Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
Quibus condition bus peccata remittantur per tot passim Musculus m System Theol. tom 2. pag. 247. ad obj 5. Promissiones Evangelii semper requirere Conditionem fidei dâ—mus Brochmand n Thesâ— Salmur parâ— prior de Justif Thes 37. fide igitur justificamur non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae c. sed tanquam Conditione foederis gratiae quam à nobis Deus exigit loco conditionis foederis legalis the Professors of Somers in France o Sâ—hol in Luc. cap 11. Deus promisit nobis remissionem cum hac Conditione si nos prius remiserimus proximo c. Piscator p Opeâ— Tom. 1 pag. 420. 4â—3 vide loca Wallaeus q In Thoms Diatâ—ib pag. 148. Promissiones de fine sunt conditionaâ—ae c. vide locum passim Abbot r Christ Theol. lib. 1. cap 22. ad Thes 2 Promissio remissioniâ— peccatorum vitae aeteâ—â—ae sub conditione fidâ—i c. Wendeline s Of the Covenant pag 66. and elsewhere frequently onely mislikes the tearme in some respect because it seemes to take away all causality from Faith in the matter of Justification and therefore chuseth rather to call it an Instrument then a Condition Ball t Treatise of Justif Sâ—ct 2. cap. 1. Pemble u In Eph. 2. pag. 250. Bayne x Voâ—st loc com â—x cap. 3. ad Rom. pag. 23 Tit. 6. Mr. Blake of the Covenant cap. 6. pag. 26. Mr. Bulkley of the Covenanâ— part 4. cap. 1. and many others All which being considered I shall neither account it Popery nor Arminianisme to maintaine that Faith is the condition of our Justification before God till Master Eyre hath proved that it cannot be made a condition but it must withal be made a meritorious cause or that to make it the condition of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a sinner be to deny that Christs righteousnesse is at all imputed to a sinner or to affirme that God of his grace doth accept of Faith as our legal righteousnesse which is a palpable contradiction None of which he hath performed in his book nor ever will do When he distinguisheth those that take Faith objectively from those that make it an instrument in Justification it is a distinction without §. 6. a difference on purpose to impose upon the Reader as if they were two sorts of Authours whereas the very same men that take Faith objectively for Christ beleeved on do yet universally make Faith an Instrument in our Justification Our Protestants do indeed maintaine against the Papists and that most truly that the righteousnes of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification or the righteousnesse for which we are justified but the same Authours do as unanimously affirme that Faith is the instrumental cause thereof though otherwhile they call it a condition and most use the words promiscuously Thus y Instit l. 3. c. 14. §. 17. Calvin z Epist 45. p. 210. Beza a Loc. com clas 3. cap. 4. §. 47 48. Peter Martyr b Explic. cat par 2. q. 61. 3. pag. 399. Vrsine c Thes Theol. cap. 35. 11. Junius d Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 36. p 456. Polaenus e De Justif per. fid cap. 4. §. 64. Sect. 6. §. 153. Gerhard f Enchyr. Theol. p. 134. Hemmingius g Synops pur Theol. disp 33. 27. the four Leyden Professours h In Heb. pag. 486. Hyperius i Meth. Theol. p. 227. Sohnius k Harm Evang. p. 279. Exam. Conc. Trid. ses 6. Kemnitius l Loc. Com. 31. 33. Bucanus and all the rest that ever I read both Lutherans and Calvinists voting concurrently for Faiths antecedency to Justification At last Mr. Eyre gives us his own sense of Justification by Faith in §. 7. these words My sense of this Proposition we are justified by Faith is no other then what hath been given by all our ancient Protestant Divines who take Faith herein objectively not properly and explain themselves to this effect We are justified from all sinne and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ who is the sole object or foundation of our faith or whose righteousnesse we receive and apply to our selves by Faith Yet I say it doth not follow that it was not applyed to us by God or that God did not impute righteousnesse to us before we had Faith If Mr. Eyre had concluded as he began leaving out the exception which brings up the rear and understanding our ancient Protestants in their known sense this one sentence had confuted all his book and saved me the pains of such an undertaking It is most true that our Protestants maintaine that we are justified by the obedience of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and it is as true that they maintaine a sinner to be justified by Faith as the instrument or condition of his justification Nor can I finde one amongst the ancient Protestants that did ever dreame of a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith no though for the most part they place Faith in a particular assurance To the single testimonies already mentioned let us adde a few more out of the Confessions that the difference betweene our Protestants and Master Eyre may the better appear We begin with the m Oâ—thodox Tig. eccles Minist confess Tract 2. fol. 43 44. Tigurine Confession Nullis humanis vel operibus § 8. vel meritis sed per solam Dei gratiam id est per sanctam illam crucifixi filii Dei passionem innocentem mortem homines justitiam consequi peccatis mundari docemus quod mortis Christi innocentiae meriti participes tunc reddamur cum Dei filium nostrum esse propter peccata nostra ut nos nimirum justos beatos redderet mortem subiisse vera constanti fide credimus To the same purpose the n Corp. Synt. Confes fid p. 45. Helvetian Confession Propriè ergo loquendo c. To speak properly God alone doth justifie us and justifies us onely for Christs sake not imputing to us our sinnes but imputing to us his righteousnesse But because we receive this justification not by any works but by faith in Gods mercy and in Christ therefore we teach and beleeve with the Apostle that a sinner is justified by Faith alone in Christ not by the Law or any works Therefore because Faith receiveth Christ our righteousnesse and attributes all to the grace of God in Christ therefore Justification is ascribed to Faith principally because of Christ and not because it is our work to the same purpose pag. 89. § 13. The o Gallic confess ibid. p. 105 §. 20. French Confession agrees Credimus nos c. We beleeve that by Faith alone we are made partakers of this righteousnesse as it is written that he suffered to obtaine
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
this It is an unsound Assertion that we are said to be justified by faith because that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The proof of this is the manifest tendency of every branch of this Argument and of each Argument under each branch And I am apt to think Mr. Eyre himself so understood me when he comes to particulars for he doth not once charge them with impertinency which he might have done with advantage enough if it had not been clear that they were all levelled at another scope then simply to prove that faith is of no use to evidence Justification As to the thing it self I am so far from denying faith to evidence our Justification that I do assert as followeth 1. As the word evidence signifies that which is affected to argue another thing so faith doth â—vidence our Justification yea and is the first thing that doth evidence it 2. Faith doth also evidence Justification axiomatically to all those that have a particular testimony from God that they are justified As those whom Christ tells in the Gospel that their sinnes were forgiven them Matth. 9. 2 5. Luke 5. 20 23. and 7. 47 48. If any man now living hath the like testimony from God that his sins are forgiven he hath no better way to evidence it to himselfe then without any more ado to beleeve that they are forgiven 3. Faith doth also concurre to the evidencing of Justification syllogistically but then the whole evidence is not of faith as we shall shew by and by I do therefore acknowledge the use of faith in evidencing Justification in all those wayes by which it may be evidenced though not of faith only in the last nor at all in the second unlesse there be any man that hath heard God saying to him Thy sins are forgiven thee Come we on then to the proof of particulars And first that we §. 12. cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect thereof To evidence Justification as an Argument is no more then for faith to have such a relation unto Justification as that where the one is the other must needs be also and he that knows the relation they have to each other cannot but know that where faith is there Justification must needs also be Even as laughing and crying may be said to evidence reason in a childe though it may not evidence it to the childe himself because he knows not the dependance of these actions upon his reason so we say where there is smoak there is some fire Groanings argue some ill affection in the body and generally every effect doth argue and evidence its cause to them that know the connexion between the cause and effect Mr. Eyre disclaims faiths evidencing in this way though in answer to Rom. 4. 24. above debated of his Book pag. 44. § 6. he hath as plainly yielded it as can be in these words Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us that we whether Jewes or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to beleeve and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can beleeve but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ What is this but that faith doth evidence our Justification as an Argument seeing that where one is the other is also where there is faith there is Justification It seems the same thing is good Divinity out of Mr. Eyres mouth but out of mine an errour Yet though Mr. Eyre will not owne that faith doth evidence Justification in this way he thinks fit to give his Reader his sense of my Reasons There are therefore three Reasons in my Sermon why we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument The first is this Because then Justification by faith is not necessarily so much as Justification in conscience A Christian may have faith and yet not have the evidence that he is justified As a childe may laugh and cry and yet not have the evidence or clear knowledge that himselfe hath reason c. Mr. Eyre answers 1. By intimating that this agrees not with what I allege out of the Apostle 1 John 3. 20. to prove that if our hearts condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. If faith did evidence only as a signe it would be a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Nothing that precedes faith doth prove a man justified nothing that follows it is so apt to prove it as faith it selfe 4. Wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of this grace In the least spark of fire and the least twinkling starre there is some light Rep. To the first I say that it never came into my minde to prove that God condemns every one whom his own conscience condemns but that if conscience condemns truly then the judgement thereof is according to the judgement of God and so God condemns as well as conscience But if a beleevers heart shall tell him that he is not justified and his sins not pardoned his conscience is erroneous and judgeth otherwise then God judgeth 2. The two next answers are like chips in pottage that do neither good nor hurt as I see When I can understand whether they make with me or against me I shall consider them farther 3. The fourth answer that whosoever hath faith hath some evidence of his Justification for that he meanes by grace or else it s nothing to the purpose I deny utteâ—ly if by evidence he mean not that which would prove it if it were rightly understood but a mans actual knowledge that he is justified And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it why the least spark of fire hath some light and the least twinkling starre True So the least degree of true faith hath that in it which if it were rightly apprehended would make some discovery that a man were justified But these sparks of fire give no light at all when they lie buried under heaps of ashes and such black and dâ—smal clouds may cover the face of the Heavens that we cannot see not only the lesser stars but not those of greatest magnitude And the Scripture testifieth not only positively that a gracious soule may walk in darknesse but to expresse the greatnesse of this darknesse addes an universal negative And may see no light that is as f Childe of light page 5. 6 8 9 10. Dr. Godwin hath excellently proved he may be without all evidence of his Justification of which the said Doctor gives several instances in David Job Heman and Christ himself and proposeth largely the causes and cure of such darknesse in all which he hath bestowed a great deal of excellent and acceptable paines to no purpose if Mr. Eyres doctrine here be true How many soules have I known and g See Mr. Tho.
