in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
sic reconciliaverit Christus ut inceperit amare quos oderat sicut reconciliatur inimicus inâ—â—ico ut deinde sint amici qui ante se odorant sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus non enem ex quo illi reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii nos coepit diligere sed ante mundum priusquam nos aliquid essemus ergo nos diligenti Deo sumus reconciliati propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias Paulò pòst reconciliat autem cum offendioula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei And Calvin concurreth in the same opinion Calvin instit l. 2. c. 16. Num. 2.3 In hunc ferè modum Spiritus sanctus in Scripturis loquitur Deum fuisse hominibus inimicum in gratiam Christi morte sunt restituti hujus generis locutiones inquit Calvinus ad sensum nostrum sunt accomodatae ut meliùs intelligamus quà m misera sit calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio Hence then we see that there is a reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ which imports not a change in Gods will as if God did then first begin to love or will well unto us as if he did hate and will to damne us before for then we must admit of a proper change in the will of God proceeding from an external cause which is contrary to Scripture and sound reason for as Rutherford hath well observed Ruth Apollexere p 37. Actus reconciliandi nihil novi ponit in Deo neque meritum Christi vel divinam voluntatem movet vel Deum ex nolente in volentem ex odio nos habente in diligentem ut fabulatur Grevinchovius transmature potest Grevinch pag. 109. 1. Quia Deus est immutabilis 2. Quia divinae voluntatis causa non magis dari potest quà m ipsius Dei But whereas we lay under wrath deserved by sin Christ hath causatively removed by his death the guilt of sin and so meritoriously reconciled us to God so that God is not only now placabilis by the death of Christ but placatus for he was placabilis from eternity or else he had never given Christ but now in respect of the satisfaction given he is placatus thus far that we lie no more that are the Elect under an indispensable necessity of perishing which we did before till satisfaction given and this is the formal effect of Christs death and this act of reconciliation which is a transient act done in time compleateth not the action of Election as Wallaeus seemes to affirme Wallaerus Cont Corvinum c. 25. p. 155. and superaddes no new thing in Gods will which was not there before but it removes causatively and meritoriously that that was the cause of enmity which hindred God from being able according to justice supposing his Decree to bestow the good things intended in Election and this reconciliation I grant is plainly held forth in these Scriptures Rom. 5.10 Isa 53.10 Col. 1.21 Col. 2.14 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Pet. 2.24 John 1.29 but this reconciliation is not our formal justification as I shall now prove but virtual only And therefore I adde Seventhly That this reconciliation wrought by Christ or removal of guilt causatively by his death and satisfaction is not properly and formally our justification I therefore affirme with Mr Rutherford Ruther Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 162. that this was a paying of a ransome for us and a legal translation of the punishment of our sins but it is not justification nor ever called justification but rather as he also judiciously hath observed it is justificationis fundamentum whose words are these Ruther Apol. exerâ— p. 42. Satisfactio ut à Christo praestita non est justificatio quia est Dei justificantis fundamentum And therefore his death was ever looked upon by Divines as the procatarctical or outward moving cause of the transient act of God in justification which is properly our justification it is a transient act of God upon Believers which he never did passe till then so saith Mr. Rutherford and therefore Mr. Eyre cannot shelter his opinion under Mr. Rutherfords authority Satisfaction Ru her Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 62. saith he is given indeed by Christ on the Crosse for all our sins before we do believe and before any justified person who lived these fifteen hundred years be borne but alas that is not justification but only the meritorious cause of it and a little after Justification is a forensical sentence in time pronounced in the Gospel and applied unto me now and never while this instant now that I believe Now for the further clearing and evidencing this truth that we are not actually justified untill faith Joh. 3.15 16. Mark 16.16 Acts 13.38 39. Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.9 I shall lay down sundry Propositions to make this manifest and that it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect that this benefit is suspended until faith besides the clear light of the Scripture as you may see in the Margin First Therefore there is a twofold payment of a debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation another of a thing not altogether the same That payment which is of the same thing either by our selves or our surety is not refusable by the Creditour so that if we had paid it or Christ had been constituted a surety by us to pay it then God could not have refused it And therefore Christ being constituted a surety by God and not by us and paying not altogether the same God might have refused the payment and therefore may also appoint how in what order and time it shall be accepted whether to a present discharge or upon a future condition of faith to be performed by us by the help of his Spirit working this in us 'T is true that Christ being admitted by the creditor and taken into bond with us God cannot refuse to accept of Christs death as a satisfaction yet he might appoint as you shall see he did how it shall be accepted whether absolutely or upon some condition afterward to be performed by us Here are three things then to be explained and proved 1. That the sufferings of Christ were not altogether the same in the Obligation 2. That therefore 't is in the power of the Creditour at whose liberty and mercy it is to accept or refuse it antecedently before his acceptation to appoint or ordain it to be immediately available or to be acceptable upon condition 3. That it was agreed upon between the Father and Son that it should not be available to discharge the sinner until actuall faith 1 Therefore I grant which Mr Eyre alledgeth out of Mr. Owen that if he speak in respect of the substance of Christs sufferings there was a samenesse with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the adjuncts or attendencies yea a supereminency of satisfaction
of the loved and hated Mr. Eyre p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate as to their present condition whilest the Elect are unregenerate but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ that they may be justified which was all I said or intended Fifthly He saith Gods eternall decree to justifie Mr. Eyre p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justification because it secures men from wrath and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes Then what need Christ to die here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction Christs death was not the câ—use of this immanent act or will in God And yet he contradicteth himself for pag. 140. he saith that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election Surely Justification is one of the good things intended in Election and therefore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ till their sin was satisfied for but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act yet Christs death was not a cause of this act and if they were actually discharged from sin how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us but if we were actually discharged we were actually pardoned and that without the merit of Christs death and satisfaction to his justice Sixthly He interpreteth pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight when it is said We are justified in his sight this phrase he saith is variously used 1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God c. 2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice and although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo justificationis in the article of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge but out of his sight Now saith he pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins c. and this was from eternity And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justification stands in this will of God not to punish this is properly Justification in his judgement and then God knew them to be righteous yet he saith in the article of Justification knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight throughout the whole Scripture and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge as much as if he should say If you take this phrase as it is never to be taken then we were justified from eternity And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight and this is to be referred to his legal Justice and this is the most proper and genuine use of it saith he and so we were justâ—fied in the sight of God when he exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins and yet this Justification is not the most proper acceptation of Justification for that was from eternity and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight how well this agrees let the Reader judge Seventhly He taketh Faith objectively Mr. Eyre p. 47. Pag. 58 76. not for the act with connotation of the object but for the object excluding the act as if the word Faith signified Christ and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said We are justified by Faith and the like he understands it of a declarative Justification and so taketh Faith subjâ—ctively not objectively So he taketh it p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the Medium or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience Eightly Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish pag. 63. yet he saith and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish or impute sinne to us yet he acknowledgeth no other act that Christs death is the meritorious cause of he saith it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification Pag. 67 but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us can Christ cause the effect and not the act Merit is an outward procatarâ—â—ical cause moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum and hence God is said for Christs sake to forgive us Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving and is a remote cause of the effect and God as the principall efficient is the immediate cause and what influence then can this remote cause have to produce the effects of Justification and no way by any causal influx to cause the act Though I still willingly acknowledge that the internal moving cause is Gods own will for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will unlesse we make God beholding to another for his being 9thly He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scriptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing Acts 10.43 Acts 26.18 Though it be said whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin it is not said saith he by believing we obtain remission of sins true who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving and possessing what we never had before so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins he distinguisheth between the giving of remission and the receiving it as if one were long before the other To which I answer If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission so it is long before receiving but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given it implies the receiving of it for Relata se mutuo ponunt tollunt thus giving and receiving are together and so forgivenesse of
his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour that will not receive the truth in the love of it Eleventhly Page 66 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie as may appear pag. 66 67. Although saith he Gods will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet saith he we are justified in him but he doth not say for him though the Scriptures speak it plain enough because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ yet we are said to be chosen in him because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. c. Col. 2.14 Heb. 9.12 But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ that we have redemption through his blood he hath obtained eternal redemption for us Eph. 4.32 Eph. 2.16 and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians And that he hath reconciled both that is Jew and Gentle unto God by the Crosse and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification God being moved thereto by the death of Christ but where saith the Scripture that God elected us for the sake of Christ it is true it saith we were chosen in him and he accepted us in the beloved but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ when elected and that God elected us for Christs sake as if Christ were the cause of our Election Vide Dr. Twiss Vind. Lib. 2. Digress p. 74. Interca non dicimus Christum in negotio electionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs cligentis sed duntaxat respectu termini c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis which Arminius mightily contendeth for that he might bring in faith if not as a cause yet as a prerequisite of our Election And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election all that he saith ends in this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by Election but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification for God doth forgive us for Christs sake and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ when he seemingly pleads for it as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith wrought by himself as the effect of his death and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification Twelfthly He saith that Justification is by Faith evidentially and Faith is from Justification causally Mr. Eyre p. 79. and he seeth no absurdity in it p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head and his Hat upon his feet That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification I deny not but that it is the effect of Justification is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother Justification may be an effect of Faith and so the Scripture maketh it but not a cause of Faith For it is neither the efficient nor material nor formall nor final therefore it is no cause for all causes are reducible to these four Heads 1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith I hope he will not rob Gods free grace and the Holy Spirit of his Honour as he doth Christ of his merit of being the sole efficient cause of faith Faith it is the gift of God and the effect of the Spirit which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word it is a known rule Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus and if the act of Justification should be the cause of Faith then according to him being justified from eternity we must be Believers from eternity but how contrary this is to sense reason and experience I need not speak and no man did ever yet dreame much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith 2. It is not the formall cause of Faith for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum it is part of the substance of the thing or effect produced the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect and concurreth to the substance and essence of it but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse not in the act of Justification 3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith for the same reason above named the materiall cause is that which in union with the forme maketh up a substantial compounded body but Faith is no such thing it is not a substance but a quality and hath no matter properly so called and as for the matter improperly so called it is either materia in quâ or circa quam it is either the subject or the object but Justification is not the subject or object of Faith not the subject for the subject of Faith is a Believer nor is Justification the object of Faith for in things that have matter improperly so called the subject and the object are the same the object of Justification then is a Believer the person of a Believer not his Faith 4. And lastly Justification is not the finall cause of Faith for I am not justified that I might believe but rather I believe that I might be justified and salvation is made the end of faith Gal. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.9 and not faith the end of my salvation and thus it appeareth that Faith is not from Justification causally Thirteenthly He saith pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to rely upon him and him alone for this benefit but how contrary this is to his own principles let the Reader judge for he constantly affirmeth that the Elect are justified from eternity and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience Surely when you presse men to believe you presse them to believe they are already justified and not to rely on him for this benefit for if they be justified already what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it they may according to you rely upon him for the evidencing of this
