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
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
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
Justification to be effected by it as an inherent grace only it puts the subject into a capacity of being actually justified by the righteousnesse of Christ according to the tenour of the Covenant 2. Faith doth not justifie as a Work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse 3. Though Faith be a Work it is not ours but Gods and therefore none of our Works justifie 4. Though there be a priority of nature in Faith unto Justification yet there is not any priority of time but the same moment that Faith is wrought we are justified Sixthly That Interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involveth a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction I subscribe the Major with both hands and should be loth such a pouring showre of contradictions should fall from my pen as have done from yours which were enough to drown the reputation of a man that would be counted one of the more manly sorts of Divines And I deny your Minor it implieth not a contradiction to say Faith is a condition of Justification Your proof is this to be both passive and active in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect a condition hath not the least efficacy I answer therefore it is peccant against the Law of opposition for iâ— is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Praedicatum non disponitur cum subjecto secundum eandem subjecti partem naturam For faith is active and pâ—ssive in a different sense if you take faith in genere physico it is actâ—ve if you take it in genere moris it is passive for it is only a condition making us câ—â—â—ble according to the Covenant of Juâ—â—ification not meritoâ—â—ously deserving or by it self effecting Justification but it is not aâ— the same time active and pâ—â—sivâ— in genere phisico nor active and passive at the same time in genere moris and therefore here is no contradiction Besides faith as it is an act it is active and some way helpeth the agent not that God needeth it but because he will not justifie us without it but in regard that this is a receiving it is equivalent to suffering and is a going out of our selves renouncing our own righteousnesse and so is rightly judged passive though formally it be an action yet virtually it is but a passive reception In the next place we shall consider his Arguments which he bringeth in the 14th Chapter to prove that there was no Covenant between the Father and the Son to suspend the effects of his death untill faith and that it was the will of God that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation and Justification of all the Elect antecedent to Faith Now because these Arguments are his Triarii his Souldiers in the rereward in which he puts most confidence if we can but rout these the day will be our own His first Argument runs thus There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none A negative Argument I acknowledge in matters of great consequence is availeable Therefore I deny his Assumption and all those Scriptures which promise Justification upon believing and that limit the benefit of Christs death unâ—ill faith is proof enough to prove there was a Covenant between the Father and Christ to suspend the benefits of Christs death untill faith but because he will see the place we referre him to Isa 53.10 When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand He shall see the travel of his soul and be satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth this place holds forth the Covenant between God and Christ about the effects of his death if you take the words as a prediction of the Prophet they hold forth a promise of God to Christ of the fruit of his death when God should make his soul an offering for sin or when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin for the words will bear it Now this promise is virtually a Covenant and doth not limit the benefits of his death to the present time but first presupposeth this work to be done and then as a fruit of this he shall see his seed not all his seed presently but he shall see it and prolong his dayes the pronoun is wanting and therefore the words have a twofold sense given them some expound them of Christ who after his Resurrection should die no more others of his issue and race of the Saints and say the Authors of our English Annotations the ancient Greek and old Latine go both that way and so take the meaning he shall see his seed that shall prolong its dayes with a supply of the relative and if so this maketh clear against Master Eyre But however take it which way you will there is enough to evince it He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied that is he shall see that as the fruit and effect of his death which shall give him full content he shall be much refreshed and gladded as a woman after hard travel that seeth the fruit of her womb and he shall live to see it And then follow the words which are the words of God delivered as in his person for Christ was not the Prophets servant But by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him not his knowledge taken subjectively but objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him where knowledge is put for faith as This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent and so Paul counted all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ his Lord. Now here God describeth how Christ shall justifie many by his knowledge or by faith on him Whence I argue If God in the Covenant made with Christ did mention faith as a means by which he should justifie many that is all his seed that should be the travel of his soul then was there such a Covenant that the fruits and benefits of Christs death should not be enjoyed untill faith for it is added that he shall bear their iniquities not that this should be a present discharge but to signifie that none else but Believers should be pardoned because he shall bear their sins and theirs only but if they be justified before faith then he beareth the sins of unbelievers and so unbelievers and Believers are the subjects of Justification contrary to the Scriptures But God made such a Covenant and made mention of Faith in it as a means whereby he should justifie
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
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
person but if by a full propitiation he understand an immediate discharge of the sinner from condemnation before faith to apply the benefits of Christs death this I deny and will make manifest in its peculiar and proper place Where I shall shew it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect person that the benefit of Christs death is suspended till faith And in this sense I acknowledge that the Elect had no actual right or interest in Christ if you take it for jus in re and not for jus adrem because his death was intended for their benefit not for the reprobate though they have not actual benefit and possession of the good things purchased untill faith In respect of Gods and Christs intention in his death surely an Elect person hath more right to the benefits of Christs death then the reprobate it being intended effectually for Peter and not for Judas and by vertue of this faith shall be given to apply it to all for whom Christ died and so they have a right to the thing but in respect of any right in the thing it self or actual discharge of the sinner I acknowledge in this respect there is no present difference between the Elect and reprobate this is that which soundeth so harsh in Mr. Eyre's eare which I shall sufficiently cleare when I produce in its due place Scripture-authority and Arguments to confirme it I shall now onely vindicate it from those monstrous absurdities that he unjustly loades it with First he saith Nothing could be spoken more contradictory to plain Scriptures but produceth not one place to confirme it but referres us to such Scriptures as he forceth to speak in defence of his own opinion where we shall examine whether what we affirme or he maintaines be most agreeable to the truth only I shall instance in two Scriptures to relieve this truth The first is in Ephesians 2.1 2 3. where the Apostle telleth the Elect Ephesians whom God had ordained to life and for whom Christ died that they were dead in sins and trespasses Wherein they walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience into which number in the third ver he puts himself and all believers before their conversion and saith that they were children of wrath by nature as well as others where the Apostles scope is to shew