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
if they be both in the very same bond and obligation hath some thing of truth in it though then also the surety hath the same action against the debtour which the creditor had before otherwise it is most notoriously false and the contrary determined frequently in the y I. in summa l. Si poenae D. de condict in deb l Si quid possessor ff de Pet. Haered l. Papin ff Maâ—d civil Law If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtour it is because he agrees with the creditour that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtour which is the second thing I beganne to mention before and shall now farther explaine The death of Christ being not the very same which was in the obligation therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance there is a double act required on Gods part to whom this payment is made the one is to admit or give way that satisfaction be made the other factam ratam habere to accept it when made and consequently to discharge and free the debtour for Christs satisfaction was admitted that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God the supream Governour of mankind Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation that he may be the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Moreover Christ being not a sinner but a surety and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour but of a surety therefore it is in his power to agree whether his payment shall be accepted and be effectual for the discharge of the sinner presently or for some time to come absolutely or upon condition Whence by the way appears what little strength there is in Mr. Eyres second exception viz. That Christs payment is lesse efficacious then if we had paid our selves if we be not thereby discharged presently because Christs satisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himself and no otherwise and the virtue of it is to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect which could not be wrought by any meer created cause whether it produce it sooner or later upon condition or without Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed that none §. 35. should have actual discharge by the death of Christ till they do beleeve we carry the cause by Mr Eyres owne judgement Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations so I call them because he lays them downe so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe How often doth he tell us before and after this concession that our discharge in the death of Christ must needs be present and immediate as pag. 68. § 7. Our discharge from the Law was â— not to be sub termino or in diem but present and immediate And in this chapter § 13. The death of Christ as it is a satisfaction or payment so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing that we should not presently be discharged if Christ hath made satisfaction And yet here yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne the discharge obtained in Christs satisfaction may be suspended It is therefore a thing possible that Christ may have satisfied and yet we the elect I mean not be presently discharged And what then means the must needs were it a thing denyed it were easie to give innumerable instances of satisfaction made when yet the person for whom it is made is not presently freed but because it is not denied I hasten to the service which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to performe with a promise that if it be performed he will yeeld the cause and that is to shew that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do beleeve For proofe of this I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus wherein §. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life To which Mr. Eyre answers This Text and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit thâ—y that beleeve Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine testimonies whose sense is obvious at first view even to vulgar capacities This is not the first time we have met with this answer in Mr. Eyre and it hath been already convicted and cast by more then a jury of Arguments in â—hap 5. 8. two places and therefore here I shall speak but briefly to it 1. Iâ— this and the like Texts do only shew â—â—o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christs benefits namely beleevers then either they shew that beleevers as such in seâ—s◠〈◊〉 are the subjects of that life which is here promised and then I have what I would have for if men as beleevers are the subjects of this life then the prooâ—â—s full that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers much lesse before they are borne and least of all at the time of the death of Christ nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne that they should so do Or the meaning is that the persons who enjoy this life are such whose property and priviledge it is to be beleevers some time or other sooner or later though they may not be beleevers when they first begin to partake therein and so they are described à câ—nsâ—quenti from their faith as a consequent of their first partaking in this life And if so I shall return Mr. Eyre his offer namely that if he will shew me but one place of Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation wherein persons that shall enjoy a benefit are described from the consequent of that benefit with a distributive particle preposed such as is the particle whosoever in the present Text and I will yeeld him the cause at lest so farre forth as it is concerned in these Texts But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one instance of the like phrase of speech in all the Bible as I know he cannot then let him take heed least he become guilty of that which he doth elsewhere groundlesly charge upon me I meane of attempting to suborne the spirit to serve his own turne And what I speak of the description of a person in order to his receiving of a benefit is true also in respect of any evil threatned How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture As for example Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is
into covenant If the assumption be denyed we confirme it diversly 1. From the plaine scope of some places as Ezek. 37. 23. I will cleanse them So shall they be my people and I will be their God and chap. 14. 11. That they may be no more polluted with all their transgressions but that they may be my people and I may be their God Even as he is often said to have brought them out of Egypt which signifies spiritually the bringing of sinners out of the darknesse and slavory of a sinful condition into the way of life Jude v. 5. that he might be their God Lev. 11. 45. and 26. 45. and 25. 38. and 22. 33. Numb 15. 41. 2 Faith is promised for this end that we thereby might obtaine that which was promised to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt though they obtained it not because they continued not in Gods covenant Ergo it is promised as a means for this end that God may be our God and we his people The reason of the consequence is because this was that which the Lord said to Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt obey my voice so will I be your God and ye shall be my people Jer. 7. 23. and 11. 4. The antecedent is written with a Sun beam in the place under debate Jer. 31. 31. c. Where the writing of Gods Laws in our mind which in some other of the places mentioned is called the putting of a new Spirit within us and a causing us to walk in his statutes is most apparently promised as a means of obtaining that good which Israel by the covenant made with them in the day when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt did not obtaine for herein lay the imperfection and faultinesse of that covenant that they brake it and consequently that the Lord regarded them not In opposition to both which it is that God promiseth to write his Laws in their minds and so to be their God other things we referre till by and by It is therefore a truth beyond contradiction that the giving of the first grace is promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means §. 4. and qualification on mans part for his entrance into covenant Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it and first in generall from § 4. downward First he excepts against the fitnesse of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternall love or of Christ himself Answ But the question is onely understood of the grace of God in us which is more frequently called by the name of grace then either of the other two Jam. 4. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 12. 28. and 13. 9. c. The first of which is faith or our conversion unto God But even in this sense saith Mr. Eyre inherent sanctification is unduly put in the first place which is a consequent both of justification and adoption Gal. 4. 5 6. though it be promised in Jeremy before remission of sins yet in other places it is put after it as Ezek. 36. 25. 26. Jer. 32. 38 39. Answ The former part is true of sanctification strictly and most properly taken for the habits of the life of holinesse opposed to the body of sin in us But in this sense I deny faith to be any part of sanctification and if Mr. Eyre doth thus interpret the promise of writing Gods Laws in our heart c. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised but onely a greater measure of grace to them that beleeve which will much advantage his cause But if sanctification be taken largely for any gracious workings of God upon the soul so as it includes faith it self then do I deny that it is any where in Scripture put after remission of sins The two places mentioned for of Gal. 4. 5 6. we speak below say nothing so Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle cleane water upon you and you shall be cleane from all your filthinesse and from all your Idâ—ls will I cleanse you Mr. Eyre takes it for granted that this is meant of pardon of sin and I acknowledge that sprinkling or washing with water doth sometimes also include that 1 Cor. 6. 11. But sometimes also it signifies our regeneration or conversion unto God Tit. 3. 5. and so do I understand it in this place for a through conversion of them from dumb Idols to the true and living God the former of which is more peculiarly intended v. 25. and the latter v. 26. my reason is because the cleansing of them from their Idols is expressely opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they dâ—file themselves any more with Idols But I will cleanse them and that for this end that he might be their God Which by Mr. Eyres own acknowledgment includes remission of sin and therefore the said remission is not meant by cleansing them from their Idols otherwise the sense were this I will pardon their sin and so I will pardon their sin The second Text is Jer. 32. 38 39. They shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may feare me for ever for the good of them and of their children after them to which I adde the next verse v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turne away from them to do them good c. Here indeed it cannot be denyed but that Gods giving a heart to feare him is mentioned after the promise of forgivenesse of sin included amongst other things in the words foregoing I will be their God But though it be mentioned after yet is it apparently mentioned as the means to this end that God may be our God I will give them a heart to fear me for the good of them and of their children The fear of God is promised for this end that he may do us good or as v. 40. that he may never turne away from us to do us good Ergo it is promised for this end that he may be our God because as we have shewed before for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good Wherefore this verse followes the former in place or writing not in dependance declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God namely by putting his feare into our hearts and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it by overthrowing it Secondly He utterly denyes that the giving of a new heart is §. 5. promised as a means on mans part for his entrance into covenant For 1. The Scripture no where affirmes it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recitall of the covenant c. Answ Whether it be
