sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
called uncertain or contingent and this is no more then what is unanimously acknowledged by the Orthodox and that no way hinders the salvation of the Elect. And by this time I hope the Reader plainly seeth this truth of Christ that the very Elect are without Christ and without hope in the world as the Apostle affirmeth untill faith that they have no actuall right or interest in the death of Christ until faith and so as to their present estate there is no difference between them and Reprobates being children of wrath as well as others this is that which the tender eares of Mr. Eyre cannot bear but I believe it sounds not so harsh in the ears of a judicious Reader as being an undoubted truth of God but let it be compared with that filthy and dirty opinion of Mr. Eyre more beseeming the Gnosticks of old or the present Ranters of this age then a sober Christian which is this Master Eyre page 61. That the Elect while they are unregenerate while they lie like swine wallowing in the miâ—e of sinne antecedently to faith are justified and so though Infidels and wicked yet divine justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve but contrarily he beholdeth them as perfectly righteous and accordingly deales with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight And I doubt not but the naming of his will vindicate mine and render his justly abhorred to an utter nauseating saying Durus est hic sermo who can bear it And those monstrous absurdities which he chargeth our Doctrine with I doubt not but the intelligent Reader seeth that they are as unjustly fathered upon us as his deformed errour is by himself stiled with the same likenesse of truth to have the complexion of a saving truth CHAP. II. Containing a Vindication of my Argument drawn from the Parallel between the first and the second Adam shewing that as no man is lyable to condemnation by the first Adam but such as are in him by natural generation descending from him so no man is freed from condemnation till they be in Christ by supernatural and spiritual regeneration AGainst this Errour of the Antecedency of Justification to Faith I used in my Serm. at N. Sarum this Medium As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternal death but he that is a member of him by naturall generation so Christ freeth no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till he be a member of him by supernatural generation But this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as received him to them gave he power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 liberty right power priviledge or prerogative to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Therefore no man stands reconciled before God though Elect persons till by faith they are incorporated into Christ and have this priviledge to be the children of God Now let us see what Mr. Eyre replieth to this he saith that this maketh much against me Mr. Eyre p. 6. for saith he If the righteousnesse of Christ doth come upon all the Elect unto justification in the same manner as Adams sin came upon all men to condemnation as the Apostle sheweth it doth Rom. 5. then it must follow that the righteousnesse of Christ was reckoned or imputed to the Elect before they had a being and then much more before they do believe in him for Adams sin it is evident that it came upon all men to condemnation before they had a being For by the first transgression sayes the Apostle ver 12. sin entred into the world and more plainly death passed upon all men The reason followes because in him or in his loyns all have sinned so Mr. Eyre For answer whereunto I shall premise this that I did not affirme that we are no way guilty of Adams sin before we have a being For I willingly grant that of Augustine * Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manif stùque est alia esse propria cuique peccata in quibus hi tantum peccant quorum peccata sunt aliud hoc unum in quo omnes peccaverunt quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt Aug. de peccat merit Remist l. 1. c. 10. Adam erat nos omnes omnes eramus ille unus Adam certum manifestúmque est alia esse propria c. Adam was as it were we all we were all that one Adam it is most certain and manifest that some sins are proper to every one in which they only sinned whose sins they were this one sin is another in which all have sinned seeing all were that one man and it is a general received truth among the Orthodox that there was an inexistence or being of all men in Adam And therefore I willingly grant that we did no lesse sin in Adam then Levi paid tithes in Abraham Heb. 7.6 because as he was in the loynes of Abraham when Melchisedech met him so were we all in the loynes of Adam and when I said that no man is guilty by the first Adam of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation I intended nothing but to shew that we are not guilty of Adams sin so as to be actually and formally sinners though virtually we are untill we be in him by naturall generation and so actually members and so I grant we are virtually justified from the death of Christ not formally And 2. I intended to shew that as Adams sin is not ours but as we are in him so Christs righteousnesse is not ours unlesse united to him this premised I shall now reply to Mr. Eyre's Objection That I apprehend in his answer a double Errour 1. He takes that for granted which will not be yielded that the Apostle saith We were formally constituted sinners by the disobedience of Adam as we are by his opinion formally not only virtually justified at the death of Christ Vide Mr. Eyre page 68. so he expresseth his meaning p. 68. and herein he is contrary to all Orthodox Antiquity Learned Wotton doth deny it in expresse termes in his answer to Hemingius his Argument whose words are these Wotton de Recon pecc par 2. l. 1. c. 9. p. 148. Primam propositionem nego quia sumit pro concesso Apostolum dicere nos Adami inobedientiâ formaliter factos esse peccatores quod parùm liquet certè alia fuit antiquorum Theologorum sententia and reciteth for that end Chrysost Theophilact Pacianus Anselm Haymo Hugo Aeterianus OEcumenius Calvin Who so please to read them may finde them in the fore-cited place of Wotton We therefore affirme that although Adams sin was not altogether another mans but in some sense ours because we were seminally in
in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
anothers sin but he imputeth that which is their own that is the sin of the whole nature Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith that we are not sinners by Adam or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity for many reasons 1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputation or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative and no way an act of justice when as it is a mixt act not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature for God could have ordered it so had it been his pleasure that this sin should only have been personal as his other sins after the fall are But it is an act of justice also for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all which is an act of justice The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans Because in him all have sinned so that death is the wages of that sin because it is our sin all sinned in him and it is not only Adams sin but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him being in his loynes And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin which is no way ours but by imputation the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement that was ever executed in the world is to represent God not so much as a just Judge as one that delighteth in the death of his creature in the blood and ruine of his creature when as he professeth that as he doth live he hath no delight in the death of a sinner much lesse of a creature that were not a sinner if it were not for his imputation And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery if it were his will and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it because it was his absolute pleasure then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did or will do such an act to make the creature miserable meerly to shew his Sovereignty And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin if this imputation be grounded upon his will and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity to free it from such an act of pure Sovereignty therefore I look upon it as an act of justice as well as prerogative the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another 2. I urge as before I hinted If death entred by sin then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it But it entred by sin as the Apostle saith Death passed upon all inasmuch as all have sinned 3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin but God the Authour for if Adam had sinned if God had not imputed it we had not been sinners But this is an insufferable blasphemy to make God the Author of sinne Therefore Gods imputing it is an act of justice and not of Sovereignty only 4. This overthrowes the community of his person for if it be meerly an act of his will he might have done this though Adam had not been a publick person 5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent and is not a sinner but by his imputation 6. This ascribeth injustice to God to impute sin to him that is no sinner but by his imputation which the sinner would be