of the loved and hated Mr. Eyre p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate as to their present condition whilest the Elect are unregenerate but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ that they may be justified which was all I said or intended Fifthly He saith Gods eternall decree to justifie Mr. Eyre p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justification because it secures men from wrath and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes Then what need Christ to die here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction Christs death was not the câ—use of this immanent act or will in God And yet he contradicteth himself for pag. 140. he saith that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election Surely Justification is one of the good things intended in Election and therefore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ till their sin was satisfied for but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act yet Christs death was not a cause of this act and if they were actually discharged from sin how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us but if we were actually discharged we were actually pardoned and that without the merit of Christs death and satisfaction to his justice Sixthly He interpreteth pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight when it is said We are justified in his sight this phrase he saith is variously used 1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God c. 2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice and although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo justificationis in the article of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge but out of his sight Now saith he pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins c. and this was from eternity And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justification stands in this will of God not to punish this is properly Justification in his judgement and then God knew them to be righteous yet he saith in the article of Justification knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight throughout the whole Scripture and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge as much as if he should say If you take this phrase as it is never to be taken then we were justified from eternity And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight and this is to be referred to his legal Justice and this is the most proper and genuine use of it saith he and so we were justâ—fied in the sight of God when he exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins and yet this Justification is not the most proper acceptation of Justification for that was from eternity and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight how well this agrees let the Reader judge Seventhly He taketh Faith objectively Mr. Eyre p. 47. Pag. 58 76. not for the act with connotation of the object but for the object excluding the act as if the word Faith signified Christ and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said We are justified by Faith and the like he understands it of a declarative Justification and so taketh Faith subjâ—ctively not objectively So he taketh it p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the Medium or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience Eightly Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish pag. 63. yet he saith and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish or impute sinne to us yet he acknowledgeth no other act that Christs death is the meritorious cause of he saith it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification Pag. 67 but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us can Christ cause the effect and not the act Merit is an outward procatarâ—â—ical cause moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum and hence God is said for Christs sake to forgive us Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving and is a remote cause of the effect and God as the principall efficient is the immediate cause and what influence then can this remote cause have to produce the effects of Justification and no way by any causal influx to cause the act Though I still willingly acknowledge that the internal moving cause is Gods own will for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will unlesse we make God beholding to another for his being 9thly He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scriptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing Acts 10.43 Acts 26.18 Though it be said whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin it is not said saith he by believing we obtain remission of sins true who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving and possessing what we never had before so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins he distinguisheth between the giving of remission and the receiving it as if one were long before the other To which I answer If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission so it is long before receiving but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given it implies the receiving of it for Relata se mutuo ponunt tollunt thus giving and receiving are together and so forgivenesse of
his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour that will not receive the truth in the love of it Eleventhly Page 66 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie as may appear pag. 66 67. Although saith he Gods will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet saith he we are justified in him but he doth not say for him though the Scriptures speak it plain enough because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ yet we are said to be chosen in him because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. c. Col. 2.14 Heb. 9.12 But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ that we have redemption through his blood he hath obtained eternal redemption for us Eph. 4.32 Eph. 2.16 and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians And that he hath reconciled both that is Jew and Gentle unto God by the Crosse and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification God being moved thereto by the death of Christ but where saith the Scripture that God elected us for the sake of Christ it is true it saith we were chosen in him and he accepted us in the beloved but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ when elected and that God elected us for Christs sake as if Christ were the cause of our Election Vide Dr. Twiss Vind. Lib. 2. Digress p. 74. Interca non dicimus Christum in negotio electionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs cligentis sed duntaxat respectu termini c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis which Arminius mightily contendeth for that he might bring in faith if not as a cause yet as a prerequisite of our Election And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election all that he saith ends in this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by Election but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification for God doth forgive us for Christs sake and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ when he seemingly pleads for it as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith wrought by himself as the effect of his death and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification Twelfthly He saith that Justification is by Faith evidentially and Faith is from Justification causally Mr. Eyre p. 79. and he seeth no absurdity in it p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head and his Hat upon his feet That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification I deny not but that it is the effect of Justification is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother Justification may be an effect of Faith and so the Scripture maketh it but not a cause of Faith For it is neither the efficient nor material nor formall nor final therefore it is no cause for all causes are reducible to these four Heads 1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith I hope he will not rob Gods free grace and the Holy Spirit of his Honour as he doth Christ of his merit of being the sole efficient cause of faith Faith it is the gift of God and the effect of the Spirit which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word it is a known rule Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus and if the act of Justification should be the cause of Faith then according to him being justified from eternity we must be Believers from eternity but how contrary this is to sense reason and experience I need not speak and no man did ever yet dreame much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith 2. It is not the formall cause of Faith for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum it is part of the substance of the thing or effect produced the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect and concurreth to the substance and essence of it but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse not in the act of Justification 3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith for the same reason above named the materiall cause is that which in union with the forme maketh up a substantial compounded body but Faith is no such thing it is not a substance but a quality and hath no matter properly so called and as for the matter improperly so called it is either materia in quâ or circa quam it is either the subject or the object but Justification is not the subject or object of Faith not the subject for the subject of Faith is a Believer nor is Justification the object of Faith for in things that have matter improperly so called the subject and the object are the same the object of Justification then is a Believer the person of a Believer not his Faith 4. And lastly Justification is not the finall cause of Faith for I am not justified that I might believe but rather I believe that I might be justified and salvation is made the end of faith Gal. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.9 and not faith the end of my salvation and thus it appeareth that Faith is not from Justification causally Thirteenthly He saith pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to rely upon him and him alone for this benefit but how contrary this is to his own principles let the Reader judge for he constantly affirmeth that the Elect are justified from eternity and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience Surely when you presse men to believe you presse them to believe they are already justified and not to rely on him for this benefit for if they be justified already what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it they may according to you rely upon him for the evidencing of this
sic reconciliaverit Christus ut inceperit amare quos oderat sicut reconciliatur inimicus inâ—â—ico ut deinde sint amici qui ante se odorant sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus non enem ex quo illi reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii nos coepit diligere sed ante mundum priusquam nos aliquid essemus ergo nos diligenti Deo sumus reconciliati propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias Paulò pòst reconciliat autem cum offendioula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei And Calvin concurreth in the same opinion Calvin instit l. 2. c. 16. Num. 2.3 In hunc ferè modum Spiritus sanctus in Scripturis loquitur Deum fuisse hominibus inimicum in gratiam Christi morte sunt restituti hujus generis locutiones inquit Calvinus ad sensum nostrum sunt accomodatae ut meliùs intelligamus quà m misera sit calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio Hence then we see that there is a reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ which imports not a change in Gods will as if God did then first begin to love or will well unto us as if he did hate and will to damne us before for then we must admit of a proper change in the will of God proceeding from an external cause which is contrary to Scripture and sound reason for as Rutherford hath well observed Ruth Apollexere p 37. Actus reconciliandi nihil novi ponit in Deo neque meritum Christi vel divinam voluntatem movet vel Deum ex nolente in volentem ex odio nos habente in diligentem ut fabulatur Grevinchovius transmature potest Grevinch pag. 109. 1. Quia Deus est immutabilis 2. Quia divinae voluntatis causa non magis dari potest quà m ipsius Dei But whereas we lay under wrath deserved by sin Christ hath causatively removed by his death the guilt of sin and so meritoriously reconciled us to God so that God is not only now placabilis by the death of Christ but placatus for he was placabilis from eternity or else he had never given Christ but now in respect of the satisfaction given he is placatus thus far that we lie no more that are the Elect under an indispensable necessity of perishing which we did before till satisfaction given and this is the formal effect of Christs death and this act of reconciliation which is a transient act done in time compleateth not the action of Election as Wallaeus seemes to affirme Wallaerus Cont Corvinum c. 25. p. 155. and superaddes no new thing in Gods will which was not there before but it removes causatively and meritoriously that that was the cause of enmity which hindred God from being able according to justice supposing his Decree to bestow the good things intended in Election and this reconciliation I grant is plainly held forth in these Scriptures Rom. 5.10 Isa 53.10 Col. 1.21 Col. 2.14 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Pet. 2.24 John 1.29 but this reconciliation is not our formal justification as I shall now prove but virtual only And therefore I adde Seventhly That this reconciliation wrought by Christ or removal of guilt causatively by his death and satisfaction is not properly and formally our justification I therefore affirme with Mr Rutherford Ruther Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 162. that this was a paying of a ransome for us and a legal translation of the punishment of our sins but it is not justification nor ever called justification but rather as he also judiciously hath observed it is justificationis fundamentum whose words are these Ruther Apol. exerâ— p. 42. Satisfactio ut à Christo praestita non est justificatio quia est Dei justificantis fundamentum And therefore his death was ever looked upon by Divines as the procatarctical or outward moving cause of the transient act of God in justification which is properly our justification it is a transient act of God upon Believers which he never did passe till then so saith Mr. Rutherford and therefore Mr. Eyre cannot shelter his opinion under Mr. Rutherfords authority Satisfaction Ru her Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 62. saith he is given indeed by Christ on the Crosse for all our sins before we do believe and before any justified person who lived these fifteen hundred years be borne but alas that is not justification but only the meritorious cause of it and a little after Justification is a forensical sentence in time pronounced in the Gospel and applied unto me now and never while this instant now that I believe Now for the further clearing and evidencing this truth that we are not actually justified untill faith Joh. 3.15 16. Mark 16.16 Acts 13.38 39. Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.9 I shall lay down sundry Propositions to make this manifest and that it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect that this benefit is suspended until faith besides the clear light of the Scripture as you may see in the Margin First Therefore there is a twofold payment of a debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation another of a thing not altogether the same That payment which is of the same thing either by our selves or our surety is not refusable by the Creditour so that if we had paid it or Christ had been constituted a surety by us to pay it then God could not have refused it And therefore Christ being constituted a surety by God and not by us and paying not altogether the same God might have refused the payment and therefore may also appoint how in what order and time it shall be accepted whether to a present discharge or upon a future condition of faith to be performed by us by the help of his Spirit working this in us 'T is true that Christ being admitted by the creditor and taken into bond with us God cannot refuse to accept of Christs death as a satisfaction yet he might appoint as you shall see he did how it shall be accepted whether absolutely or upon some condition afterward to be performed by us Here are three things then to be explained and proved 1. That the sufferings of Christ were not altogether the same in the Obligation 2. That therefore 't is in the power of the Creditour at whose liberty and mercy it is to accept or refuse it antecedently before his acceptation to appoint or ordain it to be immediately available or to be acceptable upon condition 3. That it was agreed upon between the Father and Son that it should not be available to discharge the sinner until actuall faith 1 Therefore I grant which Mr Eyre alledgeth out of Mr. Owen that if he speak in respect of the substance of Christs sufferings there was a samenesse with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the adjuncts or attendencies yea a supereminency of satisfaction
it to be taken tropically only and in a figurative sense for the obedience of Jesus Christ and his righteousnesse by excluding faith so that by faith with him is as much as by Christ or by the righteousnesse of Christ To which I answer that we deny not but faith is to be taken metonymicaly when we speak of the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified and in this sense we are not justified by faith that is the grace of faith as the matter of our righteousnesse for it is no where said that we are justified for our faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though it be often said we are justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our faith tanquam per organum as an instrument of which by and by And therefore our Divines do acknowledge we are justified by faith objectively taken but to take faith altogether for Christ and to deny it as an instrument of applying Christs righteousnesse was never the meaning of our Divines and it were altogether irrational to imagine as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from Justification for as it is an instrumental cause which our Divines unanimously acknowledge it is taken subjectively for the act and grace of faith it self And thus * Ames Med. Theol. cap. 27. sect 14. Ames saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolutè consideratum quo sensu Christus est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum This Justification for Christ is not for Christ absolutely considered in which sense Christ is the cause also of vocation but for Christ apprehended by faith so that Christ alone absolutely considered doth not justifie * Musc Loc. Com v. Artic. in quo justifice mur. So Musculus expressely Quaerendum est hoc loco quo medio justificemur Deóque reconciliemur Est autem duplex medium in hâc causâ unum in quo justificamur alterum per quod justificationis hujus gratiam apprehendâ—mus utrumque necessarium est neutrum enim sine altero justificat We must seek in this place by what meanes we are justified and reconciled to God But here is a double meanes in this cause one in whom we are justified another by which we receive this grace of Justification both are necessary neither justifieth without the other Musc in loc Com. de justifi Artic. in quo justificemur And so * Calvin Inst l. 3. 11. num 7. Calvin calls it the instrumental cause of Justification Sciendum est esse causam instrumentalem duntaxat instrumentum scilicet percipiendae justitiae quâ justificamur We must know therefore it is only an instrumentall cause to wit an instrument of receiving that righteousnesse by which we are justified It were endlesse to reckon up all that give in their suffrage * Willet in Synopsi Art 6. De fide p. 982. for this instrumentality of faith for Justification only I shall adde one Author more Mr. Rutherford in his Apologetical Exercitations because Mr. Eyre alledgeth him in defence of his opinion that he saith * Perkins Reformed Cath. Differ 2. We say otherwise faith justifieth because it is a supernatural instrument c. p. 5 0 vol. 1. Chemnit Bucan Ursin Scheib Met. de causa c. 22. Titu 784. that fides non est organica causa divinae satisfactionis c. which is true and rightly alledged yet he saith to the act of justifying Subordinatur fides tanquam organica causa Ruth Apol. Exeâ— p. 37. and more to this purpose pag. 51 52. And faith is an instrument because it hath the properties of an instrument prima est ut subsit alicui And the first is that it be subservient to the superiour agent by whom it is directed thus it is an instrument wrought by God the pcincipal efficient cause of Justification and is subservient to his act of justifying us and directed by him to this end Secondly That it hath an influx into the effect of the principal agent by a proper causality and that is by receiving Christ offered I see no danger in making it such an instrument for we are not said to justifie our selves because this grace is wrought of God And what if man be causa secunda Epâ—es 2.8 yet is he not therefore a second cause between God and the action for God doth immediately work it and man is purely passive in respect of the habit and although we might answer that the act of receiving is equivalent to a suffering being a renouncing of all our owne righteousnesse and so acknowledge it as a passive instrument only yet for my part I look upon it as a lively active instrument of Justification as * Ball Covenant of Grace pag. 19. Mr. Ball doth which is amongst the number of true causes and that it is not only causa sine qua non a cause without which the thing is not done which indeed is no cause at all for that is only present in the action and doth nothing therein but as the eye is as Mr. Ball observeth an active instrument for sight and the eare for hearing so is faith for justifying If it be demanded whose instrument it is it is the instrument of the soul wrought by the Holy Ghost and is the free gift of God Nor do I fear hereby to be made the Authour of our Justification or to be made injurious to God or Christ seeing faith is wholly Gods work though our act and it hath this place and office of receiving Christ unto Justification by the appointment of God himself Eph. 2 8 and upon this account alone the Apostle acknowledgeth though we be saved by faith yet it is no lesse of free grace because it is the gift of God The fourth and last Question is Whether Faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace 1. Here we must enquire what is the Covenant of Grace 2. In what sense Faith is the condition of the Covenant First What is the Covenant of Grace The Covenant of Grace is that free gracious Covenant of reconciliation which God of his meer mercy in Jesus Christ made with man fallen into sin and misery wherein he hath promised pardon of sin and eternall happinesse by Christ upon condition that he * Mark 16.15 16. John 3.16 Rom. 10.6 9 10. Gal. 3.11 believe in Christ promising also to give unto all those that are * Acts 13.48 John 6.44 ordained unto life his Holy Spirit to inable them to believe and so He will be their God and they shall be his people The Covenant of grace under the Old and New Testament is for substance one and the same under various dispensations * Gal 3.16 17. The distance between God and man is so great that although the reasonable creature do owe obedience to his Creator yet he could never have God obliged to him to give him fruition of himself and eternal happinesse but by some
pray tell me now what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person and of a Regenerate person Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God or that the want of faith hope and love maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate and unregenerate yet indeed maketh none and according to him it cannot be found Pag. 18. Thus the Reader may see that one truth of Mr. Eyre verified where he saith We may no more judge of Books by their Title then of strumpets by their foreheads and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification yet if thou read the Book thou shalt finde Esaus hands though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice And therefore the Reader that is judicious will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait though it swallow the hook I have given thee a few Animadversions but a judicious Reader will observe more This is enough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the infection of this aire And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity HERE I shall premise these few things First That as we hold Justification to be a transient act done in time so there is no transient act but it presupposeth necessarily an immanent act in God And therefore secondly I acknowledge there was an eternal and an immutable act of Gods will decreeing to justifie his Elect in time through faith in Christ Thirdly As for that conditionate decree which Arminians make in God making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will I no way acknowledge and judge it absolutely inconsistent with Gods Nature and Essence but such a conditional decree as is so called subsequently not in respect of God willing but in respect of the thing willed sive objecti voliti is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect which salvation they shall be brought unto by faith in Christ not that faith is the cause of the act of Election or God willing their salvation yet it may be the cause of the thing willed a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the obtaining of salvation for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 and belief of the truth and Peter saith The strangers he wrote unto according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree Because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy so I willingly grant it to be immutable for he that changeth his purpose doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating or for want of power to execute it neither of which can be ascribed to God without blasphemy And hence the Scripture saith The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his Fourthly I grant that Christ was elected and constituted to be a Head and all the Elect were predestinated to be his members and in this sense we were chosen in him not existing but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him And that this act was one in God in respect of whole Christ mystical although I deny that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ which is done upon believing yet I grant a certain relative respect and mutual relation between them In which sense the Elect are called his people before he saved them from their sins and while they were not yet converted and his sheep for which he laid down his life although not yet brought home to him yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election much lesse their foreseen faith or good works although he be the cause of the effects of their Election as therefore this salvation unto which we are predestinated is the act of God so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election and the means of salvation and our salvation is the end in respect of us but as this salvation is our good so Christ is the cause of it Fifthly Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head and the Elect his Members yet was not he a Head actually from eternity nor the Elect actual members because he had not a mystical body from eternity and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ yet were not they actually justified For * Praedestinatio enim anâ—e applicationemgratiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis sed latet solùm in praedestinante Ames Medul Theol. cap. 25. sect 2. Predestination maketh no internall difference between the Elect and Reprobate untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its terme * Praedestinatio enim nec terminum nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinationis ordinetur ut sit Amesii Medul c. 25. s 8. nor object but the futurity of both Having premised these things which I have the rather more fully done because he representeth me and such as differ from him as Arminians and Papists I shall now prove that we were not justified from eternity 1. Gods decree to justifie is terminus diminuens is a terme of diminution and therefore is not actuall Justification 't is amor ordinativus but it is not amor collativus it is a love ordaining and preparing good things for us but not an actuall bestowing them Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy a discharge from the guilt of sin and death a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life this may be intended but is not actually performed by Predestination for it 's a known rule Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two therefore I argue 2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification Therefore we were not justified from eternity The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre and a negative argument in matters of great