There can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was viz. to abstaine from the fruit of one tree Rep. 1. Our Divines are not wont to place the whole of the condition required of Adam in that one precept of not eating the forbidden fruit any otherwise then symbolically for as that tree had the nature of a Sacrament and the not eating of it a visible profession of vniversall subjection unto God so the eating of it was a visible and universal renouncing of his authority and of that obedience which Adam owed him 2. The objectors who they are I know not have I presume this sense 1. That if we compare the nature of the acts it is farre easier to beleeve then to keep the law and this is certaine for de facto multitudes beleeve who never kept the Law perfectly 2. That it is an easier way of salvation to be saved onely by committing our selves to Christ in his way that he may save us then to have the whole care and burthen of so great a work upon our selves this also is true because in this way our salvation is sure in the other it was uncertaine even when man was righteous as the event proves sadly and unto sinners impossible 3. That the commands of Christ are nothing so grievous to be borne as those given to the Church before his coming this also is undoubted Act. 15. 10. 4. That faith in exercitio or to beleeve is farre easier to us through the strength of God enabling us then it was to Adam to keep himself in that state of righteousnesse in which he was made for it is God which enables us to performe those acts which himself hath made the conditions of our interest in his covenant So will Mr. Eyre say Adams ability to keep the Law was given him of God True But 1. Not of grace but ut naturae debita as we maintaine against the Papists as due to his nature out of that common goodnesse which furnished every creature in its kind with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created which if they had wanted the work of God had been imperfect and unlike himself but the creature had been in no fault 2. The use and improvement of those abilities was left to Adams free will supposing that common concourse of divine providence without which no creature can move in its kind toward its own end But to quicken us when we were dead and restore lost abilities yea to vegetate and maintaine them against contrary principles and inclinations from within and oppositions from without is such special grace as Adam in that state received not Some other reasons Mr. Eyre adjoyns but he tells the Reader that he hath mentioned them before more then once or twice and I also have answered them before and therefore shall referre the Reâ—der thither and so passe on to his twentieth chapter CHAP. XVI A reply to Mr. Eyrs twentieth chapter containing the solution of his Arguments tending to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve SECT I. FRom the Apostles description of the New Covenant §. 1. Heb. 8. I retorted this argument upon Mr. Eyre If God be not the God of any nor they his people before they beleeve then none are in Covenant with God before they beleeve But God is not the God of any before they beleeve Ergo. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes against the assumption largely and advanceth many arguments to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve Let us take them in their order First If God be their God whom he doth peculiarly love §. 2. and whom he hath chosen then is he a God to some before they beleeve But God is their God whom he hath chosen Answ If by choosing be meant from eternity of which the Apostle speaks Eph. 1. 4. I deny the Minor God is never said in Scripture to be the God of any in reference to his eternal election of them that being no more then a purpose of making them his people and of becoming a God to them God is not the God of them that are not Matth. 22. 32. Let us see the proofes God was the God of Israel now he became their God by setting his love upon them and chusing them and by separating them from other people Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Lev. 20. 24 25. Answ 1. I deny that either the chusing of them Deut. 7. or the separating of them Lev. 20. are to be understood of eternal election of which neverthelesse Mr. Eyre pretends to be understood in his Major by quoting for proof Eph. 1. 4. otherwise I would have denyed the Major for even in vocation which also is sometimes in Scripture called choosing as we have shewed elsewhere God separates men to himself from the rest of mankind yet will it by no means follow that therefore he is the God of some that believe not for vocation is the giving of faith As to the texts before us it is manifest that the chusing spoken of Deut. 7. is a temporall act for the cause of it is set down ver 8. Because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto their Fathers expressed more plainely chap. 4. 37. Because he loved their Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them So also chap. 10. 15. 2. Much lesse is it said that this love or chusing them was the thing in respect of which he is said to be their God and they his people but the contrary is implyed verse 6. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself above all people c. Where the making of them to be his people which also includes the correlate of becoming their God is mentioned as the end and effect of his chusing them which effect when it is wrought is easie to learne from Exod. 19. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people Again saith Mr. Eyre the Lord Ezek. 16 8. declares concerning spiritual Israel that they became his whilest they were in their blood that he sware unto them and entred into Covenant with them which swearing as it referres to spiritual Israel must be understood of the oath which he made to Christ concerning the blessing of his seed Answ Nothing but uncertainties 1. It is not faire in a dispute to ground a conclusion upon Types unlesse we have firme demonstrations of the Antitype Mr. Eyre should therefore prove that the words there spoken are not peculiar to Israel in the letter 2. That the spiritual Israel typified are the Elect as such and not believers as such 3. That the Israel there spoken of were his before he entred into Covenant with them The text is expresse against it I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine
by the Law or Constitution of grace the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity and to the heavenly inheritance or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day by which he is adjudged unto the immediate full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel John 3. 16. He that believeth on me shall not perish but shall have everlasting life Even as amongst men an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present and legally future punishments though the effects of this right he do not possesse any otherwise then in hope till his cause be tried and himself absolved in Court by the sentence of the Judge In reference to the former a sinner is justified presently upon believing in reference to the latter he is not justified till the day of judgement Therefore Peter exhorts the Jewes to repentance that their sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God And he shall send Jesus Christ Acts 3. 19 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus that God would grant him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day And in the name of all Christians he tells us Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith that is Justification through faith as it stands in opposition to Justification by works ver 4. and throughout the whole Epistle So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh a white stone Rev. 2. 17. c Vid. Paraeum Aretium Brightman Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie that eminent eternal and universal absolution from all guilt which shall be given to the Saints that overcome and continue faithful to the end So Rom. 2 13 16. Not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified In the day when God shall judge the secrets of meâ— by Jesus Christ the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis This is my opinion in this matter which I have therefore set down the more distinctly that Mr. Eyre may understand how ignorant or impudent his Informer was that told him I maintained that we were not justified till the day of judgement page 19. Now to Mr. Eyre he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods knowledge 2. As it signifies his legal justice 3. As it signifies his making of us to see To which I shall need to give no other answer then his own words in the same paragraph of the last thus he speaks This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei in foro Conscientiae would be a meer tautology Of the first thus Although in articulo Providentiae in the doctrine of divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo Justificationis in the doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other Thus of three senses of the phrase himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre it to the justice of God we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood 3. If we referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres own confession such is the first sense which is here the last then thus But if you take it in such a sense in which it may not be taken in the present question such is the last of the three which is here put first then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in his knowledge 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction because the members thereof do interferre for Justification in the death of Christ and in our own consciences is Justification in Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods Will I ask then whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice if it be then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction if it be not I would know how God doth justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to us 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be Indeed he may well know that he intends to justifie us but if he know that then he knows we are not yet justified for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse for the better understanding of these mysteries I attend his motion that I may spare tautologies as much as I can SECT II. He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions The first is this Justification is taken variously in Scripture §. 4. 1. For the Will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people 2. For the effect of Gods Will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law That Justification is put for this latter act he supposeth none will question The only scruple is concerning the former which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification because some grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
