned it is this That every unbeliever elect or not elect stands guilty that is obliged to punishment in the sight or judgement of God and not only of his own conscience Which to be the true sense of the place is manifest from the importance of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we render guilty not only as being the same with the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which properly signifies a debt or f Vid. Eli. Thisb in verb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Joh. Sâ—lden do Jure Naâ— Gent l. 1. cap. â— p. 46. obligation but also as being constantly used in the same sense in Greek Authors Therefore g Comment Graec. Ling p. 166. Budaeus expounds it as of the same significancy with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Qui est obnoxius è re judicatá 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A man condemned or adjudged to punishment though he have not yet suffered it Accordingly Beza upon the place notes well 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non tantum declarat judicium quo vel â—bsolvi vel damnari possit aliquis hac enim significatione ipsi etiam filii Dei sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in quibus tamen nulla est condemnatio sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. condemnationem declarat sicut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now to what Mr. Eyre sayes that the Law doth only declare who §. 17. are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God it is contrary 1. To himself 2. To sense 3. To reason 1. To himself for remember Reader that I brought in this place as an explication of that in Joh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already Which condemnation Mr. Eyre hath already acknowledged to be by the Law and makes it the condemnation of finall unbelievers onely I did rightly infer if the condemnation there spoken of be that which is by the Law then is it condemnation before God Rom. 3. 19. and not in conscience only which was the thing I was there proving To this Mr. Eyre tells me the Law shews not who are condemned of God but who are damnable in themselves How hath it already condemned and that remedilesly the greatest part of the world and yet doth it no more then shew who are damnable in themselves not who are condemned of God me thinks he should at last suspect the truth of that cause which doth so often dash him upon contradictions 2. To sense for I appeale to the experience of all Christians who have felt the work of the Law driving them out of themselves to fly unto Christ whether it have not convinced them not only that they are damnable in themselves for that it will do after they are in Christ as well as before but that they are while out of Christ condemned that is under an obligation and tendency to the suffering of wrath and out of a state of salvation That it doth so is manifest from the first question which a soul upon whom the Law comes with power will aske What shall I do to be saved Act. 2 37. and 16. 30. A question which supposeth him to be convinced by the Law that he is a condemned creature needing not only comfort but salvation that is deliverance from condemnation in which only he can be comforted Now if this be the worke of the Law when brought home by the power of God then must it needs be most true that such a soul is indeed in the state of condemnation till by faith he be passed from death to life and accordingly the Law must be acknowledged to declare not only who are damnable in themselves but who are condemned of God It is also against reason for demonstration of which we must enquire §. 18. what it is for a man to be damnable in himself It implies that there is on his part
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
hence follow that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ without the intervention of a Covenant that is without the ministry of reconciliation Yea rather the just contrary follows for making of peace in Christs death is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows when even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God As is evident in the example of these Colossians v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled As also by that place altogether parallel to this Eph. 2. 15 16 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the Law of commandments so making peace And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse and came and preached peace unto you c. Here we see 1. What is meant by making of peace viz. A plucking up the bounds and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews and by consequence from God or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles who before wâ—re afar off and strangers from the Covenants of promise v. 12 13. that they also might be fellow heires and of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the crosse viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God that is through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but all are one in him through the same saith Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body namely by the preaching of peace v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ or for proofe that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted and so reconciled unto God Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that is paid the price of our redemption or obtained eternal redemption for us as Heb. 9. 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary namely that blessednesse whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part is given to us by Covenant v. 11 14 15 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon Matth. 26. 28. Christ saith Mr. Eyre doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many Ans But he sayes his blood was the blood of the New-Testament which was shed for the remission of sins Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice But out of doubt they teach us this or they teach us nothing that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that beleeve for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately but unto them onely that drink it by faith Joh. 6. 