delivered from and consents not to it as the regenerate that bewaile it and earnestly desire to be delivered from it 7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost to prevent his being a sinner confutes this conceit for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ and he intended not so miraculously to be borne for it behoved him to be like us in all things and why not by the help of man to be borne if Adams sin be ours by imputation only and not by propagation also Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto to hold and maintaine one Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being For the understanding of this we must know what imputation of sin is it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner or an adjudication of punishment for that sin or the execution of that punishment now look in what manner we are sinners in that manner is the imputation for Gods judgement must be according to truth now as we are but seminally potentially and virtually sinners because we had but a virtual existence in Adam for it is a known rule and of approved verity Operatio rei consequitur esse rei The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things and are suitable and proportionable thereunto so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam and so not actual sinners nor so reputed by God nor formally obliged to punishment nor any punishment actually or formally to be inflicted till we have an actuall existence hence by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members and so his argument will return upon himself For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification as Adams sin to condemnation then as we are not actually sinners till we have an actual being so neither are we actually justified till we be actuall members of Christ by faith His second Reason halteth right down and is pittifully inconsequent for it doth no way follow that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as from Adam but rather the consequence should be Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin as Adam to their children and this is true and will advantage your cause nothing nor hinder ours but it followes not that their personall sins should be imputed as was Adams first sin For if no more of Adams
many not that Faith is the cause of Gods acceptation of the merits of Christ but of applying it to us Secondly That which Mr. Eyre addeth that our Saviour after he had tasted death to bring many sons to glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Behold I and the children which thou hast given me Heb. 2.13 Therefore it was the will of God that his death should be immediately available for their reconciliation for they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I answer Mr. Eyre hath dealt fraudulently in citing this Scripture for he hath left out the 11th Vers which is the true Key to unlock this and to shew us who are there called his children for these that are called children are called brethren in the 11th Verse and the same persons are understood without all question and who were his brethren why they that were sanctified for both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren Now a man is not sanctified before Faith therefore not a brother before Faith therefore not a childe 1. The scope of the place is this the Apostle is comforting the believing Hebrews against the scandall of the Crosse to which the Apostle answereth in v. 9. 1. That he was subjected unto death for our sakes not for his own therefore his Crosse should not offend us 2. That he did but taste of death he was but a little while under it 3. It is was by the special grace of God that his death for a short time should stand for our eternal death deserved Therefore we should rather gloriously esteem of his suffering then be offended 2. He giveth a second reason in the 10th Verse it made for Gods glory as well as for our salvation for it behoved him for whom are all things and by whom in bringing many sonnes to glory to make the Captaine of our salvation perfect through suffering In v. 11. he gives an account how Christ could die and how this could be accepted in our stead He answereth Because that he is one of our kin and nature Now least it should therefore be thought that all are redeemed because all partake in the community of nature with Christ as man He sheweth who indeed are his kindred brethren for whom he died they are sanctified ones They that are sanctified and he that sanctifieth are all of one as if he should say Christ died for them that are one with him Now none are one with him but such they are not only all of one common lump but of the same body and have the same God for their Father Hence if none be united but sanctified ones and if Christ will claime kindred with none but sanctified ones then none but Believers are his brethren and children Now as to your Argument that they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I retort it upon you and say therefore it is evident they were not Christs children immediately from the time of his death for then they could not be children of wrath which yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth of the Elect Ephesians before regeneration Thus the Captain of the Life-guard of his opinion lieth bleeding at the feet of the truth that he doth oppose Secondly If it were the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate But it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the paiment of our debt and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition which he endeavoureth to prove because saith he it is unjust that a debt when it is paid should be charged upon the Surety or Principal I answer if it had been the intention of God and of Christ that the payment should have procured an immediat discharge it were unjust But that rests to be proved and will while the world stands We deny not the value of the price or satisfaction but that God or Christ intended it for a present discharge 1. Because Christs death though it be the meritorious cause yet it is not the only cause of Justification 2. Christs was Gods servant in the work of Redemption and if it were the will of God to limit this benefit till faith it behoved Christ as Mediatour to obey 3. The merit of Christs death is not to be valued only by the intrinsecal value of it but by the constitution and acceptation of God it is said that by grace he tasted death for every man It was an act of grace to Christ that he should be Mediatour that the sufferings of his humane nature united to the divine person of the Son of God should be accepted as a ransome for us from eternal death Hence Christs death was not an act of pure justice but of justice mixed with grace and is so farre accepted as the divine will of the Father pleaseth as we see in denying the fruit of it to Reprobates and limiting it to the Elect which might have ransomed all And why is it any more injustice to have it limited for a time by the will of God for application to the Elect when it shall certainly be done then to have it by the will of God absolutely limited to them alone Hence Christs death is so far meritorious as the will of God is to accept it hence Gods will must not be regulated by the death of Christ for the time maner of application or else it must be injustice in God which is a harsh expression in you but Christs death must be regulated by Gods will in accepting it and I have else where given sufficient reason why God did limit the benefit of it untill faith And from what goeth before it followeth Christs death was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem for then it would have produced an immediate discharge This is the great Argument upon which his cause depends and you see how invincibly it is overmatcht by opposing the Doctrine of Justification by Faith 3ly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediatly reconciled But nothing hindered their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law I shall here distinguish in answer to this Argument upon the hinderâ—ng of reconciliation 1. Reconciliation may be hindered by that which is the cause of separation which at first made the breach or reconciliation may be hindered for want of a fit means to apply the benefit of reconciliation And thus I apply it to the Minor And deny it though nothing do hinder by way of guilt as a cause of separation for want of satisfaction yet something did hinder by way of application