nothing for never man was nor ever shall be the better for this supposed Will of God precisely of not punishing for if it produce us any good it is either from eternity or in time Surely from eternity we are never the better for it if in time what is that good I suppose it will be said freedome from punishment Well But doth it effect this freedome mediately or immediately mediately it can do nothing for it is determined precisely to a non-punition and containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of our deliverance Election indeed may very well concurre to our discharge wrought by the death of Christ because it is a pre-ordination of Christ himself and of all other more immediate causes that work in their several orders and dependances for our dâ—scharge If immediately then the death of Christ interposeth no cauâ—ality for the effecting of the said freedome of which notwithstanding Mr. Eyre asserts it to be the adequate and immediate cause in his next Proposition 3. To give a peculiar name to the volition of one part of the meanes as distinct from the volition of all the rest unlesse there be some special reason of such denomination is but to impose upon our understandings for why may not Gods Will of sending Christ of publishing the Gospel of renewing our natures of raising our bodies of glorifying our whole man each of them deserve a more proper and significant name then Election as well as his Will not to punish for as to the act of this Will eâ—dem mâ—do se habet circa omnia objecta volita it respecteth all the meanes willed equally and in the same manner the persons to whom this impunity is willed lay under no other consideration as the objects of this will then as they are the objects of the will of calling sanctifying glorifying so that neither from the act nor the object is there any reason of such denomination Indeed the objects I mean the media volita of election and reprobation being contraries in the utmost degree and irreconcileable in the same person our weak understandings do therefore conceive of those acts as differing specie and accordingly we diversifie their names But the objects of Election being amongst themselves consentanies and subordinate in their execution one to the other and having no other entity or modality before their own existence in time then precisely ut volita it is altogether beyond the reach of my understanding to imagine any reason why the volition of one meanes should have a name proper to it self incommunicable to the volition of any other means willed by the same act to the same end 4 But the answer yields as much as the objection seeks for it grants Justification to be part of election namely Electio ad impunitatem Whereas 1. Scripture-Justification is a forensical act say all our Protestants against the Papists I spare quotations because the thing is too well known to be denied This cannot be affirmed of Election 2. The object of Election is neither a sinner nor a righteous person precisely but one that is not for we are chosen before the foundation of the world Eph. 1. 4. before we have done good or evil Rom. 9. 11. but the object of Scripture-Justification is a sinner Rom. 4. 5. whether believing or unbelieving we dispute below 3. Election is not properly an act of mercy but of absolute dominion and liberty Scripture-Justification is every where reported as an act of mercy Psal 51. 1. Luke 1. 78 79. Matth. 18. 33. Luke 18. 13 14. Heb. 8. 12. Eph. 2. 4 5. Ergo Justification is not Election nor any part of it If it be said that the name of pardon and Justification in these and other places signifies not the act but the effects I shall refer to my vindication of the next objection which is as followeth SECT VI. THe second objection therefore is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum Which cannot be §. 15 attributed to the decrees of God I shall divide Mr. Eyres answer into two parts First saith he if Justification be taken for the thing willed viz. the delivery of a sinner from the curse of the Law then there is a great change made thereby he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with God But if we take it for the Will of God not to punish then we say Justification doth not suppose any such change as if God had first a Will to punish his Elect but afterwards he altered his Will to a Will not to punish them Rep. Plain dealing is best in a good cause If Mr. Eyre had told me roundly that the effects of Justification make a change in a persons state but the act doth not I had then known what I had to do But I know not very well what to make of these lines 1. The objection in forme is this Justification imports a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum But velle nen punire or any other eternal purpose of God makes no such change of a persons state Ergo To say now that the Will of God not to punish supposeth no such change is to yield the Conclusion that therefore it is not Justification 2. What means he by a sinners delivery from the curse of the Law either it supposeth that a sinner doth actually suffer the curse of the Law or some part of it till Justification deliver him but this he denieth of such persons for whom Christ hath satisfied namely the Elect page 60. 61. § 2. or it supposeth an obligation of such persons by Law unto future punishment till they be justified But this he denieth too of the same persons page 110. 111. § 2 3 5. and what it is to deliver a sâ—nner from the curse which he neither suffers at present nor is obliged to suffer for future I want an Interpreter to tell me 3. Nor can I tell in Mr. Eyres sense what it is to have peace and reconciliation with God If he meane it of peace of conscience through the sense of reconciliation himselfe will deny that that is the immediate effect of our delivery from the curse for faith apprehending reconciliation doth intervene and that as a true proper cause of such a peace If he mean it of a state of peace and reconciliation before God he should not need to ascribe that to the thing willed seeing the erernal Will of God is most sufficient unto that according to him as being a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin and he layes it down for an undeniable truth That the Elect were in Covenant with God before the foundations of the world page 170 171. 4. The great change which he speaks of made by this delivery from the curse of the Law viz. That he that was a childe of wrath by nature hath peace and reconciliation with
4 5. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth c. Not working is opposed to works Beleeving is not working with the Apostle Ergo believing is opposed to works Judge then who will for I am indifferent in so just a cause whether the Apostle contradict himselfe or Mr. Eyre him 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification stands thus according to Scripture That he that worketh doth himself effect that righteousnesse for which he is justified personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man to make him just before God And hence righteousnesse by works or by the Law is called our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousnesse of another even of the Lord Jesus Christ for which only he is justified And hence righteousnesse by faith is opposed to our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith So that he that is justified by works is justified for his own sake but he that is justified by faith is justified for anothers sake §. 9. But because this is the total summe of all Mr. Eyre hath to say for the abuse of the word Faith from its own native sense to a tropical I shall set down my answer more fully I distinguish therefore 1. Of works 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action and so no doubt but faith is a work so is laughing crying speaking reasoning and the like 2. Strictly for that obedience by which the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled really or in conceit and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to or of being made the conditions of our Justification by the righteousnesse of another In this sense doth the Apostle take works when he opposeth them to faith b Vid Conraâ— Vorst Schol. in loc Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt and ver 2. If Abraham were jâ—stified by works he hath whereof to glory Both which Propositions were false if works were any thing lesse then perfect legal righteousnesse for he had said before that there is no glorying for a sinner before God * Vid. Joh. Piscat Schol. in loc ex Olev Calvin Rom. 3. 23. Not that I think the Jewes themselves who sought righteousnesse by works did conceive they were able so to keep the Law as not at all to sin but rather thought such was their blindnesse that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification if they forbore the outward acts of sin and performed the outward act of duty c Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. Joh. Reynol Coâ—f with Hart. ch 7. D. 4. p. 264. neglecting the inward purity of heart d Sic Mâ—rmon in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉 or if their good works were more then their evil works or finally if they did perform those ceremonial observances which were required in the Law for the expiation of sinne Matâ—h 19. 18 19. and 23. 25 26 27 28. Luke 18. 11 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this That all had sinned against the Law Rom. 3. 19 20 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law for it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10 11. Now works being taken in this strict sense it is manifest that faith is not works no e Fidem non esâ—e opus Viâ— Câ—mâ—ron prâ—lect in Mâ—â— 16. â—7 opâ—r p. 47 48. nor a work as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous as the Apostle expressely witnesseth Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith that is requires not faith in order to Justification but the man that doth them shall live in them 2. When we speak of Justification by works and of Justification §. 10. by faith the particle By hath not the same sense in both Propositions But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousnesse for which a person is justified in the latter it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition upon which we receive the gift of Christs righteousness Of the use of that particle in such a sense the Reader shall finde many instances in answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter When then he disputes that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense we are justified by works because faith is a work I deny the consequence with the proof of it The former because to be justified by faith is to be justified by the righteousnesse of another through faith as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us but to be justified by works is to be justified by and for a righteousnesse wrought by our selves The latter because faith is not a work as the Apostle useth works that is no part of that righteousnesse for which we are justified What can be objected against this the Reader will meet with in the following discourse In the mean time I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument in all the following places which are very many wherein it is objected against me that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies even unto nauseousnesse SECT IV. THe second general Argument proving that Justification by §. 11. faith is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification is this It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three wayes Either as an Argument affected to prove it or axiomatically or syllogistically which termes because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three wayes Ergo we cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification This Reader is the summe and scope of my second Argument which I have here set down distinctly that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake common to Mr. Eyre with some of my own friends as themselves have told me as if I had denied all use of faith in evidencing Justification which is as farre from my judgement as the East is from the West I confesse I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken because there is an ellipfis in my words which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension for whereas it is said in my Sermon page 3. It is a most unsound Assertion that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The full sentence should have been