upon a man at the same time as sinful and righteous if you mean by it an estate of sin and a righteous or justified estate for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement to judge them otherwise then they are but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature and what they are by grace 't is not denied but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate and in a state of grace at the same time implies an errour in his judgement which is blasphemy to imagine and is a contradiction in adjecto 5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose Therefore that immanent act or eternal purpose of God to justifie us is not our justification The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture Eph. 4.32 2 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12 God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians God was in Christ reconciling the world c. and whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us c. And to deny it were with Socinus that cursed Heretick to deny the satisfaction of Christ The Minor is acknowledged by himself page 67. It may be he will answer as he saith in pag. 66 67. If Justification be taken for the will of God so Christs death is not the * Nihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art 2. cause c. but if you take it for the thing willed or effect of this will by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Argument and here the Reader may see he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken but of no act of God in justifying Besides our deliverance from the Law is an effect of Justification not Justification it self which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us upon which followeth our delivery from the Law 6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity then Christ died in vain or his death was not to purchase forgivenesse but to apply forgivenesse or to manifest Gods love not to satisfie Gods justice But Christs death was not in vaine he died not only to apply but to purchase forgivenesse not to manifest Gods love only but to satisfie Gods justice Therefore the first consequence is evident because his death was in vain as to the act of Justification for as in the former Argument Christs death was not the cause of that act and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will how can it cause the effect and be no cause of any act of Gods will for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will which is properly our justification which act he will not acknowledge The second inference is evident for if we were justified from eternity then we were forgiven from eternity and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most for he did not purchase it or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world but the Scripture is evident That he hath purchased forgiveness In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of our sins and he died to satisfie Gods justice hence he is a propitiation for our sins 7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death because if we were justified from eternity then Justification is a due debt to the Elect and then what place is left for Christs merit for it must be bonum indebitum that that is properly merited was not due before but if we were justified then it was due and so no roome is left for Christs merits 8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath is not Justification But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath The Major is evident for how can he be justified that is not secured from condemnation The Minor I prove because notwithstanding Gods decree Christ must die there was a necessity of Christs death supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect but not actually it is true because a man is Elect he shall not as to the event be damned but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse but this is not an actual acquittance or discharge from sin when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect that is to such as are declared or evidenced to be Elect by believing or effectual vocation And that the Apostle must mean so is evident the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation Now this he proveth because they are Elect The Elect shall not be condemned but you are Elect Now how shall this be known by faith and our effectual vocation Hence in the 30. ver he speaketh of effectual vocation as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure Why is Calling put before Election because our Election is unknown to any till it be evidenced by their effectual Calling Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification without some means to know it for how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifested and how shall it be manifested but by Faith and Sanctification therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse must be understood by the Elect Now if you take the Proposition as an universal Negative or universal Affirmative No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin or All Elect Believers are freed from the charge of sin both are true but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith the Proposition is not true for the Word may and doth charge him with sin for it threateneth damnation to him but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin and God doth look upon him as a sinner and he ought to charge himself with sin therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin yet all the Elect are not formally discharged from sin As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre that he should speak as weakly as if he said Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it should say that by omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the expression legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus His opinion is as
that is the eye or the visive faculty Secondly It must be moved acted and directed by the superiour agent to its end as a Carpenter useth his artificial instruments to the building of a House Thirdly That it be used to produce an effect exceeding the efficacy and activity of the instrument so that the effect is more noble then the instrumental cause of it As a Minister is Gods instrument by whom men are converted and brought to faith but is not called an instrument in respect of the natural birth of a childe begotten by him because in the first the effect transcends the efficacy of the instrument but it is not so in respect of the natural birth because there is a proportion between the cause and the effect Fourthly It must be subservient to the action of the principal agent hence the action of the principal agent and the instrument is the same Fifthly That it have an influence into the effect by a proper causality I will apply this to faith only I will here adde whether it be in the nature of true causes and to what cause it must be reduced because there are but foure Heads of causes The Material Formall Efficient and Final * Scalig. Exer. 297. s 3. Some excâ—pt that an instrument is not in the number of true causes because it doth not move nisi moveatur unlesse it be moved but this is not essential to a cause to move and not to be moved for so the Efficient should not be a cause because it is moved by the end and so all adjuvant sociall causes should be excluded Therefore it is a true cause yet not a first cause as * Plato Galenus ut refert Scheib Met. l. 1. c. 22. p. 308. some imagine but is reducible to one of those foure Heads of causes which are generally acknowledged to be as above recited Therefore I take it to be reduced to the Efficient and so it is an instrumental efficient cause not the externall impulsive efficient cause of it that is peculiar to the merits of Christ Now that faith is such an instrumental cause I prove because all those properties of an instrumental cause above cited belong to it First It is a necessary antecedent unto Justification as I have already proved for without Faith no man is justified it is not barely antecedent as causa sine qua non as a cause without which a thing is not done which is only present in the action but doth nothing therein and therefore is an equivocal cause and that is indeed none having nothing but the name of it but is that by which it is done Secondly Faith is moved acted directed by GOD the superiour Agent unto this end GOD is the principall Agent in Justification Acts 13.48 Faith is wrought by GOD in the soul for it is his gift and directed by God to this end to bring us to Justification He hath ordained us not only to life but to Faith as a means to obtain it As many as were ordained unto life believed * And whom â—e predestinated them he also called and whom he called he also justified And if God had not appointed Faith as a meanes to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Faith could not produce such an effect and God hath expressed his will That he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth should not perish but have eternal life These two Propositions have been sufficiently confirmed already Thirdly That the effect to wit Justification doth exceed the efficacy and act vity of Faith I think none will deny so if we consider the excellency of the priviledges of Justification how thereby our sins are pardoned we reconciled adopted into the number of Gods children and so are made coheirâ—s with Christ of eternal life How could Faith merit or effect this There is no proportion between this grace and the great things received by it Fourthly It is subservient to the action of the principal Agent not that it is needful to God as if he could not produce the effect without it had it been his will and pleasure as a Carpenter dependeth upon his instruments in working without which he cannot build But God judged it the fittest means to apply Christs righteousnesse to Justification and hath given to Faith this peculiar office to apply it so as that God hath concluded with himself to justifie none unlesse they believe Hence though Justification be Gods act yet Faith which he worketh and freely giveth is the means by which Gods eternal will and purpose to justifie is executed not by working any new will in God but being that condition upon which God hath purposed promised and by Covenant obliged himself to performe it and thus it concurreth with God and God with it to the act of Justification Fifthly and lastly Mr. Ball p. 19. It hath an influence by a peculiar causality into Justification as Master Ball saith on the Covenant of Grace As the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is Faith for justifying Hence the Scripture frequently saith we are justified by and through Faith which indemonstrably sheweth the instrumentality of this grace And although this act be nothing but a receiving and so equivalent only to a passive instrument God effecteth Justification and passeth the sentence forgiveth the sinner Faith receiveth the mercy offered receiveth Christ and in him forgivenesse and so believeth unto Justification Nor do we in so saying Deify Faith nor commit sacriledge against Christ the power of life and death is Gods and he forgiveth not Faith Christ is our righteousnesse for which we are justified Faith is not our righteousnesse but an active lively instrument of the soul wrought by God to apply this righteousnesse and it is more properly called in reference to God his work then his instrument yet as it is subservient to his end or work of Justification I see not any reason why it may not as fitly be called his instrument to our Justification as any thing else he useth to produce an effect by may be called his instrument not because he needs it but because he will not do it without it And hence there is a twofold action in Faith as in other instrumental causes one instrumentall the other proper and peculiar to it self The instrumental action of Faith is that it helpeth the action of God in justifying because now God according to his own constitution in the Gospel may justifie which observing his own order he cannot do untill Faith that which is proper to it is as it relates to the subject and so it is an instrument of the soul to receive and apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Nor have I asserted any thing in this that is inconsistent with the freenesse of Gods grace For First I make not Faith an uncertain effect depending upon mans free-will upon which the act of Justification should depend Acts 13.48 but a certain
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the
had in Christ but only the way and means by which we obtain the things purposed in Election to wit in Christ or for Christs sake And therefore as it is not said that we were sanctified from eternity though he chose us in Christ that we should be holy so neither are we justified from eternity for there is no difference because a man cannot be the subject of a moral change to passe from a state of death and life till he do exist though he may be predestinated to be the subject of such a change in time any more then he can be the subject of a physical or natural change Nor doth that passage in the 6th Verse confirme it where it is said He hath made us accepted in the Beloved for that is to be understood of the Elect Ephesians as they were now regenerate and not to be referred to Gods eternall purpose And all this is made more manifest in that those that were Elect and chosen in Christ are said to be children of wrath without God without Christ and without hope in the world which as we have shewed is inconsistent with the state of Justification The second place in Timothy where it is said 2 Tim. 1.9 10. That grace was given us in Christ before the world began but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ holds forth no such thing as eternal Justification but grace is said to be given in respect of the firmnesse and immutability of Gods purpose Therefore in this place Gods giving is not an actual collation but an eternal preparation of grace to be given infallibly to the Elect. And thus Augustinus Apostolus datam dixit gratiam August de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 34. quando nec erant adhuc quibus daretur quoniam in dispositione ac praedestinatione Dei jam sactum erat quod suo tempore futurum erat The Apostle saith Grace was given when they were not as yet to whom it should be given because in the appointment and predestination of God that was done which in its time should be done Vide Junius Calvin and to this Junius and Calvin give in their suffrage with him The other Scriptures alledged by hâ—m are in pag. 128. which relate to the death of Christ from whence he would prove because it is said that we were then reconciled and had redemption in his blood therefore we were justified before faith from the time of Christs death But observe how the places brought for our Justification from Christs death do utterly overthrow the eternity of Justification For if we were then enemies and then reconciled then was he not reconciled from eternity That in Ephes 1.