pray tell me now what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person and of a Regenerate person Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God or that the want of faith hope and love maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate and unregenerate yet indeed maketh none and according to him it cannot be found Pag. 18. Thus the Reader may see that one truth of Mr. Eyre verified where he saith We may no more judge of Books by their Title then of strumpets by their foreheads and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification yet if thou read the Book thou shalt finde Esaus hands though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice And therefore the Reader that is judicious will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait though it swallow the hook I have given thee a few Animadversions but a judicious Reader will observe more This is enough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the infection of this aire And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity HERE I shall premise these few things First That as we hold Justification to be a transient act done in time so there is no transient act but it presupposeth necessarily an immanent act in God And therefore secondly I acknowledge there was an eternal and an immutable act of Gods will decreeing to justifie his Elect in time through faith in Christ Thirdly As for that conditionate decree which Arminians make in God making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will I no way acknowledge and judge it absolutely inconsistent with Gods Nature and Essence but such a conditional decree as is so called subsequently not in respect of God willing but in respect of the thing willed sive objecti voliti is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect which salvation they shall be brought unto by faith in Christ not that faith is the cause of the act of Election or God willing their salvation yet it may be the cause of the thing willed a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the obtaining of salvation for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 and belief of the truth and Peter saith The strangers he wrote unto according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree Because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy so I willingly grant it to be immutable for he that changeth his purpose doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating or for want of power to execute it neither of which can be ascribed to God without blasphemy And hence the Scripture saith The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his Fourthly I grant that Christ was elected and constituted to be a Head and all the Elect were predestinated to be his members and in this sense we were chosen in him not existing but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him And that this act was one in God in respect of whole Christ mystical although I deny that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ which is done upon believing yet I grant a certain relative respect and mutual relation between them In which sense the Elect are called his people before he saved them from their sins and while they were not yet converted and his sheep for which he laid down his life although not yet brought home to him yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election much lesse their foreseen faith or good works although he be the cause of the effects of their Election as therefore this salvation unto which we are predestinated is the act of God so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election and the means of salvation and our salvation is the end in respect of us but as this salvation is our good so Christ is the cause of it Fifthly Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head and the Elect his Members yet was not he a Head actually from eternity nor the Elect actual members because he had not a mystical body from eternity and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ yet were not they actually justified For * Praedestinatio enim anâ—e applicationemgratiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis sed latet solùm in praedestinante Ames Medul Theol. cap. 25. sect 2. Predestination maketh no internall difference between the Elect and Reprobate untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its terme * Praedestinatio enim nec terminum nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinationis ordinetur ut sit Amesii Medul c. 25. s 8. nor object but the futurity of both Having premised these things which I have the rather more fully done because he representeth me and such as differ from him as Arminians and Papists I shall now prove that we were not justified from eternity 1. Gods decree to justifie is terminus diminuens is a terme of diminution and therefore is not actuall Justification 't is amor ordinativus but it is not amor collativus it is a love ordaining and preparing good things for us but not an actuall bestowing them Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy a discharge from the guilt of sin and death a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life this may be intended but is not actually performed by Predestination for it 's a known rule Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two therefore I argue 2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification Therefore we were not justified from eternity The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre and a negative argument in matters of great
till they are able to plead their discharge Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redemption If you take the wrath of God in the first sense for the will of God to punish according to the tenor of the law so they were not under wrath if you take it in the third sense for the execution of wrath they were never under it for how could they be under it when God never intended it what then did Christ redeem them from only the bare threatenings of the Law why so long as it was only a threatening and God intended not to execute it what need Christ have died according to him surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath and there was a will in God to punish theiâ— sins as well as the sins of the Reprobate though he would punish their sins in Christ the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect person still lieth under till he be delivered through faith in Christ and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus 10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling then were not they justified from eternity But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath The consequence of the Major is evident because a man cannot lie under the effâ—cts of wrath and yet be delivered from that wrath The Minor I prove thus by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture which are many 1. To be in a state of alienation from God so as to have none of their persons nor services accepted Thus God is * Psal 7.11 angry with the wicked every day yet so are the unregenerate though Elect they are under the power of sin And their prayers are rejected The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8 And so are all the services of unregenerate men though Elect persons which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth and they are truly called wicked persons because they are under the reigning power of sin 2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth for so saith the Apostle Rom. 3.19 Rom. 3.19 where he sheweth all persons in their natural estate are under the Law that is the damning power of it and become guilty before God there was a time that this was true but if they be justified from eternity then they never were under this damning power nor were guilty before God for if they were freed from eternity when were they guilty if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free then they were not justified from eternity 3. They are subject to the curse of the Law Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law therefore there was a time the Elect were under it and if under it they were not justified from eternity Acts 26.18 Heb. 2.14 Tit. 1.15 4. Yea they are under the power of Sathan but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power they are in bondage to death they have no outward enjoyment sanctified these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath and how can they be justified where these effects remain and these all remain till faith Acts 13. 11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity therefore were not the Elect justified The consequence appeareth Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio by Election the Elect are ordained to life by reprobation men are ordained to condemnation these are contrarie and among contraries there is the same reason Now if the Elect be justified because of Gods decree then are the Reprobate condemned but the Reprobates are not condemned actually therefore neither are the Elect actually justified Now this assumption is evident for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation yet sin is the cause of the Reprobates condemnation but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of it 's true God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done good or evil they had not then according to Scripture done evil and then God could not condemne them though he might passe them by and not Elect them which is negatively or privatively called hatred 12. If Gods decree to create the World was not Creation nor his will to call Calling nor to glorifie Glorification then his will to justifie was not Justification To this Mr. Eyre answereth There is not the same reason for Creating Calling Glorifying all which do import an inherent change in the person Created Called Glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being compleat in the minde of God To which I answer that his reason is of no force for to be the subject of a moral change doth as necessarily require the existence of the person as to be the subject of a physical and natural change for though the act may be perfect in Gods minde yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act because he hath not existence can he be pardoned and acquitted and declared just that is so farre from being an offender that he never yet was a man The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being but he is not a subject capable because as yet he is not so God may will Justification but he cannot justifie deliver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation till the person exist who may be the subject of this change CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death I Shall here first premise a few things that it may be known what we affirme and what we oppose First Then it is willingly granted that Christ in his death was a Mediator and surety and publick person and that what he did and suffered was intended for the benefit of the Elect. Secondly That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect so that the whole satisfaction is made and the price paid and quoad meritum the work is done and in this respect he hath made an end of sin because he hath fully satisfied for it so that there need no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 1.3 Dan. 9.24 but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood Thirdly God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ that in respect of Christ our surety God requires no more at his hands nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction it being the full value that his justice did require Fourthly By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation in an Arminian sense as if our redemption were
