might believe and thus eternal life must be antecedent and the cause of faith and not faith antecedent or any cause of eternall life And therefore as Gregory Nazianzen answered to one that affirmed * Gregorius Nazianzenus Epist ad Cledon Dialog Deum potuisse sine mente hominem servare potuit etiam utique sine carne voluntate solà sicut alia omnia quae effecit effecit corporaliter tolle ergo unà cum mente carnem quoque ut omni ex parte perfecta sit amentia tua So may I say to Mr. Eyre who affirmeth that we are justified without faith God might have done it and without the sufferings of Christ had he so decreed it take away therefore the death and satisfaction of Christ with Socinus as your doctrine of eternall justification doth as shall in its place be made evident and thus you shall declare your self to be perfectly mad A third argument is taken from Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood whence I argue The agreement between the Father and the Son was suitable to Gods eternal decree for Christ cannot be a propitiation for sins otherwise then God hath ordained him If God in his decree hath ordained Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood only then it was their agreement Christs death should not be available until faith But God in his decree hath ordain'd Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood The consequence of the major is evident because their agreement must be suitable to this decree I believe there is scarce a man of that face and forehead that will deny the Assumption they are the words of the Apostle Nor let Mr. Eyre here wilfully mistake as if we affirmed that faith made Christs death of a propitiatory nature as if it received its value and worth from faith this were ridiculous to make the instrumentall cause a meritorious cause but it makes Christs death to be peculiarly appropriated by God as a propitiation for him in particular that believeth and never till then A fourth Argement is this If Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining then it was the will of God the Father and of Christ that his death should nor be available before fairh But Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining Therefore it was the will of the Father and the Sonne that his death should not actually save until faith The consequence is as immoveable as the earth for God the Father and Christ the Mediatour did not will that which was impossible for Christ to do therefore they did not will that antecedently to faith an unbebeliever should be justified and by consequence that the benefit of Christs death should not be enjoyed before faith The Minor is proved from Rom. 11.23 And they also if they abide not still in unbelief shall be graffed in for God is able to graffe them in again Where the Apostle speaking of the hope there is of calling the Jewes again that were cast off for unbelief from being any members of the visible Church and so from being members of Christs body and from all present hope of salvation sheweth that though their case be seemingly desperate yet it is possible for them to be saved by an argument drawn from the power of God God is able to graffe them in again yet he limiteth this absolute power of God that this is possible If they abide not in unbelief where though it be true God is able to remove their unbelief to give faith yet so long as they abide in unbelief they cannot be graffed in again and so saved yea the very power of God is here limited from saving to wit by his own immutable will not to save an unbeliever and an unbelievers wilful rejecting of the grace God offereth Mark 6.5 compared with Matth. 13.48 and thus in Mark 6.5 Christ in his own countrey could do no mighty work there because of their unbelief their unbelief was so great that Christ marvelled at it and was in a manner hindred Calvin upon the place saith Marcus negans Christum potuisse eorum culpam amplificat à quibus impedita fuit ejus bonitas Nam certè increduli quantum in se est Dei manum suâ contumaciâ constringunt non quòd Deus quasi inferior vincatur sed quia illi non permittant virtutem suam exequi Mark denying that Christ could do any mighty work there amplifies their sinne by whom his goodnesse was hindred For certainly the unbelievers as much as in them lieth do binde the hands of God by their contumacy not as if God being inferiour in power is overcome but because they will not permit his power to be executed And truly God hath declared his immutable purpose in the Gospel that whosoever believeth not shall be damned hence Christ cannot save an unbeliever so remaining therefore untill faith this benefit of Christs death is not obtained ◠The whole energy and efficacy of Christs merit in respect of influx and derivation upon others depends wholly upon the will of God ordaining and accepting it which appeares if you consider it in reference to the Elect and Reprobate for why is it effectual unto one and not the other it is the will of God only that makes the difference because God hath ordained it for the Elect and accordingly will give faith to apply it not to the other Now my fifth Argument shall be by retortion of Mr. Eyre's first argument against Mr. Woodbridge There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is no such thing This hath been accounted a good argument amongst Christians I may draw the like argument from Scripture negatively thus It is no where written that God accepted the death of Christ for unbelievers that they should be justified antecedently unto faith Ergo there was no such will in God and consequently not in Christ As for those Scriptures which Mr. Eyre brings and sets them upon the rack to force them to give evidence to his cause the Reader may expect their answer in the Aanaskeuastical part of this discourse where it properly belongs 6. God the Father and the Son intended the benefit of Christs death only for the members of Christ and till they be the members of his mystical body they cannot be partakers of the benefit of his death and have communion with him in it for as none partake in Adams sinne that were not in him by a natural union so none but such as are in Christ by spiritual and supernatural union can be partakers of his sufferings and satisfaction but none are members of Christs mystical body untill faith therefore untill faith it was the will of the Father and the Sonne that none should partake in the benefits of his death This argument shall be more fully vindicated ere long from the objection Mr. Eyre made against it in our discourse 7. If Christ in his