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins signifieth nothing but that the price of redemption was paid by him and we have forgivenesse of sins because it is purchased for us but it is not actually given For although Christs death be the meritorious cause of Justification yet is it not the only cause and therefore we are not actually justified till all those causes be actually which have an influence into it Col. 1.20 21. and that in Col. 1.20 21. signifies no more but that peace is thus farre made by the blood of his Crosse that now the cause of enmity is removed by a satisfaction made by the death of Christ and God is now willing to forgive such as believe whence he addeth these mercies named shall be enjoyed if they continue in the faith grounded Ver. 23. and setled and be not moved from the hope of the Gospel Eph. 2.13 14. And the like I affirme of that place Ephes 2.13 14. and of that in 2 Cor. 5.19 2 Cor. 5.19 20. we are causally and meritoriously reconciled Thâ—s was Gods designe in Christ in giving him to die but God and they were not actually reconciled that believe not Hence the Apostle exhorteth in the same place the Corinthians to be reconciled to God and when God justifies and is actually reconciled the reconciliation is mutual there is a change in Gods dispâ—nsation though not a change in his affection and when it is saâ—d that we are said to sit with him in heavenly places this is spoken in regard of a right purchased Eph. 2.6 and the certainty of the thing to be obtained though we do not yet personally sit with him and all such places as speak of our being enemies to God and that while we were enemies we were reconciled signifie nothing but this that we were translated out of a state of enmity into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ as soon as we believe Rom. 5.10 as that Rom. 5.10 for in the first verse he speaketh of them that were already justified by faith and in the 11th We have now received the atonement so that there he speaketh of actual believers not that they received this while they remained unbelievers and enemies to God and if you understand it of what was done for us before we had faith and were regenerated it signifieth nothing but the reconciliation meritoriously made by removing the guilt of sin by a sufficient price paid even while we were actually in the state of enmity but the paying of the price is not the whole nor the formalis ratio justificationis For this price paid is part of the matter of our righteousnesse but the formal nature of Justification stands in the imputation of this righteousnesse which is an actual bestowing of it and in our receiving of it by faith then Mr. Eyre pag. 132. and not till then are we formally justified Here Mr. Eyre objecteth two things First That Christ did not only pay the price of our reconciliation Object 1 but that God did so farre accept it for us that upon the payment he did not impute our sins to us for the Apostle define Justification to be a non-imputation of sin 1. This is petitio principii a begging the question to say God did accept it so as he did not impute sin to us that is at the same time when our sins were imputed to Christ 2. I adde that Gods imputing sin to Christ is virtually a non-imputing it to us but not formally and therefore not a formall Justification 3. I adde that the non-imputation of sin containeth not the whole nature of Justification unlesse under it be comprized the imputation of righteousnesse Secondly He objecteth that the paiment of the full price for our Object 2 deliverance from the curse of the Law is a yielding the question that we are actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid To this objection I have already given sufficient answer but because it is the maine Argument to which he and all of his judgement trust I will here also give a solution to it I
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this
sense he imputeth it not when he pardoneth Secondly His second Argument is thus That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification By this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. To which I answer 1. By distinguishing upon your Major proposition that which doth secure presently actually fully and formally from wrath without any other cause intervening is Justification And then in taking the Proposition thus I deny the Minor that Election doth presently actually fully and formally discharge the sinner from guilt and wrath it is but a purpose in God to do it the sinner is not thereby discharged Hence as soon as he is borne he is a childe of wrath which he could not be if he were justified from eternity and so continueth untill faith and the death of Christ is a necessary cause intervening between this decree and the discharge for which he is discharged and without which supposing the decree he cannot be secured from wrath and Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth p. 140. that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justitià bestow upon the Elect those good things intended in Election How then did Gods decree secure them from wrath if he mean only eventually it doth secure because they shall not have sin imputed to the condemnation of their persons this is true but to little purpose to prove a present formal discharge such as Justification is Therefore when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Apostle doth not speak of the Elect antecedenter antecedently to their faith but executivè or consequenter as it is executed and compleated in those that are Elected as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burg. of Justif p. 186. hath observed Therefore by the Elect he meaneth the Elect Believers therefore if you resolve it either into a universal negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a universal affirmative all Elect persons are free from the charge of sin if by the Elect you understand the Elect before Faith and Regeneration both Propositions are absolutely false for otherwise Christ could not have been charged with our sin if Election did free us from the charge then was there no necessity of Christs dying and then no person is borne a sinner that is an Elect person nor was ever under condemnation then neither was Adam a sinner under condemnation for I take him to be an Elect person and then no man ever was under condemnation for we receive not guilt from him unlesse he also were guilty and we in him But if you take it for Elect Believers then both Propositions are true and this is agreeable to the scope of the place for he had said a little before Whom he predestinated them he called and whom he called that is unto faith them he justified Mr. Eyre p. 64. As for the Answers which he giveth to the Objections framed by himself I have considered them and derected the weakness of them already There remaineth but one Objection which I have not yet given any Animadversion upon and therefore will do it here Object He saith 't is objâ—cted that hereby by making Justification to be Gods eternal will not to punish Justification and Election are confounded His answer to this is that they are not confounded because Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto his will not to punish includes precisely and formally only some part of the meanes To this I answer that according to Mr. Eyre's opinion there is no distinction at all between Election and Justification for if it be the same act of Gods will if the object be the same if the end of God in both be the same if the means conducing to that end be the same then is there no difference at all according to him bur the antecedent is true Therâ—fore That with him it is the same act pag. 61. is evident pag. 62. for he acknowledge no transient act but an immanent eternal act of his will purposing salvation in Christ that the object is the same needeth no proof the end is the same the glory of Gods grace in both and that the means conducing to that end is the same Let him that hath but a sparke of reason judge for if the act be the same the object the same and the end the same in both why the meanes should not be the same no reason can be imagined and let him assigne what means God hath appointed for the execution of the eternal Election and we shall easily shew it that the same thing God hath appointed as a necessary Medium to effect our Justification according to his opinon which hold it to be one and the same eternal act of his will And let the Reader observe that he maketh no cause of our Justification but Gods own eternal good will and pleasure as in the case of Election for Christs death with him is not the cause of the act of Justification but of the effects of it of the thing willed and so Christs death with him is no antecedent meanes to effect the act of Justification but a subsequent meaâ—â—â—o fulfill the purpose of his will and what a good friend he is to the Gospel to debase the merits of Christ let the undestanding Christian judge As for those arguments which he useth to disprove that our faith pag. 52. or faithful actions are that Evangelical righteousnesse by which we are justified maketh nothing against me For if we speak of our Evangelical righteousnesse that is the matter of our righteousnesse or that for which we are justified I acknowledge it is wholly in Christ subjective and it is ours only by imputation and that faith is but the instrument to apply this as for that Reverend * Mr. Baxter Brother and Servant of Christ against whom these are leveled he hath since explained his meaning that he understandeth not faith to be the matter of our righteousnesse or a co-ordinate righteousnesse with Christ but he calleth it our subordinate Evangelical righteousnesse in which he disagreeth from us and I confesse it had been more satisfaction to his Brethren if he had not used that terme And therefore being not concerned in it I passe them by The next File of Arguments that he brings up against our cause we finde in the 9th Chapter which though he will have them give fire yet they do no execution nor will they stand the Field and abide the shock of a solid answer which because they are a company of tame Souldiers we will take them prisoners and see how they will abide to be examined He saith that faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie for Justification Where I
premise that we understand not by qualifying us for Justification any moral disposing and qualifying us sensu pontificio in the Papists sense inchoating our Justification as if we were to be justified by something inherent in us but by qualifying we mean nothing but this that according to the tenour of the Gospel and New Covenant it makes us subjects capable of the act of Justification for as much as the condition required is now fulfilled and as faith is Gods gift so it is a passive condition as it is our act so it is an active instrument not elicited by the power of free will but by assistance of special grace whereby we apprehend Christs righteousnesse for Justification and in this sense we are justified by faith according to the Scriptures Now let us consider his Arguments First That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in way of opposition to other workes of Sanctification but to interpret Faith meerly thus that it is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification We shall reverence the Major and let it go but must commit his Minor to the Marshalsie as a Rebel against reason For though we make Faith a condition and a passive condition in the sense explained yet this hindereth not but that it may be an instrumental cause of Justification and in this sense we give more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Besides we make not as he affirme works necessary antecedents to Justification necessary antecedents to Salvation we do but not unto Justification For we acknowledge that of August to be true opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum And now I shall retort this Argument upon himself That Interpretation of the phrase which giveth no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in a way of opposition to other works of Sanctification but to interpret Faith subjectively taken thus that it justifieth us only because it evidenceth our Justification is to attribute no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Ergo. If he answer that faith subjectively taken for the grace of faith is not opposed to works because it is a work I answer 1. If it be a work yet it is the work of God and not ours 2. It justifieth not as a work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse Nay 3. I see not but the opposition stand as strongly as if he took faith objectively for Christs righteousnesse or obedience for certainly the matter of our Justification is the obedience of Christ to the Law and so we are justified by works properly in the person of another Secondly That Interpretation which gives no more to faith then to works of nature such as are found in natural unregenerate men is not true but to interpret faith a necessary antecedent of our Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature I deny the Minor for conditio sine quà non a condition whithout which a thing is not done may be a necessary condition yet it is not so necessary as that is which is a cause by which the thing is done the eye-lids must be opened as a necessary antecedent unto sight But will you therefore say it is as equally necessary as the eye it self so it is in the present case sight of sin sorrow for it are necessarily required in the subject where God will work faith but it followeth not that they are as equally necessary and have as much influence into Justification as Faith The third Argument is this That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a passive condition is not a proper efficient cause of Justification I answer by distinguishing upon the word by That by which we are justified as the material cause of our Justification or the matter for which we are justified is the meritorious proper efficient cause of Justification and in this sense we are not justified by faith 2. It may be taken for the instrument by which that righteousnesse for which we are justified is apprehended and applied and in this sense we are justified by faith and taking it in this latter sense I deny the Major Nor is faith only the instrumental cause of Justification in foro conscientiae as a little after you affirme though it be taken properly for the act of believing but in foro Dei nor a bare condition without which but a condition by which by vertue of Gods Covenant it is obtained and therfore I acknowledg a true causality in faith unto Justification Fourthly That which maketh us concurrent causes in the formall act of Justification with God and Christ because our Justification in respect of efficiency is attributed to them is not true but to make faith morally disposing us to Justification maketh us concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification I answer 1. He attributeth more to us then we affirme we say not that faith doth moraly dispose us to Justification as he taketh it in the Argument it is no meritorious moving cause of Justification nor is all moral disposition a morall causality 2. The Major is not universally true for Faith is a social cause but not a co-ordinate cause of Justification Besides what Faith doth it doth it virtute agentis principalis and by vertue of Gods Covenant not as our act nor by any inherent worth in it self 1. Nor doth it follow from hence that if any condition be required in order to our Justification then it is not free for the very condition is freely given nor is it left to be performed by the power of our free-will this would hinder the freenesse of Justification 2. It is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ but Christ and Faith are not causes ejusdem generis for Christs righteousnesse is that for which we are justified Faith is only that whereby this righteousnesse is received and applied unto Justification Fifthly That Interpretation which makes Works going before Justification not only not sinful but acceptable to God and praeparatory to the grace of Justification is not according to the minde of the Holy Ghost but to interpret Justification by faith that faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a work or works which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace The Major we shall let passe as innocent the Minor hath guilt and weaknesse more then enough to be imputed to it 1. We say Faith doth not us qualifie as an inherent disposition preparing us for a