the freenesse of Gods grace in saving them by faith in Christ by an argument drawn from the change of their estate he telleth them the time was they were children of wrath as unable to help themselves as the dead to raise themselves to life therefore their deliverance was by grace Where by children of wrath the Apostle must mean an estate and condition opposite to their present estate of salvation and justification into which they are now brought by the grace of God and merit of Christ by faith Else first the Apostles Argument from the change of their estate were invalid Now if they would know when they were children of wrath seeing God loved them as elect from eternity and they were redeemed by Christ He answers that it was when they were dead in sins and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience and then they were children of wrath but thus they did walk and live before faith and regeneration were wrought 2. Such an estate of condemnation is here meant as others are in that are the men of this world children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children of unbelief which notes a refractory contumacious disobedience of unbelief seated in the will which is more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is remissible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is irremissible being a note of finall imperswasibility 1 Tim. 1.13 Paul was sometime a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore when the Apostle saith their condition by nature was such as theirs that are children of disobedience a note of such that shall perish surely they were such as were in an unjustified estate 3. If it be such an estate wherein they were dead in sins and trespasses did walk according to the prince of this world and according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh surely this was inconsistent with salvation and the estate of justification God cannot justifie a man with imputed righteousnesse but at the same time he sanctifieth him by imparted Prov. 17.15 and inherent righteousnesse It is not agreeable to the purity and holinesse of Gods nature to justifie a wicked man for He that justifieth the wicked be that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord and what God condemnes in others he will not do himself therefore they were not then justified Nor doth the Apostle make a naked comparison between the two estates and conditions derived from the first and second Adam but compares the same persons not barely in relation to these but as being really in both these estates at a different time being under the first before conversion and passing from it upon believing where it is observeable that the Apostle doth not say ye are by nature children of wrath which is all Mr. Eyre will acknowledge as you may see pag. 111. but ye were children of wrath he speaks of a condition they were in and delivered from The second Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicatours nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankinde nor thieves shall inherit the Kingdome of God such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where you see the Elect Corinthians were while unsanctified such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God and therefore were in the same estate with other persons till they were washed and justified where he maketh an evident opposition between the time past and present they were then such as could not inherit eternal life and therefore were justified for if they were then justified what could hinder their salvation And he saith but you are justified he doth not say but you were justified restraining their justification to the time present upon their faith and sanctification being an evidence of the truth of that faith that makes him put their sanctification before their justification so that you see the Apostle affirmes while they were unsanctified they could not inherit the Kingdome of God that is they had no right to it by justification and were uncapable of it but upon the change
of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them dâ—ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quà m ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the
valued by the time of application it being a moral cause and not a physical or natural cause of justification but by the powerfulnesse of the impetration and the certainty of application now we grant that it hath by way of merit procured reconciliation and hence our deliverance is called redemption Rom. 3.24 which was made by the payment of a full price now the price being paid for the Elect the effect shall follow in the time appointed Gal. 3.13 Eph. 1.7 Heb. 9.12 â— Pâ—t â— 18.19 1 Cor. 6 2â— hence we grant that there shall be a certain application oâ— the benefits of Christs death to all the persons for whom it was intended though they have not actuall possession and that leads me to the last particular that Mr. Eyre layes to the charge of this Doctrine that it is disconsolatory to the souls of men in laying the weight of their salvation upon an uncertain condition of their own performing To which calumny I might returne no other answer then the Senate of Rome is reported to have given to a certain Oration made by Julian the Apostate to the dishonour of Constantine and repeated before them Ames Coro praefa ad eccles belgicas Modestiam majorem optamus Authori we wish more modesty to the Author But that I may for ever silence this objection I reply that Mr. Eyre cannot but know that the Orthodox that maintain Justification by Faith do yet utterly disclaime faith as a condition either in an Arminian or a Popish sense 1. The Arminians hold that Christ died indefinitely for all without distinction and that he died no more for Peter then for Judas and that he paid a sufficient satisfaction for all so that God may now freely remit the sins of all 2. They maintain a potestative or voluntary condition which they borrow from the Jurists whereby it being left free to their own will whether they will believe or not the effect of Christs death is rendred uncertain whether they shall be saved or not and so they affirme all to be redeemed so as that it is possible none may be saved they hold as it were a potential reconciliation which is by the act of faith to be compleated which faith they affirme not to be the effect of Christs death but of their own free will So the Remonstrants Nihil ineptius Rem Apol c. 8. p. 95. nihil vanius quà m fidem merito Christi tribuere si enim Christus meritus est fidem tum fides conditio esse non poterit They say Nothing is more foolish nothing more vain then to ascribe faith to the merit of Christ for if Christ hath merited faith then it cannot be a condition and they laugh at it as a ridiculous conceit Rem Apol. c. 9. p. 105. that God should work the condition which he prescribeth Their words are Anne conditionem quis seriò sapienter praescribet alteri sub promisso praemii poenae gravissimae comminatione qui cam in eo cui praescribit efficere vult haec actio tota ludicra vix scenâ digna est And this Mr. Eyre takes notice of as the Remonstrants opinion pag. 145. where he reciteth the same passages 2. The Papists make faith a meritorious condition which justificeth us per modum causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause this is the Doctrine of the Papists as Bellar. Bellar. Lib. pr. de justifica c. 17 setteth himself to prove in his 17. Chap. Libr. pr. de justificatione Now we utterly disclaime faith to be a condition in either of these senses we say that Christ died only sufficienter for the Reprobate but efficiently for the Elect Christ did not die indefinitely and indis criminatim alike for all but he died effectually for Peter and not for Judas and whereas we make faith the condition of the Covenant without which the benefits of the death of Christ is not applied to us we mean not in an Arminian much lesse in a Popish sense that faith is an uncertain condition left to the power or freedome of our will but we constantly affirme that God hath infallibly ordained such unto faith as shall be saved Acts 13.48 John 6.37 Master Eyre p. 144. sect 9. and Christ hath merited this grace of Faith for us which Mr. Eyre is pleased without all charity to affirme that his adversaries cannot mean faith a condition in this sense as that which God will bestow and is the fruit of Christs death And he saith Mr. Woodbridge denies it to be a fruit of the Covenant and well he might as it is a Covenant made with us for it is an absolute promise made by God as a fruit of his Election and Christs redemption that he will work this faith whereby we shall be brought into Covenant with him for