him that were virtually sinners in him and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit was as truly ours though not so compleatly and perfectly as his for we are not formally constituted sinners till we are actually members of him by natural generation 2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of is in that he saith That the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto Justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation and it 's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle which he no way intended in that place that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation before they had a being that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being To which I answer that it is a manifest untruth for the sin of Adam descends upon us not only by imputation but by propagation so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ that is ours only by imputation The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural union to whom we are strangers and alienated from him by nature we are virtually united to Adam because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being but we were actually sinners whâ—n we had an actuall being because we had a compl aâ— being out of our cause but we are not actually united to Christ before faith Wotton de Râ—con pecc par 2. l. 2. c. 2â— p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Objâ—ction saith Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo credentes unum esse cum Christo si utrumque verè dici possit tamen alio atque alio modo haec vera essâ— intelliguntur unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter liceat enim his verbis uti seminaliter ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse quà m Levi apud Apostolum Heb. 7.9 decimatus esse in Abrahamo affirmatur jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse censemur non naturâ aut proprie sed improprie per similitudinem quandam Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus unum cum illo in illo fuisse deprehendimur ut cum illo etiam quodam modo peccare potuerimus Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione sive unione affi mari non pâ—test uniri enim nos Christo cum illo conjungi oportet priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existimari wh ch for the Readers sake I will English Although it may be truly said that we were one with Adam and believers are one with Christ yet this is to be understood in a different manner we were one with Adam and in him naturally originally and let it be lawful to use these words seminally as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the 〈◊〉 or in any other seed By this reason it comes to passe that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam then Levi by the Apostle is said Heb. 7.9 to have paid tithes in Abraham But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner not by nature or properly but improperly and by a certain similitude Moreover from the time that Adam was created we were alwayes one with him and in him that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with or union to Christ for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ before we can be esteemed to be one with him and he addes Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus quum in illum credimus Wherefore we then first begin to be in Christ when we believe in him And let me adde that there are many different considerations and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one and condemnation by the other and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15 16. And besides these there are many other I shall think fit to adde but one Vide John Goodwin Treat Justifica part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification and in hâ—s words The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posterity as his own in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence with truth be said to have been theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not been saved at all It is said indeed that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God Let no man blame me for his authority fas est ab hoste doceri And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake if it be not wilfull is that he thinks the Apostle doth compare the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ as causes of the same kinde which produce their effects after the same manner which was not the intent of the Apostle but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious unto Justification to them that are his one with him then the sin of Adam was to condemnation to them that were in him but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are in * Câ—nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili cùm in contrariâ siwiles enim sunt in eo quòd uterque quod suum est cum suis communicat sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ derivat ad mortem Christus verò suam justitiam cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vitam Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12 Wotton de recon peccat par 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being that so the Elect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith for as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius whose words are these Quod ad assumptionem attinet sumet ille pro concesso Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare quae eodem plane modo effecta sua producant At verò id potiùs agere videtur Apostolus ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quà m Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem imò Christi justitiam majorem
nothing but what is contrary to the light of nature and yet over the leaf desires the parliament to prohibit all names of obloquie under fitting penalties But I feare Mr. Eyâ—e who is so liberall in calling his brethren Arminians Socrat hist lib. 6 65. Papists Socinians would be the first that would come under the lash of such a law if it were made as Eutropius the Eunuch did of that Edict made by the Emperour at his request But let him tell us is it against the light of nature to call him an Antinomian who upholds the maine pillar of Antinomianisme and layeth the foundation stone whereon it is built is it lawfull to be an Antinomian and unlawfull to call him so that is so shall a man be covetuous and if his neighbour tell him of it and speak the words of truth and sobernesse in so doing is this against the light of nature is it a more insufferable injury to call Mr Eyre an Antinomian then to be so and is his credit more neâ—essary then Christs shall a man call Christ a deceiver and vilify the Scriptures and worship a breaden god a doore an altar or a crucifix praeferre Mahomet or the Pope before Christ and must such an evill go unpunished and would he have the magistrate bring himselfe by connivence at such evills under the guilt of these sins then would England be a purgatory for the Orthodox and a paradise for the heterodox yet this is that he aimes at He would have a liberty for men to professe what errours they please but a restraint laid upon those that shall indeavour to confute them and if this should ever be established which I hope never will be I should not stick to say O Mariana tempora hi sunt vltimi singâ—ltus moribundae libertatis Now for this good service