be understood in respect of imputation to wit that God for the merit of Christs passion forgiveth our sins upon believing as if we had suffered and made satisfaction I willingly grant it but then we were not in him as one person making satisfaction for the person of him that suffered for us is distinguished from them for whom he suffered and by Mr. Eyre's opinion that we were really one in him and with him before our birth and faith can be understood no other way as I conceive 5. That to make us to be one with Christ antecedently to our birth when he suffered for us destroyes the ground of imputation of Christs righteousnesse for those which were truly in Christ in all his obedience and sufferings to them that obedience and sufferings cannot be made over by imputation for what need is there of imputation or what place is left for it when those to whom it should be imputed because of their union with Christ did themselves performe it wherefore either there was no such union or that imputation must be denied But the obedience and sufferings of Christ are evidently by Scripture declared to be ours by imputation Rom. 4.5 Hence our faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousnesse And Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him we are made righteousnesse as he was made sin that was by imputation therefore we were made righteous by imputation 2 Cor. 5.21 hence that union Mr. Eyre contends for I cannot say mole ruit suâ but for want of weight falls to the ground The next thing that we have undertaken to prove is that there is not any mystical union between Christ and us intecedently to faith which I demonstrate from Scripture-grounds thus First if Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they may believe and that believing they may be united to him then before faith such for whom Christ died are not united to him But Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they might believe and that believing they might be one with him The consequence of the Major is as evident as reason can make it unlesse we make Christ to pray in vaine to pray for that which was already done if therefore they were not one in Christ and the Father as the Father was in Christ and Christ in the Father before as this prayer intimates they were not then this union was not antecedent to faith The Minor are the words of Christ John 17.20 21. and need not a graine of allowance Christ in this place prayes for those for whom he was to die that after his death they might believe the instrumentall cause of that faith is set down to be the word of the Apostles the finall cause of that believing is that they might be one that is that they might be as members of the same body by faith nearly united to one another the manner how is declared by the near conjunction between the Father and Christ Secondly he prayes not only that they may be one or at unity among themselves Diodat in Lecum 171. John 21. but also that they may be one in us that is as Diodat upon the place in the communion of the Holy Ghost by which they may be mystically united to me and by me to thee and truly this latter union to Christ is the ground of the former of being united to one another now if they were mystically united before this would make Christ either ignorant of this union or his prayer to be in vain to pray for that that was done long before from eternity as Mr. Eyre saith but either of these were fearful impiety to imagine therefore this union is not till faith A second Argument I frame from the same place is this They that are not really united as members of the invisible Church to the rest of the members and mysticall body of Christ are not united to Christ But before faith no man is a true member of the invisible Church and so united to the rest of the members of the mystical body Therefore not to Christ The Major will not be denied by any but such as are baptized into a spirit of errour the Reason is plaine because the union between the members is a fruit of our union to the same Head but no man is united to the company of Believers to have a true fellowship and union with them but a true Believer For what communion hath a Believer with an Infide and Christ prayes that they might believe that they might be one that is that they might be mutually united as by one faith as members one of another and the same body So Piscator upon the place Pisca in â—oc 17. Job 21. in Anal. Vt per unam fidem inter se devincti tanquam membra unius corporis cujus caput est Christus mutuo amore sese complectantur That being knit together by one faith as members of one body whereof Christ is Head they may with a mutuall love embrace each other now a true communion of love cannot be between true Believers and those that are yet unbelievers therefore neither between them and Christ And hence I argue 3. Christ and Belial are not united Every unbeliever is a son of Belial Therefore they are not united 2 Cor. 6.15 The word Belial is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncalled man nequà m a very wicked man a man that will profit none but is hurtful to all in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebricians agree not from whence it is derived but the signification given is either a man that will profit none or good for nothing or one that will be subject to no yoke I deny not but Interpreters do think many of them that Satan is in this place understood and Beza saith it very well agrees to him though he take it for a wicked man and Bullinger and Calvin take it for the Devil the head of all wicked men but I see not why it may not be taken here for a wicked man and not for Satan for it 's ordinary in Scripture by this word to understand very wicked men so in Deuteronomy it 's taken for an Idolater Deut. 13.13 and of such is the Apostles discoursing here that Believers should have no communion with Idolaters and so Elies sons being very wicked 1 Sam. 2.12 are called sons of Belial And it 's very agreeable to the scope for in the verse before he exhorteth them not to be unequally yoaked together with unbelievers he blames them for having too much familiarity with Heathens whether in marriages or in their feasts eating things sacrificed to Idols he would not have them draw in the same yoke by which Metaphor he would disswade them from keeping company with them and so partaking with them in their sins His Argument is drawn à contrario Your condition and profession is as