life and no more In the former it is of a great deal more worth and value then in this because proportionable to a greater reward Yea and it will be impossible that there should be any cheating in buying and selling or any other contract if things of themselves unequal become forthwith equal by vertue of a contract Suppose a man give a great price for a Jewel and the Jewel prove counterfeit yet by vertue of the contract it becomes equal to the price he gave for it and the buyer may not complain of the injustice of the couzenage Several other Arguments may the Reader see to this purpose in learned a De Just Act. c. 63. Voss The sâ—de bon oper merit p. 72. Davenant Here it may be demanded whether works in the first Covenant §. 18. were proportionable to the reward promised which with some limitations I shall answer affirmatively But because Mr. Eyre gives me here no occasion to speak to it but urgeth it strongly in another place the Reader must have patience till he come thither In the mean time let us see whether it cannot be proved that a gift may be given of grace and yet upon condition 1. I put this case Philemon promiseth Onesimus upon condition he will acknowledge that he neither hath nor can merit any good of him but rather that for his thievery and several other injuries which he hath done him he hath deserved to be quite cast out of his favour that he will forgive former injuries and moreover make him heire of all he hath That he may give it upon such a condition is unquestionable for a man may make what he will the condition of his owu gift Voluntas regit conditiones saith the b L. in conditionib F. de Cond domonstr Law Onesimus accepts and performes the condition I do ask whether he do thereby merit his Masters favour and estate or no If not the question is yielded if so then contradictions and impossibilities may be true For he confesseth that he neither hath nor can merit any thing of his Master and yet in so saying he doth merit even all his Master is worth Now faith is a condition of like nature as being an act of self-dereliction a kinde of holy despaire a renouncing of all worthinesse in our selves as Mr. Eyre expresseth it page 76. and this doth the Lord require as the condition of our partaking in his pardoning mercy Jer. 3. 12 13. I am merciful saith the Lord and I will not keep anger for ever only acknowledge thine iniquity that thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God But let us search the Scriptures Jer. 18. 7 8. At what instant I §. 19. shall speak concerning a Nation and concerning a Kingdome to pluck up and to pull down and to destroy it If that Nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil I will repent of the evil which I thought to do unto them A famous instance we have of it in Nineveh against which Jonah cries Yet fourty dayes and Nineveh shall be overthrown Jonah 3. 4. In the former place God gives us a general rule to understand his threatenings as having a tacite condition of repentance by which the evil threatened may be escaped Otherwise Janas had spoken false in the Name of the Lord in threatening destruction to Nineveh within fourty dayes for the city was not then destroyed but upon their repentance what the Lord promised in Jeremy he performed upon them Jon. 3. 10. God saw their works that they turned from their evil way and God repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them and he did it not c Vide Krakevitz in loc p. 341. Repentance then if God be a God of truth and cannot lie is the condition of our deliverance from threatened evils suitable to that of our Lord Luke 13. 3. Except you repent you shall all likewise perish Yet Gods saving men Nineveh in particular upon their repentance is an act of his grace not of their merit and unto that grace of God doth Jonah ascribe it Jon. 4. 2. I knew that thou art a gracious God and merciful In like manner is Israels deliverance from the judgements threatened ascribed to the free grace and mercy of God as the only cause though not without their own repentance and returning unto God as the condition thereof Joel 2. 12 13 14. So 2 Chron. 30. 19. For if you turne again unto the Lord there 's the condition your brethren and your children shall finde compassion before them that lead them captive so that they shall come again into this land for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful there 's the cause and will not turne away his face from you if you return to him Deut. 4. 30 31. When all these things are come upon thee even in the latter dayes if thou turne to the Lord thy God and shalt be obedient to his voice for the Lord thy God is a merciful God he will not destroy thee neither forsake thee c. So chap. 30. 2 3. Indeed the word grace or gracious is not expressely mentioned in this text but mercy is which is tantamount to it and likely they go both together as before Jonah 4. 2. Joel 2. 13 14. 2 Chron. 30. 9. Exod. 34. 6. And if their returning unto God be here denied to be the condition of their deliverance from destruction of which notwithstanding the mercy and grace of God is asserted to be the only cause I must professe for my own part I shall think it a hard matter to prove that there is one intelligible sentence in all the Scripture yea and let me speak my judgement freely though I detest the Papists doctrine of merits yet if Mr. Eyre will make good his position d Donationi potest apponi conditio nec ideo minùs pura vera donaâ—io dicitur dummodo ex illa commodum non accedat donanti Greg. Tholos Syntag juris l 28 c. 7 §. 7. â—x C. L. 8. tit 55 that every condition is a meritorious cause it must of necessity be granted that they have done more for the proof of merits then all the protestants on earth will ever be able to answer for I do not know one Protestant but yields that there are many Promises of grace which yet are conditional And thus much for the first Argument by which Mr. Eyre endeavours to prove that we are concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification if faith be made the condition thereof The second succeeds and that is this If faith be a condition §. 20. morally disposing us for justification we should then be concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in procuring our Justification for the merits of Christ are not a physical but a moral cause Now by ascribing to faith a moral causal influxe in our Justification we do clearly put it in eodem
give him his whole estate which condition Onesimus performes I ask now whether his performance of this condition be the cause of his pardon and of the gift promised him If not then Mr. Eyre must confesse this Argument to be nothing if so then let us know plainly what cause it is for Mr. Eyre holds me altogether in generals and determines without one syllable of proof that it is a cause but tells me not what cause it is nor what its causality Is it a meritorious cause That cannot be because there is nothing in his confession that can countervaile the greatnesse of the injury or hold proportion with the reward or doth it move meerly objectively as we say poverty moves a liberal man and misery a merciful man But this is very improperly called a motive cause being indeed no cause at all but the exiigency or moral capacity of a person to be the object of an act of mercy or liberality otherwise by how much the greater mans misery is by so much the lesse praise-worthy is Gods mercy in relieving us because by how many the more causes concur to an effect by so much the lesse praise is due to each That faith moves in this manner I will not deny but this will not make it a cause at least no other then à causa sine qua non and how a meer condition such as in the instance given should be any other I cannot conceive Briefly if the condition aforesaid performed by Onesimus be the cause of his Masters gift then either of the Promise or of the execution of it But the said condition is neither the cause of the Promise nor of fulfilling it Ergo. Not of the Promise for Philemons will is the cause of the condition Ergo the condition is not the cause of Philemons will signified in his Promise for the effect cannot be the cause of its cause A condition as such cannot move the Donour to promise because it is his will and nothing else that makes it a condition though I deny not but there may be something in the condition which may move the will quoad specificationem that is encline it to pitch upon this rather then that or to make this the condition rather then that Not of the performance of the Promise for the same reason for it is most absurd that the will should make its own motive causes As if we should suppose Philemon saying thus I will make his confession the condition of my gift and then I will be moved by it to bestow it upon him If there be not attractive vertue enough as I may so call it in the condition till the will resolve to be moved by it then surely the motion of the will is from it selfe not from it Wherefore the cause both of the Promise and Performance is Philemons good will who of his own accord obligeth himself to give such a gift such a condition being performed and will not be obliged without it if he would he might give it presently without any condition but as it is his will that the Donee shall be uncapable of receiving any benefit by him unlesse such a thing be done so is it his will which makes him capable of receiving it when it is done SECT V. THis I did illustrate in my Sermon by a double comparison of §. 24. an offendor pardoned by reading the book or upon condition that he accept of the pardon by neither of which can he yet be said to pardon himselfe To the latter instance I do not finde that Mr. Eyre speaks a word but invades the former resolutely and sayes That an offendor saved by his Clergy is not passive but active in saving his life he may properly be said to save himself Yea he doth more in saving his life then either the Law or the Judge as the welch man that cried God blesse her father and mother that taught her to reade Rep. Supposing that the reading of the book be a meer condition such as is the acceptance of the pardon in the second instance abstracted from all considerations of the worth and benefit of learning I answer 1. That whereas Mr. Eyre sayes He that reades may be properly said to save himselfe I would have granted it if he had left out the word properly Because he may be said to save himselfe who doth that without which he should not be saved though his doing do not cause it and therefore the speech is improper Nor doth the Scripture abhorre from the like manner of speech for thus saith the Lord Luke 7. 