sense he imputeth it not when he pardoneth Secondly His second Argument is thus That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification By this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. To which I answer 1. By distinguishing upon your Major proposition that which doth secure presently actually fully and formally from wrath without any other cause intervening is Justification And then in taking the Proposition thus I deny the Minor that Election doth presently actually fully and formally discharge the sinner from guilt and wrath it is but a purpose in God to do it the sinner is not thereby discharged Hence as soon as he is borne he is a childe of wrath which he could not be if he were justified from eternity and so continueth untill faith and the death of Christ is a necessary cause intervening between this decree and the discharge for which he is discharged and without which supposing the decree he cannot be secured from wrath and Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth p. 140. that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justitià bestow upon the Elect those good things intended in Election How then did Gods decree secure them from wrath if he mean only eventually it doth secure because they shall not have sin imputed to the condemnation of their persons this is true but to little purpose to prove a present formal discharge such as Justification is Therefore when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Apostle doth not speak of the Elect antecedenter antecedently to their faith but executivè or consequenter as it is executed and compleated in those that are Elected as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burg. of Justif p. 186. hath observed Therefore by the Elect he meaneth the Elect Believers therefore if you resolve it either into a universal negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a universal affirmative all Elect persons are free from the charge of sin if by the Elect you understand the Elect before Faith and Regeneration both Propositions are absolutely false for otherwise Christ could not have been charged with our sin if Election did free us from the charge then was there no necessity of Christs dying and then no person is borne a sinner that is an Elect person nor was ever under condemnation then neither was Adam a sinner under condemnation for I take him to be an Elect person and then no man ever was under condemnation for we receive not guilt from him unlesse he also were guilty and we in him But if you take it for Elect Believers then both Propositions are true and this is agreeable to the scope of the place for he had said a little before Whom he predestinated them he called and whom he called that is unto faith them he justified Mr. Eyre p. 64. As for the Answers which he giveth to the Objections framed by himself I have considered them and derected the weakness of them already There remaineth but one Objection which I have not yet given any Animadversion upon and therefore will do it here Object He saith 't is objâ—cted that hereby by making Justification to be Gods eternal will not to punish Justification and Election are confounded His answer to this is that they are not confounded because Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto his will not to punish includes precisely and formally only some part of the meanes To this I answer that according to Mr. Eyre's opinion there is no distinction at all between Election and Justification for if it be the same act of Gods will if the object be the same if the end of God in both be the same if the means conducing to that end be the same then is there no difference at all according to him bur the antecedent is true Therâ—fore That with him it is the same act pag. 61. is evident pag. 62. for he acknowledge no transient act but an immanent eternal act of his will purposing salvation in Christ that the object is the same needeth no proof the end is the same the glory of Gods grace in both and that the means conducing to that end is the same Let him that hath but a sparke of reason judge for if the act be the same the object the same and the end the same in both why the meanes should not be the same no reason can be imagined and let him assigne what means God hath appointed for the execution of the eternal Election and we shall easily shew it that the same thing God hath appointed as a necessary Medium to effect our Justification according to his opinon which hold it to be one and the same eternal act of his will And let the Reader observe that he maketh no cause of our Justification but Gods own eternal good will and pleasure as in the case of Election for Christs death with him is not the cause of the act of Justification but of the effects of it of the thing willed and so Christs death with him is no antecedent meanes to effect the act of Justification but a subsequent meaâ—â—â—o fulfill the purpose of his will and what a good friend he is to the Gospel to debase the merits of Christ let the undestanding Christian judge As for those arguments which he useth to disprove that our faith pag. 52. or faithful actions are that Evangelical righteousnesse by which we are justified maketh nothing against me For if we speak of our Evangelical righteousnesse that is the matter of our righteousnesse or that for which we are justified I acknowledge it is wholly in Christ subjective and it is ours only by imputation and that faith is but the instrument to apply this as for that Reverend * Mr. Baxter Brother and Servant of Christ against whom these are leveled he hath since explained his meaning that he understandeth not faith to be the matter of our righteousnesse or a co-ordinate righteousnesse with Christ but he calleth it our subordinate Evangelical righteousnesse in which he disagreeth from us and I confesse it had been more satisfaction to his Brethren if he had not used that terme And therefore being not concerned in it I passe them by The next File of Arguments that he brings up against our cause we finde in the 9th Chapter which though he will have them give fire yet they do no execution nor will they stand the Field and abide the shock of a solid answer which because they are a company of tame Souldiers we will take them prisoners and see how they will abide to be examined He saith that faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie for Justification Where I
be a necessary antecedent of salvation as other graces are which are necessary necessitate medii and are causae dispositivae of salvation but this is necessary by way of causality for the application of Christs righteousnesse unto justification And when we say that we are justified by faith we understand it not by faith as a work or a grace as an act or as an habit by vertue of any innate worth excellency and dignity in faith we do not take it sensu proprio in whole or in part as Arminians Papists and Socinians doe in making it the matter of our righteousnesse but when that is spoken of we understand it metonimicè tropically by relation to its object for what man that is not a professed Papist and enemy to the free grace of God did ever dreame of justification by faith without an object you may as well dreame of a man without a soul as to be justified without Christ Yet when we take faith tropically for the object of faith we do not take faith exclusively although we so apprehend it when you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse as if faith had no hand in justification no not by way of application of Christs righteousnesse as if by the word faith were understood Christ surely this were not to keep our wits company And if it were the Apostles meaning to exclude faith from having any hand in justification upon any tearmes whatsoever surely he would not so darkly have expressed himself by a figurative expression when he might have done it more clearly by putting in the name Christ for faith as Mr. Eyre would teach us to doe Wee willingly grant that Christ is the meritorious cause of justification which he seemeth to me to deny making justification an * Christis not the meretorious cause of any immanent act in God immanent and not a transient act as we doe we also grant that Christs active and passive obedience is the matter of our righteousnesse and the formal cause of justification is the imputation of this righteousnesse without any works of ours Yet this no way excludes faith from being an active instrument to apply this righteousnesse to us faith it is our act although it be Gods gift it is our instrument wrought in us by God for our benefit to apply by his ordination the righteousnesse of Christ unto justification For as the efficient cause excludeth not the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious exclude the instrumentall which in suo genere in its kind is as necessary as the other for bonum est ex integris causis but I shall more fully open this in stating of the controversy and will not therefore anticipate my selfe any further but shall referre the reader thither for further satisfaction where I intend to handle this controversy more largely though I desire the reader to take notice that I shall chieflly meddle with that in Mr. Eyres his book which relates to my selfe and purely belongs to this controversie leaving that which belongeth to Mr. Woodbridge that I may not falcem in alienam messem immittere put a sickle into another mans harvest And if any man desire further satisfaction why I publikely interpose in this controversie seeing Mr. Woodbridge so eminently qualified hath already undertaken this taske I take that of Hierom Hierom. to be a sufficient apology Nolo quenquam in suspicione haereseos esse patientem I would have none to beare the suspicion of heresie and Mr. Eyre hath both in the pulpit and presse rendred me to be heterodox in the point of justification he hath declaimed against my Sermon as anti-scripturall my arguments as irrationall and in his booke he saith I have delivered what was wide from the orthodox faith Mr. Eyres vindic p. 5 and contrary to many plaine scriptures derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death disconsolatory to the soules of men in laying the whole weight of their salvation upon an uncertaine condition of their own performing And should I be silent in such a charge the world would count me guilty therefore to purge my selfe from these crimes I have published my sermon with a vindication of it and a short refutation of the said book and although I have a little in one place digressed from the controversy spâ—aking more largly then I needed in the doctrine of Christs death and passion yet it is only to shew that I have delivered and hold nothing therein contrary to the orthodox faith as Mr. Eyre affirmeth which he is more able to say then prove And for as much as he hath wronged both me and the truth in relating what I said not viz. that I should say that the union between Christ and the Saints was a personall union which I called a union of persons but not a personall union and hath represented our conference in as unhandsome a dresse to render me contemptible I am the lesse troubled though I rejoyce at no mans sin knowing that he is a man of hard language and morose carriage unto many of my brethren of farr more eminent worth and esteem in the Church of Christ then my self And for that slaunder where he saith that I compared him to Judas and my self to Christ I doe solemnly beseech him to remember what God hath threatned to him that loveth and maketh a lie Rev. 22.15 and to take heed how he beareth false witnesse against his neighbour where he hath God angels and men and his owne conscience to contradict him least God impute that as sin to him which he feareth not to commit it may be upon this ground because he judgeth it to be antecedently pardoned before it is committed My expression for which he blameth me was this I said to him What are you come out against me as against an heretique before you know whether that which I hold be a heresy or that I am obstinate in the defence of it moreover at the request of friends that heard my Sermon with which Mr. Eyre hath dealt as Pharaoh with the male children of the Israelites having given way to the publishing of it not doubting but when it cometh under the censure of my brethren but they will do the same office for it that the religious midwives did for the male children to save it alive from the hand of the oppressour I conceive I was ingaged to some further act towards the ending laying this controversy asleep especially seeing Mr. Eyre saith Mr. Woodbridg did but blow the coales that Mr. Warren had kindled whereas this fire was kindled long before by himselfe and the pulpit turned by him into a cock-pit to defend this errour And because some are infected more are in danger the truth is oppressed the course of the Gospel like to be hindred and prophanenesse and Antinomianisme goe hand in hand and speake with one tongue as Mr. Baxter hath well observed I have put my selfe upon this taske of confuting his conceit Besides his dis-ingenious
after that adde he p. 67. l 16. blot out for p. 71. l. 30. after being blot out that p. 74. l. 13. for affirming r. affirme p. 91. l 1. blot out but p. 99. l r. blot out the fiâ—st as p 108. l. 14. for malem r. mallem p. 134. l. 27. blot out for p. 145. l. 25. for there read theirs p. 146. l 16. foâ— noâ— not p. 150. l. 26. for the first is r. as p. 154. l. 11. for my r. mee p. 158. l. 5. after unto adde were elected p. 159. l. 33. for these r. thee p. 176. l. 26. after but adde we p. 180. l. 29. for at r. as p. 183. l. 2. after the first foresight add but and for nor r. not p. 195. l. 37. blot and p. 199. line 34. for soile r. soule October 13. 1654. Imprimatur EDM. CALAMY A Christless-estate A HOPELESSE-ESTATE EPHESIANS 2.12 That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world THe Scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is the same with that in the former to set the forth freeness of Gods grace in Christ proving sometimes in hypothesi that the converted Ephesians sometimes in thesi that all the faithful are saved by grace And he useth many Arguments Arg. 1 to this end the first is drawn from their natural estate O Ephesians if ye consider your selves in the common estate of nature you will finde that such was your condition that you could not be delivered from it but by grace which Argument he amplifies by a sixfold consideration of their natural condition First in the state of nature they were not onely defiled with sinne but were altogether dead in sinnes and trespasses and were no more able to help themselves then the dead is able to arise from the grave and therefore unlesse the same Almighty power that raised Christ from the dead had beene exerted to quicken them they could never have beene saved In the second place verse 2. He telleth them that their whole life was a life of sinne though they were dead to grace and spiritual life yet they were alive to sinne Yea thirdly that they lived after the custome of natural and unregenerate men who did minde and savour onely the things of this life And fourthly that they lived as those that had Satan the God of this world for their guide and were so farre from being led by the Spirit of God that the same uncleane spirit and enemy to mans salvation did rule them which now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience Fifthly in the third verse he sheweth that they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh doing what their vaine minde did dictate their corrupt appetite and sinful affections did desire Sixthly The Apostle amplifies this by comparison shewing that the estate of himself and the beleeving Jewes was no better then theirs both in respect of sinne and punishment being all by nature the children of wrath as well as others In the fourth verse the Apostle layeth down a second Argument Argument 2 to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in our salvation drawn from the Author of our salvation the inward impulsive moving cause prevailing with him to do this for us the rich Author is God the moving cause his free love but God who is in mercy for the great love wherwith he loved us did deliver us In the fifth verse he shewes the order of Gods dispensing grace to us and that is by the redemption of Christ amplified from the time that while we were yet dead in sinnes God quickened us with Christ and therefore by grace we are saved that is while we were dead in sinnes and trespasses a Covenant passed between God and Christ our Redeemer and God gave us unto Christ that by him we should be redeemed and when he raised Christ he gave us a pledge of our redemption and justification in him In the sixth verse he telleth us that we are not only quickened and raised to life begotten to a living hope of eternal life but we were in a manner raised with him and ascended with him as in our head and set down together with him in heavenly ace spl that is in respect of our right purchased we had it before faith but in respect of actual possession and application of these mercies this is not conferred upon our persons untill we do beleeve In the seventh verse the Apostle sheweth what end God had in all this that in the ages to come be might shew the exceeding riches of his grace and kindnesse towards us in Jesus Christ In the eighth ver he concludes from his former discourse that therefore we are saved by grace And goeth on to prove it by a third Argument taken from the meanes whereby this grace is received and applied we are saved by grace because we are saved by faith where faith is taken metonymically for Christ apprehended by faith yet not excluding faith as a meanes to apply Christ to us and that which is due to Christ is attributed to faith because it alone is the onely instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto justification Now the Apostle to prevent a mistake lest any should think because faith is our act that therefore we are saved by something in us he answers that though it be our Act it is Gods gift and therefore we cannot challenge any thing in the work of Salvation because we are passive in this work it is a grace wrought in us by God to apply Christ to us and therefore in 9. verse he removes all works whether performed by grace or nature from being the cause of our salvation knowing how deeply this error is rooted in all men by nature to seek righteousnesse in themselves and he gives a reason why God will not have salvation by works because as they cannot stand with grace as faith may so they are enemies to the glory of God and will lift up the heart of man to glory in himself therefore God will have it to be by grace received by faith that no man might boast In the tenth verse the Apostle having shewed that our salvation is only of grace and the meanes by which we are made capable of all saving good in Christ by faith excluding all causes in man lest he should boast he layeth down a new reason why we cannot be saved by works because in the work of regeneration we are wholly Gods workmanship in Christ created to good works and we are as meerly passive in this work as in the first work of creation for as no creature contributed any thing to its own being and as there was no disposition in man to make himself a man so there is naturally no ability in us to contribute any thing to our new creation therefore seeing all we have and are inabled to do is by grace we are not saved