in heavenly places but how in Christ thus the believing Râ—manes were first b Rom. 11.24 cut off from their old stock the wilde Olive they grew upon and were graffed into the new Olive-tree before they could be partakers of the root and fatness of the Olâ—ve-tree and their being graffed in did precede their being partakers of the root and fatnesse of the Olive-tree And he that hath but the first-fruits of reason must acknowledge this and take one place for all to shew that all the benefits that come by Christ follow upon our union to Christ In the c 1 Cor. 1.30 1 Cor. 1.30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdome and righteousnesse sanctification and redemption So that first we are in him before he is made of God unto us wisdome righteousnesse c. Now I come to the third particular and that is to shew you that before actual faith there is no actual union to Christ and so no spiritual communion with him in his death not actuall hope of eternal life Now for the fuller vindicating of this Proposition and what I have hereafter laid down in the defence of it against Mr. Eyre's Exceptions or Cavils rather I referre the Reader to the following discourse where I will purposely undertake this taske because I intend here only to give the world a sight of that naked truth as it was delivered without any variation from it that the world may see what reason Mr. Eyre had to condemne it as Heterodox To return then to the Proposition delivered That before actual faith there can be no actual union with Christ That which some imagine of an union with Christ from eternity and an union with Christ upon the Crosse when he stood as a common person if they understand it of an actual union and implantation into Christ and not of a relative respect and virtual union which yet is an union improperly so called that which they affirme is very irrational for that union which is the mystical union between Christ and a Believer by which we have spiritual communion with Christ in his death is the formall effect of faith by meanes of which Christ and we are made one d Eph. 5.23 1 Cor. â—0 7 body and this union necessarily requireth the consistence of the persons united for that union whereby Christ and we are united is such an union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ I called it not a personall union though it be an union of persons and although I explained my self so in my conference with him after the Sermon yet he is not ashamed to tell the world I hold our union with Christ to be a personall union but of this hereafter Now this actual union whereby the person of a Beleever is united to the person of Christ necessarily requires the pre-existence of his person and the antecedency of his faith And therefore when it is said that God e Eph. 1.4 chose us in Christ that is not to be understood as if we were then existentes in Christo or actually united but it sheweth us Gods order how he purposes to bring us unto holinesse that is through Christ or for Christs sake this being an immanent and eternall action it could not leave any present effect upon us who had no actuall but a mentall existence only in Gods minde and therefore we could not be actually united for neither Christ as yet had assumed our nature into the unity of his Person which was to lay the foundation of the union of our persons unto Christ although I deny not but the Patriarchs before Christ were really united by faith before the assumption of the humane nature Besides union to Christ is a thing accidental as to the nature of man now an accident is not nor cannot be without its subject where let the Reader observe the forgery of Mr. Eyre that which I spake of union with Christ he applies to imputation of righteousnesse For * Where I take inesse or esse in alio quatenus opponitur substantiae quae per se subsistit latè non strictè sed pro omni accidentali informatione in ordine al substantiam sive sit per modum inhâ—rentiae adjacentiae sive essendi c. Accidentis esse est inesse now the Believer being the person united and so a subject of this union how can union which is an accident subsist without man that is the subject exist And besides it is a known rule Non entis nulla sunt accidentia nullae sunt affectiones how can any thing be truly predicated of that which is not Besides it is against another Principle in reason and unlesse we will betray our reason to become beasts we cannot submit to this new Creed Omnis actio fit per contactum All action is by some contact which holds good in this supernatural action for by faith we touch Christ not by any local contiguity but by a spirituall contact and apprehension whereby Christ is said to dwell in our hearts Now having proved à priori that the Elect before faith are not united to Christ let us à posteriori see if the same truth will not be concluded from the proper effect of union with Christ which is communion with him in his death unto justification that the Elect are not united before faith Such then as are actually united to Christ are actually justified But a man is not justified actually before faith Therefore neither united to Christ As for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration God by his Spirit supplying what is wanting through the imbecillity of their age and hence the Spirit working semen fidei and apprehending them though they cannot apprehend Christ I question not their union to Christ and the imputation of his righteousnesse to their justification but we speak now de adultis that none that are of years sufficient are justified without actual faith Now that we are not justified by an immanent act of God from eternity nor immediately from the time of Christs death without some act of ours intervening for the application of Christs righteousnesse to justification will appear 1. From such Scriptures which require an act of faith to go before our justification and the remission of sins Acts 16.31 f Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the Jaylors question was not What shall I do to be quieted in conscience and assured that I am justified and in a state of salvation but What shall I doe to be saved I see my lost damnable estate how shall I doe to be saved With the heart g Rom. 10.10 man believeth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made to salvation where you see righteousnesse is obtained by faith and made the end h 1 Pet 1.9 of believing as the Apostle expressely elsewhere calleth salvation the end of our faith
lovingly Christ invites us to come and how willingly he will imbrace every soul that comes John 6.38 For this is the will of the Father that whosoever come he should in no wise cast out The Spirit saith come Rev. 22.17 and the Bride saith come Whosoever will let him come and drinke of the water of life freely And to that end that faith may be wrought attend upon the Word of God for faith cometh by hearing it is the power of God to salvation and desire the Lord to draw thee unto Christ tell him thou art undone without Christ and there is nothing that thy heart is more set upon then Christ and if he will give thee Christ thou wilt be conntented whatever he do with thee and when the Lord seeth thee hunger and thirst after Christ and his righteousnesse and that nothing but a Christ will content thee he will say Be it unto thee according to thy desire if nothing but a Christ will satisfie thee why take Christ and let him everlastingly become thine and with his Christ he will give his Spirit if thou aske it to seal up this gift to thy heart to thy everlasting comfort Thus then being come to the end of this Sermon as it was delivered with as little variation as I could I shall prosecute this argument no further and if friends and enemies would have been so satisfied I had not troubled the Presse with this Sermon but I and it had been yet buried in silence but since it is the will of God I here submit it to the judgement of my Brethren and I doubt not but I shall receive from them a quietus est to discharge me from Mr Eyre's Arrest who hath in the Pulpit and Presse condemned this Sermon as wide from the Orthodox Faith which if he will undertake to shew and convince me wherein I promise him through the grace of Christ to be a thankful Proselyte Now the God of peace tread down Satan under your feet rebuke that spirit of Errour and division that is among you settle and confirme you in the truth as it is in Jesus to whose grace I commend you and rest in hope of your establishment JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH OR UNBELIEVERS NO SUBJECTS OF Justification CHAP. I. Being a Vindication of my Sermon preached at N. Sarum shewing that Union to Christ and Justification by Christ is not Antecedent to Faith ABout April which was Anno 1652. according to my course in the Lecture at New Sarum I preached the foregoing Sermon grounded upon the second to the Ephesians the 12. vers That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world From which words the Point observed was this That a Christlesse estate is a Hopelesse estate for the explication and proof of the Point I referre the Reader to the Sermon it self That which I chiefly aimed at was to shew that the very Elect are said to be without Christ or in a Christless estate untill actuall faith because without union to Christ there is no communion with him but this union is the formall effect of faith or is made by believing After the Sermon Mr. Eyre took liberty to remonstrate and since in his Vindiciae Justifie he hath declared to the world that I said That the Elect themselves to whom Christ was peculiarly given by the Father before the foundations of the world for whom Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour whose sins he bare on his body on the tree even to a full propitiation had no right or interest in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who conceit the contrary To which I answer that as he hath a faculty to speak of others what they never said so he can hear what they never spake he hath innovated my tearmes of which as in our conference so in his Printed relation where he is no lesse peccant he was always wittingly as I conceive guilty which because I minded him of before the people he stiles in his Book a provocation of language which I gave him But to the matter because I intend not a strife of words I shall first readily grant him that the Elect were given to Christ by the Father before the foundations of the world and Christ to them if he understand it onely of an immanent act terminated in God