and telling the Libertines that if they be elected they are justified already though they be of a dissolute life the covenant is absolute every one of them with a garland of lawrell in his hand is ready to salute him Tu mihi patronus tu mihi Christus eris A third passage is his incivility to Master Good who because Mr. Eyre had appealed to the people among many others that discovered their satisfaction for what he had said and objected propounded this question whether God was wel pleased with unregenerate men to whom he saith ironically enough he did not reply as Bazil did to Demosthenes the clark of the Emperours Kitchin that he should meddle with his broth and his sauce having a little before with petulancy stiled him an Inn Keeper though he be as Demetrius was a man well reported of all men and the truth it selfe and of M. Eyre in time past for which favour he is as much beholding to him as Amasa was to Joab when he tooke him by the beard and said Art thou in hâ—alth my brother And for his answer to the question that God was wel pleased with his elect in Christ whilest they be vnregenerate though he be not well pleased with their unregeneracy I may say had he himself minded the kitchin lesse and studied the question more he had either yeelded the cause or given a more satisfactory answer for if all the sins of an unregenerate man be pardoned what is there for God to be displeased with nor will the nature of a holy God allow him to love an vnregenerate person with that love which Divines call the loue of complacency though he may intend him good with a love of benevolence And now I shall intreate the reader if there be any acrimony or sharpeness in this epistle to excuse me in it having been in a manner forced to it to heale the exulcerations in Mr. Eyre his book and I shall indeavour in this following discourse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 laying aside all animosity And I willingly professe with Augustine Non pigebit me sicubi haesito quaerere nec pudebit sicubi erro discere proinde quisquis hoc letat vbi pariter certus est mecum pergat vbi pariter haesigit quaerat mecum vbi errorem suum cognoscit redeat ad me vbi meum revocet me ita ingrediamur simul veritatis viam tendentes ad eum de quo dictum est quaeramus faciem ejus semper I shall not be vnwilling where I doubt to inquire nor shall I be ashamed where I erre to learn therefore whosoever read what I have written where he is certain let him goe forward with me where he doubteth with me let him seeke with me where he seeth his errour let him returne to me where he discerneth mine let him reclaime and recall me so let us walke together in the way of truth making towards him of whom it is said Let us alwayes seek his face And I beseech the God of peace to tread down Satan under Rom. 16.2.8 our feete to heale our divisions to powre out upon all his people the Spirit of truth of meekeness of love and of a sound minde and to give us to avoid all curious and needlesse questions which neither serve to beget nor increase holinesse and to lay aside all contentions that we may keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace that wee may with vnited strength oppose the common adversary 4. Eph. 3. and not sheathe our swords in one anothers bowels least by intestine and vnseasonable differences we rend the Church of Christ and be justly blamed with that of the Poet Quumque superba foret Babylon spolianda trophaeis Bella geri placuit nullos habitura triumphos Now the Lord Jesus the great Apostle and high priest of our profession the great Prophet of his church double the annointing of his Spirit upon thee and leade thee into all truth settle confirme and establish thee in the love of it and keep thee sound in the faith and blamelesse in thy life until the day of the Lord Jesus which is the hearty prayer of Thy soules friend and servant in the Gospel of Christ THOMAS WARREN REader by reason of the great distance of the Authour from the presse many errata's have escaped the most material are corrected to thy hand the rest thou art intreated to amend as thou art here directed what ever else thou findest let thy intelligence cure and thy Charity cover p. 8. l. last for in r. is p. 9 l. 18. for our r. my item 2â— l. for you r. he p. 10. l. 13. blot out the second so p. 13. l. 4. for Consistence r Coexsistence l. 17. for purposes 1. purposed p. 19. l. 31 for mna r man p. 11. l. 18. for have r. hath p. 22. l. 32 for dies 1. die p. 27. l. 2. after man adde he p. 36 l. 12. after were add not p. 37. l. 5. for hath r. have l. 21. blot out so l. 29. for once r. one p. 39. l. 29. for sin r. sinned p. 40. l. last for Christs r. Christ p. 49. l. 33.
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
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
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
sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them
for the want of Faith as a meanes to unite the soul to Christ hindered it for as none are partakers of Adams sin but such as were in him so none are partakers of the reconciliation wrought by Christ but such as are in him Now it is by Faith that we are implanted into Christ and therfore until Faith we are not partakers of the benefit of actual reconciliation Mr. Eyre doth erre toto coelo when he thinketh we conceive a new will and affâ—ction to be in God upon believing which was not before for we acknowledge no new immanent act in God this were to make him mutable but we acknowledge a transient act of God to passe upon the believer and that there is a change of Gods dispensation toward the believer though not a change of affection and God loved them before with the love of benevolence not with the love of complacency and delight which he could not do while they remained unjustified The first love is terminated upon their persons yet the nature of Justification consists not in it because it is a love of good-will and purpose to do them good The second is a love terminated upon their graces and so a delighting in his own work so a loving them for what he hath wrought in them and now he pardoneth by vertue of the Covenant of grace and the promise Whosoever believe shall not perish but have everlasting life Fourthly If it were the will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was the will of God that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect This consequence is denied the reason that he bringeth is that there is the same reason for the immediat transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.14 both of them were Heads and Roots of mankind To which I answer deny that there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both for though they be both Roots of mankinde yet we are in the first Adam in a naturall way and so sinned in him before we had a being and were formally and actually sinners as soon as we had an actual being but we are in the second Adam by a supernatural work of the Spirit working Faith and this is not wrought alwayes at our birth but a long time after Besides the scope of the Apostle is not to compare Adam and Christ as causes in eodem genere of the same kinde that did in the same manner in every respect communicate the issues of their actions to their respective members but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious nay more powerfully efficacious to save all that