required as he sheweth for * Lex non requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque requirebat mortâ—m talem tantae efficaciae quae esset ut non mortem abolereâ— solùm sed etiam vitam introduceret eà mque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat multis nominibus praecellentiorem the Law did not require that God should die nor that any should die that had not sinned nor such a death of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect so as that God neither will nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction Sixthly It will not be denied that God may be said to be reconciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause by death removing the cause of enmity and meriting the favour of God for us for although God loved us from eternity yet this was amor ordinativus not collativus God did bear them good will in time to make them heires of grace and gloâ—y by Jesus Christ Bâ—ll on the Covenant of Grace p. 292. and this excludes not but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction but such as God did Elect he did not love them as already made heires of Grace by the influence of his love For the full understanding of this you must know that although God dâ—d so love the Elect as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath that is subject unto death and eternall damnation for their sins but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam and to be equally guilty of and liable to eternal death with others for which cause the Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others Man being created after Gods own Image free from sin before the fall was intimately conjoyned to God God loving and delighting in man and man loving and delighting in his God but man lapsed by voluntary Apostasie from God there is an avulsion of the creature from God and an aversion of God from the creature and by this sin the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved so that God who loved man created by him as his childe and from eternity willing him good for I speak only of the Elect in justice cannot but hate him now as corrupted by sin as a rebell against him not by any change of affection but of his outward dispensation and having included him under guilt as a son of Adam he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin which God hath threatened with eternal death and resolved by an immutable decree never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled and the authority of his Law preserved and the evil of sin discovered and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy and justice may be manifested in the salvation of his Elect So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God yet the change is in the creature and not in God for as the Schoolmen well observe these relations which are attributed unto God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord put not any new thing in God but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him so that when the world is created God who was not a Creatour before is now a Creatour thus when sin took hold of the Elect he that once was a childe of love is now a childe of wrath not by any new accident in God but by a new effect in the creature so that in this estate God cannot bestow upon him the good intended in election For the better understanding of this that of Aquinas is of great use God may velle mutationem where he cannot mutare voluntatem God may will a change though he doth not change his will Thus in Adam while he continued a man after Gods Image free from sin God willed him to be the object of his love and delight and when he was fallen to be the subject of his displeasure and anger in the effects of it being liable unto his wrath and eternall death yet is not here a change in God but in Adam Thus God with the same will decreed from eternity to make such a one a vessel of mercy and yet to permit him to sin and fall in Adam and so to remaine a childe of wrath deserving condemnation wherein God cannot actually save him considering his decree without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith Here is a change and a very great one in man but not in God a new relation yet no new immanent act in God Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5. Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat diligebat odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus amavit quod fecerat When God did hate us he wonderfully loved us he hated that in all of us that we had done he loved what he had made that is as the Schoolmen say Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made or as his creature and hated him as a sinner But now through the satisfaction of Christ God is so farre reconciled that the cause of enmity is removed although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ as Aquinas speaks well in this case Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet nam aeterno amore nos dilexit sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni Aug. in Joh. Tract 110. And before him Augustine Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi non sic audiatur non sic accipiatur quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus cum quo propter peccatum inimicitias habebamus Lombard l. 3. distin 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner Reconciliati sumus Deo ut dit Apostolus quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos ei
that the sufferings of Christ though in themselves they be adequately proportionable to the justice of God should be accepted for us therefore God may at his pleasure appoint the manner how whether absolutely and immediately or upon a future condition For as Scotus saith well Meritum Christi tantum bonum est nobis Scotus lib. 3. dist 19. qu. vind p. 74. pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo The value of Christs merits is to be accounted to us only so farre as God accepteth it and therefore to that which Mr. Eyre and his adherents urge that satisfaction was given and accepted I answer by distinguishing upon acceptance This may be taken in a two fold sense either in respect of the surety Christ and the price paid or in respect to the sinner and the actuall application of it 1. In respect to Christ and the value of his sufferings it was a full satisfaction that God neither can having admitted Christ a surety require more at the hands of Christ nor any thing else of the sinner by way of satisfaction to his justice but he never accepted it in respect of the sinner to effect his freedome and present discharge without some act of his intervening to give him interest in this satisfaction Nor do I judge faith to be a moving cause or organical instrument either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation of it for us Faith doth not make Christs satisfaction to be meritorious Faith is not the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon the dignity and worth of Christs merits and satisfaction arise from the dignity of his person nor is faith the moving cause of Gods will to accept of Christs satisfaction for us that ariseth from Gods will of purpose ordaining it for us And therefore Mr. Rutherford speaks appositely Ruth Apâ—â— p. 42. Nos credendo non efficimus vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Deus Christi mortem pro peccatis nâ—stris acceptet neque ulla causalitas externa movere potest Dei voluntatem 4. It is of great consequence toward the clearing of this that the death of Christ doth not procure an immediate discharge to the sinner to consider that the death of Christ is not a naturall and physical cause of removing and taking away sin for then the effect must immediately follow but it is a meritorious cause which is in the number of morall causes and here the rule is not true Positâ causâ ponitur effectus for here the effect is at the liberty of the persons moved thereby and hence sometime the effects of morall causes precede the cause as for the death of Christ God pardoned the sins of such as died in the faith long before Christ was borne and sometime it followes a long time after at the agreement and liberty of the persons that are perswaded thereby to do any thing 5. Christ by his death did not absolutely purchase reconciliation and an actual discharge from the guilt of sin for any whether they believe or not believe for then faith were not necessary to salvation but at the most to consolation and finall unbelief would condemne none of those for whom Christ died but the Scripture saith He that believeth not shall be damned and Mark 16.16 John 8.24 If you believe not ye shall die in your sins and it makes faith necessary to salvation hence when the Jaylor said What must I do to be saved Acts 16 3â— 1 Pet. 1.9 Paul and Silas answered Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved And salvation is expressely said to be the end of faith when therefore we say that Christ died absolutely we must know that the word absolutely may be taken two wayes 1. As it is opposed to an antecedent condition to be brought by us by the power of our own free-will so that upon this shall depend the fruits of Christs death Or 2. Absolutely may be taken as opposed to any prerequisite condition ordained by God as a certain order and meanes to obtain the fruit of Christs death which condition is the fruit and effect of Christs death and in this latter sense the death of Christ was not an absolute purchase of reconciliation 't is true the Arminians hold that Christ hath purchased pardon for us upon condition of believing which believing they make not a fruit of Christs death but of their own free-will and thus they make Christ to open a door of hope for us but it 's possible that no man may enter in and be saved and thus by them we have only a salvability by Christ but no certainty of salvation but we affirme no such matter and say that Christ satisfied Gods justice so that God is not placabilis but placatus not appeasable but appeased and God is now reconciled and will give pardon but in that order and method himself hath appointed which is faith which faith God hath predestinated us unto that shal be saved Christ hath purchased it for us as well as remission of sins and therefore it shall infallibly be wrought that there may be an actual application of Christs death unto justification now in this sense the death of Christ is not absolute so as to exclude any condition and qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ to apply his death Johan Cam. opus misc p. 5.32 col 2. And to this purpose learned Camero hath expressed himself A Christo satisfactio exigi non potuit nî Deus eum considerâsset ut eorum caput pro quibus satisfecit fructus ergo satisfactionis ad eos solos redire potuit qui membra forent hujus corporis ii autem sunt soli fideles credo igitur Christum prâ— me satisfecisse quia verè satisfecit sed satisfactionem illam deo novi mihi esse salutiferam quia mihi fidei meae sum consciu Neque tamen fructum satisfactionis ab ipsa satisfactione divello Christus enim pro te satisfecit sed eâ lege si tu id factum credas ut si captivum redimerem pretio numerato ìta tamen ut nî ille se redemptum agnoscat meo beneficio habeatur pro non redempto Et paulò post pag. 534. col 1. sect 4. Illud nempe est quod dixi pro nemine Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfecisse verùm hà c lege additâ ut qui naturà sumus è mundo mundo exempti verá fide Christo inseramur That he was no Arminian is evident to all that have read him And a little after in the 2. Col. p. 534. he answereth an Objection Sed ais in omni satisfactione tria tantùm requiri 1. Vt numeretur summa quae contractum aes exaequet 2. Vt numeretur creditori 3. Vt numeretur ejus nomine qui eam debebat Id quidem verum est quoties creditor non id praecipuè spectat in satisfactione ut cujus nomine satisfactum est is beneficium
agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
anothers sin but he imputeth that which is their own that is the sin of the whole nature Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith that we are not sinners by Adam or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity for many reasons 1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputation or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative and no way an act of justice when as it is a mixt act not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature for God could have ordered it so had it been his pleasure that this sin should only have been personal as his other sins after the fall are But it is an act of justice also for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all which is an act of justice The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans Because in him all have sinned so that death is the wages of that sin because it is our sin all sinned in him and it is not only Adams sin but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him being in his loynes And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin which is no way ours but by imputation the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement that was ever executed in the world is to represent God not so much as a just Judge as one that delighteth in the death of his creature in the blood and ruine of his creature when as he professeth that as he doth live he hath no delight in the death of a sinner much lesse of a creature that were not a sinner if it were not for his imputation And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery if it were his will and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it because it was his absolute pleasure then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did or will do such an act to make the creature miserable meerly to shew his Sovereignty And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin if this imputation be grounded upon his will and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity to free it from such an act of pure Sovereignty therefore I look upon it as an act of justice as well as prerogative the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another 2. I urge as before I hinted If death entred by sin then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it But it entred by sin as the Apostle saith Death passed upon all inasmuch as all have sinned 3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin but God the Authour for if Adam had sinned if God had not imputed it we had not been sinners But this is an insufferable blasphemy to make God the Author of sinne Therefore Gods imputing it is an act of justice and not of Sovereignty only 4. This overthrowes the community of his person for if it be meerly