50. Thy faith hath saved thee go in peace which salvation is before called forgivenesse of sin ver 48. and Mark 5. 34. Thy faith hath made thee whole go in peace So Luke 18. 42. which though it were a bodily cure yet was it a representation and assurance of spiritual blessings and the faith by which she received it the very same by which we obtain remission of sins as our i Aâ—â—s Bâ—ll enerv tom 4. l. 5. p. 319. 12º Miracula istiusmodi fuerunt singularia Dâ—i beneficia quibus Justificationis bâ—nedictio fuit adumbraâ—a Luke 4. 18. 3. Beneficia ista saepe conjunctâ— fuerunt cum Justificatione Gerh. de Justis per sid §. 158 p. 956. Marc. 5 36. Luc. 8. 50. Quamvis veâ—ò ibiâ— non agatur propriè de side Justificante maniâ—estum tamen est fidem stâ—tui unicum illud medium per quod divinoâ—um beneficiorum ac pâ—oinde â—eâ—issioâ—i peccatoâ—um justâ—tiae reddamur participes credenti enim omnia possibilia Mark 9. 23. Sâ—e also Down of Justif l. 6. c 15 â— 11 1â— Protestants prove against the Papists And yet no question but the speech is improper for in propriety of speech it was the power and grace of God that healed the one and saved the other In the same phrase of speech are the Jewes exhorted to save themselves Acts 2. 40. and Timothy to save himselfe 1 Tim. 4. 16. And the Patriarchs by faith to have done such things as are quite above all created power as was hefore observed out of Heb. 11. 2. And whereas the welch man blesseth his father and mother that taught him to reade A Christian may with seriousnesse blesse God in like manner and give thanks unto the father for making of him meet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be one of the Partakers of the inheritance of the Saints in light Col. 1. 12. That we performe the condition is from the grace of God no lesse then the blessings we partake in upon performance of it and therefore the praise of all is due to him only Yet the grace is greater in giving the latter then the former by how much the end is better then the meanes And if the welch man did indeed think that he was more beholding to his reading then to the courtesie of his Prince for his life his Logick was as ridiculous as his language for though the Law would
the same in our justification before God which consists in a Law of grace and in sentence passed according to that Law which because we must purposely prove by and by I shall here supersede for a while One thing more I added for illustration in these words It is God §. 28. that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we beleeve Mr. Eyres answer consists of two parts the one is a concession of what I say with an explanation how glory is called a reward and sayes That a reward is for a work two wayes 1. When a work is proportionable to the wages 2. When it is not answerable to the wages yet is due by Promise as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an houres labour though the work be not worth it yet it is a due debt and he may challenge it as such Rep. Against which I have not much to oppose yet if the houres work neither in respect to its selfe nor any circumstance that attends it as the Art Danger Detriment of the Labourer or the necessity pleasure profit c. of him for whom he labours all which corne into the m Less de just jured 2 c. 18. d. 3. value of the work deserve the said twenty shillings then is the reward though partly of debt quia operanti aliquid abest because the workman puts himself to expence of time and strength and he for whom he worketh hath the benefit and advantage thereof yet is it also of grace n Azor. Insiit Mor. p 3. l. 11. c. 3. quatenus excedit meritum inasmuch as it exceeds the value of the work And that the Labourer may challenge it ariseth from civil not from natural justice But I readily grant that glory is not our reward in this sense But how then is it a reward Because it comes after and in the place of the work saith Mr. Eyre Rep. Of which I shall speak more hereafter for the present what is said sufficeth me viz. That the reward follows the act whereof it is the reward for hence it follows that if Justification be given as the reward of faith then must it needs follow faith But we have proved before that Justification even the imputation of righteousnesse is the gracious reward of faith Ergo it must needs be consequent to it His second answer is this Though the blessings of the Covenant be given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order in bestowing them first he gives grace imputed and then inherent Rep. My Argument is à pari we are not glorified unlesse we believe §. 29. yet by beleeving we cannot be said properly to glorifie our selves so though we beleeve that we may be justified yet will it not follow that we may be therefore said to justifie our selves properly the reason is the same on both sides Now whereas Mr. Eyre will have us when beleevers yet to be passive in our glorification meerly because God doth first give faith and then afterwards give glory I wonder he sees not the insufficiency of such answers and how the Arminians get ground by them Say plainly Doth God require and charge us to beleeve and repent that we may be saved or doth he not If he doth then doth he require a condition to be performed on our parts in order to our Justification though he give it us for as o Dr. Twisse observes often Medium ad aliquid obtinendum o Vindic. Grat. de crrat p. 163. ex contractu vel foedere illud demum est conditio A means ordained to obtain any thing by Contract or Covenant is a Condition If he doth not what shall become of those many places wherein God exhorts and commands men to repent and beleeve that they may be saved Then unbelief and impenitency are no sins nor are men thereby the causes of their own ruine and destruction contrary to Scriptures John 3. 19 and 8. 24. passim The reason is plain because man 's not being the object of a gift of God precisely cannot be meritorious of his damnation Indeed Mr. Eyre told us before that he that doth the least work towards the procuring of a benefit is not only physically but morally active in obtaining it I wonder at my heart then why we pray for grace and salvation or why we do or suffer any thing for obtaining a Crown and Kingdom p Authores elus primi fuere Sadoc unde Sadducaei Baythos de quibus videsis Joh. Drus de trib sect Judaeor l. 3. c. 3. 4. Joh. Cameron Myroth in Mat. 22. 23. This very conceit was that which drew many in former ages to deny any resurrection other then what was past already and by some improvement may bid faire for a resurrection of that and like consequences The very substance of Religion and the vital act of faith consists in looking to the reward promised in Heaven Heb. 11. 6 26. 2 Cor. 4. 16 18. And had I not known some Christians fallen and falling off from prayer and ordinances and other spiritual duties upon this very ground that they are passive altogether in their salvation and that they neither can nor must do any thing toward it I would not have lost so much time as to have taken notice of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to Mr. Eyres tenth Chapter My first Argument against Justification before faith vindicated from all Mr. Eyres exceptions SECT I. HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justification §. 1. from many expresse testimonies of Scripture and discovered the fruitlesnesse of all Mr. Eyres attempts against them We proceed to the Vindication of the Reasons added in my Sermon for proof of the same point These Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter They are five in number and the first is this If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word that may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he remains in unbelief Ergo. Mr. Eyre first denies the Assumption For the Gospel declares that God hath transacted all the sins of the Elect on Jesus Christ and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby they are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Lev. 16. 30. Rep. 1. Supposing the tenour of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this yet I deny that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law to absolve the sinner from the sentence of a former Law The Reason's plain because it is but narratio rei gestae a meer historical narration of what
why Because it was the Will of God that none of the elect should perish or be condemned Answ True not executively But Mr. Eyre knows we put a difference between perishing and condemnation in this debate and that by condemnation we mean not the execution of punishment or wrath but a legal obligation to the suffering of it And though God did purpose that the elect should not perish or be condemned executively quoad eventum yet should Mr. Eyre prove that he purposed that the elect should not stand obliged equally with other sinners for some time to the suffering of wrath This if he prove I will yield the cause The purpose of God in it selfe makes no difference between men whose cause is the same before the just and impartial Judge Do we not know that a Prince may purpose to save the life of a Malefactour against whom notwithstanding the Law is in force and judgement proceeds and sentence passeth and the man thereby as much obnoxious to death as any other Melefactours till some other act of the Prince besides his meer purpose interpose and prevent his death But of this we have spoken largely already The Assumption namely that all the world is under condemnation §. 4. before faith I proved from the expresse testimony of the Lord Jesus John 3. 18. He that beleeveth not is condemned already That is saith Mr. Eyre He that never believeth as chap. 8. 