as absurd to pray for pardon of sin as for the incarnation of Christ and I may adde at for an immanent act in God as to pray for predestination because if it be a thing done already then it is in vaine to pray for that that is done Jameâ— 5.15 16. but we are commanded to pray for pardon as Peter taught Simon to pray for pardon Pray that if it be possible c. And though the Elders of the Church must pray for the sick and if they have sinned it shall be forgiven them And Christ teacheth us to pray Burgess Justifi page 199. forgive us our sins Now in that prayer we do not pray for assurance only but for pardon it selfe For as Mr. Burgess hath well observed to my hand that we must not depart from the literal sense of the words without an evident necessity But the plain sense is that God would forgive our sin our Saviour minding brevity would speak his sense in the most perspicuous and clear manner that may be And it is not as he observeth so taken in other places when the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites How their land was full of Idols Isaiah 2 94. and both great men and mean men did humble themselves before them prayeth Isa 2.9 that therefore God would not forgive them can any imagine that he meant that God would not give them assurance of their forgivenesse And so Matth. 12.32 the Evangelist saith All other sins may be forgiven but that against the Holy Ghost Now in that sense other sins are said to be forgiven in which sense that is denied to be forgiven and that is denied to be forgiven not in respect of assurance but really And so as he saith when it is applied to men it is not meant of assurance For we are commanded to pray that God would forgive us as we forgive others and this last forgivenesse it not meant of assurance therefore neither is the former Ninthly Such as are under the power of Satan are not justified But all unbelievers are under the power of Satan Therefore we were not justified from the death of Christ antecedently to faith The Major is not liable to contradiction because if a man be justified he is accquitted by the Judge then what power hath the Jayler to keep him in prison neither will God nor Christ permit a soul under Satans power that is discharged from guilt that very act of Gods is his deliverance from the power of Satan The Minor is evident from Scripture which saith of the Gentiles to whom Paul was sent by special commission from Christ to open their eyes It is said that he was sent to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light Acts 26.83 from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgivenesse of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Where it is evident that these Gentiles were Elect for whom Christ died that when he was in heaven yet appeared in a vision to Paul as he was going to Damascus to persecute the Saints And converts him and then sends him as a special Embassadour and Apostle to the Gentiles to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God c. If they were from the time of Christs death justified and pardoned then they were not under Satans power for that is inconsistent with Justification and if they were pardoned already what need he send him to open their eyes to turne them from Satan to God that they might receive forgivenesse this was the end why he was sent nor can it be meant of receiving the knowledge of their pardon assurance of their forgivenesse but that they might receive forgivenesse it self And to this end also the Apostle Paul saith of the Ephesians That they walked according to the Prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience intimating they were no lesse ruled and acted by Satan then other worldly men in whom he now effectually worketh Tenthly If we were justified from the time of Christs death then the Elect Jewes are already justified whom God will call in this latter age of the world But the Elect Jewes are not yet justified Therefore Justification is not from the time of Christs death The consequence of the Major will not be denied The assumption I prove 1. Such as are notingraffed as members into Christs body are not justified The Elect Jews yet uncaled are not yet ingraffed into Christs body The major is expresly confirmed because Christ is the Saviour of his body Eph. 5.23 that is only of his body that the Elect Jews are not members of his body Eph. 1.23 I prove because they are not members of his Church which is the body of Christ 2. They that are not called are not justified But the Elect Jewes are not called The Major is proved from Rom. 8.30 Whom he praedestinated Rom. 8.30 them he called and whom he called them he justified and none else and why Mr. Eyre should deny that the Apostle doth here set down the order of the causes of salvation contrary to all reason and authority I cannot imagine but that he is not able to answer the Argument and the contrary may be proved out of the Text for if in every thing else that relates to the salvation of man in this place the Apostle hath observed the due order why should we think he hath not assigned the right order of Vocation and Justification For here the Apostle setteth down the golden chain of salvation For the first cause is Gods foreknowledge not a simple prescience or foresight a foresight of approbation nor a foresight of mens faith or works but * Pet. Martyr-Bullinger Pareus Erasmus whom he thus foreknew or acknowledged loved and approved without all cause in them moving therunto whom he thus foreknew with the knowledg of approbation so as to choose unto himself by that foreknowledge so the Learned render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly whom God thus forknew he pedestinated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he predestinated that is certainly appointed and ordained unto the end by certain means he did infallibly ordain them unto glory as the end and appoint the means conducing to that end namely Christ and Faâ—th and whatsoever is needful to salvation Now when the Apostle speaketh thus who can judge but he meanes a special order in this place Thirdly in the next place he setteth down the means and that is effectual Vocation Whom he predestinated them he also called that is called them unto faith Fourthly Whom he called them he justified that is pardoned for Christs sake apprehended by Faith And lastly Whom he justified them he glorified under which is comprehended Sanctification which will end in glory which is the last link in this golden chaine and it 's against all reason to think the Apostle
