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
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
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
farther disputing that this place is insufficient to prove that Gods eternal purpose of not punishing is our Justification 3. But I am out of doubt that the Elect here are not so called in reference to Election from eternity but rather in reference to election temporal as our l Dr Twisse in â—orv defens Arm. Cont. Til. pag. 202. Divines distinguish namely in respect of their effectual separation unto God and forsaking the conversation of the world and their admittance through faith into a state of favour and precious esteem with God as election doth sometimes signifie in Scripture See 1 Cor. 1. 26 27 28. James 2. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 4 6. The reason is plain because such Elect are here meant who were the present objects of the worlds reproaches injurious sentences false accusations and slanders c. for whose comfort in this their suffering condition the Apostle speaks these words to assure them that all the malice and abuses of the world should do them no harme so long as God justified them and approved of them Compare ver 21 35 37. And this also is the intent of the words in the Prophet who speaks them as in the Person of Christ when he was delivered up into the hands of wicked men Isa 50. 8 9. Now the Elect themselves before Conversion have their conversation according to the course of the world and are not the objects of persecution from the world Eph. 2. 23. SECT IV. WE have heard what Mr. Eyre can say for himself Before I §. 11. go any farther I shall set down a few Arguments to prove that the essence of Justification doth not consist in Gods eternal Will or Purpose of not punishing And first from the efficient cause Justification is such an act whereof Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King is the efficient cause with God the Father He is also the meriting cause as Priest by the offering or sacrifice of himself But of this we speak not now Acts 5. 31. John 5. 19 22 26 27. Luke 24. 47. and other places before quoted But Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King doth not will or purpose with God from eternity not to punish sinners The reason is plain because himself from all eternity was purposed of God to be Lord and King Ergo Justification doth not consist essentially in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish 2. Justification is an act of God purposed Ergo it cannot consist in his purpose The reason is because else God must purpose to purpose which is inconvenient The Antecedent is almost the words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham We have scarce more evidence of any truth upon which we lay the weight of our salvation then this text affords us of the point in hand saying that God would justifie in the future tense making Justification the object of divine foresight affirming the Gospel to have been preached to Abraham many yeares before it 3. If there be no such act in God at least that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely and formally then our Justification cannot consist in that act the reason is plaine because then our Justification were precisely nothing But there is no such act in God that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely Ergo. For proof of the Assumption Reader thou must remember that the foregoing Argument proves that there was in God from eternity a will to justifie believers in time that is 1. To discharge them from the obligation of the Law by which that punishment becomes legally undue which before was legally due and hence it follows 2. That they are not punished de facto so that impunity simply is no part nor effect of Justification but as following upon a legal disobligation otherwise every sinner in the world that were not presently punished were justified The impunity of a sinner therfore that it may be an effect or part of Justification must be considered with its modus as the impunity of a person discharged from the obligation of the Law for God doth so free us from punishment as may be without the least prejudice to the truth or justice or authority of his Law Accordingly I affirme that God never purposed not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo as impunity is severed from the manner in which it is given but he purposed not to punish modo congruo in a congruous way by disobliging first from the threatning of the Law and thereby giving them a legal right not to be punished and not to let them go unpunished while the Law stands in full force against them 1. That which was never executed was never purposed But never sinner went unpunished while the Law stood in full force against him Ergo. The Proposition is unquestionable In the Assumption Mr. Eyre will agree with me for he contends that all the Elect were discharged from the Law and had a right given them to impunity in the death of Christ and no elect person ever had or shall have impunity in any other way Ergo it was never purposed that they should have it in any other way that is that it was never purposed precisely that they should not be punished 2. Gods Purpose and his Laws will else be at enmity one with another for if he purpose not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo and yet do punish then he crosseth his purpose and if he do not punish the Law being supposed to remain in full force he is unfaithful if not also unjust as some k Dr. Oâ—en â—â—atr de Just vind learned men think 3. If non-punition l Vid. Tâ—oiss â—ind dâ— prâ—dest lib. 1. par 1. digr 9. c. 1 2 3. 4. precisely tend not to the glory of Gods grace then did he not will precisely not to punish for such a will were neither of the end nor of the meanes but non-punition precisely is no congruous meanes to glorifie Gods grace Ergo. For if a man had continued obedient and had never broken Gods Laws in the least tittle his impunity had not been of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. as it is with the holy Angels at this day Therefore we cannot conceive of any act in God purposing precisely not to punish in which yet Mr. Eyre placeth the very formality of our Justification 4. If Justification be velle nâ—n punire then condemnatiâ—n is vâ—ll◠§. â—â— punire for oppositorum eadem â—st ratio But condemnation is not velle punire Shall I need to prove this who ever said that Gods eeternal purpose of punishing men for sin was condemnation 'T is an expression that neither God nor man will owne so farre as I can finde Dr. Twisse is known to reject it often not without some passion and detestation Condemnation is every where in Scripture made an act of justice Rom.