53 54 55 56 57. Hence the Apostate from the faith is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing Heb. 10. 29. SECT VII HAving thus shewed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately §. 31. reconciled in the death of Christ I proceeded farther to shew the grounds of it and they are two partly because the death of Christ was noâ— â—olâ—â—â—ejujdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of the equivalent and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son of which more by and by Mr. Eyre answers to the former Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or â—antidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction Rep. Yea Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law then o L. mutuum §. 2. ff de reb cred l. cum â— de sol l. Debitor ff de sol ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem l. si â—c §. 3. ff de re juâ— that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto upon the payment of any other thing then of that same which is in the obligation Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current mony of England when the day of payment is come he brings the full value in corne or he is bound to pay silver and he brings gold is he hereby discharged No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to he is discharged ipso facto Now if when he brings gold instead of silver or corne instead of mony some act of the creditour is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other that so the debtor may be freed then is it also in the creditors power especially the debtor also consenting to propose upon what tearms he will that the debtor shall be freed either presently or after some time either upon condition or without which is all I seek for at present the consequence of this we shall see by and by In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem A service which I little expected to be put upon by an English Divine p Vide librum â—vi mei reverendissimi Robertâ—â— arkeri de descensu l. 3. §. 57 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb larg Catech. oâ— justi q. 2. 1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins q L. â—â—tisfact ff de solut Ergo his death was not solutio ejusdem the payment of the very same which was in the obligation but of the equivalent onely 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before did intimate some kind of acknowledgement that the death of Christ was a payment of it self refusable Ergo it was not solutio ejusdem r L. quod in di em ff de sol l. quod quis 49. ff â—â— Action l. Accept 19. c. de usur for no creature can refuse to admit of that 3. It was not Christs death but ours that was in the obligation for the Law requires that he that sins dye and no man else If he that sinneth not dye that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation s Ut in contractu ersenali de facto Ulpian in l. inter â— rtif 31. ff de sol In corporal punishments which
if they be both in the very same bond and obligation hath some thing of truth in it though then also the surety hath the same action against the debtour which the creditor had before otherwise it is most notoriously false and the contrary determined frequently in the y I. in summa l. Si poenae D. de condict in deb l Si quid possessor ff de Pet. Haered l. Papin ff Maâ—d civil Law If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtour it is because he agrees with the creditour that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtour which is the second thing I beganne to mention before and shall now farther explaine The death of Christ being not the very same which was in the obligation therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance there is a double act required on Gods part to whom this payment is made the one is to admit or give way that satisfaction be made the other factam ratam habere to accept it when made and consequently to discharge and free the debtour for Christs satisfaction was admitted that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God the supream Governour of mankind Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation that he may be the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Moreover Christ being not a sinner but a surety and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour but of a surety therefore it is in his power to agree whether his payment shall be accepted and be effectual for the discharge of the sinner presently or for some time to come absolutely or upon condition Whence by the way appears what little strength there is in Mr. Eyres second exception viz. That Christs payment is lesse efficacious then if we had paid our selves if we be not thereby discharged presently because Christs satisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himself and no otherwise and the virtue of it is to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect which could not be wrought by any meer created cause whether it produce it sooner or later upon condition or without Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed that none §. 35. should have actual discharge by the death of Christ till they do beleeve we carry the cause by Mr Eyres owne judgement Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations so I call them because he lays them downe so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe How often doth he tell us before and after this concession that our discharge in the death of Christ must needs be present and immediate as pag. 68. § 7. Our discharge from the Law was â— not to be sub termino or in diem but present and immediate And in this chapter § 13. The death of Christ as it is a satisfaction or payment so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing that we should not presently be discharged if Christ hath made satisfaction And yet here yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne the discharge obtained in Christs satisfaction may be suspended It is therefore a thing possible that Christ may have satisfied and yet we the elect I mean not be presently discharged And what then means the must needs were it a thing denyed it were easie to give innumerable instances of satisfaction made when yet the person for whom it is made is not presently freed but because it is not denied I hasten to the service which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to performe with a promise that if it be performed he will yeeld the cause and that is to shew that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do beleeve For proofe of this I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus wherein §. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life To which Mr. Eyre answers This Text and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit thâ—y that beleeve Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine testimonies whose sense is obvious at first view even to vulgar capacities This is not the first time we have met with this answer in Mr. Eyre and it hath been already convicted and cast by more then a jury of Arguments in â—hap 5. 8. two places and therefore here I shall speak but briefly to it 1. Iâ— this and the like Texts do only shew â—â—o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christs benefits namely beleevers then either they shew that beleevers as such in seâ—s◠〈◊〉 are the subjects of that life which is here promised and then I have what I would have for if men as beleevers are the subjects of this life then the prooâ—â—s full that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers much lesse before they are borne and least of all at the time of the death of Christ nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne that they should so do Or the meaning is that the persons who enjoy this life are such whose property and priviledge it is to be beleevers some time or other sooner or later though they may not be beleevers when they first begin to partake therein and so they are described à câ—nsâ—quenti from their faith as a consequent of their first partaking in this life And if so I shall return Mr. Eyre his offer namely that if he will shew me but one place of Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation wherein persons that shall enjoy a benefit are described from the consequent of that benefit with a distributive particle preposed such as is the particle whosoever in the present Text and I will yeeld him the cause at lest so farre forth as it is concerned in these Texts But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one instance of the like phrase of speech in all the Bible as I know he cannot then let him take heed least he become guilty of that which he doth elsewhere groundlesly charge upon me I meane of attempting to suborne the spirit to serve his own turne And what I speak of the description of a person in order to his receiving of a benefit is true also in respect of any evil threatned How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture As for example Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is
to our Justification before God the contrary to which he had spoke but just before upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis Respondet in Christo nihil valere ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse c. Perkins his words are these in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words Faith worketh by love Paul saith he doth not shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love viz. not that it justifieth as working by love though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified to work by love But he was far from thinking that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God It is his own observation upon this very verse not far before The second Conclusion Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdome of Christ By it first our persons and then our actions please God and without it nothing pleaseth God And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to disputes for Justification by faith without works against the Papists The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40. the Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse which God hath given us in Jesus Christ ver 11. Ergo he that hath not the Son hath no benefit by him But he that believeth not hath not the Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifest 1. From the Apostles own interpretation for having spoke in general He that hath the Son hath life he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God that you may know that you have eternal life 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase throughout all these Epistles as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely in his Epistle 2 ep v. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HATH NOT GOD But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne Compare 1 ep 2. 24. 2. If we are said in Scripture any where to have the Son in any other sense then by believing or as excluding believing why have we no intelligence of it Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence partly in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith partly in not attempting to justifie it from the phrase of Scripture as an argument that himself is conscious that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures Briefly the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation He that hath the Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ But the antecedent is proved true from the text Ergo the consequent is true To these texts mentioned in my Sermon and now vindicated let §. 41. me adde one or two more If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood then was it not the Will of God that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ till he did beleeve But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ then is not Christ a propitiation z Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. Paraeus in loc through faith but without it Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cause of our remission but because God hath so constituted that our remission shall not follow and so our sins not be propitiated quoad â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking the work of Redemption is set down at large Isa 53. throughout particularly ver 10. 11 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned as the fruit and effect of Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him where knowledge as elsewhere in Scripture often signifies faith And what shall I say more we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures that God requires commands and exhorts all men to beleeve that they may be justified by the blood of Christ And what stronger evidence can we need then this that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