after that adde he p. 67. l 16. blot out for p. 71. l. 30. after being blot out that p. 74. l. 13. for affirming r. affirme p. 91. l 1. blot out but p. 99. l r. blot out the fiâ—st as p 108. l. 14. for malem r. mallem p. 134. l. 27. blot out for p. 145. l. 25. for there read theirs p. 146. l 16. foâ— noâ— not p. 150. l. 26. for the first is r. as p. 154. l. 11. for my r. mee p. 158. l. 5. after unto adde were elected p. 159. l. 33. for these r. thee p. 176. l. 26. after but adde we p. 180. l. 29. for at r. as p. 183. l. 2. after the first foresight add but and for nor r. not p. 195. l. 37. blot and p. 199. line 34. for soile r. soule October 13. 1654. Imprimatur EDM. CALAMY A Christless-estate A HOPELESSE-ESTATE EPHESIANS 2.12 That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world THe Scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is the same with that in the former to set the forth freeness of Gods grace in Christ proving sometimes in hypothesi that the converted Ephesians sometimes in thesi that all the faithful are saved by grace And he useth many Arguments Arg. 1 to this end the first is drawn from their natural estate O Ephesians if ye consider your selves in the common estate of nature you will finde that such was your condition that you could not be delivered from it but by grace which Argument he amplifies by a sixfold consideration of their natural condition First in the state of nature they were not onely defiled with sinne but were altogether dead in sinnes and trespasses and were no more able to help themselves then the dead is able to arise from the grave and therefore unlesse the same Almighty power that raised Christ from the dead had beene exerted to quicken them they could never have beene saved In the second place verse 2. He telleth them that their whole life was a life of sinne though they were dead to grace and spiritual life yet they were alive to sinne Yea thirdly that they lived after the custome of natural and unregenerate men who did minde and savour onely the things of this life And fourthly that they lived as those that had Satan the God of this world for their guide and were so farre from being led by the Spirit of God that the same uncleane spirit and enemy to mans salvation did rule them which now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience Fifthly in the third verse he sheweth that they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh doing what their vaine minde did dictate their corrupt appetite and sinful affections did desire Sixthly The Apostle amplifies this by comparison shewing that the estate of himself and the beleeving Jewes was no better then theirs both in respect of sinne and punishment being all by nature the children of wrath as well as others In the fourth verse the Apostle layeth down a second Argument Argument 2 to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in our salvation drawn from the Author of our salvation the inward impulsive moving cause prevailing with him to do this for us the rich Author is God the moving cause his free love but God who is in mercy for the great love wherwith he loved us did deliver us In the fifth verse he shewes the order of Gods dispensing grace to us and that is by the redemption of Christ amplified from the time that while we were yet dead in sinnes God quickened us with Christ and therefore by grace we are saved that is while we were dead in sinnes and trespasses a Covenant passed between God and Christ our Redeemer and God gave us unto Christ that by him we should be redeemed and when he raised Christ he gave us a pledge of our redemption and justification in him In the sixth verse he telleth us that we are not only quickened and raised to life begotten to a living hope of eternal life but we were in a manner raised with him and ascended with him as in our head and set down together with him in heavenly ace spl that is in respect of our right purchased we had it before faith but in respect of actual possession and application of these mercies this is not conferred upon our persons untill we do beleeve In the seventh verse the Apostle sheweth what end God had in all this that in the ages to come be might shew the exceeding riches of his grace and kindnesse towards us in Jesus Christ In the eighth ver he concludes from his former discourse that therefore we are saved by grace And goeth on to prove it by a third Argument taken from the meanes whereby this grace is received and applied we are saved by grace because we are saved by faith where faith is taken metonymically for Christ apprehended by faith yet not excluding faith as a meanes to apply Christ to us and that which is due to Christ is attributed to faith because it alone is the onely instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto justification Now the Apostle to prevent a mistake lest any should think because faith is our act that therefore we are saved by something in us he answers that though it be our Act it is Gods gift and therefore we cannot challenge any thing in the work of Salvation because we are passive in this work it is a grace wrought in us by God to apply Christ to us and therefore in 9. verse he removes all works whether performed by grace or nature from being the cause of our salvation knowing how deeply this error is rooted in all men by nature to seek righteousnesse in themselves and he gives a reason why God will not have salvation by works because as they cannot stand with grace as faith may so they are enemies to the glory of God and will lift up the heart of man to glory in himself therefore God will have it to be by grace received by faith that no man might boast In the tenth verse the Apostle having shewed that our salvation is only of grace and the meanes by which we are made capable of all saving good in Christ by faith excluding all causes in man lest he should boast he layeth down a new reason why we cannot be saved by works because in the work of regeneration we are wholly Gods workmanship in Christ created to good works and we are as meerly passive in this work as in the first work of creation for as no creature contributed any thing to its own being and as there was no disposition in man to make himself a man so there is naturally no ability in us to contribute any thing to our new creation therefore seeing all we have and are inabled to do is by grace we are not saved