because the merits of Christ themselves are the effects of the same love and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused But if our Lords death had been only from his own will not pre-ordained of God in the decree of election all the benefits purchased by it must have been ascribed to it as the first cause and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal but meerly concomitant or consequent Now his will not to punish containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of this impunity Ergo if Christ merited it it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause and not to Gods Will of not punishing because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ as being determined precisely to a non-punition And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident or rather doth not produce them at all but stands by without efficacy whiles another cause doth the work Therefore herein also the comparison halts The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself §. 24. is this We may as well call Gods Will to create Creation and his Will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his Will to justifie Justification His answer is Creating calling and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God Rep. 1. The answer contradicts it selfe for it yields it to be a proper speech to say that God doth will or purpose to justifie even as proper as to say he doth will or purpose to create to call to glorifie and yet beares us in hand that Justification is perfect and compleat in the minde of God Whatsoever is purposed is future If it have already an actual existence it is not capable of being purposed to exist But the immanent acts of Gods minde are not future but from eternity 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change yet it makes an adherent change as was largely proved from Scripture but now even as if a Malefactour be condemned and afterwards pardoned his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change that is a relative though he remain the same man that he was and be not changed inherently and really And I wonder why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent relative change should be called by the name of that act rather then the purpose of such an act which makes an inherent real change should be called by its name Ars posterior utitur prioris operâ— Morality supposeth nature 3. It is true that Creation c. do make an inherent change But the question is whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words as signifying not the act but the effect of Creation c. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture for the effects not for the act Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety as to say the words Creation Vocation Glorification and what of like nature signifie not those several acts but their effects what could Mr. Eyre say against it To say Creation c. makes an inherent change is to say nothing for it will quickly be answered that the effects of Creation Vocation c. do make an inherent change not the acts If he tell me the words are never used in Scripture but as importing such a change I answer still as he doth of Justification that the words where-ever they are to be found in Scripture are to be understood of the effects not of the act If he yet say that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines I say so too Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te Thus much for the vindication of the foure objections which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himselfe He concludes this discourse thus SECT VIII HOwever were it granted that there was in God from everlasting §. 25. an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this controversie were ended Answ Such a purpose I acknowledge in God to justifie his Elect when they should beleeve and being justified not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons yet so as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment till they do beleeve and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin If this will satisfie Mr. Eyre let him make his most of it But let us see how it ends the controversie First saith he Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely negative but privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of righteousnesse is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual though the â—â—n not to be imputed be not in actual being So is the imputation of righteousnesse 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it selfe Answ If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversie we have done It is here supposed that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousnesse and the non-imputation of sin which should have been proved and not begged And therefore the foundation failing there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure yet a word or two of that also 2. I say therefore that an eternal actual privative non-imputation of future sin is either non-sense or a contradiction let Mr. Eyre take his choice and consider withal what he is like to make of Justification at last for that which is only future can be deprived of nothing but its futurity and if it be ab aeterâ—o deprived of its futurity then it is ab aeterno non futurum and if ab aeterno non futurum then it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity for that which is never future is never capable of being made non-future unlesse we could in eternity concâ—â—e one moment wherein it is made future and another moment wherein it is made non-future which cannot be because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius Now this privative non-imputation of future sin what doth it privare Not the futurity of sin for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world for nothing exists in time which before its existence was not future That then which this non-imputation is privative of must be the imputation of sin to a person cui debitum est imputari for that is the habit which only is contrary to it for as the privative non-imputation of sin present and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae so the like non-imputation of sin future is privative only imputationis futurae debitae The Argument therefore returnes for if this
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
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
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