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
Gods freeing or taking off punishment from us is in nature before his laying it on Christ if the imputing it to Christ be formally the non-imputing it to us many other inconveniences attend this doctrine but it is needlesse to insist upon the mention of them Besides these Arguments there are several testimonies of Scripture §. 30. which M. Eyre mentions to prove our reconciliation to be the actual and immediate effect of Christs death let us view them Colos 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 12. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Heb. 1. 3. and 10. 12 14. Colos 2. 10 13 14. Rom. 8. 33 34. Ans 1. We have already answered at large to Rom. 8. 33 34. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19. Eph. 1. 7. and by consequence to Colos 1. 14. for the words are the same in both those places We have therefore here to answer no more then the texts out of the Hebrews and one out of the Colossians let us take them in order Heb. 9. 12. Christ hath obtained eternal redemption for us I cannot assure my self how M. Eyre understands this text but if he see no more in it then all men I can meet with he can conclude no more from it then what was never denyed namely that Christ hath purchased eternal redemption for us But he hath also purchased eternal life and glory for us will it therefore follow that our glorification is the actual and immediate effect of his death he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity Tit. 2. 14. are we therefore freed from all sin immediately in his death The next is Heb. 1. 3. Christ by himself hath purged our sins and afterwards sate down as having finished that work Heb. 10. 12. Ans The former place according to the original saies no more then that Christ in his death made a purge of our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is no more then we have often yeelded that Christ hath made a plaister in his own blood for the curing of our wounds that is in dying he performed that righteousnesse which is the cause of our remission his blood being that which washeth us from all our sins But that this purge had its effect immediately upon its own existence is that which M. Eyre must give us another Text to prove whereas he addes that he afterwards sate down as having â—inished that work Heb. 10. 12. and good reason because that one offering of himself was so perfect and sufficient for all those ends unto which it was ordained that there is no need that himself or any thing else should be offered a second time for those ends But if M. Eyre mean that he hath so perfectly reconciled us in his death not only quoad constitutionem causae but quoad effectum as that there needs nothing more to be done towards our reconciliation he may do well to reconcile the Apostle to himself who tells us his work in heaven is to make reconciliation Heb. 2. 17 18. Wherefore in all things it beboved him to be made like unto his brâ—thron that he might be a mercifull and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people for in that he himself hath suffered being tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted compare Heb. 4. 15. and 7. 25. The like answer I give to Heb. 10. 14. By one offering he hath perfected §. 31. for ever them that are sanctified namely that Christs death hath perfected us quoad meritum not quoad efficaciam The death of Christ saith the l Dr. Godwin in Rom. 8. â—4 sect 5. pag. 177. Author often commended was perfect for an oâ—lation to which as such nothing can be added there needed no more nor any other price to be paid for us But hence to inferre that therefore we were perfectly reconciled quoad effectum in the death of Christ is point blank against the Text which tells us in the very next foregoing words v. 13. that Christ doth yet expect till his enemies be made his foot-stoole amongst which the Apostle reckoneth sin and death 2 Cor. 15. 26 55 56. which though together with Devils they were destroyed in some sense in the death of Christ Rom. 8. 3. Heb. 2. 14 15. Yet forasmuch as the holy Ghost witnesseth that Christ doth yet expect a farther destruction of them it lets us understand that these enemies and sin in particular was no farther destroyed in his death then as therein was laid the foundation and cause of a perfect and eternal remission which by virtue of that blood carried up and pleaded in heaven should be given unto them that by faith come for it unto the throne of grace as the Apostle explaines himself Heb. 4. 14 15 16. and in this very chapter v. 26. If we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledg of the truth there râ—mains no more sacrifice for sins implying that a wilful rejecting of Christ through unbelief which I conceive to be that special sin which the Apostle means deprives us of the benefit of remission of sins by his sacrifice which how it can be if sins were perfectly and absolutely pardoned immediately in his death I cannot conceive see also v. 38 39. The last place is least of all to purpose Christ saith M. Eyre §. 32. hath made us compleat as to the forgivenesse of our sins Colos 2. 10 13 14. Ans 1. The Apostle speaks to such who had already received the Lord Jesus v. 6. And of such no doubt it is true that all their sins are pardoned 2. But neither doth the Apostle limit our compleatnesse in Christ to the forgivenesse of our sins nor doth he say that we were made compleat in his death but rather in his exaltation And ye are compleat in him who is the Head of all principality and power His scope is to roote and establish the Colossians in the faith of Christ v. 7. in opposition to such innovators as would have introduced the worship of Gentile Daemons v. 8 18. or the observation of Jewish rites v. 20 21. as if without these Christ had not of himself been able to save them But ye are compleat in Christ saith the Apostle or be ye content with Christ as the words will beare to be rendred as who alone is most sufficiently able to give and increase you in all good and to deliver you from all evil and bestow on you the reward of eternal life v. 15 18 19. But what all this is to the purpose I know not It seems Mr. Eyre had a mind to bring it in for company CHAP. XI A reply to Mr. Eyres fifteenth Chapter of justification in Christ as a common person Justification not proved thereby to be before faith SECT I. WE are now come to the review of those two Arguments §. 1. mentioned in my Sermon which Mr. Eyre made use of to prove that the elect were justified before beleeving The former in short