his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour that will not receive the truth in the love of it Eleventhly Page 66 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie as may appear pag. 66 67. Although saith he Gods will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet saith he we are justified in him but he doth not say for him though the Scriptures speak it plain enough because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ yet we are said to be chosen in him because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. c. Col. 2.14 Heb. 9.12 But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ that we have redemption through his blood he hath obtained eternal redemption for us Eph. 4.32 Eph. 2.16 and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians And that he hath reconciled both that is Jew and Gentle unto God by the Crosse and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification God being moved thereto by the death of Christ but where saith the Scripture that God elected us for the sake of Christ it is true it saith we were chosen in him and he accepted us in the beloved but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ when elected and that God elected us for Christs sake as if Christ were the cause of our Election Vide Dr. Twiss Vind. Lib. 2. Digress p. 74. Interca non dicimus Christum in negotio electionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs cligentis sed duntaxat respectu termini c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis which Arminius mightily contendeth for that he might bring in faith if not as a cause yet as a prerequisite of our Election And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election all that he saith ends in this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by Election but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification for God doth forgive us for Christs sake and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ when he seemingly pleads for it as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith wrought by himself as the effect of his death and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification Twelfthly He saith that Justification is by Faith evidentially and Faith is from Justification causally Mr. Eyre p. 79. and he seeth no absurdity in it p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head and his Hat upon his feet That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification I deny not but that it is the effect of Justification is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother Justification may be an effect of Faith and so the Scripture maketh it but not a cause of Faith For it is neither the efficient nor material nor formall nor final therefore it is no cause for all causes are reducible to these four Heads 1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith I hope he will not rob Gods free grace and the Holy Spirit of his Honour as he doth Christ of his merit of being the sole efficient cause of faith Faith it is the gift of God and the effect of the Spirit which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word it is a known rule Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus and if the act of Justification should be the cause of Faith then according to him being justified from eternity we must be Believers from eternity but how contrary this is to sense reason and experience I need not speak and no man did ever yet dreame much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith 2. It is not the formall cause of Faith for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum it is part of the substance of the thing or effect produced the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect and concurreth to the substance and essence of it but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse not in the act of Justification 3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith for the same reason above named the materiall cause is that which in union with the forme maketh up a substantial compounded body but Faith is no such thing it is not a substance but a quality and hath no matter properly so called and as for the matter improperly so called it is either materia in quâ or circa quam it is either the subject or the object but Justification is not the subject or object of Faith not the subject for the subject of Faith is a Believer nor is Justification the object of Faith for in things that have matter improperly so called the subject and the object are the same the object of Justification then is a Believer the person of a Believer not his Faith 4. And lastly Justification is not the finall cause of Faith for I am not justified that I might believe but rather I believe that I might be justified and salvation is made the end of faith Gal. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.9 and not faith the end of my salvation and thus it appeareth that Faith is not from Justification causally Thirteenthly He saith pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to rely upon him and him alone for this benefit but how contrary this is to his own principles let the Reader judge for he constantly affirmeth that the Elect are justified from eternity and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience Surely when you presse men to believe you presse them to believe they are already justified and not to rely on him for this benefit for if they be justified already what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it they may according to you rely upon him for the evidencing of this
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the
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
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
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