himself and understand by it no more then an eternall purpose in God to give Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for those whom in his eternal counsel he had fore-ordained to eternal life and to give them faith whereby they may become his members but if he judge this to be actually done and that Christ and all the Elect were one mystical body and so justified from eternity I wholly dissent from him Predestination is only a love of purpose and intention not of execution it being an immanent act leaveth no positive reall effect upon the person predestinated Hence when God is said to give Christ to the Elect from eternity it signifies only the will and purpose of God constituting and appointing Christ to die for the Elect but he was not actually given till in the fulnesse of time he sent him into the world and although in his death he gave him to die for them yet was he not actually given to them that they should possesse the benefits of his death until actuall faith and I shall further manifest this when I shall prove that an immanent act of God purposing to justifie us is not our formal justification Secondly Whereas he saith that Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and bare our sins in his body on the tree even to a ful propitiation This I willingly acknowledge and blesse the Lord for if he understand it only of the fulness of satisfaction and not of an immediate discharge of the sinner for whom he died Christ did not satisfie the justice of God by divine acceptation but he satisfied the justice of God fully the dignity and excellency of his person did no way dispense with any degree of the extremity of the punishment due to our sin which was consistent with his Godhead and holynesse to suffer but it was to make the sufferings of one available for many And Scotus gives a considerable reason for it quia poenâ ab unà eximere Christum si valuisset valuisset etiam ex duabus Scotus in quar Sentent dist 46. Q. 4. Art 4. atque ita ex omnibus eum emancipare And I acknowledge there was not a deficiency but a redundancy of merit in his sufferings the justice of God cannot require any thing more at the hands of Christ our surety or of the sinner by way of satisfaction and in this sense he is well pleased with Christ as a publick
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
Father to lay it down accompanied with sufficient power to break through the sufferings he undertook and to raise up himself again all this constituted Christ God-man being perfectly righteous a fit person to become a surety and now it was just and righteous that Christ an innocent person should be charged with the sins of the Elect. Secondly I grant that no creature that was only a creature whether Angel or man could or ought to undertake this work 1. No Angel ought because Gods justice required that satisfaction should be given by the same nature that had sinne Bernard de pass Dom. 1. Cap. 46. nor was it meet he should be man only that our redemption and salvation might be attributed to none but him from whom we had our creation for that reason which Bernard alledgeth because our redemption would more oblidge us to love then our creation if therefore we had been redeemed by any other then him by whom we were made we should have loved him more then our Creatour Neither could any pure creature be fitly qualified for this work for whatever the creature can do is already debitum a due debt and therefore it cannot supper-erogate or merit any thing for us Thirdly I grant therefore that Christ was God and Man and that it was needful he should be both 1. He must be God that must satisfie God for God was offended and therefore to make satisfaction God in our nature satisfieth for our sin So that here is God satisfying God that if the sin be infinite in the object the satisfaction is infinite in respect of the subject suffering God in our nature and although his sufferings were not infinite in duration nor was there need they should be because he satisfied for such sins as should be broken off by repentance And his end was in suffering to satisfie therefore his sufferings must have an end yet his sufferings were unmeasurably great and what was wanting in the shortnesse was made up in the sharpnesse of the sufferings and it was impossible Christ should be held under the sorrows of death the duration of the prisoner in the Jayle is no part of the debt but accidentall to it he lies there but till the debt be paid Now Christ paid all so as fully to satisfie the justice of God and hence there was no need of his eternal suffering Besides it was needful he should be God that his obedience might be perfect and meritorious to dignifie his obedience and make it of infinite value that he might merit and support himself under his suffering and raise up himself again and performe the rest of the works of the Mediatourship And it was needful he should be Man for as he was God he could not suffer and that he might as justice requireth satisfie in our nature that our pardon might not be an act of dominion only and forgivenesse but an act of justice and satisfaction Fourthly I willingly grant that Christ did suffer whatsoever appertaines to the substance and essentials of the first death or the death naturall consisting in the separation of soul and body and though the curse doth not require any one particular death yet that the Lord might shew the hainousnesse of sin which deserves the worst death of all and that the love of Christ might be manifested and Gods justice declared God the Father appointed it and Christ undertook it to die the death of the Crosse a shameful and base death appropriated to the worst of malefactors Phil. 2.6 8. to shew the hatefulnesse of sin and the greatnesse of Christs humiliation and love in submitting to it he humbled himself to the death of the Crosse 2. I willingly grant Christs suffered and endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul not by sympathy with the body only but peculiar to his soul all that was due to the sins of the Elect that was consistent with his Godhead and Holiness Catechismus Romanus 4. Art Symb. Aquinas Part. 3 q. 46. art 5 6. the Papists deny not that he suffered inward grief in his soul and Aquinas that he suffered the greatest sorrow that could be but I affirme for quantity Christ might and did in this life endure the paines of hell he did not locally descend into the place of the damned he did indure the same that was due to us for substance and kinde though not in all accidents that belong to it he suffered and felt that heavy wrath of God due to mans sin his soul was so struck with horrour that all faculties for a time left there proper fruction and did concurre to relieve nature in that extremity he lay under the revenging stroakes of Gods justice due to mans sin it put him into a bloody sweat in the forethought of it and made him cry earnestly If it be possible let this cup passe My God my God why hast thou forsaken me God for a time withdrew the solace and comfort he was wont to finde in him that sensible refreshing of the light of Gods countenance which was wont to fill him with satisfactory sweetnesse was for a time withdrawn which is a part of the second death and answers to the pain of losse yet in all his time the union of the Manhood with the Godhead was untouched though there was a withdrawing of the sense and sweetnesse of the favour of God his righteousnesse and graces were no way diminished he was most pure in his passion free from all sin Christ brought none of this upon himself by his own sin but was called to this work and in all this conflâ—ct his faith was unshaken crying out My God even when to his present sense and feeling he was forsaken Fifthly I willingly grant that Christs death and sufferings was a very valuable compensation for the sin of man yea he satisfied Gods justice to the full not by divine acceptation God abated him nothing for the dignity of his person but he fully satisfied for the substance what the justice of God could fully inflict yea in respect of some circumstances he suffered more then was due indeed in respect of the substance of his sufferings neither as * Parker lib. 3. de discon li. 51. p. 97. Mr. Parker hath observed the love of the Father nor the justice of God could permit more to be imposed then what was necessary for him to bear as a surety Quoad substantiam poenae nihil plus perpessus est Christus quà m quod per legem debebatur neque enim vel amor Patris vel etiam justitia permittere potuit plura Filio ut imponerentur quà m quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant Quoad circumstantias autem patientis personam patiendi causam pâ—ssionis efficaciam plus quà m sufficiens satisfactio Christi à nobis dicitur In respect of circumstances as the person of the sufferer the cause of suffering and efficacy of the passion it was more then the Law