an act of his will he might have done this though Adam had not been a publick person 5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent and is not a sinner but by his imputation 6. This ascribeth injustice to God to impute sin to him that is no sinner but by his imputation which the sinner would be delivered from and consents not to it as the regenerate that bewaile it and earnestly desire to be delivered from it 7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost to prevent his being a sinner confutes this conceit for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ and he intended not so miraculously to be borne for it behoved him to be like us in all things and why not by the help of man to be borne if Adams sin be ours by imputation only and not by propagation also Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto to hold and maintaine one Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being For the understanding of this we must know what imputation of sin is it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner or an adjudication of punishment for that sin or the execution of that punishment now look in what manner we are sinners in that manner is the imputation for Gods judgement must be according to truth now as we are but seminally potentially and virtually sinners because we had but a virtual existence in Adam for it is a known rule and of approved verity Operatio rei consequitur esse rei The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things and are suitable and proportionable thereunto so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam and so not actual sinners nor so reputed by God nor formally obliged to punishment nor any punishment actually or formally to be inflicted till we have an actuall existence hence by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members and so his argument will return upon himself For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification as Adams sin to condemnation then as we are not actually sinners till we have an actual being so neither are we actually justified till we be actuall members of Christ by faith His second Reason halteth right down and is pittifully inconsequent for it doth no way follow that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as from Adam but rather the consequence should be Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin as Adam to their children and this is true and will advantage your cause nothing nor hinder ours but it followes not that their personall sins should be imputed as was Adams first sin For if no more of Adams
Law in whole as the Arminians and in part as the Papists But we take faith for a condition in this sense for an Evangelicall qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified nor saved and shall not enjoy the benefits and blessings of the new Covenant as a cause of life not efficiently as works in the old Covenant but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his benefits to the Believer And thus the Scripture saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned and that the wrath of God abideth on him * There it was and there it shall rest till by faith it be removed works are required as conditions of those that shall be saved but faith is a condition of Justification And because this faith is freely given salvation is no lesse of free grace then if this condition were not required nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God and yet required as a duty of us 't is we are bound to believe and repent and yet faith is Gods gift and Christ is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opinion shewing wherein he departeth from the Orthodox faith together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors unsound opinions and selfe-contradictions that he hath intangled himselfe in in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde inconstant to himself Vide Mr. Eyre pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre so farre as relates to his Book I trust in Christ to manifest and therefore let the judicious Reader observe and judge Now for his opinion as farre as I can gather from his Book I conceive it to be this First He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously pro volitione Divinâ pro re volità 1. For the will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people And 2. For the effect of Gods will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law that is Justification is taken by him actively for Gods eternal will not to punish and passively for the effect of that will as it is terminated upon the Elect or Believer And he saith that he looks upon Dr Twisse 's judgment as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines except three or four in making Gods eternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists it is well known that unanimously they agree that Justification is not an immanent but a transient act done in time And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this it is marvell the Scripture should never call it so and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification should speak of it in an improper sense passively taken as terminated upon us Besides the will of God not to punish is but terminus diminuens a decree or will not to punish in time Besides this is not the whole of Justification for it is a will not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace which requireth faith But I shall argue against this in a more proper place Now if we take it thus as Mr. Eyre will have it his opinion is this Justification is an eternall immanent act or will in God not to punish and impute sin unto his people antecedently not only to their birth and faith but to the death of Christ nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification though with him Justification thus taken is most accurate and properly taken and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification for he will acknowledge no other transient act and immanent there is none 1. And this act is not purely * Page 67. negative as the non-imputation of sin to a stone but privative being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse which how Scholastically it is spoken being a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God when neither the subject nor the sin are in being and as if sin were debitum inesse that that ought to be in us for privation is properly understood of these 2. And this non-imputation is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being a will not to impute it hereafter may be actual but to call that an actuall non-imputation is improperly spoken 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a satisfaction for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship and many thanks for a gratuity And yet he addeth that this renders not the death of Christ uselesse surely as to this act it is uselesse * And Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification and if it be the meritorious cause of the effects of this Justification how was that Justification compleat whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God Where let the Reader observe also that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election for he addeth by way of similitude As the love of God is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Moreover he saith That the Lord did not impute sin to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ and so Christ was man and a sinner from eternity and crucified from eternity and all this in Gods minde and there Judas and Pilate and those that murdered Christ did exist too and what will not this bring in And * Mr. Eyre p. 8. the ground of this is that he conceives God constituting and ordaining Christ a Head and the Elect his Members they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne even from eternity And Justification thus taken saith he makes no change in God nor
yet if it be acknowledged a transient act Mr. Eyre p. 65. would it make a change in him it would adde a relative respect and an extrinsecall denomination and so in making it an immanent act there must be a new relation of the person justified to God but he addeth it maketh a great change if you take it for the delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law Surely he that is not is not capable of an actual change which you must hold or your justification is not compleat because the deliverance is not a present deliverance Secondiy Let us come to his passive Justification If Justification saith he be taken as most commonly it is for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation but an actual and immediate reconciliation Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance but not in respect of any act of Gods deliverance as if we could be justâ—fied and none to justifie for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish and that justly and yet he will not acknowledge another act as we do a transient act of God whereof Christs death is the cause and yet some act he must finde out or we cannot be justified Now his opinion from hence is this That Christ at his death standing as a common person and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice by which they satisfied in him and in his Resurrection receiving a publick discharge for himself and them and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God even while they remaine unregenerate persons Wherein in two things he differs from us and departs from the truth 1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith 2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled both these I have already disproved in the Vindication of my Sermon but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter Thirdly When it 's said we are justified by faith he taketh it altogether objectively He saith Faith is taken objectively for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God if taken for the act it only evidenceth justification page 76. as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from any hand in Justification which if it were the Apostles meaning he might have put in the Name Christ and left out Faith and his meaning had been more plaine which in this weighty controversie of Justification though the Trope be more elegant had been more needful And in many places where he speaketh of Justification he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith and yet addeth faith as that grace by which this object is apprehended Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15 16. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the wo ks of the Law Here the Apostles Scope is to shew that the believing Jewes into which number he puts himself and Peter and Barnabas seeing that they could not be justified by the Law did for this end that they might be justified believe on Christ that they might be justified by the faith of Christ where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith and the matter of their Justification and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ and not for the Grace of Faith as if the meaning should be that they were justified by the Christ of Christ where he must exclude Christ or Faith for one is redundant nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification for then there is no reason nor truâ—h in it for to say that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification these being as able to declare it as faith as it is said Little children let no man deceive y u he that doth righteousnesse 1 John 3.7 is righteous that is is declared thereby to be righteous Besides to make Paul to say that they believed that they might be justified that is that they may know by believing that they had been justified before had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe as if the doing a thing for a certaine end were a certain means to assure that the end hath been obtained already Besides it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument in reproving Peter for his dissimulation building up that in his Practice which in his Doctrine he did destroy the Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvation and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gentiles and eating things forbidden by the Law but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Law and therefore did renounce hopes of salvation by that and believe in Christ for Justification and this he taught And when he came to Antioch before certain Jewes came down from James he used his Christian liberty and did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come down he withdrew himself he separates from the Gentiles by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation Now Paul blames his practice that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Christ he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation but how salvation is obtained So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified in Rom 3.11 saith Rom. 3.11 it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even a righteousnesse that is of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ where by Faith is necessâ—rily understood the grace of Faith and not Christ who is expressely set down in the next words where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified and he saith not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ if Christ without Faith justifie why doth the Apostle mention Faith for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification but by what we are justified I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre he saith Mr. Eyre p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is