VNBELEEVERS No subjects of IUSTIFICATION Nor of mystical Vnion to Christ Being the sum of a Sermon preached at New-SARUM with a Vindication of it from the objections and calumniations cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre in his Vindiciae Justificationis Together with Animadversions upon the said Book and a refutation of that Anti-fidian and Anti-Evangelical errour asserted therein viz. The justification of Infidels or the justification of a sinner before and without Faith Wherein also the conditional necessity and instrumentality of Faith unto justification together with the consistency of it with the freeness of Gods grace is explained confirmed and vindicated from the exceptions of the said Mr. Eyre his arguments answertd his authorities examined and brought in against himself By T. WARREN Minister of the Gospel at Houghton in Hampshire PROV 17.15 He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord. Videmus ut priorem locum teneat Dei dilectio tanquam summa causa origo sequatur fides in Christum tanquam causa secunda propria Calv. Iâ—st lib. 2. c. 17. n. 2. LONDON Printed by E. T. for John Browne at the sign of the Acron in Pauls Church-yard 1654. To the Right VVorshipfull Mr. Mayor The Court of Aldermen and Common Councell of the City of New-sarum Grace and Peace from JESUS CHRIST Right Worshipfull IT was an excellent speech of Luthers Ego odi meos libros et saepe opto eos interire quod metuo ne morentur lectores à lectione ipsius scripturae quae sola omnis sapientiae fons est I hate my own books and wish them lost which yet were of excellent use and for which the Church stands much bound unto God in thankfulnesse because I fear the reading of them will hinder the reading of the scriptures which indeed is the fountain of all spirituall wisdome And for this reason we have cause to wish that many bookes were burnt especially such as tend to corrupt the sense of the scripture And of all bookes such as serve to cast the reader quite off from the foundation and to turne them aside to another Gospel This caused that holy Apostle to thunder out an anathema against such if an Angel from heaven shall preach any other Gospel let him be accursed And the truth is we can never erre more dangerously then in the doctrine of justification For which cause he is of small judgement and lesse observation that seeth not how needfull it is to have this doctrine kept pure And especially with you where * Mr. William Eyre one is risen up amongst your selves who hath sown tares in the Lords field whose opinion treads Antipodes to the gospel which he hath published to the world in his booke which he calleth Vindiciae justifications gratuitae which that I may doe him right I judge the strongest shield and buckler wherewith this Antinomian cause was ever protected Yet as in Salem of old God brake both sword and shield so I doubt not but he hath done the like now in this ensuing treatise though by a weake hand making a few scripture arguments to pierce this shield and to wound the Cause that he maintaines that it lyes a bleeding at the feet of a scripture truth And for the Authour I wish he had had more respect to truth the churches peace that he had carried meekenesse and love to the persons whose judgement he doth oppose fighting with his heart and pen against their arguments not their persons but the want of this is obvious to every eye his opinion is diametrically opposite to the letter of the Scriptures to the vnanimous Consent of all orthodox antiquity and the learned of the present age to the harmony of the Churches and yet he boldly chargeth us and all that dissent from him to be no better then Papists and Arminians And I doubt not but all to whom wee are known have done justice upon this peice of his morality And for his opinion it self I question not but every beleever that hath imbraced the truth as it is in Iesus as a sufficient professour in this controversie hath condemned it for Novelisme and a dangerous errour and doe judge that Satans designe by him is to draw others but you especially if it be possible from the simplicity sincerity of the gospel received but I am perswaded better things of you and things that accompany salvation Yet I think it meet to stirre you up to a diligent examination of the Scriptures that this Corner stone of justification in the building of your faith may be layd aright And whereas Mr. Eyre hath in the hearing of some of you condemned a Sermon of mine preached amongst you as Anti-scripturall and my arguments irrationall and now in his printed booke hath de-cryed it as wide from the orthodox faith as well as contrary to his doctrine and contradictory to many plaine Scripturrs and dorogatory to the full atonement which Christ hath made by his death and disconsolatory to the soules of men in laying the whole weight of their salvation upon an uncertaine condition of their owne performing * Where observe that Mr. Eyres name was not mentioned in the preaching of the sermon though it be in this printed Copy and such passages as relate to his book were added since the publishing of his I have once againe presented this to your eyes which was delivered to some of your ears with some small addition and as little alteratiâ—n as I could but in substance the same and I willingly submit it to your examination by the word and to the censure of my brethren who I know are most able to award an upright judgement in this case and I doubt not but I shall have publique right done as your Reverend Pastor Mr. Conant by name of precious esteem now with Christ did before in your hearing give a publique and seasonable acknowledgment to the soundnesse of this Sermon in the Congregation at the time of this Crimination I have likewise sent forth together with it a Polemicall discourse to vindicate this distressed truth which this Sermon holds forth and to breake the staffe of the oppressour And as little David I am come forth against this enemy to the truth of Christ with a sling and a few stones drawne out of the pure Chrystall river of the scriptures and doubt not but God whose cause I pleade will so farre assist me as that these stones shall smite and sink into the forehead of this errour that it shall fall Goliah-like to the earth and the weake hand that he useth shall only poynt at the mighty arme of God which neither any errour nor they that doe defend it are able to resist Hieron Novit Veritas paucorum manu et non de multis militum copiis triumphare Truth is great and will praevaile though destitute of all weapons except what is drawn out of the armory of Scriptures yea I