and redundancy of merit yet was it not altogether the same in the Obligation For first the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person or substitution of one for another and therefore God by an act of Sovereignty did dispense though not with the substance of the Laws demands for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfaction and considering his decree he could not do it but with the manner of execution which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation so then God relaxed his Law to put in the name of a surety therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the payment of the same debt for Dum alius solvit necessariò aliud solvitur and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment that another persons sufferings may be valid to procure a discharge to the guilty person and that the satisfaction was made by another and not by the party to whom remission is granted no Protestant will deny 2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all accidents 1. In respect of place he did not locally discend into the place of the damned Nor 2. In respect of time and duration his sufferings had an end though they were infinite intensivè yet not extensivè in respect of duration nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image nor was he deprived of any measure of grace nor was he really but as to present sense and feeling forsaken nor did he lose his right to the creatures nor did his body see corruption all which are effects of mans sin and penal effects of it as I apprehend Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse were of the same kinde and by the dignity of his person raised to a more then equipollency with ours so as to merit for us eternal life Quid enim Majestas tanta par ipsi Patri poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Regin Cyrillus Alexandrinus and it conduced to a compensation in those sufferings which were unworthy the dignity of his person 3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment yet not altogether with the same obligation for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary not arising from the guilt of inherent sin but by way of vadimony and sucâ—ption our guilt or obligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputation of sin ours from a desert of sin called reatus culpae which guilt is inseparable from sinne which draweth reatus poetus along with it Christ was reatus poenae not culpae 4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation not only for our breach of the Law but for our non-suffering and therefore is not altogether the same The second thing to be cleared is this that it being not the same therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong for it is mercy in God to accept it the Law requires his personal sufferings and there is no promise made to any that they shall have benefit by Christs death but only to Believers And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason for such a payment is refusable which is not altogether the same and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infliction of the punishment belongeth it cannot procure a discharge to the guilty person for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering and the Law threatneth the offender and the surety is not the offender and none but he that had power to make the Law can dispense with any thing in the Law therefore that the Law may be dispensed with in respect of the manner of execution by transferring the punishment upon another and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender as if he had in person suffered this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver receding from his own right and therefore might constitute and ordain how and in what manner it shall be accepted and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us to free us from our personal sufferings and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing 3dly That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction and of God in admitting of this satisfaction that it should not procure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion but when man is turned unto God by faith seeking and humbly intreating for pardon Now to manifest this we must premise 1. That it was an act of special grace not only to us but to Christ himself that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us by vertue of whose mediation and sufferings we should be forgiven and made heirs of eternall life Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity in respect of his Godhead is equall with the Father and so not subject to any preordination or predestination as an act of grace but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Mediatorship is a servant of God and so subject to Predestination and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office is as much seen as in our Election unto life for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ Heb. 5 5. when he was put into the Priestly Office to make atonement for us 2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction it was an act of free grace to us and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God Isa 42.1 John 10.18 and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work at his commandment he laid down his life and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular persons and denied to others therefore Christ saith Power is given him over all flesh John 17.2 to give eternal life but it is with restriction only to as many as the Father had given him Now the sufferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limited by the will of God to the Elect only and Christ submitteth to it why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith in that order that he hath appointed 3. It is an act of grace
intercession which is the best Index and Interpreter of his minde and intention in his death limits and restraines the benefits of his intercession to Beleevers then it was his minde and intention in his death to limit the benefits thereof unto Believers because Christs intention of the benefits of his death and the fruit of his intercession are of equall latitude and by consequence what was his minde was the Fathers minde for Christ and his Father are one and have the same will but Christ limits the benefits of his intercession unto Beleevers as we may see in John 17.20 Christ prayes for them that shall believe in him John 17.20 Heb. 7.25 nor do these places only declare who shall have the benefit of Christs intercession but how and when it shall be obtained by faith by coming unto Christ for if they did obtain it before faith immediately from his death what need were there of Christs intercession for that which they did already enjoy From whence I argue 8. That that destroyes the end and use of Christs intercession cannot be agreeable to Scripture But to make Christs death to justifie us actually and immediately this destroyes the end of his intercession for Christ is now in heaven an Advocate for sin that it might be pardoned to them that believe so that Christ in his death took it away meritoriously and now he is in heaven to intercede for all that by faith seek for the benefits of his death that it may be formally applied Yea the children of God though they fall not from the state of justification by new sins they lose not their right to heaven yet they lose their aptitude for heaven and by every new sin they contract a new guilt and without a new remission of the sins committed they cannot be saved and hence Christ is a daily Advocate to intercede for us as St. John saith My little children 1 John 2.1 if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous I might adde to these many mâ—re but these are sufficient to demonstrate this truth and will prove a burdensome stone to Mr. Eyre if he endeavour to contradâ—ct them And as for those Arguments which he Chap. 14. useth to prove the actuall and immediate reconciliation of the Elect before faith they have all the same unhappinesse to fall like arrowes farre short of the mark intended and have most of them the same common fate to be guilty of a miserable non sequitur as shall in my reply to them in its proper place appear Now the next thing to be superadded for a full vindication of this truth is that this suspending the benefits of Christs death until faith is no way derogatory to the atonement made by Christs death which may as easily be proved as that Pilate was guilty of Christs blood And I prove it thus 1. If there were such an agreement as the arguments above declare then what wrong is it to the atonement made by Christs death that the effect of it should not be enjoyed untill faith when as it was the mutuall agreement between the Father and the Son to have it so it was his will to have it so and volenti non fit injuria there is no injury to him that is willing 2. If the death of Christ were in value a sufficient ransome for the whole world the very Reprobates not excepted and yet without injury and wrong to Christs satisfaction it is by the will of God ordaining and so accepting it to be only effectual for the Elect which comparatively in respect of the Reprohates is a small number why shall it be judged a wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit of it for whom it is intended should be for a time suspended for gracious and good ends at the will of the Father to make them see what they are and deserve and what need they have of Christ and to raise up their desires after him and to increase their love unto God for Christ and also for the honour of the Lord and his Christ that though he justifie the ungodly yet that he doth not justifie them so remaining that his enmity and hatred against sin may the more appear and that wicked men might not think God a justifier of the wicked in their abominations which is contrary to the purity of his nature and justice to do why should this be thought more injurious to Christs satisfaction then a peremptory excluding of all the race of the Reprobates from salvation by his death But 3. If notwithstanding the suspending