to their consciences but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne And what diminution is it of the grace of Christ if they were justified from the time of Christs death to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ forasmuch as they were not virtually only but actually and formally as you affirme p. 63. justified at his death Nor will it help you to say you speak there of the non-elect for we are bound to presse all men to believe as you there acknowledge and it is not known who are Elect neither to the Minister nor to the people therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency you extenuate the merit of Christs death if they were actually justified as you affirme And there is the same ground of Faith to all the ability of Christ to save and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached Fourteenthly He affirmeth Faith if it evidences our Justification is a signe is a dark and unsatisfying evidence as other works of Sanctification are 1 John 3.14 where he contradicteth the Apostle who saith By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren not we hope not we conjecture but we know it is a sure and stedfast signe Little children let no man deceive you 1 John 3.7 saith John he that doth righteousnesse is righteous is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person Rom. 8.1 and in Rom. 8.1 he saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus and he givesh this as a signe Rom. 8.13 Who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit doth the Holy Ghost by Paul give us a dark unsatisfying evidence of our being in Christ What is more frequent then this he that is in Christ is a new Creature they that mortifie the deeds of the body shall live Gal 5.24 They that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ and shall be saved but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark and unsatisfying evidences of Justification 2. He saith that nothing that followes Faith is so apt to evidence or prove Justification as Faith because it is the first of all inherent graces but I take this for an errour and that works are every way as declarative of Justification if not more is an apparent truth For first if we speak of evidencing Justification to others it is more for saith the Apostle Thou hast faith shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works James 2.18 And Abraham was in this sense justified by his works If any man shall say he is a justified person Vers 2â— 1 John 1.6 James 2.20 and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar and the truth is not in him and works of Sanctification are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience then Faith For how shall I know my saith is a true faith an unfeigned faith and peculiar to the Elect but by the effect of a true Faith the works of Sanctification therefore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith nor is his reason of any worth because it is the first of all inherent graces this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Justification is a lame consequence of which Master Eyre's Book is too full Fifteenthly He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification I take this also for a manifest errour if it be understood aright of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification Indeed if you take a condition in a strict sense for a condition performed by us without the help of grace meriting and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense it is true it is inconsistent with grace but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified salvation is no lesse of grace though it be by faith as the Apostle speaketh Ye are saved by grace through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith Eph. 2.8 and saith we are saved by it and yet he saith We are saved by grace because it is Gods gift Sixteenthly He saith pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us viz. by our own strength yet God hath his order method in the bestowing of them c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely and freely given and alike merited by Christ and yet God may for order and methods sake deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction why is it any wrong to Christs death if Justification merited by Christ be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice Seventeenthly In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error First â—ag 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend or any breach of that Law committed by man And secondly in * Sin is apparently the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice with his negative act of non-election or preterition which ought to be distinguished He saith Though men will not impute sin or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed for what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish before the Law was given To which I answer that Gods preterition or non-election though it be justly called a hatred negatively yet this was an act of Sovereignty and not of Justice nor is this hatred an imputing of their sin nor was their sin foreseen the cause *
upon a man at the same time as sinful and righteous if you mean by it an estate of sin and a righteous or justified estate for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement to judge them otherwise then they are but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature and what they are by grace 't is not denied but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate and in a state of grace at the same time implies an errour in his judgement which is blasphemy to imagine and is a contradiction in adjecto 5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose Therefore that immanent act or eternal purpose of God to justifie us is not our justification The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture Eph. 4.32 2 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12 God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians God was in Christ reconciling the world c. and whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us c. And to deny it were with Socinus that cursed Heretick to deny the satisfaction of Christ The Minor is acknowledged by himself page 67. It may be he will answer as he saith in pag. 66 67. If Justification be taken for the will of God so Christs death is not the * Nihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art 2. cause c. but if you take it for the thing willed or effect of this will by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Argument and here the Reader may see he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken but of no act of God in justifying Besides our deliverance from the Law is an effect of Justification not Justification it self which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us upon which followeth our delivery from the Law 6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity then Christ died in vain or his death was not to purchase forgivenesse but to apply forgivenesse or to manifest Gods love not to satisfie Gods justice But Christs death was not in vaine he died not only to apply but to purchase forgivenesse not to manifest Gods love only but to satisfie Gods justice Therefore the first consequence is evident because his death was in vain as to the act of Justification for as in the former Argument Christs death was not the cause of that act and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will how can it cause the effect and be no cause of any act of Gods will for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will which is properly our justification which act he will not acknowledge The second inference is evident for if we were justified from eternity then we were forgiven from eternity and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most for he did not purchase it or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world but the Scripture is evident That he hath purchased forgiveness In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of our sins and he died to satisfie Gods justice hence he is a propitiation for our sins 7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death because if we were justified from eternity then Justification is a due debt to the Elect and then what place is left for Christs merit for it must be bonum indebitum that that is properly merited was not due before but if we were justified then it was due and so no roome is left for Christs merits 8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath is not Justification But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath The Major is evident for how can he be justified that is not secured from condemnation The Minor I prove because notwithstanding Gods decree Christ must die there was a necessity of Christs death supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect but not actually it is true because a man is Elect he shall not as to the event be damned but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse but this is not an actual acquittance or discharge from sin when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect that is to such as are declared or evidenced to be Elect by believing or effectual vocation And that the Apostle must mean so is evident the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation Now this he proveth because they are Elect The Elect shall not be condemned but you are Elect Now how shall this be known by faith and our effectual vocation Hence in the 30. ver he speaketh of effectual vocation as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure Why is Calling put before Election because our Election is unknown to any till it be evidenced by their effectual Calling Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification without some means to know it for how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifested and how shall it be manifested but by Faith and Sanctification therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse must be understood by the Elect Now if you take the Proposition as an universal Negative or universal Affirmative No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin or All Elect Believers are freed from the charge of sin both are true but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith the Proposition is not true for the Word may and doth charge him with sin for it threateneth damnation to him but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin and God doth look upon him as a sinner and he ought to charge himself with sin therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin yet all the Elect are not formally discharged from sin As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre that he should speak as weakly as if he said Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it should say that by omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the expression legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus His opinion is as
his person are removed for the merit of Christ but then you fraudulently withold the latter part of the sentence which makes against you as he did that cited Scripture to Christ but not by vertue of that signal promise of the Gospel He that believeth shall be saved for the effects of Gods anger against the sins of the Elect are not removed by vertue of that promise till he actually believe for hence the Elect have no consolation till faith Now if you say he meant our Justification was not evidenced to our consciences till faith and that is all he meanes Ruth Apol. Exercit. p. 44. Hear what he saith Pag. 44. Dicent ergo Arminiani nos hîc Justificationem sumere pro sensu notitia Justificationis remissionis ideòque homines fide Justificantur idem valet ac homines tum demum Justificantur quandò credunt hoc est sentiunt se justificari cum anted essent justificati Nugae tricae Siculae Nam justificari plus est quà m sentire se justificari Nam 1. Est actus Dei absolventis terminati in conscientiam hominis citati tracti ad tribunale tremendi Judicis qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiam 2. Deus hoc actu certum facit conscientiae citati innitenti fiducialiter in Christum jam etiam in Christo plenam expiationem omnium peccatorum factam Ipse peccator actu fiduciali recumbit in Christum sufficientem Salvatorem credentium at verò actus Dei terminatus in nos non potest esse nudus sensus illius actûs quis sanus ità argumenta retur cui paulò magis sobrium est sinciput The Arminians will say for against them he principally dealeth in that Book and therefore opposeth an Arminian condition of faith and not ours that we take Justification for the sense and knowledge of Justification and pardon and therefore to say men are justified by faith it is as if we should say that men are then justified by faith when they believe that is when they perceive they are justified when as they were justified before These are but fables and trifles for to be justified is more then to know we are justified For First It is the act of God absolving terminated in the conscience of a sinner cited and drawn to the tribunal of a dreadfull Judge which act before this instant was not terminated upon the conscience Secondly In this act God assureth the conscience of a sinner cited to his barre fiducially trusting upon Christ that now a full expiation is made of all his sins Thirdly The sinner by a fiducial act relying upon Christ as a sufficient Saviour of Believers But the act of God terminated upon us cannot be a bare sense or knowledge of that act what sound man that hath a sober brain would so reason And immediately followeth Quamvis itaque in mente Dei peccata c. Although therefore sins were remitted in the minde of God from eternity where let the Reader observe he is speaking against the temporal and conditional decrees of Arminius making God to elect upon foreseen faith yet is not a man justified from eternity that is declared to be just in Christ in his conscience when he is cited to Gods tribunal where he taketh declared to be just for a transient act of God terminated upon the conscience fotgiving and declaring this forgivenesse and not for a bare knowledge of this by a reflex act of faith for although that act of justifying in God note an immanent and an eternal act of God yet notwithstanding that act is not the whole integral and formal reason of the Justification of a sinner of which Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and the Scripture speaketh Formaliter enim justificare c. For for God formally to justifie is to declare actually to wit in a judiciall act that the guilty sinner trembling before his Judge now hath the benefit of eternal absolution and now first of all and never till now that the effects of his divine displacency against their sins do now cease by vertue of that divine promise wherein Christ and all his benefits and an actuall right to the Kingdom of God and the dignity of Adoption or Son-ship are promised to the Beleever Indeed he saith Pag. 43. N. 20. that faith is not the instrument of Justification actively taken as an immanent eternal act of God for no man saith he by believing doth make God to have a will not to punish sin or to have a will to love us which the Arminians plainly make and therein he saith true yet he maketh faith the instrumental cause of Justification passively taken as a declared act of God terminated upon us as that place declareth and in expresse words in pag. 37. Ruther Apol. Exer. p. 37. which Mr. Eyre in his 32. pag. of his Book when he boasted that Master Rutherford made the opinion he did oppose the chief of the Arminians and Socinians and Papists Errors could not be ignorant of for he there maketh faith the organical cause of Justification In that place he saith the Arminians would desire nothing more then this that remission of sin is not before actuall faith And that the Remonstrants in their Apology do say that nothing is more false Socinus part 4. de Salv. c. 10. then that men have sinnes remitted before they believe in which they make Socinus more plausible who saith that sinnes cannot be forgiven by an act of believing if they are remitted before they believe and Bellarmine who hath these words how is that faith true whereby I believe my sins are forgiven if while I therefore believe they are not forgiven but are to be remitted by the act of faith because every object is before his act so the Remonstrants urge to which he saith I would have these three acts distinguished 1. The act of satisfying for our sins performed by Christ and of reconciling us to God 2. The act of God the Father accepting it wherein he doth acknowledge that he is abundantly satisfied for all the sins of the Elect. 3. The act of Justification cui fides subordinatur tanquam organica causa to which faith is subordinate as an organical cause in all which Mr. Rutherford meaneth nothing but this that God did not take up a new volition but sins were intentionally pardoned from eternity Ruth Apol. page 4. which yet in his judgement is not justification for pag. 43. Homo non est justificatus ab aeterno quia homo non est ab aeterno homini credenti non sunt remissa peccata ab aeterno qumiam non estab aeterno nam justificatio remissio hoc sensu-non sunt termini diminuentes A man is not justified from eternity because a man is not from eternity sins are not remitted to a Believer from eternity because he is not from eternity and Justification and Remission passively taken are not termini