are in him then Adams sinne were to condemn all that are in him and the efficaciousnesse of Christs death consists not in the immediate conferring of the things purchased for though in regerd of causality the effects are immediat yet not in respect of application but in the certainty of collating the things purchased and the excellency of the things obtained for it is farre moâ—e efficacious to save one man then to damn all the world The first is an act of Impotency this an act of Omnipotency and they for whom Christ died shall as certainly be justified and saved as if the work were already done Fifthly If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sinnes for which he suffered The reason of which consequence is this because the real sacrifice is no lesse efficacious then the typical Heb. 9.14 But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition perfermed on the sinners part Lev. 16.30 I answer that the consequence of the major may justly be questioned for if they were immediate it followeth not that therefore Christs sacrifice must be so or else it is of lesse efficacy First because that such as brought those sacrifices were actually the people of God and professed faith in Christ and if the Profession were outward only they had an outward cleansing if real they had by faith in Christ a spiritual cleansing signified by the outward cleansing but all that shall be cleansed by the sacrifice of Christs death were not in being much lesse had an actual faith to apply it nor is the death of Christ lesse efficacious because they did but typically cleanse they could not purge the conscience Heb. 9.25 26. hence they were often repeated but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath cleansed us they had their power and efficacy only in reference to Christs blood which was typified thereby Secondly we say that Christs death doth immediately cleanse in respect of causality though not in respect of actual application the defect is not in Christs blood but in the want of faith that it might be applied But Thirdly I deny the minor those legal sacrifices did not immediately make atonement without any condition on the sinners part for that is apparently false For First the man that would have an atonement made for him by sacrifice must have it be done by the slaying of a beast offered up and burnt with fire to signifie that without blood there 〈◊〉 no remission Levit. 1. and to set forth the grievous sufferings of Christ Secondly Levit. 1. he must bring his sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle without which it should not be accepted yea blood should be imputed to him and he should be cut off Lev. 17.4 this Tabernacle signified Christ Heb. 9.11 Heb. 9.11 by whom all services as a door must have passage to and acceptance with God and he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary Profession of faith though it were a duty commanded and a sin not to do it yet he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary service and profession of faith in Christ Thirdly he must put his hand upon the head of the beast Levit. 1.4 Exod. 29.10 Lev. 1.4 whereby he confessed his sins and worthinesse to die though through Gods mercy this death was inflicted on the beast by which was signified that he must confesse his sins and worthinesse to die and that God hath laid his iniquities upon Christ and by this laying on of the hand is signified his apprehending Christ Exod. 24.8 and likewise the blood was sprinkled upon the people Heb. 9.19 Heb. 9.19 The Priest took the blood of calves and of goats and he sprinkled the book and all the people under which is typified the application of Christs blood to the conscience upon believing Hence Calvin saith upon Heb. 9.19 Calvin apud marl Heb. 9.19 Quòd autem ex hyssopo aspergillum fiebat lanâ cotcinâ non dubium est quin mysticam asperginem quae fit per Spiritum representaverit
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
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
Annotations and they clearly hold forth the effect and fruit of Christs passion where observe a plain promise to Christ or Covenant with him about dying and making his soul an offering for sin When thou shalt make his soul an offering or as the Hebrew if his soul or when his soul shall make it selfe an offering for the second Person Masculine and the third Foeminine are in letters and sound the same so I take it the speach of the Father introduced by the Prophet speaking unto Christ that when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin then he promiseth he shall see his seed that is his issue and posterity that should be borne to him as an effect of this which words do not import that all his issue and posterity should be an immediate effect of it but he should see it he should live and survive to see it after his resurrection he should die no more but live for ever and see the fruit of his death The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that is he shall daily see souls brought to salvation as a fruit of his death He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied As a woman when her travel is past is filled with joy to behold the fruit of her wombe so Christ should be satisfied to see a numerous issue of faithful soules begotten to God by his death And what that satisfaction is in particular he tells him it shall be the justification of many for whom he died and then he tells him how they shall be justified He saith it shall be by * Notitiâ sui his knowledge or the knowledge of him not his own knowledge taken subjectively the knowledge that he hath of God Vide English Annot. or of them but his knowledge taken objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him and this is not a bare knowledge of Christ whereby we are justified for the devils themselves both know and acknowledge him but by knowledge is meant faith the antecedent put for the consequent because the knowledge of him is the ground of trust I shall not need to prove that knowledge is put for faith * John 17.3 John 4.42 And the words that follow are a reason for he shall bear their iniquities though in the Hebrew the word is copulative yet it is often used as a cause And if this be granted it renders a reason why he should justifie them because he did bear their sins where the persons are described whom he should justifie not all promiscuously but Believers whose sins he undertook to discharge for he did bear the sinnes of none but Believers Now let Mr. Eyre tell us why God speaking to Christ of our justification by him should say that Christ should justifie us by his knowledge or by faith in him 1. His death alone antecedently to faith did justifie those whose iniquities he did bear unlesse it were to declare his will that his death should be effectually applied only by faith and that none should have immediate benefit but expect it by faith 2. That that was Gods intention in giving Christ was the intention of Christ in dying But God in giving Christ intended not the benefits of Christs death unto any untill faith Therefore Christ died not to purchase immediate forgivenesse unto any untill faith and by consequence there was a mutual agreement The Major is beyond all contradict on because of the unity of heart and will between Christ and God therefore he intended not his death for any nor in any other way then God intended it The Minor is written as with a Sun-beam in Scripture John 3.14 15 16. John 3.14 15 16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse Even so must the Son of man be lifted up That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternall life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life In which words you have a threefold cause of mans salvation 1. The principal Gods love ver 16. 