the benefits of Christs death untill faith the death of Christ be no lesse satisfactory to divine justice and the intrinsecal worth and value of his merits no whit lessened and the efficacy and certainty of the effects of Christs death be no lesse established by our Doctrine then if the effect did immediately follow then this is no impairing of the atonement made by his death but the premises are true which I evidence thus 1. We willingly grant that the death of Christ was a full and compleat satisfaction to divine justice and a valuable compensation for the sins of those that shall be saved and God did not accept lesse at the hands of Christ then was due to our sins but he made satisfaction ad ultimum quadrantem to the last farthing the justice of God can require no more either at his hands or at the hands of those for whom he suffered by way of satisfaction and hence in his resurrection he gave him a publick acquittance and sent his Angel to roll away the stone from the Sepulchre as a publick Officer to testifie his acquitting him from the debt of our sins and so he sets him at liberty and brings him out of prison 2. The intrinsecall value and worth of Christs merits is no way diminished Christ did not compound with the Father as broken debtors with the creditour making him to take lesse then was due nay as we have shewed in some respect if you consider the dignity of the person there was more laid down then the Law required though in regard of the substance of the punishment it was that which the Law required and the justice of God and the love of the Father could require no more the prorogation or deferring the actuall enjoyment of the thing purchased by that satisfaction ariseth not from any impotency or defect in Christs sufferings but from the liberty of Gods will who in mercy accepts of that which a surety hath done for us which in it self was refusable till by an act of grace it was admitted as available for us but in that time onely that the Father should appoint whose will Christ as a Mediatour and Servant was obliged to obey 3. The death of Christ is no lesse efficacious and certain in the effects of it then if an immediate participation of it were granted the efficaciousnesse of Christs death is not to be
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
referres his Reader to Junius his Parallels lib. 3. This is brought to prove our union before faith and therefore he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the substantive made so by some but I believe none can be produced as for Junius he saith no such matter but saith it must be taken either in the Masculine gender and relate to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the substantive they are of one father or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Neuter and so it signifies they are of one common Lump or Masse agreeing in the community of nature and indeed this is most agreeable to the Scope of the place for as he had shewed ver 10. that it was convenient for Gods justice that our Mediatour should by his death satisfie Gods justice in the 11th ver he sheweth how he could die and how it could be accepted in our stead he answereth because he was one indued with the same nature for He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are of one that is all of one common Father as Adam or are of one and the same nature and substance and what is this to prove a mystical union before faith and it is observable that he maketh those that are the sons to be brought to glory such as are sanctified and Christ is not ashamed to call these Brethren but as for unbelievers that are not sanctified Christ will never call them Brethren and such as he calleth sons he doth not intend to call them so antecedently to their faith but only to shew who shall be brought to glory by his death and that is only sonnes And by Mr. Eyre's leave it is wholly excentrical to this place to compare Christ to the first-fruits and those for whom he died to the residue of the heap as he doth in quoting that place Mr. Eyre p. 8. That which he presupposeth likewise that by vertue of this eternal union the sins of the Elect do become Christs and Christs righteousnesse becomes theirs will seem not only a Paradox but little better then blasphemy if throughly examined for the humane nature of Christ was not existent from eternity and to what end should their sins be imputed to the Divine Nature who can bear the thought of it without trembling And surely at our union with Christ our sins become Christs as well as his righteousnesse becomes ours yea before when he was actually a surety for us but not from eternity He addeth that by vertue of this union that they are said to be given to Christ and Christ to them Page 8. I answer that when the Elect are said to be given to Christ that is that he should die in particular for them this includes not any actuall Donation of them to Christ by mystical implantantation but it signifies Gods ordination and constitution whereby he did ordaine that the benefits of Christs death should be for them though not to be applied to them from the time of this ordination and this may very well stand and yet they not united untill faith In the next place I shall take notice of Mr. Eyre's slight answer to the Reverend Mr. Conant since deceased who as Moderator in our first Conference proposed the Objection drawn from Rom. 16.7 Rom. 16.7 where Paul speaking of Andronicus and Junia saith they were in Christ before me but if this union be eternal or antecedent to our birth and faith one cannot be in Christ before another He saith he returned no answer and the truth is he can returne no solid answer And though he now insult since the decease of this Reverend Servant of Christ and saith he passed it over because there was little difficulty in it yet when he was living he was no more able to stand against him in an Argument then Dagon before the Arke then Stephens adversaries who could not resist the Spirit by which he spake But let us consider the force of his Answer It is evident saith he the Apostle speaketh not there of their spiritual union with Christ which is invisible to man for God onely knoweth who are hi◠but of such a being in Christ as is by external profession and Church-communion in respect of which the whole visible Church is called Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 And hypocrites as well as the Elect are said to be in Christ and to be branches in him And thus it is acknowledged that one is in Christ before another according as they are called and converted whether really or in appearance It doth not follow that union to Christ is successive or that it is an act done in time depending upon conditions performed by men His first Answer is This is not meant of spiritual union with Christ his reason is because that is invisible to man First This is over-boldly asserted that he saith it is evident that this is not meant of spiritual union with Christ when there is nothing said but what may rather evidence the contrary 1. Either this was a true union or they were but hypocrites but it is too much rashnesse to say they were hypocrites 2. They were such as were of note among the Apostles chief Evangelists I think at least in the judgement of charity they should be such as were truly in Christ 3. The Apostle indued with a great Spirit of discerning judged them so he saith they were in Christ therefore we should judge it really 4. 'T is such an union and in-being in Christ as Paul himself afterward had but his union was real he meant and understood a real union in respect of himself and what he affirmes of himself he saith the same of them and that they had this priviledge to be in Christ before him 5. This was no such great priviledge for the pen of an Apostle to commend them far above himself if he thought only it was an union in profession in shew only and not in truth Secondly That which leads him to judge it was not a real spiritual union with Christ is because this was invisible to man because saith he God onely knowes who are his But 1. Might he not here well exempt the Apostles who were by an extraordinary gift indued with a Spirit of discerning and especially were they guided in their Epistles written for a rule of life whereof this is a part 2. Let it be granted for a truth that no man can know infallibly the Election or regeneration of another but by special Revelation then no man can absolutely say of such who live holily in respect of conversation whose actions are materially good and nothing appearing to the contrary but that they are in Christ really none can say they are not in him really therefore an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspense of judgement had been better then for him to say rashly it is evident the Apostle speakes not of spirituall union with Christ when he saith these that were of chief note among the Apostles were in Christ and nothing appearing to the
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
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