when God promiseth to write his Laws in their mindes in so promising he promiseth faith Jer. 31.38 Heb. 8.10 and then addeth And I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people And we affirme as Christ hath merited this grace for us so he is become a surety of the Covenant to see all that God requires on our part be performed and hence as a head he will by his Spirit in due time infallibly and efficaciously work this faith and so become a Saviour not only by his merit but by efficiency actually applying the fruit of his death And this he will irresistibly work Eph. 1.18 putting forth the same Almighty power that was put forth in raising himself from the dead so that we do not as Mr. Eyre falsly affirmeth which I believe he was not ignorant of lay the whole weight of our salvation upon an uncertain condition of our own performing we make faith to be Gods gift though it be our act And we make the salvation of the Elect as sure as himself and therefore our doctrine is no way disconsolatory to the soules of any only we do not strengthen the hands of the wicked making them to refuse to returne by promising them life as he doth Ezek. 13.22 23. by telling them of their eternal justification and of their being actually reconciled from the time of Christs death Isa 48.22 for we know of no comfort belonging to the wicked while unregenerate for There is no peace saith my God to the wicked but so are all unregenerate persons Antecedently to their faith And for a further clearing of my minde in this particular I adde that if by uncertain Mr. Eyre mean as oftentimes the word is so taken for that which in its own nature is contingent in respect of the second cause because what is contingent usually among men is uncertain and not in respect of God to whom by his predeterminating will even contingent things come to passe necessarily though they come to passe contingently in respect to us I deny not but in this sense it may be
at the time of his passion when our sins were laid upon him as our surety And 2. That we are not united antecedently to our faith I prove by these ensuing reasons Although it be willingly acknowledged that Christ was a common person in his death and a surety for all the Elect and what he did was for them yet this constitutes not the mystical union between Christ and us this only rendred him capable of having our sins imputed to hâ—m and served to lay a foundation for our partaking in his righteousnesse when we should be implanted into him by mysticall union through faith 1. Christ is united to us as he is a Head and we his members but the consideration of Christ as dying for us Ratio capitis non est ratio causae meritoriae Dr. Twiss in answ to Mr. Cotton p. 10. and so becoming a meritorious cause of our salvation is different from the consideration of Christ as a Head for in his death as he is our Mediatour purchasing salvation by the merit of it he is an efficient moral cause of salvation and in this channel runnes the meritorious cause but Christ as he is a Head is an efficient physicall and naturall cause of salvation and thus only he is a Head by actual pouring out his Spirit upon the Elect in the appointed time for their conversion whereby they are brought to faith and so united to Christ Now the moral cause may exist long before the effect follow and therefore doth not necessarily require the existence of the subject but the efficient natural cause hath its effect immediately following aâ—d therefore when Christ will as a Head unite any to him the person must exist for that that is not cannot be united and then as the Head diffuseth nerves to the several members and conveighs animal spirits by which the members are quickened and live so Christ conveigheth his Spirit into their hearts to work faith by which they are united to Christ and so partake of righteousnesse and spiritual life from Christ 2. To make a mysticall union between Christ and the Elect before their birth or faith be it when it will whether from eternity or Christs death Mr. Eyre p. 8. will necessarily establish that Familisticall notion that Mr. Eyre fasteneth upon us That the personality of a Believer or Elect person is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God for it makes them and Christ to be but one person for as yet they have no being therefore if they be they must be in him and subsist in his person and so this childe is fairely laid at his own door that he would father upon us but we say no such thing for this union being by faith and not till we exist Christ is one person Peter another Paul a third and so as many distinct persons as are mystically united 3. If they were truly in Christ before their personall being and union to Christ by faith then they and Christ being but one pâ—rson all and the singular parts of Christs obedience and sufferings together with all and singular the effect thereof and benefits may be attributed to them because they being one with him personally are said to do it in him as we that were all one in Adam united to him by a natural union tanquam in radâ—ce humani generis as in the root and common parent of all mankinde are said to do what Adam did but all and every part of Christs obedience and sufferings with all the singular effâ—cts and benefits cannot be attributed to any sinner believing in him for of whom with any shew of truth and without horrible blasphemy may it be said that He gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour unto God Eph 5.2 That by the eternall Spirit of God he offered up himself without spot to God that the chastisement of our peace was upon him Hâ—b 9 14. Isa 53.5 and that by his stripes we are healed For this can agree to none but Christ personally Isa 63.3 not mystically considered And Christ is said to tread the Wine-presse of his Fathers anger alone but if they were then truly in him then all the Elect of God did tread this Wine-presse with him and mysticall Christ was crucified not Christ alone that was the Son of God And therefore we see most absurdly Mr. Eyre p. 9. that Mr. Eyre applies that to Christ mystically considered which is peculiar personally to Christ the Son of God Matth 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased What if this were spoken to Christ as a publick Person and Mediatour for the Elect doth it therefore follow it was meant of Christ mysticall certainly the consequence will never be granted upon his bare word 4. If we were in Christ when he died and suffered for us antecedently to our birth so as to be mystically united having no subsistence but in the person of the Mediatour then we were punished in him and gave satisfaction in him and so no place is left for pardon of sin in our justification for if we were punished in Christ and suffered in him then what place is left for pardon for pardon and punishment are contrary He that suffereth the full weight of punishment is not pardoned and to this purpose Polanus in his Comment upon the 9th Dani. the 8th Quest Polanus in Dan. c. 9. ver 24. quaest 8. Neutiquam propriè loquendo sumus puniti in Christo cùm Scriptura disertè doceat nos esse justificatos in Christo quòd si sumus in Christo justificati absoluti non igitur damnati puniti Ephes 1. v. 6. Ait Paulus de Deo nos gratìs sibi acceptos fecit in illo dilecto nos ergò Deus non punivit sed omnium nostrum poenam Christo impâ—suit Isa 53 6. sicut dicitur Isa 53. v. 6. Jehova facit ut incurrat in eum iniquitas omniûm nostrûm Christus torcular calcavit solus nos non calcavimus Neque vero idem est nos esse punitos in Christo Christum esse punitum pro nobis seu nostro loco Nam si Christus est punitus nostro loco sequitur nos non esse punitos sed poenam nobis esse remissam quid quaeso est aliud remissio peccatorum quà m condonatio culpae poenae Quomodo igitur haec consentient Deum nobis remisisse peccata tamen punivisse nos propter eadem Proinde sic ex Scriptura statuendum Deum Christo paenam nostrorum peccatorum imposuisse ut nobis illam remitteret proprio filio suo non pepercisse ut nobis parceret If any man object that Polanus doth not absolutely deny that we were punished in Christ but that we cannot properly be said to be punished in him I answer Nor do I absolutely deny it if that Doctrine that we were punished in Christ