2. The meritorious Christ death 3. The instrumental our faith Secondly You have a comparison between Christ and his Type in two things 1. That as the Serpent must be lifted up for a meanes of healing or else it could not heal and none would look to it so there was a necessity of Christs being lifted up upon the Crosse God must deliver him up to death and he must be considered as dying or else there is no salvation by him 2. The end that such as did look to it might be healed of the stingings of the fiery Serpent so this was the end of Christ dying that whosoever believe should not perish Now as the Scripture sheweth those stingings were deadly and none were healed but such as looked to the brazen Serpent so are the stingings of sin deadly and none are healed by Christ but such as believe Now as Mr. Woodbridge observes they were not first healed and then did look up to see what healed them but they did first look and then were healed so we have nor first everlasting life given us and then we believe but first we believe and then we have everlasting life Now to this Mr. Eyre answers nothing but denies it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew in what order we are justified in the sight of God but in so doing he doth not only senselessely beg the question but doth overthrow that wherein the truth and verity of the type consisted for as the brazen Serpent though endued with a healing vertue yet it healed none till he did look so though Christ as dying be sufficiently able to save yet saveth not any till he look to him by faith and in so doing doth destroy that that was the main end of God in giving Christ and of Christ in dying that upon believing we should be saved And therefore I come to the third thing considerable and that is Gods end in giving Christ and Christs end in dying both these are expressed in the same words the Son was lifted up that whosoever believeth c. and Gods end was that whosoever believeth c. where the verity of the major is confirmed that they had the same end Now the Minor is no lesse evident for if Gods end in giving Christ to die for us and Christs in dying were to limit the benefit only to Believers then it followes by undeniable consequence that untill faith none are actually justified by Christs death otherwise the benefit of Christs death is equally extended to Believers and unbelievers and if he saith faith is only a consequent condition and not antecedent then he must corrupt the Text and alter the sense of the Holy Ghost and say that God gave Christ to give eternall life and Christ was lifted up to purchase eternall life that they for whom he was so given and so died
alwayes thus God pardoneth us that believe since the death of Christ and that not from the time of Christs death but it may be long after upon believing and so our sins were a moral cause of punishment God might impute this to Christ before they are committed by us for a morall cause will admit of the effect to go before it self that is the cause of it and both the Patriarchs to whom Christs righteousnesse was imputed and Christ to whom our sins were imputed were existent and the merit of the one and demerit of the other may be communicated at the will of God moved thereby because there are subjects capable of this imputation but now Christs righteousnesse which is imputed to us cannot be imputed for want of a subject to whom it may be imputed for how can that which is not be made righteous and it is the will of God it should be imputed to none but Believers hence then till faith this benefit is not enjoyed Thus have I vindicated my second argument and for the third which he objecteth against That God made a Covenant with Christ that the Elect should have no benefit by his death till they believe I have defended and confirmed that already sufficiently As for this Argument which he brought for the Negative drawn from Matth. 3.17 This is my well beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to it already and it is answer enough to deny his Assumption as I then did that this voice This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased was not terminated or spoken to Christ mysticall but to Christ personal yet as a publick person and Mediatour And to make Christ mystical and Christ the Mediatour the same is unheard of Divinity nor doth it speak him any great Gamaliel in Theology that affirmeth it As for the scandall he raiseth upon me that I compared my self to Christ and him to Judas and used him uncivilly in language I deny it and have many to bear witnesse of me to the contrary and for the answer to it I referre the Reader to the Epistle to the Reader And I now shall addresse my self to some short answer to his Book and as by the grace of Christ I have not hitherto my conscience bearing me witnesse in the Holy Ghost written any thing which I knew or suspected as unsound so I trust I shall not erre or handle this subject deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commend my self to every mans conscience as in the sight of God to whom I commend thee Religious Reader and to the Word of his grace who is able to build thee up and give thee an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ CHAP. IV. Shewing four material differences between us and M. Eyre wherein he hath departed from the Orthodox faith concerning the Doctrine of free Justification of a sinner through Faith in Christ reduced unto four several Questions which are in this Chapter clearly stated THE Doctrine of Justification through Faith in Christ is deservedly stiled Doctrina stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae and therefore the differences amongst Christians in this point are not of so small concernment as Curcellaeus judgeth that they ought not to breed a Controversie for it is a fundamental Article of our Christian Religion yea all Religion lives or dies with it nothing concernes the glory of God more the honour of Christ or the comfort of a Christian and such goates as shall soile with their feet these waters Ezek. 34.18 or with the Philistines throw dirt into this well do at once strike at the glory of God the honour of Christ the peace and safety of the world and being commanded to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints let not the world wonder that I who am by Mr. Eyre represented as Heterodox in this point stand up both to defend it and my self against those errours wherewith he hath darkened and obscured this blessed truth and endeavoured to render me and his Brethren that dissent from him as those that have overthrown the freenesse of Gods grace in making Justification the effect of Faith and Faith the condition of the Covenant of Grace The matters in controversie depending between us may be reduced to four Heads or unto four severall Questions 1. Whether Justification be an immanent or a transient act whether it be from eternity or a transient act of God done in time 2. Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually justified and reconciled to God antecedently not onely to their faith but to their birth 3. Whether a Believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this is understood only tropically by taking faith for the object Christ or whether it be taken subjectively for the act with connotation to the object 4. Whether faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace God hath made with us For the first Question Whether Justification be an immanent or transient act whether we be justified from eternity or whether it be a transient act of God done in time Here are three termes to be explicated 1. What Justification is 2. What an immanent act is 3. What is meant by a transient act 1. Then by all the Orthodox it is unanimously affirmed that the word justifie or justification is not to be taken in this question sensu Pontificio as the Papists take it that is sensu Physico in a physical sense as if to justifie signified to make just by infusion of an inherent righteousnesse as Bellarmine and his confederates take it for till Etymologies have gotten the supremacy above the Scriptures as the Pope above the Kings of the Earth and so long as the written Word is acknowledged the only Touchstone of divine Truth and that Christs righteousnesse and our works cannot be admitted as corrivals that sense must no way be acknowledged and received in this dispute yet let this be observed against this new Doctrine of Infidels Justification in the state of their unregeneracy though they remain adulterers murtherers parricides yet if Elect say they they are justified even then when they are in the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2.26 Eph. 2.2 led captive by him at his will and pleasure Though they walk according to the course of the world the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience for Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth he is well pleased with the unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy That GOD when he justifieth a man through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed doth at the same time begin to justifie him physically he doth infuse an habituall and an inherent righteousnesse of Sanctification for God justifieth none whom he doth not sanctifie at the same time Secondly Justification may be taken sensu forensi in a juridical or judiciary sense as in Rom. 8 33. Who shall lay any thing to the
that Justification is a transient not an immanent action For though I deny not that God did from eternity with an absolute fixed and immutable will purpose in time to justifie his people through faith in Christ which faith he will also give and Christ did merit and if this will satisfie Mr. Eyre as he saith it will if he be not a Reuben as unstable as water and fall from his word the controversie is at an end Yet this is not Justification no more then Gods purpose to sanctifie is Sanctification as shall be made to appear in its place Justification leaveth a positive change upon the person justified He is thereby passed from death to life from a state of hatred into a state of love and friendship but an immanent act leaveth no such change nor do I mean with Aquinas and the Papists a physicall change as when the Lord makes a wicked man a holy man an unclean man a chaste man a passionate man a meek man this is a naturall change and is the work of Sanctification but it is a relative and morall change Take a man that is in prison for some capitall offence and also exceeding sick a double change may be wrought upon this man First let his offence be forgiven and he set at liberty he is now a free man acquitted and set at liberty that before was in bond a dead man here is a relative change but he may be as sick still as he was when in prison let the Physician come and heal his distemper here is a cure wrought his health restored this is a natural physical change so it is here upon Justification there is a relative change wrought We that were debtors to the Law and liable to death and condemnation our sin through faith in Christ is pardoned now we are acquitted and set free from condemnation here is a change of our estate but then also by Sanctification the Lord heales our natures Now Justification is a transient act of God in time upon the Believer acquitting him for Christs sake from the guilt of sin and through his righteousnesse imputed he is accepted unto life eternall The second Question is Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to their faith but their birth also 1. It is not denied upon neither hand that the Elect are the persons and the only persons for whom Christ intentionally and effectually died 2. It is not denied that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation and that a full satisfaction was made thereby to the justice of God for the sins of the Elect. 3. It is acknowledged that Christ in his death was a common person making satisfaction for the Elect and such as shall believe and by vertue of Christs death they shall infallibly be brought to faith and that God hath thus farre accepted of this satisfaction as that he neither will nor can require any thing more at the hand of the sinner by way of satisfaction nor at the hands of Christ and that in regard of the price paid we are redeemed 4. It will not be denied but that by the death of Christ God may now freely give us the pardon of sins which without the satisfaction of Christ supposing his eternal decree not to pardon us without a satisfaction he could not do 5. We deny not but Christs Resurrection from the dead was a manifest signe that the full price of redemption was paid and that God gave him a publick discharge from the guilt of our sins and that he rose again as a publick person for our justification that we may be said virtually to die and suffer and rise with him and virtually to be justified in his justification But it is denied by us and affirmed by Mr. Eyre that we stand actually justified and reconciled to God from the time of Christs death antecedently to our faith and birth and that it was the will of the Lord to give us a present discharge from the time of Christs death but God hath limited the benefit of this untill faith So that no person in the state of unbelief and unregeneracy is a subject of Justification this we affirme and Mr. Eyre denies who will have all the Elect though Infidels and in their unregenerate estate under the power and dominion of sin to be actually justified The third question is Whether a believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this be understood tropically by taking faith for the object Christ excluding the act or whether it be taken properly for the act with connotation of the Object Now here first it is agreed upon all hands by Pretestants and PÃ pists Orthodox and Socinians Antinomians Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants that it is plainly assâ—rted in Scripture that we are justified by faith It cannot be denied because it is syllabically written the only contention is about the sense I would there were more contending for the Grace then for the right understanding of the Word 1. Then to believe signifies an act of the understanding yielding assent unto Divine Testimony but because the will * Ames Med. cap. 3. Num. 2â— consequently is moved by that assent to embrace the good assented unto and