faile of nor be led aside with the errour of the wicked fall from your own stedfastnesse but may grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Christ who is our hope shall be the prayer of him who is Your remembrancer at the throne of grace and your soules-servant in the worke of Christ THOMAS WARREN TO THE Christian Reader Courteous Reader IN this intervall of church discipline which is no small dammage to the church and a manifest injury to the Kingly office of Iesus Christ every bold adversary to the truth taketh liberty to question and denie the fundamentall articles of religion and being equally infranchized with the Orthodox in the liberty of the presse and armed with this advantage that the nature of man is more prone to embrace errour then truth and the Athenian itch having infecting the mindes of most men that they spend their time in nothing else but to relate or heare some new thing hence the world is at once infected with dangerous heresies and mens judgements are leavened with an antipathy against the knowne and received truths of Christ hinc illae lachrimae But to see Mr. Eyre and men of some name for learning walking in the throng of seducers and to list themselves among the common adversaries to religion and to become Satans decoyes to ensnare the simple and leade them from the simplicity of the gospel to see such men ascend the chair and turne professors and defenders of errour yea even panders to the flesh it is time for the lords servants to stand up as Champions for the truth But alas that complaint of Hierome concerning the seducers of his time may well be taken up Ardentius ab illis defenditur haeresis quà m à nostris oppugnatur Heresie is more zealously defended by them then opposed by us I confesse I prize the vnity of brethren and next to the peace of a good conscience the Churches peace provided that peace and truth may live together but where truth must be strangled to preserve peace it is better to ransome the life of truth though it be with the losse of peace For which cause I have appeared in this controversie not so much to vindicate my self defamed by Mr. Eyre as to rescue the truth which he doth under the shew of defending the freenesse of Gods grace therefore tâ—e more dangerously seeke to destroy his errour being of such consequence that it subverteth if received the whole order of the Gospel it opposeth a maine article of religion openeth a wide doore to profanenesse And next to this my respects to some to whom my ministery may be usefull hath drawn me forth to this vindication to whom I may say as Augustin Mihi sufficit conscientia mea Aug ad fratres in cremo vobis autem necessaria est fama mea The testimony of my owne conscience that I have not in that Sermon which M. Eyre doth oppose departed from the truth had been sufficient to me but to them a vindication of my selfe and it may be necessary What Mr. Eyres intentions were to rend the Churches peace and to trouble the world with the untimely birth of this errour I cannot tell sure I am that if it were not finis opperantis yet 't is finis operis the end of the work if not of the authour to unsettle christians in the doctrine of faith It may be because he reckons himselfe to be one of the manly sort of Divines he speakes of and not being content to lie in obscurity he is willing to raise an estate of reputation by letting the world see how able he is to defend an errour There are many who as learned Vossius well observes gloriosum putant toti antiquitati bellum indicere nec flâ—ccipendunt si haeretici modo docti habeantur thinke it a glorious thing to oppose all antiquity nor doe they care to be accounted heretiques so they may have the repute of being learned And that his opinion viz. the Antedency of justification unto faith is repugnant to all orthodox antiquity is above contradiction Neither is there any one errour against which Scripture light doth more rise up in armes then this and I appeale to every intelligent reader whether it doth not run contrary to the very veine of the gospel which teacheth justification to be the effect not the cause of faith as he in terminis doth assert p. 78 79. that he seeth no absurdity to say that faith is from justification causally and justification by faith evidentially It was the complaint of Aug in his time sub laudibus naturae latent inimici gratiae but we may invert and alter the proposition and say sub laudibus gratiae latent inimici fidei enemies to faith shelter themselves under the praises of Gods free grace And herein I wonder much at Mr. Eyre that he should oppose grace and faith when he knoweth that the adversaries he opposeth hold not faith a condition of the Covenant either in an Arminian or Popish sense and that the Scripture saith that it was the purpose of God to justifie us by faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4.16 2 Ephes. 8. as the reader may see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 4 to the Rom. 16 therefore it is of faith that it might be of grace and in 2. Ephes 8. by grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of workes lest any man should boast I can scarcely have so much faith and charity to thinke that a man can live by faith that sets himselfe to destroy that grace of faith by which we live however 1 Eph. 18.19 â— 1 Rom. 17. 2 Hâ—b 4. 3 Eph. 17. he is a small friend to this grace which the Scripture doth so highly commend as being wrought by the same almighty power that wrought in Christ when God raised him from the dead by which the just shall live and by which Christ dwelleth in our hearts that shall deprive it of the most vitall and noble act of it viz. of vniting us to Christ and intitling us to the righteousnesse of Christ unto justification I plead not for faith so as to set the crowne upon her head which is due to Christ alone shee is content to be the friend of the bridegroom neither seeketh she to share with Christ in the honour of Salvation Faith is content and all that have it to wither in their reputation it is fit that Christ should increase and we decrease we plead not then to have faith to be a corrivall with Christ to be a sociall and coordinate cause in the justification of a sinner And yet wee cannot but give it that office which God hath assigned to it to be an instrumentall cause of justification wherein it hath the praecedency above all other graces as being the only instrument ordained of God to receive Christs righteousnesse and so not only to
after that adde he p. 67. l 16. blot out for p. 71. l. 30. after being blot out that p. 74. l. 13. for affirming r. affirme p. 91. l 1. blot out but p. 99. l r. blot out the fiâ—st as p 108. l. 14. for malem r. mallem p. 134. l. 27. blot out for p. 145. l. 25. for there read theirs p. 146. l 16. foâ— noâ— not p. 150. l. 26. for the first is r. as p. 154. l. 11. for my r. mee p. 158. l. 5. after unto adde were elected p. 159. l. 33. for these r. thee p. 176. l. 26. after but adde we p. 180. l. 29. for at r. as p. 183. l. 2. after the first foresight add but and for nor r. not p. 195. l. 37. blot and p. 199. line 34. for soile r. soule October 13. 1654. Imprimatur EDM. CALAMY A Christless-estate A HOPELESSE-ESTATE EPHESIANS 2.12 That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world THe Scope of the Apostle in this Chapter is the same with that in the former to set the forth freeness of Gods grace in Christ proving sometimes in hypothesi that the converted Ephesians sometimes in thesi that all the faithful are saved by grace And he useth many Arguments Arg. 1 to this end the first is drawn from their natural estate O Ephesians if ye consider your selves in the common estate of nature you will finde that such was your condition that you could not be delivered from it but by grace which Argument he amplifies by a sixfold consideration of their natural condition First in the state of nature they were not onely defiled with sinne but were altogether dead in sinnes and trespasses and were no more able to help themselves then the dead is able to arise from the grave and therefore unlesse the same Almighty power that raised Christ from the dead had beene exerted to quicken them they could never have beene saved In the second place verse 2. He telleth them that their whole life was a life of sinne though they were dead to grace and spiritual life yet they were alive to sinne Yea thirdly that they lived after the custome of natural and unregenerate men who did minde and savour onely the things of this life And fourthly that they lived as those that had Satan the God of this world for their guide and were so farre from being led by the Spirit of God that the same uncleane spirit and enemy to mans salvation did rule them which now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience Fifthly in the third verse he sheweth that they had their conversation in the lusts of the flesh doing what their vaine minde did dictate their corrupt appetite and sinful affections did desire Sixthly The Apostle amplifies this by comparison shewing that the estate of himself and the beleeving Jewes was no better then theirs both in respect of sinne and punishment being all by nature the children of wrath as well as others In the fourth verse the Apostle layeth down a second Argument Argument 2 to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in our salvation drawn from the Author of our salvation the inward impulsive moving cause prevailing with him to do this for us the rich Author is God the moving cause his free love but God who is in mercy for the great love wherwith he loved us did deliver us In the fifth verse he shewes the order of Gods dispensing grace to us and that is by the redemption of Christ amplified from the time that while we were yet dead in sinnes God quickened us with Christ and therefore by grace we are saved that is while we were dead in sinnes and trespasses a Covenant passed between God and Christ our Redeemer and God gave us unto Christ that by him we should be redeemed and when he raised Christ he gave us a pledge of our redemption and justification in him In the sixth verse he telleth us that we are not only quickened and raised to life begotten to a living hope of eternal life but we were in a manner raised with him and ascended with him as in our head and set down together with him in heavenly ace spl that is in respect of our right purchased we had it before faith but in respect of actual possession and application of these mercies this is not conferred upon our persons untill we do beleeve In the seventh verse the Apostle sheweth what end God had in all this that in the ages to come be might shew the exceeding riches of his grace and kindnesse towards us in Jesus Christ In the eighth ver he concludes from his former discourse that therefore we are saved by grace And goeth on to prove it by a third Argument taken from the meanes whereby this grace is received and applied we are saved by grace because we are saved by faith where faith is taken metonymically for Christ apprehended by faith yet not excluding faith as a meanes to apply Christ to us and that which is due to Christ is attributed to faith because it alone is the onely instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto justification Now the Apostle to prevent a mistake lest any should think because faith is our act that therefore we are saved by something in us he answers that though it be our Act it is Gods gift and therefore we cannot challenge any thing in the work of Salvation because we are passive in this work it is a grace wrought in us by God to apply Christ to us and therefore in 9. verse he removes all works whether performed by grace or nature from being the cause of our salvation knowing how deeply this error is rooted in all men by nature to seek righteousnesse in themselves and he gives a reason why God will not have salvation by works because as they cannot stand with grace as faith may so they are enemies to the glory of God and will lift up the heart of man to glory in himself therefore God will have it to be by grace received by faith that no man might boast In the tenth verse the Apostle having shewed that our salvation is only of grace and the meanes by which we are made capable of all saving good in Christ by faith excluding all causes in man lest he should boast he layeth down a new reason why we cannot be saved by works because in the work of regeneration we are wholly Gods workmanship in Christ created to good works and we are as meerly passive in this work as in the first work of creation for as no creature contributed any thing to its own being and as there was no disposition in man to make himself a man so there is naturally no ability in us to contribute any thing to our new creation therefore seeing all we have and are inabled to do is by grace we are not saved