Christ apprehended and applied by faith not by any new act of Gods will I dare not determine but pardoned he is and justified he is his state is truly changed and that coram Deo in the sight of God and a new relative relation there is in God to this person as a Father a great change wrought in the sinner but none at all in God and the Believer is the subject upon whom this act of God passeth Acts 13.39 Acts 16.31 Rom. 4.24 John 8.24 John 3.36 16. John 17.20 he is the adequate subject of it for all Believers are thus justified and none but Believers God did not will that our sins should be immediately forgiven but mediately by faith as in John 3.16 Gods end in giving Christ was that only Believers should have benefit by his death and John 17.20 Christ prayeth for them that believe on him and surely he had the same intentions in his death that he had in his intercession And I added that the sinnes of Believeres were laid upon Christ thus Christ was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Isa 53.16 that knew no sin and the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed we are accounted just and so are acquitted before God as righteous Hence God is said to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their transgressions to them 2 Cor. 5. and we are said to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Cor. 1.30 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And Christ is made to us righteousnesse wisdome sanctification and redemption I shall now come to enquire what is meant by an immanent act and whether Justification were from eternity and what is meant by a transient act First Then by an immanent act I understand such an act as is terminated in agente in the agent and not in any thing without it There are some actions which do remain in God and are terminated in himself being confined in his own breast within the compasse of his own understanding and will not but that they may have an external object but nothing in these immanent acts hath any thing without them for the subject or terme As for example a man may purpose and intend to do something in his minde and heart as to relieve a poor mans wants this thought and purpose of heart is an immanent action and so long as it remaines in his minde and breast and he reveal it not and do not yet act accordingly this is yet an immanent action and the poor man is not yet actually the better for it but if he declare his minde and doth practise what he intended here is a transient act for now he doth outwardly expresse and performe what he did inwardly purpose Now the poor man is comforted and his wants actually relieved Let us referre this to God there are some Cabinet secret thoughts and purposes in God from eternity about justifying a sinner through the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied by faith which Christ God will prepare and give to procure a sufficient righteousnesse and will also give faith to the sinner to believe on Christ for salvation Such thoughts as these are were in the minde of God from eternity these thoughts were immanent acts in God and work no present change upon the sinner who had no being from eternity and untill God do actually declare and fulfill the thoughts of his heart the sinner is not justified but only God really intends it Secondly There are actions in God which passe from God upon the creature and do work a change and alteration upon the creature and these we call transient actions when therefore God doth not only declare by his Gospel what his thoughts were to his Elect in pardoning them through faith in Christ but doth in time give Christ for them and them to Christ by drawing their hearts unto Christs by faith now God actually performes the thoughts of his heart and as he intended upon believing to justifie them for Christs sake so now as soon as he hath brought them to faith he doth actually forgive them all their sins justifie their persons and accept them as righteous in Christ Now of this sort are all Gods actions that relate to man except Predestination which is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Sanctification Adoption are transient acts of God for all these imply a positive change in the creature and do put something either physically or morally into the justified adopted sanctified c. But concerning Predestination Tritum est in Scholis eam nihil ponere in Praedestinato It is generally received by the Schoolmen that Predestination puts nothing into the predestinate or makes no present change indeed virtually it is the cause of all those transient actions that are done in time And * Aquin. p. 1. q. 13. artic 2. c. Aquinas gives a reason of it Quia Praedestinatio est pars Providentiae Providentia verò non est in rebus provisis sed est quaedam ratio in intellectu provisoris Because Predestination is a part of Divine Providence Now Providence is not in the things foreseen or provided for but is a certain purpose or counsel in the understanding of the foreseer And hence all our Divines are wont cautelously to distinguish between the decree and the execution of the decree they grant the Decree hath no cause but the free will and wise prudence of God but the Execution of the Decree depends upon faith because Pardon Reconciliation is granted to none but Believers Let me adde in the third place that an immanent action is from eternity and is the same with Gods Essence for whatsoever is in God is God but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence Gods Decrees are as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burgesse Justifi p. 168. rightly observes the same with his nature for an act of Gods understanding or will is not any thing distinct from his understanding or will but the very same with it * Scheib Met l. 2. ca. 3. De Deo p. 137. Actus vitales Dei ut est ejus intellectio volitio habent ibi realem identitatem ad essentiam divinam All vital actions in God as his understanding and will are have a reall identity or samenesse with his Divine Essence for otherwise the simplicity of Gods nature would be overthrown therefore though we may conceive distinctly of them yet they are not really distinguished in God But now in transient actions it is otherwise for they are the same with the effect produced Mr. Eyre will have it to be an immanent action done from eternity not a transient act done in timo Gods transient act in creating is Creation and in justifying is Justification By this that hath been said it appeareth
that Justification is a transient not an immanent action For though I deny not that God did from eternity with an absolute fixed and immutable will purpose in time to justifie his people through faith in Christ which faith he will also give and Christ did merit and if this will satisfie Mr. Eyre as he saith it will if he be not a Reuben as unstable as water and fall from his word the controversie is at an end Yet this is not Justification no more then Gods purpose to sanctifie is Sanctification as shall be made to appear in its place Justification leaveth a positive change upon the person justified He is thereby passed from death to life from a state of hatred into a state of love and friendship but an immanent act leaveth no such change nor do I mean with Aquinas and the Papists a physicall change as when the Lord makes a wicked man a holy man an unclean man a chaste man a passionate man a meek man this is a naturall change and is the work of Sanctification but it is a relative and morall change Take a man that is in prison for some capitall offence and also exceeding sick a double change may be wrought upon this man First let his offence be forgiven and he set at liberty he is now a free man acquitted and set at liberty that before was in bond a dead man here is a relative change but he may be as sick still as he was when in prison let the Physician come and heal his distemper here is a cure wrought his health restored this is a natural physical change so it is here upon Justification there is a relative change wrought We that were debtors to the Law and liable to death and condemnation our sin through faith in Christ is pardoned now we are acquitted and set free from condemnation here is a change of our estate but then also by Sanctification the Lord heales our natures Now Justification is a transient act of God in time upon the Believer acquitting him for Christs sake from the guilt of sin and through his righteousnesse imputed he is accepted unto life eternall The second Question is Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to their faith but their birth also 1. It is not denied upon neither hand that the Elect are the persons and the only persons for whom Christ intentionally and effectually died 2. It is not denied that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation and that a full satisfaction was made thereby to the justice of God for the sins of the Elect. 