description of our conference by introducing interlocutours as if I were ad incitas redactus and that they did interpose to helpe me for it seemeth to me to be his end in that relation hath made me willing to wipe off that obloquie by entring the lists once more with him whereas the true cause of that interruption was his popular appeales his usuall artifice to evade the force of an argument to enthrone himselfe as victor in the hearts of the in-judicious multitude In a word the ensuing reasons were no small motive to inforce me to this work The bridge of justification by which men must passe over from death to life is very narrow and one step awry may be the losse of many pretious soules and all gospel truth is a pretious depositum concredited to us ministers of the gospel and is a part of that * 2 Tim. 1.14 Jude 3. good thing committed to us and we are commanded earnestly to * contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints Aug ad Lauren cap. 64. and this doctrine of justification is articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae as Luther saith the Church standeth or falleth according as this truth is beleeved or violated and what Augustine saith of remission of sins that I may say of faith by which remission of sins is received per hanc stat Ecclesia quae in terris est per hanc non perit quod perierat et inventum est And therefore there is a necessity of keeping this doctrine pure and every minister is bound to preserve this truth and to keep the Philistins from throwing dirt into this well And if Shamma be recorded in Sacred writ for defending a field of lentills against the Philistins surely it cannot but be acceptable to God and man to defend that doctrine which is the summe of the gospel confirmed with the blood of Christ And if it were Pauls Eulogium to preach that faith which he did once destroy it cannot be Mr. Eyres encomium to destroy that faith he ought to preach And seeing God himself taketh care of the very haires of our head and numbers them all we have much more reason to make a precious esteeme of that truth which is worth all our heads and by which our very soules must be saved And no lesse care ought we to have of the honour of Christ and of his mysticall body For who is he that is a living member of Christ that is not sensible of the dishonour done to Christ our head and what dishonour is done to Christ by this doctrine by making an unbeleever a subject of justification and a member of Christs body let him that is least in the Church judge The Apostle could not without an absit thinke of it that a member of Christ should be joyned to a harlot shall I take the members of Christ and make them the member of a harlot God forbid and is it not an annoynted truth of the same authority 1 Cor. 6.15 that I must not take a harlot so remaining and make it the member of Christ If Mezentius was condemned for a wicked tyrant for tying a dead man to a living person can he be esteemed a good Christian and friend to Christ not to say a good minister that shall joyne an unbeleever dead in sins and trespasses as a member unto Christ the Lord give him the sight of this evill and God forbid I should cease to pray for him and I hereby beg a Collection of praiers for him from all that know him for I beleeve his owne principles will not suffer him to pray for the pardon of sin which in his opinion is pardoned long before it is committed And now that I might not trouble the Reader any further I will but mention a passage or two in his Epistle dedicatory and another in his booke and I will not hold him from the discourse it selfe Mr. Eyre hath in his second page of that Epistle perfumed his brethren opposite to his errours to render them acceptable to the magistrate It is remarkable saith he that they who ascribed unto magistrates a definitive and coercive power in spirituals have when magistrates would not serve their turns denied the power which they have in temporals refusing contrary to the rules of Christ to own them pray for them or to yeeld obedience to their lawfull commands as if none must hold the sword but such as will use it to fight their quarrel and to effect that by force of arms which they themselves cannot doe by strength of argument But is this an irrefragable argument to prove eternall justification or a lively demonstration of a man parboiled in his passion is this the effect of charity or the foame of a passionate man was he sick of a fever or troubled with the scurvy when this passage fell from him I am sure there is neither charity nor verity in it if it be examined by the law of God or the knowne lawes of the land if he be able let him produce any proofe of our disobedience to authority least the world say he hath linguam mentiri doctam But nothing is more usuall then for the nocent to accuse the innocent * 1 K. 18.17 4 Eph. 3. Ahab accused Elijah for troubling of Israel when himselfe was the person that troubled Israel * Athaliah crye's treason treason when her selfe was the traitor 2 K. 11.14 * 4 Act. 5. Tertullus accused Paul that he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition when himselfe was the ring-leader of a notorious faction And were I minded to recriminate and did seeke rather to d sparage his person then to weaken his case I might more justly retort the charge upon himself for his bold attempt in indeavouring to affright the chiefe magistrate of the city of N. Sarum from or for his proclaiming the Lord Protectour fearing it seems that I may use his own words that he would not serve his turne and therefore he would not have him hold the sword because he would not use it to fight his quarrel But in this suggillation of his to make his brethren odious and obnoxious to authority the reader may observe how closely be followeth Lysanders Counsel vbi leonina pellis non sufficit assumenda est vulpina that where the lions skin will not serve he will eeke it out with a fox skin he would stop our mouths or pull out our tongues because he cannot answer our arguments as Herod dealt with Iohn Baptist cutting off his head because he would not hold his peace but reprove him for Herodias so he would silence us by power who he cannot overcome by reason To whom I will say as Hieron in his Apol. 3. ad Ruff talibus institutus es disciplinis ut cui respondere non poteris caput auferas et linguam quae tacere non potest secas In his third page of the same epistle he would have the magistrate punish
agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
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
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