his eyes against the clear light of the Scripture Dreadful are Gods judgements in delivering men up to errour that will not receive the truth in the love of it Eleventhly Page 66 67. He maketh the merits of Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election he maketh the merits of Christ only the meritorious cause of the effects of Gods eternall will to justifie as may appear pag. 66 67. Although saith he Gods will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet saith he we are justified in him but he doth not say for him though the Scriptures speak it plain enough because the whole effect of that will is by and for the sake of Christ as though electing love precedeth the consideration of Christ yet we are said to be chosen in him because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him and to the like purpose he speaketh in the 67. pag. c. Col. 2.14 Heb. 9.12 But the Scriptures do plainly ascribe a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ that we have redemption through his blood he hath obtained eternal redemption for us Eph. 4.32 Eph. 2.16 and that God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians And that he hath reconciled both that is Jew and Gentle unto God by the Crosse and therefore Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification God being moved thereto by the death of Christ but where saith the Scripture that God elected us for the sake of Christ it is true it saith we were chosen in him and he accepted us in the beloved but this doth not imply that we had a being in Christ when elected and that God elected us for Christs sake as if Christ were the cause of our Election Vide Dr. Twiss Vind. Lib. 2. Digress p. 74. Interca non dicimus Christum in negotio electionis habere rationem causae meritoriae respectu actûs cligentis sed duntaxat respectu termini c. Ib. quoad actum eligentis which Arminius mightily contendeth for that he might bring in faith if not as a cause yet as a prerequisite of our Election And none of ours except Rolloc maintain it and yet though he calleth Christ the foundation of our Election all that he saith ends in this that Christ is therefore the foundation of our Election because he is the meritorious cause Bonorum Electione praeparatorum of good things which are prepared by Election but Christ is not only the cause of the effects of Justification but of the act of Justification for God doth forgive us for Christs sake and then see what a good friend Mr. Eyre is to the merits and satisfaction of Christ when he seemingly pleads for it as if we wronged the merits of Christ by suspending the benefit untill faith wrought by himself as the effect of his death and he wholly denieth it as to the act of Justification Twelfthly He saith that Justification is by Faith evidentially and Faith is from Justification causally Mr. Eyre p. 79. and he seeth no absurdity in it p. 79. which is to place the Cart before the Horse and as preposterous as to wear his Shoes upon his head and his Hat upon his feet That Faith may in a sense evidence Justification I deny not but that it is the effect of Justification is as good sense as that the daughter brought forth the mother Justification may be an effect of Faith and so the Scripture maketh it but not a cause of Faith For it is neither the efficient nor material nor formall nor final therefore it is no cause for all causes are reducible to these four Heads 1. It is not the efficient principall cause of Faith I hope he will not rob Gods free grace and the Holy Spirit of his Honour as he doth Christ of his merit of being the sole efficient cause of faith Faith it is the gift of God and the effect of the Spirit which worketh faith by the hearing of the Word it is a known rule Positâ causâ proximâ ponitur effectus and if the act of Justification should be the cause of Faith then according to him being justified from eternity we must be Believers from eternity but how contrary this is to sense reason and experience I need not speak and no man did ever yet dreame much lesse speak of Justification being the efficient cause of Faith 2. It is not the formall cause of Faith for the formal cause doth ingredi compositum it is part of the substance of the thing or effect produced the formall cause is alwayes intrinsecal to the effect and concurreth to the substance and essence of it but Justification is a thing wholly extrinsecal and adventitious to the nature of Faith the formality of Faith lieth in an adherency to Christ or a recumbency upon Christ for righteousnesse not in the act of Justification 3. Justification is not the materiall cause of Faith for the same reason above named the materiall cause is that which in union with the forme maketh up a substantial compounded body but Faith is no such thing it is not a substance but a quality and hath no matter properly so called and as for the matter improperly so called it is either materia in quâ or circa quam it is either the subject or the object but Justification is not the subject or object of Faith not the subject for the subject of Faith is a Believer nor is Justification the object of Faith for in things that have matter improperly so called the subject and the object are the same the object of Justification then is a Believer the person of a Believer not his Faith 4. And lastly Justification is not the finall cause of Faith for I am not justified that I might believe but rather I believe that I might be justified and salvation is made the end of faith Gal. 2.16 1 Pet. 1.9 and not faith the end of my salvation and thus it appeareth that Faith is not from Justification causally Thirteenthly He saith pag. 83. that he doth not presse every man to believe that he is justified Mr Eyre p. 83. but to believe there is a sufficiency in Christ for his Justification and to rely upon him and him alone for this benefit but how contrary this is to his own principles let the Reader judge for he constantly affirmeth that the Elect are justified from eternity and from the death of Christ antecedently to Faith and faith doth not instrumentally apply Christs righteousness unto Justification but Faith doth only evidence Justification to the conscience Surely when you presse men to believe you presse them to believe they are already justified and not to rely on him for this benefit for if they be justified already what need have they to rely upon him by faith for it they may according to you rely upon him for the evidencing of this
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
till they are able to plead their discharge Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redemption If you take the wrath of God in the first sense for the will of God to punish according to the tenor of the law so they were not under wrath if you take it in the third sense for the execution of wrath they were never under it for how could they be under it when God never intended it what then did Christ redeem them from only the bare threatenings of the Law why so long as it was only a threatening and God intended not to execute it what need Christ have died according to him surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath and there was a will in God to punish theiâ— sins as well as the sins of the Reprobate though he would punish their sins in Christ the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect person still lieth under till he be delivered through faith in Christ and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus 10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling then were not they justified from eternity But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath The consequence of the Major is evident because a man cannot lie under the effâ—cts of wrath and yet be delivered from that wrath The Minor I prove thus by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture which are many 1. To be in a state of alienation from God so as to have none of their persons nor services accepted Thus God is * Psal 7.11 angry with the wicked every day yet so are the unregenerate though Elect they are under the power of sin And their prayers are rejected The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8 And so are all the services of unregenerate men though Elect persons which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth and they are truly called wicked persons because they are under the reigning power of sin 2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth for so saith the Apostle Rom. 3.19 Rom. 3.19 where he sheweth all persons in their natural estate are under the Law that is the damning power of it and become guilty before God there was a time that this was true but if they be justified from eternity then they never were under this damning power nor were guilty before God for if they were freed from eternity when were they guilty if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free then they were not justified from eternity 3. They are subject to the curse of the Law Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law therefore there was a time the Elect were under it and if under it they were not justified from eternity Acts 26.18 Heb. 2.14 Tit. 1.15 4. Yea they are under the power of Sathan but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power they are in bondage to death they have no outward enjoyment sanctified these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath and how can they be justified where these effects remain and these all remain till faith Acts 13. 