3. It is acknowledged that Christ in his death was a common person making satisfaction for the Elect and such as shall believe and by vertue of Christs death they shall infallibly be brought to faith and that God hath thus farre accepted of this satisfaction as that he neither will nor can require any thing more at the hand of the sinner by way of satisfaction nor at the hands of Christ and that in regard of the price paid we are redeemed 4. It will not be denied but that by the death of Christ God may now freely give us the pardon of sins which without the satisfaction of Christ supposing his eternal decree not to pardon us without a satisfaction he could not do 5. We deny not but Christs Resurrection from the dead was a manifest signe that the full price of redemption was paid and that God gave him a publick discharge from the guilt of our sins and that he rose again as a publick person for our justification that we may be said virtually to die and suffer and rise with him and virtually to be justified in his justification But it is denied by us and affirmed by Mr. Eyre that we stand actually justified and reconciled to God from the time of Christs death antecedently to our faith and birth and that it was the will of the Lord to give us a present discharge from the time of Christs death but God hath limited the benefit of this untill faith So that no person in the state of unbelief and unregeneracy is a subject of Justification this we affirme and Mr. Eyre denies who will have all the Elect though Infidels and in their unregenerate estate under the power and dominion of sin to be actually justified The third question is Whether a believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this be understood tropically by taking faith for the object Christ excluding the act or whether it be taken properly for the act with connotation of the Object Now here first it is agreed upon all hands by Pretestants and PÃ pists Orthodox and Socinians Antinomians Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants that it is plainly assâ—rted in Scripture that we are justified by faith It cannot be denied because it is syllabically written the only contention is about the sense I would there were more contending for the Grace then for the right understanding of the Word 1. Then to believe signifies an act of the understanding yielding assent unto Divine Testimony but because the will * Ames Med. cap. 3. Num. 2â— consequently is moved by that assent to embrace the good assented unto and offered in the Gospel therfore faith that is truly saving and justifying consisteth in both faculties therefore we reject their opinion that will have it to be onely an act of the understanding yielding a true * Wotton De reconci lib. 1. par 1. c. 13. n. 1. p. 78. assent to Divine Testimony upon the authority of the Revealer though this be necessary to salvation this comprehendeth not the whole nature of justifying faith which is seated in the heart for with the heart man believeth unto salvation Nor 2. Can we rest in their opinion who define it by assurance and say it is an assurance grounded upon Divine Promises that Christ died for us in particular and that our sins are forgiven For this assurance is a consequent of faith and Justfication and an * Proprium objectum fidei justificantis est Christus vel miscricordia Deâ— in Christo non propositio sive Axioma Ames Bell. Ener Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 2. Sect. 22. Axiome or Proposition is not the object of faith but Christ and it is a relying upon Christ for pardon not a believing that I am already pardoned it is therefore a * Fider est acquiescentia cordis in Deo tanquam in authore vitae vel salutis aeternae ut per illum ab omni malo liberemur omne bonum consequamur Ames Medul c. 3. num 1. fiducial act or recumbency upon God in Christ for pardon 3. It is questioned Ames Medull c 27. de justificat n. 15 16. whether Faith in the point of Justification of a sinner be to be taken tropically or properly Master Eyre will have
to their consciences but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne And what diminution is it of the grace of Christ if they were justified from the time of Christs death to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ forasmuch as they were not virtually only but actually and formally as you affirme p. 63. justified at his death Nor will it help you to say you speak there of the non-elect for we are bound to presse all men to believe as you there acknowledge and it is not known who are Elect neither to the Minister nor to the people therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency you extenuate the merit of Christs death if they were actually justified as you affirme And there is the same ground of Faith to all the ability of Christ to save and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached Fourteenthly He affirmeth Faith if it evidences our Justification is a signe is a dark and unsatisfying evidence as other works of Sanctification are 1 John 3.14 where he contradicteth the Apostle who saith By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren not we hope not we conjecture but we know it is a sure and stedfast signe Little children let no man deceive you 1 John 3.7 saith John he that doth righteousnesse is righteous is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person Rom. 8.1 and in Rom. 8.1 he saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus and he givesh this as a signe Rom. 8.13 Who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit doth the Holy Ghost by Paul give us a dark unsatisfying evidence of our being in Christ What is more frequent then this he that is in Christ is a new Creature they that mortifie the deeds of the body shall live Gal 5.24 They that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ and shall be saved but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark and unsatisfying evidences of Justification 2. He saith that nothing that followes Faith is so apt to evidence or prove Justification as Faith because it is the first of all inherent graces but I take this for an errour and that works are every way as declarative of Justification if not more is an apparent truth For first if we speak of evidencing Justification to others it is more for saith the Apostle Thou hast faith shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works James 2.18 And Abraham was in this sense justified by his works If any man shall say he is a justified person Vers 2â— 1 John 1.6 James 2.20 and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar and the truth is not in him and works of Sanctification are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience then Faith For how shall I know my saith is a true faith an unfeigned faith and peculiar to the Elect but by the effect of a true Faith the works of Sanctification therefore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith nor is his reason of any worth because it is the first of all inherent graces this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Justification is a lame consequence of which Master Eyre's Book is too full Fifteenthly He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification I take this also for a manifest errour if it be understood aright of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification Indeed if you take a condition in a strict sense for a condition performed by us without the help of grace meriting and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense it is true it is inconsistent with grace but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified salvation is no lesse of grace though it be by faith as the Apostle speaketh Ye are saved by grace through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith Eph. 2.8 and saith we are saved by it and yet he saith We are saved by grace because it is Gods gift Sixteenthly He saith pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us viz. by our own strength yet God hath his order method in the bestowing of them c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely and freely given and alike merited by Christ and yet God may for order and methods sake deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction why is it any wrong to Christs death if Justification merited by Christ be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice Seventeenthly In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error First â—ag 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend or any breach of that Law committed by man And secondly in * Sin is apparently the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice with his negative act of non-election or preterition which ought to be distinguished He saith Though men will not impute sin or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed for what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish before the Law was given To which I answer that Gods preterition or non-election though it be justly called a hatred negatively yet this was an act of Sovereignty and not of Justice nor is this hatred an imputing of their sin nor was their sin foreseen the cause *