24. If you beleeve not i. e. not at all you shall die in your sins Our Saviour had no intent at all to shew the state of the elect before believing but the certain and inevitable misery of them that beleeve not by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them All the rest of the answer consents well enough with that Explication of the text which I gave in my Sermon Rep. First for that which is pretended to be our Lords intent in these words let me intreat thee Reader to peruse and ponder the text for I think thou shalt hardly meet with the like abuse of the Oracles of God in any Authour that acknowledgeth the Divinity of Scriptures ver 14. As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Son of man be lifted up ver 15. That whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 16. for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life ver 17. for God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that beleeveth not is condemned already c. Thou seest Reader that the words contain a most serious and faithful testimony to a sinful world that though they had brought upon themselves eternal miseries yet God had sent his Sonne into the world not to condemn the world but to save them and if any man perish 't is not for want of a sufficient remedy provided in the death of Christ but for their own wilful refusal to embrace and make use of it as himselfe tells us ver 19. And this is the condemnation that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Now what sayes Mr. Eyre why he will have us beleeve that the Lords intention is quite against his expression and that he is come to testifie to the world that their misery is certain and inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law that had passed upon them It is time to burne our Bibles if such glosses as these must be received for truth 2. If the misery of those that beleeve not be inevitable by reason of the sentence of the Law how is this to be understood either that the Law passed sentence upon them as unbelievers but this I suppose is too unreasonable to be affirmed or that the same men who afterwards prove unbelievers were before sentenced by the Law to certain and unavoidable misery But then their unbeliefe contributed nothing to make their misery unavoidable whereas our Lord chargeth the unavoidablenesse of misery upon wilful unbelief ver 19. This is the condemnation not that men are in darknesse but that light is come into the world and men have loved darknesse rather then light Were it not for this men might do well enough notwithstanding all that the Law had done against them Ergo misery is not made certain and inevitable to any by the Law before unbelief be added 3. Mr. Eyre told us but now that the Law condemned all men equally that 's the sense of his words if there be any sense in them The Law saith he doth not consider men as elect or reprobate I know not how it should for the Law is neither God nor man nor Angel as believers or unbelievers c. how comes it then to passe that misery should be made unavoidable to one and not to another by the same Law Next we shall enquire into Mr. Eyres Exposition of ver 18. §. 5. He that beleeveth not is condemned already that is saith he he that never beleeveth which is not only gratis dictum spoken without so much as a pretence of Reason but is manifestly inconsistent with the text Indeed condemnation is executed upon none but final unbelievers but unbelievers in the text are to be understood generally of all unbelievers whatsoever and not to be confined to final unbelievers 1. Such unbelievers are here meant who are part of that world into which Christ is sent for after the Lord had said ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world by him might be saved He distributes this world into two parts Beleevers and Unbeleevers ver 18. He that beleeveth is not condemned he that believeth not is condemned already But final unbeleevers as such are no part of that world into which Christ is sent for a final unbeleever is he that dies in unbelief if he beleeve but one minute before his death he is not a final unbeleever And Christ is not sent to the dead but to the living 2. Such unbelievers are here meant whom Christ was sent to save ver 16 17. But Christ was not sent to save final unbelievers as such Ergo such unbelievers are not here meant 3. We have also mention of a double condemnation in the text one which Christ findes men under when he comes into the world and which he comes to deliver them from ver 17 18. The other which men are left under for final unbelief and rejecting of Christ the light of life ver 19. This is the condemnation c. for Christ could not finde men condemned for a final rejecting of him till he had been preached and tendered to them Ergo they that beleeve not ver 18. are unbeleevers in general 4. The condemnation here spoken of is
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
that God through the death of Christ hath so far forth laid aside his enmity against sinners as that he is ready to receive them into his favour if they will beleeve and repent whereof also he hath given them such assurance in his Gospel that if now they be not reconciled it is because they wil not be reconciled if they die it is because they will die But if his meaning be that this reconciliation is begun to be applied immediately upon the death of Christ then 1. Let him no longer urge the bare word but seeing reconciliation hath its degrees let him demonstrate that it must-be understood not of the first degree which I stand for but of the second which begins in application 2. I desire also to know by what act God doth apply this reconciliation to men that have no being till many ages after Christs death Is it by some act of his minde surely that will be very dangerous to affirme that any immanent act of God hath its beginning after the death of Christ Is it a transient act shew us then its object it is past imagination how an effect can be wrought and exist in or upon an object which it selfe hath no existence Lastly iâ— the benefits purchased in the death of Christ be none of them applied or actually given us before Christs sitting down at the right hand of God then neither was reconciliation applied to us or given us immediately in or upon the death of Christ But the first is true Ergo so is the second Heb. 5. 9. Being made perfect that is exalted into glory see chap. 2. 10. he became the Authour of eternal salvation to all them that obey him without this we could have received l See Dr. Reynolâ—s in Pâ— 110. p. 427. 429. Dr. Goâ—win on Rom. 8 sect 5. p. 71 177. none of the benefits purchased in the death of Christ and therefore surely reconciliation was not begun to be applied immediately in or upon his death Heb. 8. 4. If he were on earth he should not be a priest Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered for our offences and was raised againe for our justification 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not raised you are yet in your sins And a general rule it is amongst Divines that Christ in his intercession is the applying cause of all the benefits purchased in his death Seeing then it is certaine that our reconciliation though purchased in the death of Christ yet is not applied and actually given us till his entrance into heaven if now it be asked when Christ in heaven doth give us this reconciliation I answer in the words of the Apostle Act. 5. 31. Him hath God exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and forgivenesse of sin which is the reconciliation we speak of and 2 Cor. 5. 20. we are Ambassadours for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray you in Christs stead be you reconciled unto God And now I returne to Mr. Eyre SECT VI. I Had said in my Sermon that it is through the death of Christ that §. 29. the promise of reconciliation is made by and according to which we are actually reconciled to God after we do beleeve This after Mr. Eyre hath represented and paraphrased as he pleased and charged it of course with the imputations of Arminianisme and Popery at last he advanceth foure Arguments against it as he saith but if the Reader will peruse them he will find there is not one I say againe not one but all of them levelled against a position which never came into my mind to owne viz. That Christ purchased only a conditional promise Si sat sit accusasse quis erit innocens I say therefore that Christ did indeed purchase the conditional Covenant but I say withal that if we look to the intention of Christ in purchasing he purchased the infallible application or donation of every blessing of the Covenant unto some namely the elect If this be Arminianisme I am an Arminian yea and so strong in the persuasion that I cannot hope of my self that I shall be altered by any mans writings which I have seen or am like to see while I live But what cannot a general pardon be purchased for all because it is intended that some shall infallibly be pardoned and saved by it or is not such a pardon the first Act and degree of our reconciliation because other things are purchased as well as it more then this I shall not need to say to any of Mr. Eyres Arguments nor do I intend to say more to the three last the first because it pretends some Scriptures for an immediate reconciliation in the death of Christ I shall answer to particularly The Argument then is this The Scripture no where saies that Christ died to obtaine a conditional grant but to make an end of sin Dan. 9. 24. By the blood of his crosse he hath made peace Colos 1. 20. Broken down the partition wall Eph. 2. 14. Delivered us from the curse Gal. 3. 13. And our Saviour doth not say Math. 26. 28. That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many i. e. of all the elect Answ Of the first part of the answer more anon As to Dan. §. 30. 9. 24. Mr. Eyre cannot be ignorant that learned men are of different ways in expounding what it is to make an end of sin m Vide Jâ—nium Willet Hexapl. in loc some interpreting it of that end of sin not which Christ made but which sinners themselves make by repentance n Vid. Rolloc comment in loc some of restraining and confirming the godly that they might not be guilty of a defection from God But understand it of the end made by the death of Christ what is the inference Ergo it is not through the death of Christ that the promise is made by and according to which we are reconciled to God when we believe Doth Mr. Eyre think this consequence needs no proofe If this text afford him any thing for his purpose it will exclude the intercession of Christ and the Covenant of pardon made in his blood from being at all necessary or useful to the making an end of sin To Colos 1. 20. It pleased the Father having made peace through the blood of his crosse by him to reconcile all things to himself c. The answer is ready That the making of peace in the death of Christ is here mentioned as the means to that reconciliation of all things to himself which the Father intended thereby for both the making of peace and reconciliation are here mentioned as the acts of God as the first and principal cause and the latter the effect and end of the former God hath made peace in Christs death that he might reconcile us to himself I appeal to any man that knows what a consequence is whether it will