diminuentes are not termes of diminution where he plainly taketh Gods eternal Justification for terminus diminuens and so it is not Justification properly and we are reconciled meritoriously and so causatively and virtually our sins are remitted but they are not formally temitted in his judgement untill faith and to this act of Justification faith is an organical cause and so a condition in the sense we take it of Justification though not as the Arminians take it and another place most fully expresseth his minde Dicunt nostri fidem non esse conditionem moventem Dei voluntatem tamen salutem nostram esse conditionatam quod est verissimum Nam Deus non vult nobis aliam vitam quà m quae antecedaneam habet fidem tamen nullo modo movetur voluntas à fide nostra Ours do say that faith is not a condition moving the will of God and yet notwithstanding our salvation is conditional which is most true for God willeth us no other life then that which hath faith antecedaneous to it and yet notwithstanding the will of God is not moved with our faith I hope by this time the Reader seeth what cause Mr. Eyre hath to be ashamed thus to abuse the sense of an Author against his own minde declared in significant termes to the contrary but no wonder when he dares misinterpret Scripture if he misrepresent an Author And for a further satisfaction that Mr. Rutherford dissenteth wholly from him I referre the Reader to his Treatise of the Trial and Triumph of Faith pag. 162 163. p. 59 60 61 62. p. 55. And to his Survey to the Spiritual Antichrist and in the second part of his Survey of the Secrets of Antinomianisme pag. 63. where he maketh faith a condition of Justification And expressely he saith It is a new heresie of Antinomians to deny a conditional Gospel it is all one as to belie the Holy Ghost who saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not is condemned already And pag. 107 108 109. pag. 115. Salt-marsh dresseth up a man of straw to come to Christ 1. In all his dealing with God saith he and so before ever he come to Christ or at his first believing he believeth his Sonship that is being a hog or limbe of the Devil he believeth himself to be an heir of heaven c. which his judgement is sufficiently known in both these Books that I wonder Mr. Eyre could with any modesty alledge Mr. Rutherford in defence of his Error His third Author is Reverend Doctor Twisse and in all the Writings of this Learned man this is the only naevus which adhereth to him but certainly he did understand and hold a necessity of personal Justification by faith as far as I can understand by any thing I have seen of his in his examination of a Treatise written by Mr. Cotton pag. 55. Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Co◠page 55. he maketh faith the condition of salvation Certainly God will save any upon condition he believes and repents and on the other side neither is there any unwillingnesse in God but a willingnesse rather yea and that a resolute will to damne any man in case he dieth in infidelity and impenitency for we have the clear Word for it Whosoever believeth shall be saved whosoever believeth not shall be damned and in pag. 95. page 95. he saith that Piscator a precise Divine spareth not to professe that fides est causa salutis which he no way contradicteth and in the same place saith that works are causae dispositivae of salvation according to the Apostles phrase who hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance with the Saints in light and he saith undoubtedly Col. 1 12. Gods purpose is not to give the Elect life but upon condition of their obedience and repentance page 96. so pag. 96. As for the harmony you speak of between Gods purpose and Covrnant herein is your Error twofold 1. In that you apply this to the world wholly to reprobates whereas it concerneth the Elect as I have shewed as well as the Reprobate the reason whereof is because it respects only the collating of salvation and inflicting of condemnation which have their course upon condition And therefore he maketh another distinct decree in God concerning the giving and denying grace for the performance of the condition of life and this is absolute without all condition And so likewise in his Vindiciae Grat. he hath these words Rursus videamus quae sit praecepti vis Doctor Twiss Vindic. grat sect 25. p. 196. quo jubemur in Christum credere itaque quemadmodum summa praecepti legalis haec est Si vis vitam ingredi serva mandata ità praecepti viz. Evangelici summa est Si vis consequi remissionem peccatorum vitam aeternam omnis tibi fiducia in Christo collocanda est quod nihil aliud significat quà m nullam aliam patere peccatoribus ad salutem viam quà m credendo in Christum Let us again see what is the force of the Precept whereby we are commanded to believe in Christ Therfore as the summe of the legal Precept is this If thou wilt enter into life keep the Commandements So the force of the Evangelical Precept is If thou wilt obtaine remission of sins and life eternal you must place all your trust in Christ which signifieth nothing else but that no way is open to sinners unto salvation but by believing in Christ where you see expressely that he maketh faith to have the same order of antecedency to salvation in the Covenant of Grace that Works had in the first Covenant and that it is a necessary antecedent and condition of salvation not of the manifestation of this only to the conscience I shall adde but one testimony more because he chiefly builds his opinion upon this Reverend Doctors authority who yet differs as much in opinion from him as the East is from the West Christus fateor est caput electorum praedestinatorum sed non formaliter consideratorum Nequeenim praedestinati quà praedestinati sunt membra corporis Christi sed potius futuri sunt membra ejus nam quod est membrum Christi proculdubio existit Neque enim membrum Christi est terminus diminuens existentiam at praedestinati quà praedestinati non existunt nam praedestinatio fuit ab aeterno hodie multi sunt Electi qui proculdubio adhuc non nascuntur Rursus unio illa per quam fimus ejus membra fit per fidem ergo quot quot Christi membra sunt opportet esse fideles at non omnes praedestinati ex quo primùm praedestinati sunt è vestigio fideles evadunt Adhaec cùm non potiùs fiat caput aliquorum quà m illi aliqui siant membra corporis ejus sequitur Christum non ab aeterno caput fuisse cùm non ab aeterno corpus habuerit mysticum aut membra cujus ratione
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the
our sin was imputed to Christ that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him and he will have Christs being made sin and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him formally the same act in God For he saith this phrase that we might be madâ— doth not alwayes imply the final cause but sometimes the formal And so his meaning is that Christ was at the same time made sin for us and by that act of God we were made the righteousnesse of God in him To this I answer First it offers violence to the Text for that doth not say that we were then made but that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him it laid the foundation for this Secondly Let him assigne any other end that God had in this act in respect to us if this were not his end surely had it not been for this God would not have imputed our sinnes to Christ Thirdly That which he saith is manifestly false for this phrase that we might be alwayes doth expresse the finall cause his instance doth not prove the thing in hand He saith That when light is let in that darknesse might be expelled the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darknesse I answer if it be granted this hindereth not but that it might be the end why the light is let in as in a roome that hath shuts to keep out the light the room is dark now let a man that desires light open these shuts at the same time the light doth physically expell the darknesse and yet it was the end of the man in letting in the light to expel the darknesse Fourthly The imputation of sin to Christ and righteousnesse to us are two different acts and have two different effects and therefore are not formally the same for by imputing sin to Christ he is charged with the guilt of it and is obnoxious to death and the imputing righteousnesse to us is a discharge from the guilt and we are made capable of life Now if this were formally our discharge then we are discharged and so made righteous before Christ had made satisfaction even so soon as our sin was imputed but this is a manifest contradiction for it is not Christs being charged with our guilt but his making satisfaction that procures our discharge but this is but one drop of that river of contradiction that flows from him as from a fountaine with which his Book swells like the river of Jordan till it is foardable by no reason nor any humane understanding 4. I deny that the imputation of sin to Christ and the non-imputation of it to us If you speak of a formal non-imputation and discharge or else you say nothing to the purpose is but one and the same act in God they are two distinct acts terminated upon two distinct subjects The first upon Christ the second upon us Imputation of sin to Christ is a transient act done in time for God did not charge Christ with our sin from eternity and every transient act requireth the existence of the subject upon which it is terminated or produceth it as did Creation And therefore we that had no existence could not be the subjects of a formal non-imputation which is an actuall discharge from it and therefore that which you answer to this objection we were nor then and therefore righteousnesse could not be imputed by propounding another objection Our sins were not then therefore they could not be imputed I answer the reason is not alike for the non-existence of a subject to whom any thing should be impated is of greater efficacy to hinder the imputation then the non-existence of a sinne for the terme or subject of a transient act is of absolute necessity to be or to be produced by the act but there is no such necessity of the thing that is imputed the act may be without that but not without the other Besides a sin is a moral cause of punishment and therefore the effect which is punishment which is that that is meant by imputation of sin is at the will of him that is moved thereby and therefore sometimes goeth before the cause as in the death of Christ for which the Patriarchs were justified before Christ had given satisfaction and sometimes after it therefore the punishment might be inflicted on Christ before the sin was committed I shall now addresse my self to give an answer to such Scriptures as he hath alledged in defence of his own opinion The first is Matth. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased From whence he argueth that if the well pleasednesse of God which is here declared is terminated upon Christ mystical and not to Christ personal then God was well pleased with all his Elect who are Christ mystical when this voice came from heaven and consequently before many of them do believe To which I answer that I take it to be and have proved it an errâ—r to say that the Elect as Elâ—ct are myst cally uni ed to Christ for union necessarily pre-requireth existence and Christ had not a mystical body from eternity 2. I deny as then I did the assumption and say the well-pleasednesse of God was terminated upon Christ personal and not Christ mystical And the meaning is This is my beloved Son in whose person I am well pleased and with whose work and office as a Mediator I am well pleased but it was not the intent of God there to say for his sake I am actually well pleased with all the Elect antecedently to their faith Now I prove it was spoken of Christ personal and not Christ mystical 1. If Christ considered as Mediatour be personally considered then this is understood of Christ personal and not Christ mysticall The antecedent is true Therefore the consequence The reason of the consequence is because this is spoken of Christ as Mediator But Christ mystical is not the Mediaâ—our of the world for then we have so many Redeemers and Saviours of the world as are united to Christ and then Christ alone did not tread the winepresse of his Fathers wrath 2. Christ mystically considered was not baptized by John But this beloved Son in whom God was well pleased was baptized by John Ergo. 3. This was terminated on him to whom the Heavens were then opened and upon whom the Spirit descended like a Dove But this is true only of Christ personally not mystically considered 4. This voice was terminated on him for whose sake God is well pleased with such as believe But God is not well pleased with believers for the sake of Christ mystically considered but personally Ergo. 5. This voice is terminated upon him who is by a peculiar generation and Sonship so a Son that it is incommunicable unto others But this belongs only to Christ personal Therefore this voice was not terminated upon Christ mystical 6. Now to all this I adde this that the consideration of Christ as a pubâ—ick
premise that we understand not by qualifying us for Justification any moral disposing and qualifying us sensu pontificio in the Papists sense inchoating our Justification as if we were to be justified by something inherent in us but by qualifying we mean nothing but this that according to the tenour of the Gospel and New Covenant it makes us subjects capable of the act of Justification for as much as the condition required is now fulfilled and as faith is Gods gift so it is a passive condition as it is our act so it is an active instrument not elicited by the power of free will but by assistance of special grace whereby we apprehend Christs righteousnesse for Justification and in this sense we are justified by faith according to the Scriptures Now let us consider his Arguments First That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in way of opposition to other workes of Sanctification but to interpret Faith meerly thus that it is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification We shall reverence the Major and let it go but must commit his Minor to the Marshalsie as a Rebel against reason For though we make Faith a condition and a passive condition in the sense explained yet this hindereth not but that it may be an instrumental cause of Justification and in this sense we give more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Besides we make not as he affirme works necessary antecedents to Justification necessary antecedents to Salvation we do but not unto Justification For we acknowledge that of August to be true opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum And now I shall retort this Argument upon himself That Interpretation of the phrase which giveth no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in a way of opposition to other works of Sanctification but to interpret Faith subjectively taken thus that it justifieth us only because it evidenceth our Justification is to attribute no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Ergo. If he answer that faith subjectively taken for the grace of faith is not opposed to works because it is a work I answer 1. If it be a work yet it is the work of God and not ours 2. It justifieth not as a work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse Nay 3. I see not but the opposition stand as strongly as if he took faith objectively for Christs righteousnesse or obedience for certainly the matter of our Justification is the obedience of Christ to the Law and so we are justified by works properly in the person of another Secondly That Interpretation which gives no more to faith then to works of nature such as are found in natural unregenerate men is not true but to interpret faith a necessary antecedent of our Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature I deny the Minor for conditio sine quà non a condition whithout which a thing is not done may be a necessary condition yet it is not so necessary as that is which is a cause by which the thing is done the eye-lids must be opened as a necessary antecedent unto sight But will you therefore say it is as equally necessary as the eye it self so it is in the present case sight of sin sorrow for it are necessarily required in the subject where God will work faith but it followeth not that they are as equally necessary and have as much influence into Justification