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
as absurd to pray for pardon of sin as for the incarnation of Christ and I may adde at for an immanent act in God as to pray for predestination because if it be a thing done already then it is in vaine to pray for that that is done Jameâ— 5.15 16. but we are commanded to pray for pardon as Peter taught Simon to pray for pardon Pray that if it be possible c. And though the Elders of the Church must pray for the sick and if they have sinned it shall be forgiven them And Christ teacheth us to pray Burgess Justifi page 199. forgive us our sins Now in that prayer we do not pray for assurance only but for pardon it selfe For as Mr. Burgess hath well observed to my hand that we must not depart from the literal sense of the words without an evident necessity But the plain sense is that God would forgive our sin our Saviour minding brevity would speak his sense in the most perspicuous and clear manner that may be And it is not as he observeth so taken in other places when the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites How their land was full of Idols Isaiah 2 94. and both great men and mean men did humble themselves before them prayeth Isa 2.9 that therefore God would not forgive them can any imagine that he meant that God would not give them assurance of their forgivenesse And so Matth. 12.32 the Evangelist saith All other sins may be forgiven but that against the Holy Ghost Now in that sense other sins are said to be forgiven in which sense that is denied to be forgiven and that is denied to be forgiven not in respect of assurance but really And so as he saith when it is applied to men it is not meant of assurance For we are commanded to pray that God would forgive us as we forgive others and this last forgivenesse it not meant of assurance therefore neither is the former Ninthly Such as are under the power of Satan are not justified But all unbelievers are under the power of Satan Therefore we were not justified from the death of Christ antecedently to faith The Major is not liable to contradiction because if a man be justified he is accquitted by the Judge then what power hath the Jayler to keep him in prison neither will God nor Christ permit a soul under Satans power that is discharged from guilt that very act of Gods is his deliverance from the power of Satan The Minor is evident from Scripture which saith of the Gentiles to whom Paul was sent by special commission from Christ to open their eyes It is said that he was sent to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light Acts 26.83 from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgivenesse of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Where it is evident that these Gentiles were Elect for whom Christ died that when he was in heaven yet appeared in a vision to Paul as he was going to Damascus to persecute the Saints And converts him and then sends him as a special Embassadour and Apostle to the Gentiles to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God c. If they were from the time of Christs death justified and pardoned then they were not under Satans power for that is inconsistent with Justification and if they were pardoned already what need he send him to open their eyes to turne them from Satan to God that they might receive forgivenesse this was the end why he was sent nor can it be meant of receiving the knowledge of their pardon assurance of their forgivenesse but that they might receive forgivenesse it self And to this end also the Apostle Paul saith of the Ephesians That they walked according to the Prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience intimating they were no lesse ruled and acted by Satan then other worldly men in whom he now effectually worketh Tenthly If we were justified from the time of Christs death then the Elect Jewes are already justified whom God will call in this latter age of the world But the Elect Jewes are not yet justified Therefore Justification is not from the time of Christs death The consequence of the Major will not be denied The assumption I prove 1. Such as are notingraffed as members into Christs body are not justified The Elect Jews yet uncaled are not yet ingraffed into Christs body The major is expresly confirmed because Christ is the Saviour of his body Eph. 5.23 that is only of his body that the Elect Jews are not members of his body Eph. 1.23 I prove because they are not members of his Church which is the body of Christ 2. They that are not called are not justified But the Elect Jewes are not called The Major is proved from Rom. 8.30 Whom he praedestinated Rom. 8.30 them he called and whom he called them he justified and none else and why Mr. Eyre should deny that the Apostle doth here set down the order of the causes of salvation contrary to all reason and authority I cannot imagine but that he is not able to answer the Argument and the contrary may be proved out of the Text for if in every thing else that relates to the salvation of man in this place the Apostle hath observed the due order why should we think he hath not assigned the right order of Vocation and Justification For here the Apostle setteth down the golden chain of salvation For the first cause is Gods foreknowledge not a simple prescience or foresight a foresight of approbation nor a foresight of mens faith or works but * Pet. Martyr-Bullinger Pareus Erasmus whom he thus foreknew or acknowledged loved and approved without all cause in them moving therunto whom he thus foreknew with the knowledg of approbation so as to choose unto himself by that foreknowledge so the Learned render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly whom God thus forknew he pedestinated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he predestinated that is certainly appointed and ordained unto the end by certain means he did infallibly ordain them unto glory as the end and appoint the means conducing to that end namely Christ and Faâ—th and whatsoever is needful to salvation Now when the Apostle speaketh thus who can judge but he meanes a special order in this place Thirdly in the next place he setteth down the means and that is effectual Vocation Whom he predestinated them he also called that is called them unto faith Fourthly Whom he called them he justified that is pardoned for Christs sake apprehended by Faith And lastly Whom he justified them he glorified under which is comprehended Sanctification which will end in glory which is the last link in this golden chaine and it 's against all reason to think the Apostle
say that Christ purchased onely a new way of Salvation whereby we may be saved if we performe the conditions required of us we acknowledge no condition to be performed by us by the power of free-will but a condition as freely purchased and given and as certainly bestowed as the Salvation it self so that Christs death is no way rendered uncertain or lesse sure Fourthly Doth he say that God justifieth the ungodly so do we but we dare not say with him that he justifieth the ungodly so remaining under the reigning power of sin but whom he justifieth he also sanctifieth at the same time for we think it dishonourable to God to the purity and holinesse of his nature to justifie a man while he is a servant of sin The Lord is of purer eyes then to delight in an unsanctâ—fied wretch and it is a wrong to God to make him a Father of such an unclean beast and such a prophane ungodly person his adopted childe though he did purpose to adopt him yet he did not he could not adopt him without changing his nature We judge it a wrong to Christ that a limbe of the devil should so remaining be made a member of Christ For he that committeth sinne is of the Devil or 1 John 3.8 if he that hath the Devil for his father should have at the same time Christ for his head but all sinners that are under the reigne of sin have the Devil for their father John 8.44 Ye are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do And thus you may see which Doctrine ascribeth most glory to God in Christ Thirdly He purgeth himself from this crime by describing Antinomists in Austins time from Eunomeus their leader of whom St. Austine saith Fertur usquè ad eo c. August de Haeresibus c. 54. It is reported that he was such an enemy to goodnesse that he affirmed though a man did commit or lie in any kinde of sin it should never hurt him if he had but that faith that he taught and of