justified without the intervention of faith nay the Scriptures expressely threatning unbelievers with damnation and limiting salvation to Believers do evidently declare the contrary Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively for although this argument be infirme in matters of lesse consequence yet in fundamentals it is of great force such as this is by what means this righteousnesse of Christ shall be applied to justification therefore in such truths as concerne our salvation this is of maine importance it is not written therefore it is not to be believed Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely that we should be justified whether we believe or not believe the matter had been otherwise And when we make faith the condition necessary to justification we do not with Arminians make it a potestative uncertain condition depending upon the liberty of mans free will but though it be contingent in respect of us yet it comes to passe necessarily in respect of God who hath ordained unto faith such as he hath chosen in Christ unto salvation And it is an effâ—ct of the death of Christ which shall be given in Gods appointed time to such for whom Christ died Nor do we make faith a condition of Christs acquiring pardon nor an instrument to make his merits satisfactory nor an organical instrument of Gods acception of it Christs merits have their worth whether we believe or not and Gods will cannot be moved by any externall cause but it is a prerequisite condition by Gods appointment which is to be fulfilled by us through his grace working it whereby Christs righteousnesse shall be applied to us for justification And as for those Scriptures that speak of Gods being reconciled by the death of Christ they are to be restrained to actual Believers to whom Paul wrote his Epistles or if they be indefinitely understood of all the Elect they hold forrh no more then that Christ hath by a sufficient price paid removed the cause of enmity meritoriously but not by any formal application of it unto any until faith And whereas they speak of Gods reconciling us while enemies from whence our Adversaries inferre that we are reconciled while enemies antecedently to faith this only shewes what we were when Christ died for us enemies to God as well as others but that we are while we remain so reconciled is atheologon and not worthy of him that savours of the Spirit of grace nor can any sober man that keeps his wits company imagine any such thing in God who is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity 5. Besides in the fifth place it is considerable among what sort of causes the death of Christ is to be ranked it is a meritorious cause which is to be numbred amongst moral causes Christ in his death is not to be looked upon as a natural agent that the effect of his sufferings should work immediately but as a voluntary agent and hence the effect doth not necessarily follow but at the will of the agent moved thereby yea the effect of a moral cause or voluntary agent may sometimes precede the cause as in this of the death of Christ by which all that believed in Christ to come were justified as well as we though Christ had not as yet made an actuall satisfaction by his death for in this case the effect is wholly at the will of the Agent moved thereby who together with Christ hath suspended the effect untill faith I adde in the 6th place Bonum est ex integris causis and therefore where many causes concurre to the producing of one effect the effect is not accomplished till every cause hath contributed his proper influence Now there are three causes of mans justification which may therefore be called sociall causes but not co-ordinate but the two last subordinate to the first The first is the efficient cause that is God of his free mercy The second is the meritorious cause the death and obedience of Christ The third is the instumentall cause and that is saith Now as the efficient justifies not without the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental and much lesse the instrumental without the other but all three conjoyned constitute a person actually justified in the sight of God And whereas they argue that those Scriptures that speak of justification by faith are to be understood in foro conscientiae that they do but justifie us declaratively and serve to evidence justification but not to conferre justification upon us neither are we justified by faith say they in the sight of God I will therefore propound three arguments against this which is a chief corner-stone in the Antinomians building 1. That that doth change and alter the state of a sinner and put him into a new condition in refrence to God that doth more then evidentially justifie But faith doth thus alter the state of a sinner and the Major is above contradiction the Minor is no lesse true which I prove thus If before faith a mna is in the state of damnation and upon believing he be put into a state of salvation and that before God then faith doth really alter and change a mans estate before God But before faith a man is under condemnation and upon faith delivered from it Ergo. Mr. Eyre his answer to this was that the Law did condemne him but God dâ—d not To which I replyed If the Law be the Law of God and receive all its power and authority from God then when the Law condemneth then God condemneth But the Law is the Law of God and hath all its force and efficacy from the will of God Now look what answer he hath given to Mr. Woodbridge which you may see Mr. Eyre p. 112. Num 6. Vindiciae Justifica p. 112. Sect. 6. the same he gave to me which I shall answer in its proper place 2. What the Aposle denies to Works he attributes to faith therefore faith hath an influence into justification which works have not From whence I argue If faith do only declaratively justifie the sinner then faith doth no more towards the justification of a sinner then works because works may evidence my justification as well as faith but according to the Apostle faith contributes more to justification then works Ergo. The proof of the consequence that works may evidence justification will appear from p Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we q 1 John 3.14 know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren 3. Besides the controversie between the Apostle and the Justiciaries of his time was not whether faith or works do evidence our justication but by what we are justified in the sight of God From whence I argue That that makes the Apostle to assert an untruth that interpretation cannot be true But if the meaning of the
Annotations and they clearly hold forth the effect and fruit of Christs passion where observe a plain promise to Christ or Covenant with him about dying and making his soul an offering for sin When thou shalt make his soul an offering or as the Hebrew if his soul or when his soul shall make it selfe an offering for the second Person Masculine and the third Foeminine are in letters and sound the same so I take it the speach of the Father introduced by the Prophet speaking unto Christ that when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin then he promiseth he shall see his seed that is his issue and posterity that should be borne to him as an effect of this which words do not import that all his issue and posterity should be an immediate effect of it but he should see it he should live and survive to see it after his resurrection he should die no more but live for ever and see the fruit of his death The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that is he shall daily see souls brought to salvation as a fruit of his death He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied As a woman when her travel is past is filled with joy to behold the fruit of her wombe so Christ should be satisfied to see a numerous issue of faithful soules begotten to God by his death And what that satisfaction is in particular he tells him it shall be the justification of many for whom he died and then he tells him how they shall be justified He saith it shall be by * Notitiâ sui his knowledge or the knowledge of him not his own knowledge taken subjectively the knowledge that he hath of God Vide English Annot. or of them but his knowledge taken objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him and this is not a bare knowledge of Christ whereby we are justified for the devils themselves both know and acknowledge him but by knowledge is meant faith the antecedent put for the consequent because the knowledge of him is the ground of trust I shall not need to prove that knowledge is put for faith * John 17.3 John 4.42 And the words that follow are a reason for he shall bear their iniquities though in the Hebrew the word is copulative yet it is often used as a cause And if this be granted it renders a reason why he should justifie them because he did bear their sins where the persons are described whom he should justifie not all promiscuously but Believers whose sins he undertook to discharge for he did bear the sinnes of none but Believers Now let Mr. Eyre tell us why God speaking to Christ of our justification by him should say that Christ should justifie us by his knowledge or by faith in him 1. His death alone antecedently to faith did justifie those whose iniquities he did bear unlesse it were to declare his will that his death should be effectually applied only by faith and that none should have immediate benefit but expect it by faith 2. That that was Gods intention in giving Christ was the intention of Christ in dying But God in giving Christ intended not the benefits of Christs death unto any untill faith Therefore Christ died not to purchase immediate forgivenesse unto any untill faith and by consequence there was a mutual agreement The Major is beyond all contradict on because of the unity of heart and will between Christ and God therefore he intended not his death for any nor in any other way then God intended it The Minor is written as with a Sun-beam in Scripture John 3.14 15 16. John 3.14 15 16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse Even so must the Son of man be lifted up That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternall life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life In which words you have a threefold cause of mans salvation 1. The principal Gods love ver 16. 2. The meritorious Christ death 3. The instrumental our faith Secondly You have a comparison between Christ and his Type in two things 1. That as the Serpent must be lifted up for a meanes of healing or else it could not heal and none would look to it so there was a necessity of Christs being lifted up upon the Crosse God must deliver him up to death and he must be considered as dying or else there is no salvation by him 2. The end that such as did look to it might be healed of the stingings of the fiery Serpent so this was the end of Christ dying that whosoever believe should not perish Now as the Scripture sheweth those stingings were deadly and none were healed but such as looked to the brazen Serpent so are the stingings of sin deadly and none are healed by Christ but such as believe Now as Mr. Woodbridge observes they were not first healed and then did look up to see what healed them but they did first look and then were healed so we have nor first everlasting life given us and then we believe but first we believe and then we have everlasting life Now to this Mr. Eyre answers nothing but denies it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew in what order we are justified in the sight of God but in so doing he doth not only senselessely beg the question but doth overthrow that wherein the truth and verity of the type consisted for as the brazen Serpent though endued with a healing vertue yet it healed none till he did look so though Christ as dying be sufficiently able to save yet saveth not any till he look to him by faith and in so doing doth destroy that that was the main end of God in giving Christ and of Christ in dying that upon believing we should be saved And therefore I come to the third thing considerable and that is Gods end in giving Christ and Christs end in dying both these are expressed in the same words the Son was lifted up that whosoever believeth c. and Gods end was that whosoever believeth c. where the verity of the major is confirmed that they had the same end Now the Minor is no lesse evident for if Gods end in giving Christ to die for us and Christs in dying were to limit the benefit only to Believers then it followes by undeniable consequence that untill faith none are actually justified by Christs death otherwise the benefit of Christs death is equally extended to Believers and unbelievers and if he saith faith is only a consequent condition and not antecedent then he must corrupt the Text and alter the sense of the Holy Ghost and say that God gave Christ to give eternall life and Christ was lifted up to purchase eternall life that they for whom he was so given and so died
in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