as Faith The third Argument is this That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a passive condition is not a proper efficient cause of Justification I answer by distinguishing upon the word by That by which we are justified as the material cause of our Justification or the matter for which we are justified is the meritorious proper efficient cause of Justification and in this sense we are not justified by faith 2. It may be taken for the instrument by which that righteousnesse for which we are justified is apprehended and applied and in this sense we are justified by faith and taking it in this latter sense I deny the Major Nor is faith only the instrumental cause of Justification in foro conscientiae as a little after you affirme though it be taken properly for the act of believing but in foro Dei nor a bare condition without which but a condition by which by vertue of Gods Covenant it is obtained and therfore I acknowledg a true causality in faith unto Justification Fourthly That which maketh us concurrent causes in the formall act of Justification with God and Christ because our Justification in respect of efficiency is attributed to them is not true but to make faith morally disposing us to Justification maketh us concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification I answer 1. He attributeth more to us then we affirme we say not that faith doth moraly dispose us to Justification as he taketh it in the Argument it is no meritorious moving cause of Justification nor is all moral disposition a morall causality 2. The Major is not universally true for Faith is a social cause but not a co-ordinate cause of Justification Besides what Faith doth it doth it virtute agentis principalis and by vertue of Gods Covenant not as our act nor by any inherent worth in it self 1. Nor doth it follow from hence that if any condition be required in order to our Justification then it is not free for the very condition is freely given nor is it left to be performed by the power of our free-will this would hinder the freenesse of Justification 2. It is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ but Christ and Faith are not causes ejusdem generis for Christs righteousnesse is that for which we are justified Faith is only that whereby this righteousnesse is received and applied unto Justification Fifthly That Interpretation which makes Works going before Justification not only not sinful but acceptable to God and praeparatory to the grace of Justification is not according to the minde of the Holy Ghost but to interpret Justification by faith that faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a work or works which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace The Major we shall let passe as innocent the Minor hath guilt and weaknesse more then enough to be imputed to it 1. We say Faith doth not us qualifie as an inherent disposition preparing us for a
in the Papists sense not in ours And when the Apostle saith Rom. 4.16 Our salvation is of grace that it might be sure to all the seed the same Apostle saith in the same verse It is of faith that it might be of grace and yet you are willing to leave out those words because they make against you nor is it lesse sure by faith Acts 16.48 then if it were without it for faith is merited and shall be given As many as were ordained to eternal life believed Phil. 1.29 and To you it is given not only to believe c. Ninthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available while they live in this world then it was the Will of God it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation Ans This consequence is denied the argument maketh against a condition in an Arminian sense not in ours for upon the first moment that a man believeth he is justified and all his sins past are actually pardoned his sins to come virtually so that no following sin shall unjustifie him though it may take away his aptitude for heaven yet not his right and though his sin may deserve damnation and without actual repentance and faith he cannot be saved yet grace shall be given to inable him to repent and believe so that though there must be nova remissio yet there is not nova justificatio though a new remission is needful yet not a new justification pardon of sin is a continued act but our justification quoad statum is done simul semel once and for all this you know to be the Orthodox opinion yet you fraudulently conceal it and oppose us as if we held a condition in an Arminian sense and that so often as we fall into sin we fall from justification and so no man could be sure of salvation untill death Tenthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should certainly procure reconciliation then it was his Will it should not depend upon termes and conditions performed by us Answ Still your consequence doth halt down-right for the salvation of the Elect is not uncertain as to the event but as certain as the unchangeable decree of God can make it but this is Crambe bis vel ter recocta fastidium parit Eleventhly If he willed this blessing to his Elect by the death of Christ but conditionally then he willed the reconciliation and justification of the Elect no more then their non-reconciliation Answ If Mr. Eyre be not he may and I am ashamed of this grosse and wilful ignorance I beleeve he knows it as well as he knows there is a God that the Orthodox abhor these positions of the Remonstrants that we acknowledg that God willed the salvation of Peter with another manner of intention then of Judas and that we acknowledge no condition antecedently to their Election but that he hath absolutely predestinated the Elect unto the end and as absolutely to the meanes and that God did not stand indifferent to the event whether they shall be justified saved or no but absolutely decreed them unto life as the end unto justification as the meanes unto faith as a means to bring them unto justification so that though they be not justified nor reconciled actually yet he absolutely willed that they should be reconciled and therefore gave Christ to die for them and will give faith to apply the benefits of his death As for the proof of his consequence if he willed their salvation only in case they believe then he willed their condemnation if they believe not I distinguish upon Gods Will it is either secret or revealed voluntas signi or beneplacity praecepti or propositi if you look to the will of Gods purpose and his good-will and pleasure he absolutely willed their reconciliation so that nothing shall hinder it but he did not will an absolute reconciliation without Faith there was no condition of his will though of the thing willed but if you look to the revealed will of God the will of precept so he declareth it is his will that he that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and thus he willeth their damnation if they believe not Twelfthly If God willed unto men the benefits of Christs death upon any condition to be performed by them it will follow that God foresaw in them an ability to performe some good which Christ hath not merited conditional reconciliation necessarily presupposeth free-will Answ Still his arguments are guilty of this common fate to be lame in the consequence and to fall very short of the mark intended It doth not follow that God foresaw any such ability in man nor doth such a condition as we establish enthrone free-will we yield him that God willed this blessing upon a possible condition not possible to nature but possible by grace not because man can performe it for it requireth the same Almighty power that was required to raise Christ from the dead Eph. 1.18 but because God by his Spirit will work and give it And those he calleth his adversaries do mean it in this sense it is a fruit of a promise made to Christ and an effect of his death that Faith shall be given but not a fruit of the Covenant made with us but rather the condition by which we are really received into Covenant Thirteenthly If God did will that our sinnes should be accounted to Christ without any condition on our part then was it his will that they should be discounted without any condition on our part But the Antecedent is true Ergo. I answer 't is pity that a man whom we hope means well that his Arguments should go out like a snuffe of a candle in the socket as these do And I confesse it is a ridiculous argument and inference yet I will give a solution to it I therefore deny his consequence It is readily granted that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ did not depend upon any condition of ours for we had not then a being when this imputation was made nor was it needful either for Christ or us that any condition on our parts should be the ground of this imputation it was a free act of God in mercy taking off the guilt from us and transferring it on Christ and his sole will and pleasure was the cause of it but that therefore it was the will of God that it should without any ondition on our part be discounted to us is a miserable consequence more fit to be laughed at then refuted But to omit nothing that may have the face though not the force of an argument unanswered I deny the consequence and the reason of it and affirm that the charging our sins upon Christ was not our discharge formally considered the imputing out sinnes to Christ was not a formall non-imputing them to us virtually it was it was a foundation laid for the
non-imputing them to us it was a paying the ransome for us a legal translation of the eternal punishment upon Christ a laying help upon one that was mighty but this was not nor is ever called in Scripture Justification here is no formal imputation of any righteousnesse to us who are not yet borne much lesse cited before a Tribunal and absolved from the guilt of sinne Besides 't is not the charging of a surety with the debt bue the discharging of him rather that carries the force of an Argument to prove our discharge but although Christ in his Resurrection was legally discharged as a publik person and all that he did represent fundamentally meritoriously and causally yet not personally and formally which is necessary to Justification Thus have I answered his Arguments which he hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to Faith there remaineth yet one Argument and Objection behinde with which I shall put an end to this discourse leaving that which relateth to the Covenant to Mr. Woodbridge to whom it peculiarly belongeth from whom I doubt not but the world will receive a satisfactory answer The Argument yet unanswered is this If a man have the Spirit of God given him before he beleeve then he must needs be justified before he doth beleeve because then he is in Covenant before he beleeveth and he that is in Covenant is justified To this I answer First by Concession willingly acknowledging faith to be the Spirits work and that no man can beleeve without the help of the Spirit working Faith Secondly I deny the Consequence that although the Spirit worketh Faith before we can beleeve yet doth it not follow that a man is justified before beleeving And the reason of the Consequence I deny also it followeth not that he is in Covenant before beleeving for there is no distance of time between the giving of the Spirit our beleeving and being justified and in Covenant or being passed from the state of death into a state of salvation because there is a synchronisme in these in respect of time they being altogether as soone as ever there is fire there is heat so as soone as the Spirit is given Faith is wrought and the person justified and in Covenant and sanctified at the same time for God is able to act in instanti in a moment the Spirit is then said to be given to us when he doth manifest his Divine presence by working somthing in us peculiar to the elect for though those that shall perish may be enlightened and taste of the powers of the world to come and may be said to be partakers of the holy Ghost yet properly none receive the Spirit but the Elect and what others have is not a true saving work now because no work before Faith is truly saving and have a necessary connexion with salvation therefore the Spirit is not received before Faith and so they are simultanea all together the Spirit Faith and Justification and being in Covenant and therefore though there may be a precedency of nature in this gift of the Spirit before Faith yet followeth it not that we are justified and in Covenant before Faith but at this very instant is the beleever taken into Covenant and justified and thus I willingly acknowledge the first grace is absolutely given to wit effectual vocation or Faith by which the soul is brought into an estate of Justification and Faith is made the condition though wrought by God of our Justification So that our being in Covenant and justified follow Faith in order of nature which is contrary to that which Master Eyre hath all along contended for that a man is justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death antecedently to our birth and faith and that the unregenerate so remaining if elected are justified in that estate which opinion if it be received how it should not destroy the vitals of Religion is past my understanding to imagine Having therefore had the glory of God the vindication of this blessed truth the salvation of the souls of Gods Elect the preserving them from Errour that are yet free from the infection of it the reducing those that are gone astray before mine eyes and having with earnest prayers unto God sought for guidance herein I undertook this task and through his grace have finished it and I trust I have not I am sure I have not willingly departed from the truth and if in any thing I have written I have erred from the truth as humanum est errare upon the first discovery of it I shall through the grace of Christ become a thankful Proselyte in the meane time I commend the Christian Reader to the grace of God in Christ And the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory tread down Satan under our feet establish and settle us in the truth and give us to receive it in the love of it and grant to us the Spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of him that the eyes of our understandings may be enlightened that we may know what is the hope of his calling and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints and by the exceding greatnesse of his power work Faith in the hearts of his Elect where it is yet wanting according to the working of his mighty power and fulfil that which is lacking in our faith with power and so keep us by his mighty power through faith unto this salvation which is ready to be revealed at the second coming of Christ Amen A Postscript of the Authour by way of advertisement to the Reader WHereas it is said pag. 238 that it is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in the work of Justification least Mr. Eyte in particular or any other should through wilfulnesse or weaknesse mistake the minde of the Authour he is desired not to dismember the sentence but to take it as it is there explained And I further declare that I understand by it no more but that faith is a concomitant social cause with Christ in the work of Justification but not a co-ordinate or meritorious cause of the same kinde but a subordinate instrument appointed by God for the receiving and applying of Christs righteousnesse unto Justification and that this faith is Gods Almighty work and free gife without which no man shall ever have benefit by Christs righteousnesse and because it is our act though it be Gods gift for it is we that believe and not God in this sense alone it is said that we are concurrent causes with Christ not that we are justified by faith as our act but as it is an organical instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse for this end and this I conceive is the unanimous opinion of all the Orthodox FINIS