offered in the Gospel therfore faith that is truly saving and justifying consisteth in both faculties therefore we reject their opinion that will have it to be onely an act of the understanding yielding a true * Wotton De reconci lib. 1. par 1. c. 13. n. 1. p. 78. assent to Divine Testimony upon the authority of the Revealer though this be necessary to salvation this comprehendeth not the whole nature of justifying faith which is seated in the heart for with the heart man believeth unto salvation Nor 2. Can we rest in their opinion who define it by assurance and say it is an assurance grounded upon Divine Promises that Christ died for us in particular and that our sins are forgiven For this assurance is a consequent of faith and Justfication and an * Proprium objectum fidei justificantis est Christus vel miscricordia Deâ— in Christo non propositio sive Axioma Ames Bell. Ener Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 2. Sect. 22. Axiome or Proposition is not the object of faith but Christ and it is a relying upon Christ for pardon not a believing that I am already pardoned it is therefore a * Fider est acquiescentia cordis in Deo tanquam in authore vitae vel salutis aeternae ut per illum ab omni malo liberemur omne bonum consequamur Ames Medul c. 3. num 1. fiducial act or recumbency upon God in Christ for pardon 3. It is questioned Ames Medull c 27. de justificat n. 15 16. whether Faith in the point of Justification of a sinner be to be taken tropically or properly Master Eyre will have
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
no condition required to entitle us to the blessings of it and that Faith is not the condition of the New Covenant because then men must be Believers before they are justified for the condition must be performed before that benefit which is promised can be received But men are not Believers before they are justified the Scripture witnesseth that the subiect of justâ—fication as a sinner or ungodâ—y person Rom. 9.5 5.8 10. Now the Holy Ghost never calls Believers ungoâ—ly or wicked but Saints Faithful holy Brethren children of God members of Christ the Covenant with them â—s absolute made with Christ and all the conditions in the Covenant are promised Page 191. And he takes the condition as a part of the Covenant because promised so that believing with him is a consequent of the Covenant not antecedent to it where he wholly departeth from the received truth of Christ and speaketh that which is as contrary to the Scripture as darknesse is to light For 1. He destroyes the nature of a Covenant which is and necessarily requires a mutual stipulation else it may be a promise but no Covenant 2. Salvation is undoubtedly a fruit of the Covenant but without faith there is no salvation 3. He destroyes the order of the Gospel which saith believe and thou shalt be saved he saith thou art saved believe and thou shalt know it and that faith is a fruit of this salvation not a cause 4. The Gospel saith no where that a sinner under the reigning power of sin and remaining so is a subject of Justification but the contrary 1 John 1.6 If we say we have fellowshep with him and walke in darknesse we lie and do not the truth The meaning then of this Scripture that God justifieth the ungodly is not as if the person to be justified must needs be ungodly in the midst of his prophanenesse delighting in it but by ungodly is meant a man that hath not a perfect legal righteousnesse not an unsanctified man as if he were a justified person this is a prophane Justification indeed not agreeable to the nature of a Holy God But the meaning is 1. That God hath found out a way to justifie the ungodly by faith in Christ which the Law knoweth not nor the wisdome of men and Angels could have contrived how God might do it salvâ justitiâ supposing his decree And therefore when we say that God justifieth the ungodly we understand it 2. In sensudiviso not in sensu composito that is not that he is so when justified as the Scripture saith The lame man shall leap Isa 35.6 Mark 11. the tongue of the dumb shall sing and the blinde see and the deaf hear but no man will say that the lame as lame can leap and that the dumb remaining so can sing and that the blinde as blinde see and so no man should dream that the ungodly as ungodly are justified for in order of nature our Faith goes before Justification though there be no priority of time between our ungodlinesse and Justification for immediately before our saith we are ungodly and upon the creation of faith we are justified and sanctified at the same time and our ungodlinesse done away And what if Faith be promised and freely given it is a fruit of the Covenant as made with Christ but not as the Covenant was made with us God covenants with Christ to save all that he died for and that shall believe so that upon believing they shall have the fruit of Christs death and the fruit of the Covenant of Grace Christ undertakes for them to make them believe hence faith is wrought and given and then they are Christs Members and so in Covenant not before for God promised salvation to none but such as believe Hence Christ teleth the world This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him John 6.40 may have everlasting life Surely he willed nothing but agreeable to his Covenant with Christ therefore he covenanted that Believers only should be saved for where he saith that it is the will of the Father that they that believe should have everlasting life the contrary also is meant that he that believeth not should not be saved I shall not prosecute his opinion any further here I will now lay down some animadversions upon several passages in his Book wherein his manifold errors unsound opinions and self-contradictions shall be manifested which he hath cast himself upon in defence of this one error and hath verified that old saying Dato uno absurdo mille sequuntur First He blameth us as if we did agree with Arminius in holding a conditionall reconciliation which we utterly disclaime and yet he himself symbolizeth and agreeth with Armininius in that very thing which occasioned that error of Arminius Armin. Exam. p. 31. 158. in holding a temporal suspensive and conditionall decree for Arminius because the Scripture saith we were chosen in Christ will have it to be nos existentes in Christo that we had an existence or being in Christ And seeing we are not in Christ but by Faith hereupon he maketh the object of Election to be fideles and so this decree to be temporal and suspensive upon the will of man in whose power it is to believe though herein Arminius was more in the truth then Mr. Eyre in that he judgeth we are not in Christ but by faith which Mr. Eyre denieth But for us we acknowledge no such temporall decree nor do we hold this condition of faith to be an effect of our free will but an absolute effect of Gods free grace And in two other things he joyneth with Arminius who seemingly is a mortall enemy to him 1. They both stumble at the same stone for the Arminians think it absurd that the same thing should be donum promissum and officium requisitum a gift promised on Gods part and yet a duty required on our part Rem Apol. c 9. pag. 105. Thus the Remonstrants Anne conditionem quis seriò sapienter praescriberet alteri sub promisso praemii poenae gravissimae comminatione qui eam in eo cui praescribit efficere vult haec actio tota ludicra vix scenà digna est Nihil ineptius nihil vanius quà m fidem merito Christi tribuere si enim Christus meritus est fidem tum fides conditio esse non poterit c. 8. p. 95. They think it a ridiculous conceit that any should prescribe that as a condition which he intendeth to work in them or for them and that faith if it be merited by Christ cannot be a condition Vide Mr. Eyre pag. 175. And saith not Mr. Eyre the same page 175. But I appeal to the Reader whether it doth not sound very harshly that the same words should be formally both a Precept and a Promise and that God should require a condition of us and yet promise to work