exemplary cause rather then of a common person I give the Reader a little below 2. And that our Divines do usually call Christ a common person is a thing so well known that M. Eyre should not need to have quoted my Grandfather Parker to convince me of it He should have shewed that they call him so in such a sense as cannot be expressed by the tearm of an exemplary cause So doth not my Grandfather at least in the point of Christs resurrection of which he there speaks not a word but m Do descens lib. 4 sect 75. elsewhere saies with Athanasius Anima Christi descensum suum ad inferos peregit ab inferis resurrectionem produxit ut nostrae resurrectionis imaginem concinnaret which in sense is the very same that I say concerning Christs becoming an exemplary cause in his resurrection 3. Nor are our Divines such strangers to the use of that expression as M. Eyre represents them n Sound Beleev pag 79. 80. edit 1653. M. Shepheard useth it verbatim There is saith he a merited justification by Christs death and a virtual or exemplary justification in Christs resurrection as our head and surety So o Med. Theol. l. 1. c. 23. th 16 17. Dr. Amese finis resurrectionis fuit ut se justificatum alios justificantem ostenderet 5. ut resurrectionis nostrae tam spiritualis quà m corporalis hypostasin exemplar initiatio fieret Christus enim exemplaris causa est nostrae resurrectionis ut à morte resurgens p Lud. Croc. s Theol. l. 2. cap. 12. p. 353. So others His last Argument is that this expression savours rankly of Pelagianisme §. 9. and Socinianisme For they make the second Adam a meer paterne and example of our reconciliation Rep. I have read indeed concerning the Pelagians that they deny the propagation of Adams sin any otherwise then by imitation and that the Socinians say Christ shews us the way of salvation by the example of his own life I know But if I who thankfully acknowledge our Lords merits and satisfaction and live by the faith thereof am yet guilty of Pelagianisme and Socinianisme for affirming that as in all things else so in his justification he had this preeminence above others as not only to be justified himself but to become the justifying cause of others after his own paterne and similitude I am content to beare the reproach of both SECT II. IN the next place I gave the Reader an account why I used the §. 10. tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person in these words I use the tearme of an exemplary cause rather then of a common person because a common person may be the effect of those whom he represents as the Parliament of the Common-wealth but Christ is such a common person as that he is the cause of those whom he represents in every thing in which he represents them This excuse saith M. Eyre is both fallacious and impertinent Fallacious because it seems to intimate that an exemplary cause doth expresse as much as a common person which is clearly false for the act of the exemplar is not the act of the Imitator as the act of a common person is the act of them whom he represents Parents are examples to their children not common persons Rep. Know Reader first that we are not now speaking of our active voluntary imitation of Christ in duties of obedience but of our being passively conformed and fashioned like him in the participation of his spiritual blessings according to our condition and capacity Thus in our justification do we bear his image and partake in his likenesse who as he was the first borne from the dead so is he the first borne of them that are justified forasmuch as his resurrection was his justification And as our resurrection from death whensoever it shall be exists by virtue of his Joh 14. 19. He being risen as the first fruits of them that slept 1 Cor. 15. 20. So also doth our justification 2. This being premised I adde that to say that Christ in his resurrection was the exemplary cause of our justification is far more pertinent and significant then to say we were then justified in him as a common person especially according to M. Eyres use of that tearme of which more presently the reason is ready because the former phrase expresseth the influence which his justification hath upon ours and the dependance which ours hath upon his which the latter doth not for to be justified in another as a common person doth neither declare his justification to be the cause of ours nor ours the effect of his could we have delegated a person to have received from God that sentence of absolution in our names as Israel sent up Moses into the mount we had all of us been justified as immediately as himself nor had our justification had any dependance upon his though we had then been justified in him as a common person 3. Wherefore as to the tearme of a common person concerning which I have made a more toylesome search into the civil law and those few Civilians which I have then the moment of the matter requires it may be understood in a double sense either 1. fictione suppositi when a person by a kinde of civil metempseuchosis doth so represent another in what he doth or is done to him as that the same things are said to be done by or to the person whom he represents As Ambassadours represent the person of the Princes that employ them what they do as such is reputed the act of the Prince that sends them forth and what is done to them as such is reputed as done to him We do or receive that which our Attorney doth or receives in our name Or 2. Ex re gestâ when a person doth that in the effects of which be they good or evil others partake as well as himself Thus the punishment of high treason is common with the Traitour to his children though he do not represent them neither in offending nor in being punished Thus a Surety payes his money as a common person because the Debtour as well as himself if no compact hinder hath the benefit of a discharge though he do not represent the debtour in making payment In this latter sense I readily acknowledge that Christ was a common Person in his Death and Resurrection because we receive the benefit of both in our measure and kinde as well as himself And in this sense an exemplary cause expresseth as much and somewhat more then a common person But Mr. Eyre will have Christ to be a common person in the former §. 11. sense and that as well in his Death as his Resurrection That he was so in his death I deny roundly The reason is that for which Mr. Eyre chooseth to call him a common person rather then an exemplary cause because saith he the act of a
to his service as the Levites were Numb 3. 12. and the first borne Exod. 13. 2 12. or the like these in a generall sense are his So the Lord thy God a phrase which God often useth when he speaks to Israel mostly signifies the God whom they professed and externally worshipped or at least whom they ought to have worshipped as is to be seen in places without number Therefore it is not every sense in which we are called his or he ours which will conclude him to be our God in the covenant sense Jer 7. 23. compared with Jer. 31. 33. where it is plainly a promise of spiritual eternal universal and perfect blessednesse though gradually accomplished Accordingly neither did I use any of the foresaid texts or phrases though I might have used many with great advantage to prove either that I will be thy God c. contained all the blessings of the covenant on Gods part or that it is a promise made to them that beleeve and are converted but those plaine texts where these words are set down syllabically as the matter and summe of the Covenant nor can Mr. Eyre gaine any thing by the use of them till he hath better reconciled the Scriptures to his cause As to the following observation which I had from some learned Jewish and Christian writers viz. That God is never said to be our § 10. God in reference to his giving the first grace but onely in reference to the blessings which he promiseth to them that have faith My memory did a little faile me in the words but not at all in their sense If Mr. Eyre must needs know my authors they are b Upon Gen. 28. 13. R. Solomon Jarchi who saies that God is not in Scripture said to be the God of any whiles they are alive endeavouring to prove it out of Job 15. 15. c It is in Tanchum fol. 13. Col. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Nâ—n in venimus in Scriptura Deum nomen ejus junxisse hominibus justis â—um in vivis sunt ut scribe retur â—eus cujusâ—â—bet c. â— In Berachoth fol. 5. Col. 4 c. and assignes a peculiar reason why in that place of Gen. 28. 13. God saith he is the God of Isaack whilest Isaack was yet alive The same author doth there also repeat the words in Tanchuma though he do not quote the place where it is said The holy blessed God doth not joyne his name to the Saints while they are alive but when they are dead as it is said to the Saints which are on the earth c. and to the same purpose the Jerusalem d Targum though I know some of them and particularly More Nâ— voch part 3 cap. 51 Maimâ—â—des give a farre different reason of Gods calling himself the God of any one though with farre lesse probability As to the notion it self I seek no more from it then that God is called the God of a people or person in reference to the blessednesse and rewards which he gives to them especially that of a heavenly and eternal life And thus farre forth it is grounded on Scripture Rev. 21. 3 7. Otherwise I cannot conceive how our Lord concludes the resurrection from hence that he calls himself the God of Abraham the God of Isaack and the God of Jacob Matth. 22. 32. and the Apostle so expounds it Heb. 11. 16. He is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City which place firmlâ— shews that God is called their God in reference to the reward of a heavenly blessednesse specially which he gave them Mr. Eyre whether willingly or ignorantly himself best knows quite mistakes the Argument from the place as if it were no more but this God was the God of Abraham Isâ—ack and Jacoâ— who were beleevers Ergo he is not the God of any before they do beleeve No. The Argument is grounded in the Apostles interpretation of the phrase He is called their â—oâ— inasmuch as he hath prepared for them a City Neverthelessâ— â—f I had argued in his sense the Argument had been strong and undeâ—iable for their faith is mentioned as the reason upon wâ—â—ch God became a God unto them as appeares by the note of inference 〈◊〉 werâ—fâ—re Wherefore he is not ashamed to be called their God Hence the Argument is and let Master Fyre answer it if he can If Gods being the God of Abraham Isaack and Jacoh were a consequent of their faith then is it also a consequeâ—t of all other mens faith or he is not the God of any other before they beleeve the reason is because he is the God of all men in the same way Rom. 3. 29 30. But the first is cleare from the teâ—t Wherefore Ergo so is the last Mr. Eyres parallel if he will review it he will acknowledge to be rediculous and unworthy of an answer And as thus Gods being our God is clearly made a consequent of §. 11. faith so elsewhere our being his people is made a consequent of the same faith 1 Pet. 2. 10. In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God This saith Mr. Eyre is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the reall participation or interest in the blessings of it Rep. 1. If the words be spoken of Jews to whom this Epistle is written chap. 1. 1. they were externally the people of God before and in reference to them it must be therefore something more that is here promised then that they shall be externally the people of God 2. If of Gentiles whom the Apostle also includes in this promise Rom. 9. 25. their condition had been happy if the want of an externall covenant had been the worst and they had had right and interest in Christ and everlasting life by some Covenant internall But all gentiles equally in their gentile state are strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. that is have no right to any of those blessings which pertaine to the houshold and City of God v. 19. no more then Spaniards or any other forreigners have a right to any of the priviledges honours preferments of the City of London or an Indian in America hath right to inherit with the Son of an Englishman 3. To be externally in covenant is to be in covenant by visible profession and it is opposed to him that is in covenant internally by true faith this is the usual sense of that distinction used by the Apostle for substance when he distinguisheth between a Jew outwardly and a Jew inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29 if M. Eyre have here the same sense as he seemes to haâ—e or at least willing to have then when the Apostle sayes you are now a people and Mr. Eyre interprets him of a people onely visible and external either he supposeth that they had faith long before the time he speaks of or that
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not