the same straine were the Gnosticks who for their filthy lives were called Coenosi the dirty sect And what saith Mr. Eyre lesse doth he not say that the unregenerate while they so remaine that is let them commit or lie in any kinde of sin yet if Elect they are justified that is secured from wrath and so it shall not hurt them yea though they have no faith if those were the dirty Sect I am sure this is no better And he further saith of the Corinthians whom the Apostle called unrighteous fornicators adulterers abusers of themselves with mankinde c. such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God That they had no more right unto salvation after faith then before 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Mr. Eyre pag 122. so then by him they had right unto salvation and these sins could not keep them out of Heaven when the Apostle saith as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Is not this as bad as the opinion of Eunomius nay of the two the first borne of abominations because he will make God the justifier of these while they so remaine Fourthly He vindicates himself from Antinomianisme by the authority of some godly men that have asserted Justification in foro Dei before faith who were never accounted Antinomians 1. From the authority of Mr. Pemble in his Vindiciae Grat. to which I answer That if Mr. Pemble saw reason to alter his judgement as it seemeth he did in his Treatise of Justification Mr. Eyre upon deliberate thoughts may finde as much reason if he hath as much ingenuity to change his minde although he hath doated upon an erroneous opinion as many persons do upon a vaine fashion when it is new yet let him have but a little more time and serious thoughts about it and he will see cause to lay it aside as men do when their fashions grow stale And that Mr. Pemble dissents from him I shall make to appeare by a testimony or two of Mr. Pembles in his Book of Justification which is directly contrary to what he formerly asserted in his first Sect. Cap. 3. pag. 22. of his Treatise of Justification he hath these words The condâ—tion required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification is true faith whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priviledge that by faith and faith only a sinner shall be justified and pag 23. speaking of the Covenant of Grace The other Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the tenor whereof is Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the condition of this Covenant is faith And pag. 24. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Christ Jesus believed on and embraced by a true faith where he taketh faith subjectively and objectively which act of Justification of a sinner although it be properly the onl wo k of God for the only merit of Christ yet it is rightly ascribed unto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that maine condition of the New Covenant which as we must performe if we will be justified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine Justification and life for when God by grace hath enabled us to performe the condition of believing then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant then is the sentence pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last judgement So in pag. 57. We confesse faith is a work and in doing of it we obey the Law c. but now we denie that faith justifieth as a work which we performe in obedience to this Law it justifieth us onely as a condition required of us and an instrument embracing Christs righteousnesse Thus his first authority is found to beare witnesse against him His second witnesse is Mr. Rutherford whom he scoffingly derided when in our conference he told me with contempt as appeared to them that heard him that it was Mr. Rutherfords judgement which he hoped I did like well enough and here he suborneth Mr. Rutherford to serve his turne and had he had the honesty to quote his Author and recite his whole minde he had found but little shelter for his opinion on his words the place cited is this Sanè prius quam Electus credit cessat ira Dei adversus ipsum Rutherford Apol. Exercit. pag 45. omnésque effectus irae erga ipsius personam Ãdque propter Christi meritum Sed non virtute illius palmaris promissi Evagelici Qui credit in Christum non venit in condemnationem nunquam enim removentur effecta irae Dei adversus peccatum Electi virtute illius promissi donec quis actu credit Verily saith he before an Elect person do believe the wrath of God ceaseth against him and all the effects of Gods wrath towards
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
scimus hyssopum singulari purgandi excoquendi efficaciâ pollere Itâ Christus Spiritu suo vice aspergilli utitur ad nos sanguine suo abluendos dum seriò poenitentiae nos sensu afficit dum excoquit pravas carnis nostrae cupiditates dum pretioso justitiae suae colore nos tingit and without these ceremonies thus performed the atonement was not available Sixthly if it be the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without any condition performed by them then it was his will that it should be for all of them But it is the Will of God that it should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect viz. infants or else they cannot be reconciled I answer Mr. Eyre is hardly put to it that he must run to the Philistins to sharpen his goad this argument is taken from Suarez who argueth against faith in general upon this ground because Infants are justified without it Now this argument proveth if it proveth any thing at all that we are justified without it and not before it and so believers are not the sole subjects of justification as Mr. Eyre elsewhere affirmeth but the case of Infants is not to be urged in most questions especially when we are speaking of what God requires in those that are adulti of age unto salvation but I deny his minor and affirm that Infants are not united to Christ without saith they are saved by faith as well as we Thus * Zanch. 5. Tom. in Com. in Hoseam p. 28. Zanchy Vt uniamur huic capiti Christo Spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus ipsis etiam parvulis pernecessarius est justus enim ex solâ fide suâ vivet non alienâ assensus autem propriae voluntatis omnibus adultis est necessarius c. ac proinde etiam parvuli quodammodo sibi ponunt hoc caput cùm Spiritu fidei interno in hoc caput donantur That we may be united to Christ the spirit of a mans own faith by it self is necessary to all yea to Infants also for the just shal live by his own faith not by another mans but the assent of our own proper will is necessary to all that are of age And a little after he saith and therefore also Infants do in a manner appoint themselves this head when they are given unto this head by the internal Spirit of faith So also learned * Rivet ad vers Babyl Jesui Tom. 297. p. 254. Rivet Agnoscimus Deum in Infantibus supplere quod deest propter aetatis imbecillitatem internâ Spiritûs sui operatione qui fidei semen in ipsis ingenerat vi suâ eis applicat meritum Christi cujus suo tempore in eis sensum est excitaturus We acknowledge that God supplyeth in Infants what is wanting through the weaknesse of their age by the internal work of his Spirit who engendereth a seed of faith and by his power applyeth the merits of Christ to them whereof he will raise up a sense in his time therefore I acknowledge there is at lâ—ast wrought in them semen fidei a seed of faith by which they become members of Christ and that relation which is in their faith to Christâ— merits is the instrument by which they obtain remission of sins and without which they could not be saved nor may this seem strange seeing we grant that in men grown up they are meerly passive in the first work of grace their understandings and wills no wayes concurring antecedently to this work and seeing it is a work wrought in us without us why may not children be capable of this Besides if Adam had stood even Infants before the use of reason had been sanctified and Christ was so from the wombe and John Baptist and Infants received the seale of the righteousnesse of faith and are they capable of the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and not of faith And therefore though they have not the use of knowledge this hinders not a seed and work of faith they have not actual reason yet they have reasonable soules and when it s said that faith cometh by hearing it is to be applied to persons that are of age to whom the ordinary meanes to beget faith is hearing of the Word preached Seventhly if it were the Will of God that Christ should have the whole glory of our reconciliation it was his Will that it should not in the least depend