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
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 *
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
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
to be compleated by an act of our Faith performed by the power and liberty of our own free-will so that upon this condition to be fulfilled by us without the assistance of grace the fruits of Christs death shall depend for this had been to purchase for us only a salvability not salvation and to make us our own Saviours but Christ died absolutely to purchase salvation as absolutely is opposed to an Arminian sense of a condition already explained but if absolutely be taken to oppose Faith as a condition to apply Christs righteousnesse by the order which God hath appointed in his Gospel which Faith God hath ordained as a means to bring us into possession of Christ and his righteousnesse which faith God hath ordained his Elect unto and Christ hath merited and shall be infallibly given for this end In this sense I deny that Christs death was absolutely a discharge from sin And therefore affirme that an Elect person is not actually reconciled so as to be immediately justified and discharged from the guilt of sin from the time of Christs death antecedently unto faith nor did God accept of the satisfaction of Christ for a present discharge to the sinner but Christ having laid down the price the Father and Sonne did agree upon a way and order when this benefit shall become theirs and that not to be till actual faith according to the tenor of the Gospel which promiseth salvation only to him that doth believe Having thus explained my self I now shall prove it by these following arguments First If Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe then are they not actually discharged untill Faith But Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe Therefore c. As for the assumption it is such a sacred truth that none that have a spark of modesty or grace left will deny for if Christ have died absolutely that they shall have pardon though they die in unbelief let them shew this and I will yield the cause for if Christ had died to have the sins of the Elect pardoned whether they have faith or not then an argument drawn from Christs satisfaction and Gods accepting it so would be nervous and strong to prove an immediate reconciliation but this can never be proved for Without faith it is impossibe to * Heb. 11.9 John 3.26 Acts 13.48 please God And He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him And As many as were ordained to life believe◠And the Consequence of the Major is proved thus if Christ did not die absolutely to discharge them from sin without faith then he died for them conditionally that they believe and the benefit of his death is limited untill faith Nor will it availe to say that faith is a subsequent condition not antecedent which I disprove by these following Arguments 1. If an unbeliever remaining so cannot be the subject of Justification then Faith is not a subsequent but antecedent condition of Justification But an unbeliever cannot be the subject of Justification Therefore c. The Major will not be denied where Reason dwells the Minor I prove thus because the Scripture no where maketh an unbeliever the subject of Justification 2. Because then Justification is a priviledge common to Believers and unbelievers but the Scripture peculiarly and solely applieth it to them that believe 3. Because no man out of Christ or disunited can be saved by Christ for Christ saveth none but his Members Christ is called the Saviour of his Body Eph. 5.23 and no unbeliever is a member of Christ for as much as the mystical union is made by Faith for which I referre the Reader to my Sermon and the Vindication of it Secondly Justification and Sanctification are inseparably joyned But were not sanctified from the time of Christs death and antecedently to faith Therefore we were not justified It is evident to experience that Sanctification is not in the least moment of time separated from Justification indeed we grant a priority of nature and order but not of time Hence the Apostle maketh all that are in Christ new creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 1 John 1.6 And if any man saith St. John hath fellowship with God or Christ and walketh in darknesse he is a liar and doth not the truth for then a man might be the member of Christ and the limbe of the Devil at the same time if justified he is a member of Christ if unsanctified a childe of the Devil 1 John 3.8 He that committeth sinne is of the Devil nor can it be agreeable to the purity of Christs Nature and Holinesse to have an unsanctified member of his body nor will the purity and holinesse of God the Father bear it that any should be his childe that is not holy nor can he that is a holy God justifie a wicked wretch so remaining Institu Calvin lib. 3. c. 11. whence Calvin in answer to Osiander when he objected Contumeliosum hoc fore Deo naturae ejus contrarium si justificet qui reipsâ impii manent Atqui tenendum est memoriâ quod jam dixi non separari justificandi gratiam à regeneratione licèt res sint distinctae It is contumelious and contrary to Gods nature to justifie those that remaine wicked To which he answereth But we must remember that which I now said the grace of Justification is not separated from Regeneration although they be several things Thirdly If we were justified antecedently to our birth from the time of Christs death Eph. 2.1 2 3. 1 Cor. 6.9 John 3. then we were never borne sinners under the guilt of sin But this is contrary to many plain Scriptures that say we were children of wrath and such as were unrighteous and could not in our unregeneration inherit the Kingdome of God and for further proof I referre the Reader to the ninth Argument against eternall Justification Fourthly If the state and condition of a man be truly altered and changed and that before God upon believing then was he not justified from the time of Christs death But his estate is truly altered in the sight of God upon believing Hence it is said that they are his people which once they were not 1 Pet. 2.10 1 Peter 2.10 Which in times past were not a people but are now the people of God which in times past were not under mercy but have now obtained mercy Hosea 1.10 Hosea 2.23 which words are taken from the Prophet Hosea upon which words Zanchy observeth that a people are called Gods people three wayes 1. According to Predestination thus it 's said God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew 2. In respect of the Covenant under the Law and so the Sons of Abraham were Gods people and they that were excluded from that Covenant were none of his 3.