propriè dicitur caput Ecclesiae suae Membra verò corporis cùm fiant per vocationem unde dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ãdque per vocationem efficacem consequenter per fidem apparet ergo Christum non prius posse dici caput quà m sint aliqui qui credunt in ipsum loquor de Christo Mediatore Redemptore I confesse saith he Christ is the Head of the Elect and of those that are predestinated but not formally of the predestinated For neither are the predestinated as predestinated members of his body wherein he differeth from Mr. Eyre toto coelo Vide Mr. Eyre page 8. but they shall be his members for whosoever is a member of Christ without doubt existeth Nor is a member of Christ a term of diminution lessening his existence but the predestinate as predestinate do not exist for predestination was from eternity but the predestinate did not simply exist from eternity This day there are many Elect without doubt which are not yet borne Again That union by which we are made the members of Christ is made by faith Therefore as many as are Christs members it is needful that they be Believers but not all the predestinate as soon as they are predestinate do presently prove Believers Moreover seeing a head cannot be a head in respect of others before they are made members of his body it followeth that Christ was not a head from eternity seeing he had not a mystical body from eternity or members in which respect he is properly called the head of his Church seeing therefore men are made members of his body by calling whence the Church is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a company of persons called out from the rest of the world by the ministery of the word and that is by effectual vocation and consequently by faith it appeareth that Christ cannot first be called a head before there are some that believe in him I speak of Christ as Mediatour and Redeemer Where let the Reader observe that he plainly affirmeth a predestinate person is not a member of Christs body and that the mysticall union is made by faith and surely none are properly justified or saved before they are members and therefore before faith there is no Justification nor Salvation His next Author is Learned and Holy Mr. Parker who saith in his Book de descensu Christi ad inferos that Christ was justified in his Resurrection and we in him c. I acknowledge the testimony rightly cited but he understandeth no more then that we were meritoriously causally justified in the Justification of Christ but this is also a terme of diminution in respect to a formal and actual Justification till it be extra causas it doth not exist And that this Reverend man means no otherwise then we that untill faith we are not justified or saved Parker de descens Christ ad inferos lib. 3. sect 49. may appear from another passage in the same Book Nullâ siquidem ratione aliâ salutem ad suos derivare poterat quà m quâ ipsam damnationem transfudit Adam nempe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illâ quâ omnes homines qui ei per fidem coadunantur in eo satisfecisse quemadmodum per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem omnes Adami successores in eo peccâsse reputantur Christ could no other way derive salvation to his then that wherein Adam transmitted damnation to wit that communion wherein all men who are united to him by faith are said to satisfie in him as by the like communion all Adams successors are reputed to have sinned in him Where you may observe 1. That as Adam derived condemnation to none but such as were in him so Christ communicateth salvation to none but such as are in him And 2. That this union to Christ is made by Faith hence by necessary consequence none are saved and justified until faith and he sheweth plainly that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we were in Adam therefore he setteth down faith as the means and none satisfied in Christ but Believers therefore none are justified but such for Christ cannot derive salvation to any but such as are in him and before faith they are not in him His next Author is judicious Mr. Calvin * Fides porro ita justificationem praecedit ut tamen dei respectu sequatur Calvin Antid conc trid sess 6 p. 282. who saith that our Justification in respect of God doth precede our faith to which I adde you might have had the ingenuity to let your Reader know that he saith immediately fides ipsa nos in possessionem justitiae mittit that faith sends us into the possession of righteousnesse And he meaneth nothing but this that seeing God doth offer forgivenesse in Christ and we receive and accept it by faith that in this respect Justification precede faith but we are not actually justified untill faith where I will by the way minde you of a passage of learned Rivet Rivet Advers Baily Jesuit Tom. 2. p 245. against Baily the Jesuâ—t Ne quidem dicimus Christi justitiam esse causam formalem justificationis diximus eam consistere in relatione inter dantem accipientem sive inter condonantem eum cui condonatur uno verbo imputatione à parte dei receptione ex parte nostri Truly we do not say that Christs righteousnesse is the formal cause of Justification we have said that it consists in the relation between the giver and the receiver or between him that pardoneth and him that is pardoned in one word in imputation on Gods part and receiving it on our part so that now it is true God offering pardon his act precede our part of receiving but yet we are not in the judgement of this Learned man justified formally till we receive it And this is Calvins minde and many passages in the same discourse make against you I will take but one which Mr. Baxter hath observed to my hand Nos autem meminerimus fidei notuum à Christo estimandam esse quia quod nobis offert Deus in Christo non nisi fide recipimus proinde quicquid nobis est Christus id ad fidem transfertur quae nos compotes est Christi omnium ejus bonorum facit neque aliter verum esset illud Johannis fidem nostrum esse victoriam quâ mandus vincitur nisi nos in Christum inserereret qui solus est mundi victor But we have remembered before that the nature of Faith is to be estimated from Christ because what God offers us in Christ we receive it not but by faith whatsoever therefore Christ is to us that is imputed to faith which maketh us partakers of Christ and of all his good things Neither otherwise can that of John be true that faith is our victory whereby we overcome the world unlesse it did ingraf us into Christ who is the Victor of the world And the truth is
did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
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