upon our works and conditions because that conditions will share with him in the glory of this effect and our salvation would be partly of works and partly of grace partly from Christ and partly from our selves nay it would be more from our selves then Christ Ans I shall here distinguish upon conditions A condition is either strictly and properly taken for an absolute condition required on our parts performed by our selves without the help of grace no way given and merited by Christ upon which the effect of Christs death should depend as a cause of the effect if not deserving yet at least-wise obliging God to give the effect such a condition would indeed share with Christ and the honour of our salvation would be ascribed partly to our selves and partly to Christ nay we should be more beholding to our selvs then to Christ because notwithstanding all that he hath done we might have been miserable unlesse we had by the liberty of our Will and improvement of our natural abilities performed this condition but we deny and abhor such a condition as derogatory to Christ Secondly a condition may be taken in a lesse proper sense for an Evangelical condition appointed by God to suspend the benefit of Christs death till the condition be performed which condition is not the fruit of free-will but the absolute purchase of Christ and the free gift of God and shall be infallibly given in the Lords due time to all for whom Christ died effectually to apply the benefit of his death unto justification this condition we acknowledge nor is it any wrong to Christ for it is not the matter for which we are justified and it is the fruit of his death and freely wrought by his own Spirit and the death of Christ is not rendered the lesse certain or effectual but as absolutely effectual as if the effects were already enjoyed Eighthly If it were the Wil of God that his people should have strong consolation and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves I answer that the consolation and joy of Gods people is no whit lessened or abated by this condition before explained for their salvation is as firme and sure as if that condition were not required for they are not left to perform the condition by natural strength as for the condition which Calvin opposeth it is a condition of works
In respect to their exclusion or admittance to the Covenant in the Gospel and thus the Elect Gentiles were once not a people and then made a people to the Covenant of Grace And in this sense I adde all unregenerate though Elect are not Gods people untill faith And hence Zanchy saith thus that whereas the words should have run thus that in the place where it is said ye are not my people there it shall be said ye are my people instead thereof he saith it is said ye are the Sonnes of God and he assigneth three reasons the third is Vt meliùs hâc locutione indicaret rationem quâ justificamur salvamur nempe per fidem verbum Dei apprehensantem si enim filii Dei sumus ergò nati ex Deo si nati ex Deo ergò per semen Dei in nos illapsum à nobis apprehensum in nobis retentum semen Dei est verbum Evangelii in nos illabitur per virtutem Spiritûs sancti à nobis verò fide quae it idem opus est Spiritûs sancti solâ recipitur ergò solâ fide fimus filii Dei He speaketh thus that he may the better declare the manner of our Justification or Salvation ta wit by faith apprehending the Word of God where he taketh faith not objectively but subjectively with connotation to the object for if we be the sons of God we are therefore borne of God if borne of God therefore by the seed of God falling into us and received and retained by us The seed of God is the Word of the Gospel it falleth into us by the power of the Holy Ghost but of us it is only received by faith which again is the work of the Holy Ghost therfore by faith alone we are made the sons of God where you see that Zanchy maketh this great change to be by faith and that such a change is made is evident for before faith they are * Eph. 2.1 2 3. 2 Tim. 2.26 Acts 26 18. Ezek. 44.7 Heb. 2.15 Mark 16.16 dead in sins and trespasses are children of disobedience in whom Satan acts and rules by whom they are led captive at his will and pleasure they are under his power they are unrenewed uncircumcised slaves in bondage to death subject to damnation children of wrath but upon believing are new * 2 Cor. 5 17 2 Pet. 1.4 John 1.12 Eph. 1.5 1 Pet. 1.3 23. creatures partakers of the Divine Nature they are actually instated into the number of children to which they were predestinated are begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead are borne again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever But could this be affirmed of them ever since Christs death surely no thâ—refore here is a change and that before God wrought in their estate by effectual vocation and therefore they were not justiâ—â—ed before Fifthly If we are exhorted to believe in God for pardon and remission of sins then were not we pardoned from the time of Christs death before faith But we are thus exhorted to believe in God for the pardon of sins Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and the Scripture was written for this end that we might believe and that believing we might have life through his Name John 20.21 The consequence is confirmed because if we were justified already before faith it were a needlesse exhortation to call upon us to believe for pardon when we are pardoned already and therefore we might be called upon to believe to get assurance of our pardon but not to obtain pardon it self it were an exhorting us to seek for that by faith which according to Mr. Eyre is to be evidenced not to be obtained through faith and so were a needlesse and a groundlesse exhortation Sixthly Such as were not mystically united to Christ at his death could not be justified actually by his death But Believets that now live were not then mystically united Therefore The Major Proposition will need no shield and buckler to defend it for Christ justifieth none but such as are in him as the first Adam brings condemnation to none but such as are in him so the second Adam gives life and salvation to none but such as are in him The Minor is proved because that that is not cannot be united Believers were not then existing Besides 2. This union is made by faith They that were not existing were not then believers 3. Christs being a common person is not sufficient to make the mystical union 4. Christ as a publick person is a surety but Christ as united to us is a Head which are different considerations in the one he is a meritorious moral cause of salvation in the other a physical cause or efficient natural cause 5. The mystical union is by a work of the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit but if the mystical union be made by Christs being a publick person that needeth not any new work of the Spirit to joyn Christ and Believers together 6. Those places where it is said Ephes 2.5 6.13 Ephes 2.5.6.13 Col. 2.13 14. Col. 2.13 14. That we were quickened with Christ and are made to sit together in heavenly places And in Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afarre off are now made nigh and that the handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out signifie no more then that in and through him as a meritorious cause we obtain such mercies but they hold not forth Believers to be existing in him before they had a being and our sitting in heavenly places is spoken only in regard of the certain right we have thereunto jus ad rem though not jus in re and in a qualified sense in Christ our Head who is already ascended Seventhly Christ in his death was not mystically but personally considered For though he were a publick person and Mediatour yet as so he was personally not mystically considered in his death and resurrection and the Justification that he received from God Therefore we were not justified actually from the time of Christs death The Antecedent is thus made good because it was not Christ mystical that was crucified but Christ the Son of God and He trod the * Isay 63.3 Wine-presse of his Fathers wrath alone Christ mysticall is not the Saviout of the world then the work of Redemption is to be attributed to every Believer and they are as truly Saviours of the world as Christ but this is blasphemy to imagine and therefore if he were not mystically considered in his death then not in his Resurrection nor in that Justification he received and so by consequence we were not justified by his death nor were in him antecedently to faith Eightly If we were pardoned from the time of Christs death then as Bellarmine objecteth against our Divines that make faith an assurance then it is