I thus proposed If we are justified in Christ then we are justified before we beleeve But we are justified in Christ Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument the summe is Christ was justified in his resurrection as a common person Ergo the elect were then justified in him My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct The summe is if justification be taken properly I deny that we were justified in Christ if improperly I deny that it will follow that we were justified before faith because we were justified in Christs resurrection no more then it will follow that because we are said to be risen with Christ Ergo men are risen from the dead before they are borne or dead or while they are lying in their graves But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it First then I say we may conceive of a threefold justification 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ who himself was justified in his own resurrection and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to beleevers by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time c. What says Mr. Eyre to this 1. He infers in general that then by my own confession justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered chapt 1. § 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God as purchased by Christ as exemplified in his glorification I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification tells his Reader before hand that That were a poore put off because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of justification simply there is no man but understands it of actual justification Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book at least some parts of it that it had cost him but little paines for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation and in the close of my answer oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called and this I may not be allowed to do because of Analogum per se positum c. Nextly He speaks something on each member of the distinction §. 2. and says 1. That which I called justification purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification Ans Thou hast then thy choise Reader whether thou wilt beleeve the Apostle or M. Eyre The Text quoted Gal. 3. 8. says thus The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The justification here spoken of is surely justification simply so called because it is put by it self without any Term of restraint or diminution and M. Eyres rule is Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato And this justification according to the Apostle was a thing foreseen a thing that God would do a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham all which notwithstanding M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification But of this we have spoken already as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction The great exception is against the third branch wherein I say that §. 3. Christ in his resurrection being himself justified became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it 1. Saith M. Eyre there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justiâ—â—cation Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person in which he so much delights attributed to Christ 2. If concerning that which is equivalent surely the Term of an exemplary cause is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ from the beginning to the end of our faith Rom. 8. 29 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image therein was he an exemplary cause for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it as its image and exist by virtue of it which I desire the Reader to observe because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause as if there were no difference between them If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours And whereas M. Eyre says that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary but a meritorious cause it is not universally true For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christs as Mediatour and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing He proceeds thus It was needlesse Christ should be a patern §. 4. of our justification for this patern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not to God because he needs no patern to direct him Rep. The disjunction is imperfect for it was needful for the glory of Christ as the Apostle expresly witnesseth Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did prâ—dâ—stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first born among many brethren It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead and a person so farre advanced above all others that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him and in being fashioned according to his image 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives or the influence which it hath upon our justification And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us because we do not justifie our selves