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
grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were justâ—fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The sixâ—h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why
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
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this
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
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
many not that Faith is the cause of Gods acceptation of the merits of Christ but of applying it to us Secondly That which Mr. Eyre addeth that our Saviour after he had tasted death to bring many sons to glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Behold I and the children which thou hast given me Heb. 2.13 Therefore it was the will of God that his death should be immediately available for their reconciliation for they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I answer Mr. Eyre hath dealt fraudulently in citing this Scripture for he hath left out the 11th Vers which is the true Key to unlock this and to shew us who are there called his children for these that are called children are called brethren in the 11th Verse and the same persons are understood without all question and who were his brethren why they that were sanctified for both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren Now a man is not sanctified before Faith therefore not a brother before Faith therefore not a childe 1. The scope of the place is this the Apostle is comforting the believing Hebrews against the scandall of the Crosse to which the Apostle answereth in v. 9. 1. That he was subjected unto death for our sakes not for his own therefore his Crosse should not offend us 2. That he did but taste of death he was but a little while under it 3. It is was by the special grace of God that his death for a short time should stand for our eternal death deserved Therefore we should rather gloriously esteem of his suffering then be offended 2. He giveth a second reason in the 10th Verse it made for Gods glory as well as for our salvation for it behoved him for whom are all things and by whom in bringing many sonnes to glory to make the Captaine of our salvation perfect through suffering In v. 11. he gives an account how Christ could die and how this could be accepted in our stead He answereth Because that he is one of our kin and nature Now least it should therefore be thought that all are redeemed because all partake in the community of nature with Christ as man He sheweth who indeed are his kindred brethren for whom he died they are sanctified ones They that are sanctified and he that sanctifieth are all of one as if he should say Christ died for them that are one with him Now none are one with him but such they are not only all of one common lump but of the same body and have the same God for their Father Hence if none be united but sanctified ones and if Christ will claime kindred with none but sanctified ones then none but Believers are his brethren and children Now as to your Argument that they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I retort it upon you and say therefore it is evident they were not Christs children immediately from the time of his death for then they could not be children of wrath which yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth of the Elect Ephesians before regeneration Thus the Captain of the Life-guard of his opinion lieth bleeding at the feet of the truth that he doth oppose Secondly If it were the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate But it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the paiment of our debt and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition which he endeavoureth to prove because saith he it is unjust that a debt when it is paid should be charged upon the Surety or Principal I answer if it had been the intention of God and of Christ that the payment should have procured an immediat discharge it were unjust But that rests to be proved and will while the world stands We deny not the value of the price or satisfaction but that God or Christ intended it for a present discharge 1. Because Christs death though it be the meritorious cause yet it is not the only cause of Justification 2. Christs was Gods servant in the work of Redemption and if it were the will of God to limit this benefit till faith it behoved Christ as Mediatour to obey 3. The merit of Christs death is not to be valued only by the intrinsecal value of it but by the constitution and acceptation of God it is said that by grace he tasted death for every man It was an act of grace to Christ that he should be Mediatour that the sufferings of his humane nature united to the divine person of the Son of God should be accepted as a ransome for us from eternal death Hence Christs death was not an act of pure justice but of justice mixed with grace and is so farre accepted as the divine will of the Father pleaseth as we see in denying the fruit of it to Reprobates and limiting it to the Elect which might have ransomed all And why is it any more injustice to have it limited for a time by the will of God for application to the Elect when it shall certainly be done then to have it by the will of God absolutely limited to them alone Hence Christs death is so far meritorious as the will of God is to accept it hence Gods will must not be regulated by the death of Christ for the time maner of application or else it must be injustice in God which is a harsh expression in you but Christs death must be regulated by Gods will in accepting it and I have else where given sufficient reason why God did limit the benefit of it untill faith And from what goeth before it followeth Christs death was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem for then it would have produced an immediate discharge This is the great Argument upon which his cause depends and you see how invincibly it is overmatcht by opposing the Doctrine of Justification by Faith 3ly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediatly reconciled But nothing hindered their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law I shall here distinguish in answer to this Argument upon the hinderâ—ng of reconciliation 1. Reconciliation may be hindered by that which is the cause of separation which at first made the breach or reconciliation may be hindered for want of a fit means to apply the benefit of reconciliation And thus I apply it to the Minor And deny it though nothing do hinder by way of guilt as a cause of separation for want of satisfaction yet something did hinder by way of application