Law in whole as the Arminians and in part as the Papists But we take faith for a condition in this sense for an Evangelicall qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified nor saved and shall not enjoy the benefits and blessings of the new Covenant as a cause of life not efficiently as works in the old Covenant but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his benefits to the Believer And thus the Scripture saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned and that the wrath of God abideth on him * There it was and there it shall rest till by faith it be removed works are required as conditions of those that shall be saved but faith is a condition of Justification And because this faith is freely given salvation is no lesse of free grace then if this condition were not required nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God and yet required as a duty of us 't is we are bound to believe and repent and yet faith is Gods gift and Christ is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opinion shewing wherein he departeth from the Orthodox faith together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors unsound opinions and selfe-contradictions that he hath intangled himselfe in in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde inconstant to himself Vide Mr. Eyre pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre so farre as relates to his Book I trust in Christ to manifest and therefore let the judicious Reader observe and judge Now for his opinion as farre as I can gather from his Book I conceive it to be this First He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously pro volitione Divinâ pro re volità 1. For the will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people And 2. For the effect of Gods will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law that is Justification is taken by him actively for Gods eternal will not to punish and passively for the effect of that will as it is terminated upon the Elect or Believer And he saith that he looks upon Dr Twisse 's judgment as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines except three or four in making Gods eternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists it is well known that unanimously they agree that Justification is not an immanent but a transient act done in time And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this it is marvell the Scripture should never call it so and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification should speak of it in an improper sense passively taken as terminated upon us Besides the will of God not to punish is but terminus diminuens a decree or will not to punish in time Besides this is not the whole of Justification for it is a will not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace which requireth faith But I shall argue against this in a more proper place Now if we take it thus as Mr. Eyre will have it his opinion is this Justification is an eternall immanent act or will in God not to punish and impute sin unto his people antecedently not only to their birth and faith but to the death of Christ nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification though with him Justification thus taken is most accurate and properly taken and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification for he will acknowledge no other transient act and immanent there is none 1. And this act is not purely * Page 67. negative as the non-imputation of sin to a stone but privative being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse which how Scholastically it is spoken being a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God when neither the subject nor the sin are in being and as if sin were debitum inesse that that ought to be in us for privation is properly understood of these 2. And this non-imputation is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being a will not to impute it hereafter may be actual but to call that an actuall non-imputation is improperly spoken 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a satisfaction for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship and many thanks for a gratuity And yet he addeth that this renders not the death of Christ uselesse surely as to this act it is uselesse * And Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification and if it be the meritorious cause of the effects of this Justification how was that Justification compleat whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God Where let the Reader observe also that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election for he addeth by way of similitude As the love of God is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Moreover he saith That the Lord did not impute sin to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ and so Christ was man and a sinner from eternity and crucified from eternity and all this in Gods minde and there Judas and Pilate and those that murdered Christ did exist too and what will not this bring in And * Mr. Eyre p. 8. the ground of this is that he conceives God constituting and ordaining Christ a Head and the Elect his Members they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne even from eternity And Justification thus taken saith he makes no change in God nor
yet if it be acknowledged a transient act Mr. Eyre p. 65. would it make a change in him it would adde a relative respect and an extrinsecall denomination and so in making it an immanent act there must be a new relation of the person justified to God but he addeth it maketh a great change if you take it for the delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law Surely he that is not is not capable of an actual change which you must hold or your justification is not compleat because the deliverance is not a present deliverance Secondiy Let us come to his passive Justification If Justification saith he be taken as most commonly it is for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation but an actual and immediate reconciliation Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance but not in respect of any act of Gods deliverance as if we could be justâ—fied and none to justifie for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish and that justly and yet he will not acknowledge another act as we do a transient act of God whereof Christs death is the cause and yet some act he must finde out or we cannot be justified Now his opinion from hence is this That Christ at his death standing as a common person and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice by which they satisfied in him and in his Resurrection receiving a publick discharge for himself and them and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God even while they remaine unregenerate persons Wherein in two things he differs from us and departs from the truth 1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith 2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled both these I have already disproved in the Vindication of my Sermon but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter Thirdly When it 's said we are justified by faith he taketh it altogether objectively He saith Faith is taken objectively for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God if taken for the act it only evidenceth justification page 76. as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from any hand in Justification which if it were the Apostles meaning he might have put in the Name Christ and left out Faith and his meaning had been more plaine which in this weighty controversie of Justification though the Trope be more elegant had been more needful And in many places where he speaketh of Justification he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith and yet addeth faith as that grace by which this object is apprehended Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15 16. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the wo ks of the Law Here the Apostles Scope is to shew that the believing Jewes into which number he puts himself and Peter and Barnabas seeing that they could not be justified by the Law did for this end that they might be justified believe on Christ that they might be justified by the faith of Christ where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith and the matter of their Justification and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ and not for the Grace of Faith as if the meaning should be that they were justified by the Christ of Christ where he must exclude Christ or Faith for one is redundant nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification for then there is no reason nor truâ—h in it for to say that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification these being as able to declare it as faith as it is said Little children let no man deceive y u he that doth righteousnesse 1 John 3.7 is righteous that is is declared thereby to be righteous Besides to make Paul to say that they believed that they might be justified that is that they may know by believing that they had been justified before had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe as if the doing a thing for a certaine end were a certain means to assure that the end hath been obtained already Besides it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument in reproving Peter for his dissimulation building up that in his Practice which in his Doctrine he did destroy the Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvation and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gentiles and eating things forbidden by the Law but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Law and therefore did renounce hopes of salvation by that and believe in Christ for Justification and this he taught And when he came to Antioch before certain Jewes came down from James he used his Christian liberty and did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come down he withdrew himself he separates from the Gentiles by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation Now Paul blames his practice that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Christ he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation but how salvation is obtained So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified in Rom 3.11 saith Rom. 3.11 it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even a righteousnesse that is of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ where by Faith is necessâ—rily understood the grace of Faith and not Christ who is expressely set down in the next words where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified and he saith not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ if Christ without Faith justifie why doth the Apostle mention Faith for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification but by what we are justified I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre he saith Mr. Eyre p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is
and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1â— To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscienceâ— but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateniâ—gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law
did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were justâ—fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The sixâ—h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why
our sin was imputed to Christ that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him and he will have Christs being made sin and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him formally the same act in God For he saith this phrase that we might be madâ— doth not alwayes imply the final cause but sometimes the formal And so his meaning is that Christ was at the same time made sin for us and by that act of God we were made the righteousnesse of God in him To this I answer First it offers violence to the Text for that doth not say that we were then made but that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him it laid the foundation for this Secondly Let him assigne any other end that God had in this act in respect to us if this were not his end surely had it not been for this God would not have imputed our sinnes to Christ Thirdly That which he saith is manifestly false for this phrase that we might be alwayes doth expresse the finall cause his instance doth not prove the thing in hand He saith That when light is let in that darknesse might be expelled the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darknesse I answer if it be granted this hindereth not but that it might be the end why the light is let in as in a roome that hath shuts to keep out the light the room is dark now let a man that desires light open these shuts at the same time the light doth physically expell the darknesse and yet it was the end of the man in letting in the light to expel the darknesse Fourthly The imputation of sin to Christ and righteousnesse to us are two different acts and have two different effects and therefore are not formally the same for by imputing sin to Christ he is charged with the guilt of it and is obnoxious to death and the imputing righteousnesse to us is a discharge from the guilt and we are made capable of life Now if this were formally our discharge then we are discharged and so made righteous before Christ had made satisfaction even so soon as our sin was imputed but this is a manifest contradiction for it is not Christs being charged with our guilt but his making satisfaction that procures our discharge but this is but one drop of that river of contradiction that flows from him as from a fountaine with which his Book swells like the river of Jordan till it is foardable by no reason nor any humane understanding 4. I deny that the imputation of sin to Christ and the non-imputation of it to us If you speak of a formal non-imputation and discharge or else you say nothing to the purpose is but one and the same act in God they are two distinct acts terminated upon two distinct subjects The first upon Christ the second upon us Imputation of sin to Christ is a transient act done in time for God did not charge Christ with our sin from eternity and every transient act requireth the existence of the subject upon which it is terminated or produceth it as did Creation And therefore we that had no existence could not be the subjects of a formal non-imputation which is an actuall discharge from it and therefore that which you answer to this objection we were nor then and therefore righteousnesse could not be imputed by propounding another objection Our sins were not then therefore they could not be imputed I answer the reason is not alike for the non-existence of a subject to whom any thing should be impated is of greater efficacy to hinder the imputation then the non-existence of a sinne for the terme or subject of a transient act is of absolute necessity to be or to be produced by the act but there is no such necessity of the thing that is imputed the act may be without that but not without the other Besides a sin is a moral cause of punishment and therefore the effect which is punishment which is that that is meant by imputation of sin is at the will of him that is moved thereby and therefore sometimes goeth before the cause as in the death of Christ for which the Patriarchs were justified before Christ had given satisfaction and sometimes after it therefore the punishment might be inflicted on Christ before the sin was committed I shall now addresse my self to give an answer to such Scriptures as he hath alledged in defence of his own opinion The first is Matth. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased From whence he argueth that if the well pleasednesse of God which is here declared is terminated upon Christ mystical and not to Christ personal then God was well pleased with all his Elect who are Christ mystical when this voice came from heaven and consequently before many of them do believe To which I answer that I take it to be and have proved it an errâ—r to say that the Elect as Elâ—ct are myst cally uni ed to Christ for union necessarily pre-requireth existence and Christ had not a mystical body from eternity 2. I deny as then I did the assumption and say the well-pleasednesse of God was terminated upon Christ personal and not Christ mystical And the meaning is This is my beloved Son in whose person I am well pleased and with whose work and office as a Mediator I am well pleased but it was not the intent of God there to say for his sake I am actually well pleased with all the Elect antecedently to their faith Now I prove it was spoken of Christ personal and not Christ mystical 1. If Christ considered as Mediatour be personally considered then this is understood of Christ personal and not Christ mysticall The antecedent is true Therefore the consequence The reason of the consequence is because this is spoken of Christ as Mediator But Christ mystical is not the Mediaâ—our of the world for then we have so many Redeemers and Saviours of the world as are united to Christ and then Christ alone did not tread the winepresse of his Fathers wrath 2. Christ mystically considered was not baptized by John But this beloved Son in whom God was well pleased was baptized by John Ergo. 3. This was terminated on him to whom the Heavens were then opened and upon whom the Spirit descended like a Dove But this is true only of Christ personally not mystically considered 4. This voice was terminated on him for whose sake God is well pleased with such as believe But God is not well pleased with believers for the sake of Christ mystically considered but personally Ergo. 5. This voice is terminated upon him who is by a peculiar generation and Sonship so a Son that it is incommunicable unto others But this belongs only to Christ personal Therefore this voice was not terminated upon Christ mystical 6. Now to all this I adde this that the consideration of Christ as a pubâ—ick