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we are wont to render Covenant or Testament may be taken in such a signification which appeare not either in the Old or New-Testament unlesse where they are used Metonymically or Metaphorically or other wayes tropically in any other sense then of a Law or a Testament or a Convention And most strange that he should also tell us gratis that it is called an everlasting Covenant 2 Sam. 23. 5. not onely a parte post but a parte ante not onely as hauing no end but also as not having beginning when the Hebrew word will by no means enforce it and it is most certaine that that Covenant made with David had a beginning recorded 2 Sam. 7. 16 19. and all the places mentioned in the margine as Gen. 17. 7. c. Do also speak of such everlasting Covenants as we know were not without beginning And whereas Mr. Eyre doth afterwards acknowledge that notwithstanding this Covenant be eternall yet there are more especially three periods of time wherein God may be said to make this Covenant with us As 1. Immediately upon the fall of Adam 2. At the death of Christ 3. When God bestowes on men the benefits of the Covenant If we are properly in Covenant from eternity there is no act of God in time by which we are brought into Covenant nihil agit in simile therefore these three periods of time are but three degrees of manifestation that we are in Covenant Accordingly as I argued before in the matter of Justification so now in the matter of the Covenant If the Covenant of grace consist essentially in Gods eternal purpose of blessing the elect then is not the word Covenant that Covenant I mean by which the elect are saved taken properly in all the Scriptures forasmuch as it no where signifies the foresaid purpose A thing as incredible and abominable as the former But let us farther examine this undenyable truth If the foresaid §. 14. purpose of God be the Covenant of grace then Christ did not obtaine by his death that God should make a Covenant with the elect But the consequence is false and Socinianisme Ergo so is the Antecedent Mr. Eyre answers Though we do not say that Christ procured the Covenant he might have added and therein we agree with the Socinians yet we say the effects of the Covenant or the mercies themselves were all of them obtained by the blood of Christ as deliverance from the curse inherent holinesse c. Rep. Such a salve for the honour of Christs merits I remember we had before in the matter of Justification viz. That Christ merited the effects of Justification not the act even as he merited the effects of election but not the act As if the reason were the same between a particular univocall cause such as Justification is determined to a particular kind of effect which causes do alwayes produce their effects immediately without the intervention of any other cause and an universal cause of severall heterogeneous effects such as election is and therefore produceth nothing but by the sub-serviency of those severall kinds of causes ordained to their severall kinds of works But the like distinction here between the Covenant and its effects is of worse consequence if I mistake not Therefore against Mr. Eyres answer I have these things to object 1. It makes void the death of Christ for if the elect before the death of Christ haue a foederall right to the blessings of the Covenant then they are righteous before his death for to be righteous by righteousnesse imputed and to have right to blessednesse are inse parable But Christ is dead in vain if righteousnesse comes by any other way or cause then his death Gal. 2. 21. 2. If the Elect are in Covenant before the death of the Mediatour they must have the blessings of the Covenant whether he die or no for every Covenant induceth an obligation in point of faithfulnesse at least upon the Covenanter to fulfill his Covenant If then God have made a Covenant before the death of Christ with the Elect what should hinder their receiving these blessings without his death Either God is unable to fulfill his covenant but he is Almighty or he is unfaithful but he is a God that keepeth covenant or our sin hinders but he hath covenanted before the death of Christ that sin shall not hinder for pardon of sin is a special branch of the covenant Or finally he hath covenanted to give us these blessings through the death of Christ and no otherwise But then we are not in covenant before the consideration of Christs death and besides which I most stick at then the whole reason why God should punish his deare and only Sonne so grievously is this it was his pleasure so to do But surely he that doth not afflict men meerly because he will Lam. 3. 33. would much lesse deal so with his Son 3. Either Christ and his merits are part of the blessings of this covenant or no. If they be then it is false that Christ merits all the effects and blessings of the covenant for he did not merit that himself might merit or be by his death the meritorious cause of our blessings If not then the New-Covenant is never a whit better or more excellent then the Old The first covenant was faulty because it could not bring sinners to perfect happinesse Heb. 8. 7 8 9. and 7. 19. Rom. 8. 3. If the New-Covenant cannot give us the blessednesse it promiseth unlesse Christ merit and bring forth the effects thereof then is it altogether as impotent and unprofitable as the old a faire advancement of the Covenant of Grace 4. Nor can I conceive how this eternal Covenant can consist with what Mr. Eyre hath hitherto been disputing for viz. That the New Covenant was made with Christ he performed the conditions and we receive the benefit Christs death was either the condition of the Covenant or of the effect of it Not the former if it consist in Gods purpose Mr. Eyre knows how our Divines disgust a conditional purpose in God And how it should be the condition of the effects when it is not the condition of the Covenant it self I cannot reach I know Mr. Eyre will tell me that there are no conditions of Gods purpose and yet there may be and are conditions of the things purposed But then that purpose is not a covenanr properly so called Metaphorically it may be it may so be called but then it is such a Covenant as is neither made with man nor with Christ but with God himself being no more then his own resolution within himself And yet the foresaid position viz. That there are no conditions of Gods purpose though there are causes of conditions of the things purposed had need of a distinction too for so farre forth as they are the effects of purpose they have no other cause or condition and