non-imputing them to us it was a paying the ransome for us a legal translation of the eternal punishment upon Christ a laying help upon one that was mighty but this was not nor is ever called in Scripture Justification here is no formal imputation of any righteousnesse to us who are not yet borne much lesse cited before a Tribunal and absolved from the guilt of sinne Besides 't is not the charging of a surety with the debt bue the discharging of him rather that carries the force of an Argument to prove our discharge but although Christ in his Resurrection was legally discharged as a publik person and all that he did represent fundamentally meritoriously and causally yet not personally and formally which is necessary to Justification Thus have I answered his Arguments which he hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to Faith there remaineth yet one Argument and Objection behinde with which I shall put an end to this discourse leaving that which relateth to the Covenant to Mr. Woodbridge to whom it peculiarly belongeth from whom I doubt not but the world will receive a satisfactory answer The Argument yet unanswered is this If a man have the Spirit of God given him before he beleeve then he must needs be justified before he doth beleeve because then he is in Covenant before he beleeveth and he that is in Covenant is justified To this I answer First by Concession willingly acknowledging faith to be the Spirits work and that no man can beleeve without the help of the Spirit working Faith Secondly I deny the Consequence that although the Spirit worketh Faith before we can beleeve yet doth it not follow that a man is justified before beleeving And the reason of the Consequence I deny also it followeth not that he is in Covenant before beleeving for there is no distance of time between the giving of the Spirit our beleeving and being justified and in Covenant or being passed from the state of death into a state of salvation because there is a synchronisme in these in respect of time they being altogether as soone as ever there is fire there is heat so as soone as the Spirit is given Faith is wrought and the person justified and in Covenant and sanctified at the same time for God is able to act in instanti in a moment the Spirit is then said to be given to us when he doth manifest his Divine presence by working somthing in us peculiar to the elect for though those that shall perish may be enlightened and taste of the powers of the world to come and may be said to be partakers of the holy Ghost yet properly none receive the Spirit but the Elect and what others have is not a true saving work now because no work before Faith is truly saving and have a necessary connexion with salvation therefore the Spirit is not received before Faith and so they are simultanea all together the Spirit Faith and Justification and being in Covenant and therefore though there may be a precedency of nature in this gift of the Spirit before Faith yet followeth it not that we are justified and in Covenant before Faith but at this very instant is the beleever taken into Covenant and justified and thus I willingly acknowledge the first grace is absolutely given to wit effectual vocation or Faith by which the soul is brought into an estate of Justification and Faith is made the condition though wrought by God of our Justification So that our being in Covenant and justified follow Faith in order of nature which is contrary to that which Master Eyre hath all along contended for that a man is justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death antecedently to our birth and faith and that the unregenerate so remaining if elected are justified in that estate which opinion if it be received how it should not destroy the vitals of Religion is past my understanding to imagine Having therefore had the glory of God the vindication of this blessed truth the salvation of the souls of Gods Elect the preserving them from Errour that are yet free from the infection of it the reducing those that are gone astray before mine eyes and having with earnest prayers unto God sought for guidance herein I undertook this task and through his grace have finished it and I trust I have not I am sure I have not willingly departed from the truth and if in any thing I have written I have erred from the truth as humanum est errare upon the first discovery of it I shall through the grace of Christ become a thankful Proselyte in the meane time I commend the Christian Reader to the grace of God in Christ And the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the Father of glory tread down Satan under our feet establish and settle us in the truth and give us to receive it in the love of it and grant to us the Spirit of wisdome and revelation in the knowledge of him that the eyes of our understandings may be enlightened that we may know what is the hope of his calling and what is the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the Saints and by the exceding greatnesse of his power work Faith in the hearts of his Elect where it is yet wanting according to the working of his mighty power and fulfil that which is lacking in our faith with power and so keep us by his mighty power through faith unto this salvation which is ready to be revealed at the second coming of Christ Amen A Postscript of the Authour by way of advertisement to the Reader WHereas it is said pag. 238 that it is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ in the work of Justification least Mr. Eyte in particular or any other should through wilfulnesse or weaknesse mistake the minde of the Authour he is desired not to dismember the sentence but to take it as it is there explained And I further declare that I understand by it no more but that faith is a concomitant social cause with Christ in the work of Justification but not a co-ordinate or meritorious cause of the same kinde but a subordinate instrument appointed by God for the receiving and applying of Christs righteousnesse unto Justification and that this faith is Gods Almighty work and free gife without which no man shall ever have benefit by Christs righteousnesse and because it is our act though it be Gods gift for it is we that believe and not God in this sense alone it is said that we are concurrent causes with Christ not that we are justified by faith as our act but as it is an organical instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse for this end and this I conceive is the unanimous opinion of all the Orthodox FINIS
sins was not given till received Mr. Eyre meanes by our receiving remission nothing but the comfort and knowledge of it but that interpretation will not agree with the Apostles minde for he doth not say Whosoever believe shall have the knowledge or comfort of the remission of sinnes but shall have remission of sins and that place Acts 26.18 most expressely makes it manifest for before their receiving this forgivenesse they were under the power of Satan surely they that are under Satans power are not yet pardoned what hath Sathan to do with a pardoned sinner This were a wrong to Christs satisfaction if it were accepted for a present discharge and yet they left under Sathans power but Christ himself saith those that he sent Paul unto namely the Gentiles were under the power of Sathan because they were yet under spiritual blindnesse and he is sent to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Sathan unto God that they might receive remission of sins not that they might receive the knowledge of a deliverance from the power of Sathan they had already or the knowledge of the remission of sins but remission it self now Justification standeth in remission of sins therefore if they received it not before they were not justified Tenthly He giveth a worse answer to that place Ephes 2.12 where it is said that the Elect before Faith or spiritual Regeneration in their natural estate were without Christ without God and without hope in the world that is saith he pag. 73. before faith they had no knowledge or comfort either of Gods gracious volitions towards them or of Christs undertakings in their behalf it is such a chaffy illiterate exposition that it more befits a Green-apron-Preacher then such a Gamaliel it needs not a graine of salt but all the salt in the world will not make a savoury interpretation of it to keep it from the dunghill What were these Ephesians when dead in sins and trespasses dead in conceit only and truly alive to God and dead in their apprehensions only were they children of wrath in their apprehensions why then they were more afraid then hurt what needed they then the work of Creation the Almighty power of God that was put forth to raise Christ from the dead to raise them from this estate could no body cure this conceit with another that if they did but think all was well that thought would be to them as the Resurrection from the dead What were they without Christ in the world because they knew not Christ was there Why then let some frenzy take them and bereave them of their reason as Mr. Eyre was in this interpretation and they are un-Christed again or let them fall asleep and they are again without Christ without God without hope in the world And so they and their Christ will bid good-morrow and good-night so often as they rise or go to bed But the true scope and sense of the place is this the Apostle setteth himself to prove the freenesse of Gods grace in Christ to the Ephesians which he doth by calling upon them to remember what their former deplorable estate was in Ethnicisme when they were Gentiles in the flesh by comparing it with their happy estate since their conversion to the faith and therefore that wonderful change sheweth that their salvation is wholly of grace in their former condition they were then in the flesh that is in their natural and sinful estate as they descended from their parents in a state of sin living after the flesh in which estate they could not please God 2. They were without inward and outward circumcision they had none of the signe and seal of the Covenant of Grace of that righteousnesse that is by faith but were despised by the Jewes who gloried in their circumcision but they had not so much as this outward circumcision in the flesh much lesse the circumcision of the heart Now uncircumcision was a signe of a people that were wholly strangers to God and the Covenant of Grace 3. They were without Christ without any knowledge of Christ Christ was not so much as preached to them and they had no faith in him and so 〈◊〉 as Diodat upon the place saith they neither had union nor communion with Christ nor no knowledge of their union or communion with Christ as if they were mystically united as Mr. Eyre ignorantly or wilfully affirmeth but without union or communion they were not yet members of Christ and so they lived as it were without Christ in the world strangers to Christ at a distance from Christ Such as were sometimes afarre off from Christ and God as ver 13. declareth Calvin in Locum and as Calvine upon the place procul à Deo saluie even as farre as heaven and hell asunder and were strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel that is they were without the Pale of the Church out of which ordinarily there is no salvation and were strangers from the Covenant of Promise that is as Piscator saith Piscator in Locum the Promise of the Covenant of Grace wherein God promised remission of sins through the merit of Christ and the renewing of their hearts by the efficacy of Christ did not belong to them Dickson in Locum and as Dickson upon the words saith alieni à jure ad applicandum sibi pacta promissiones Dei they were destitute of all right to apply the Covenants or Promises of God to themselves And they were without hope in the world that is they had no hope of eternal life so Piscator haec enim nascitur ex fide for this is begotten by saith they could have no good well grounded hope for heaven Spem merit ò conjungit promissionibus de Christo nam absque his quic quid sperant homines frustrà speraent He deservedly joyned hope to the promises concerning Christ for without these whatsoever men hope for they hope in vaine Truly as he saith there can nothing be hoped for that is not promised and without the Covenant there is no Promise And without God in the world they acknowledged many gods nay knew the true God as Creator of heaven and earth but knew him not in Christ and did not worship him according to the light of Scripture and so were without all true knowledge and spiritual worship of God And from all this it followeth that they were unjustified in this estate and it destroyeth the scope of the Apostles argument to take it as Mr. Eyre taketh it only for the want of knowledge of their happy estate whereas the Apostles scope is to shew how miserable they were when in this estate how happy in the change or deliverance from it but here is no change signified by Mr. Eyre's interpretation but only their condition was the same and as good then as now only they did not know it Is it possible a man of reason should be so farre blinded or hardened to shut