11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity therefore were not the Elect justified The consequence appeareth Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio by Election the Elect are ordained to life by reprobation men are ordained to condemnation these are contrarie and among contraries there is the same reason Now if the Elect be justified because of Gods decree then are the Reprobate condemned but the Reprobates are not condemned actually therefore neither are the Elect actually justified Now this assumption is evident for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation yet sin is the cause of the Reprobates condemnation but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of it 's true God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done good or evil they had not then according to Scripture done evil and then God could not condemne them though he might passe them by and not Elect them which is negatively or privatively called hatred 12. If Gods decree to create the World was not Creation nor his will to call Calling nor to glorifie Glorification then his will to justifie was not Justification To this Mr. Eyre answereth There is not the same reason for Creating Calling Glorifying all which do import an inherent change in the person Created Called Glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being compleat in the minde of God To which I answer that his reason is of no force for to be the subject of a moral change doth as necessarily require the existence of the person as to be the subject of a physical and natural change for though the act may be perfect in Gods minde yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act because he hath not existence can he be pardoned and acquitted and declared just that is so farre from being an offender that he never yet was a man The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being but he is not a subject capable because as yet he is not so God may will Justification but he cannot justifie deliver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation till the person exist who may be the subject of this change CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death I Shall here first premise a few things that it may be known what we affirme and what we oppose First Then it is willingly granted that Christ in his death was a Mediator and surety and publick person and that what he did and suffered was intended for the benefit of the Elect. Secondly That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect so that the whole satisfaction is made and the price paid and quoad meritum the work is done and in this respect he hath made an end of sin because he hath fully satisfied for it so that there need no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 1.3 Dan. 9.24 but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood Thirdly God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ that in respect of Christ our surety God requires no more at his hands nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction it being the full value that his justice did require Fourthly By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation in an Arminian sense as if our redemption were
to be compleated by an act of our Faith performed by the power and liberty of our own free-will so that upon this condition to be fulfilled by us without the assistance of grace the fruits of Christs death shall depend for this had been to purchase for us only a salvability not salvation and to make us our own Saviours but Christ died absolutely to purchase salvation as absolutely is opposed to an Arminian sense of a condition already explained but if absolutely be taken to oppose Faith as a condition to apply Christs righteousnesse by the order which God hath appointed in his Gospel which Faith God hath ordained as a means to bring us into possession of Christ and his righteousnesse which faith God hath ordained his Elect unto and Christ hath merited and shall be infallibly given for this end In this sense I deny that Christs death was absolutely a discharge from sin And therefore affirme that an Elect person is not actually reconciled so as to be immediately justified and discharged from the guilt of sin from the time of Christs death antecedently unto faith nor did God accept of the satisfaction of Christ for a present discharge to the sinner but Christ having laid down the price the Father and Sonne did agree upon a way and order when this benefit shall become theirs and that not to be till actual faith according to the tenor of the Gospel which promiseth salvation only to him that doth believe Having thus explained my self I now shall prove it by these following arguments First If Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe then are they not actually discharged untill Faith But Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe Therefore c. As for the assumption it is such a sacred truth that none that have a spark of modesty or grace left will deny for if Christ have died absolutely that they shall have pardon though they die in unbelief let them shew this and I will yield the cause for if Christ had died to have the sins of the Elect pardoned whether they have faith or not then an argument drawn from Christs satisfaction and Gods accepting it so would be nervous and strong to prove an immediate reconciliation but this can never be proved for Without faith it is impossibe to * Heb. 11.9 John 3.26 Acts 13.48 please God And He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him And As many as were ordained to life believe◠And the Consequence of the Major is proved thus if Christ did not die absolutely to discharge them from sin without faith then he died for them conditionally that they believe and the benefit of his death is limited untill faith Nor will it availe to say that faith is a subsequent condition not antecedent which I disprove by these following Arguments 1. If an unbeliever remaining so cannot be the subject of Justification then Faith is not a subsequent but antecedent condition of Justification But an unbeliever cannot be the subject of Justification Therefore c. The Major will not be denied where Reason dwells the Minor I prove thus because the Scripture no where maketh an unbeliever the subject of Justification 2. Because then Justification is a priviledge common to Believers and unbelievers but the Scripture peculiarly and solely applieth it to them that believe 3. Because no man out of Christ or disunited can be saved by Christ for Christ saveth none but his Members Christ is called the Saviour of his Body Eph. 5.23 and no unbeliever is a member of Christ for as much as the mystical union is made by Faith for which I referre the Reader to my Sermon and the Vindication of it Secondly Justification and Sanctification are inseparably joyned But were not sanctified from the time of Christs death and antecedently to faith Therefore we were not justified It is evident to experience that Sanctification is not in the least moment of time separated from Justification indeed we grant a priority of nature and order but not of time Hence the Apostle maketh all that are in Christ new creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 1 John 1.6 And if any man saith St. John hath fellowship with God or Christ and walketh in darknesse he is a liar and doth not the truth for then a man might be the member of Christ and the limbe of the Devil at the same time if justified he is a member of Christ if unsanctified a childe of the Devil 1 John 3.8 He that committeth sinne is of the Devil nor can it be agreeable to the purity of Christs Nature and Holinesse to have an unsanctified member of his body nor will the purity and holinesse of God the Father bear it that any should be his childe that is not holy nor can he that is a holy God justifie a wicked wretch so remaining Institu Calvin lib. 3. c. 11. whence Calvin in answer to Osiander when he objected Contumeliosum hoc fore Deo naturae ejus contrarium si justificet qui reipsâ impii manent Atqui tenendum est memoriâ quod jam dixi non separari justificandi gratiam à regeneratione licèt res sint distinctae It is contumelious and contrary to Gods nature to justifie those that remaine wicked To which he answereth But we must remember that which I now said the grace of Justification is not separated from Regeneration although they be several things Thirdly If we were justified antecedently to our birth from the time of Christs death Eph. 2.1 2 3. 1 Cor. 6.9 John 3. then we were never borne sinners under the guilt of sin But this is contrary to many plain Scriptures that say we were children of wrath and such as were unrighteous and could not in our unregeneration inherit the Kingdome of God and for further proof I referre the Reader to the ninth Argument against eternall Justification Fourthly If the state and condition of a man be truly altered and changed and that before God upon believing then was he not justified from the time of Christs death But his estate is truly altered in the sight of God upon believing Hence it is said that they are his people which once they were not 1 Pet. 2.10 1 Peter 2.10 Which in times past were not a people but are now the people of God which in times past were not under mercy but have now obtained mercy Hosea 1.10 Hosea 2.23 which words are taken from the Prophet Hosea upon which words Zanchy observeth that a people are called Gods people three wayes 1. According to Predestination thus it 's said God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew 2. In respect of the Covenant under the Law and so the Sons of Abraham were Gods people and they that were excluded from that Covenant were none of his 3.
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
effect of Gods eternal purpose and a fruit of Christs death which shall infallibly in Gods due time be wrought Now all Gods purposes of grace are free Secondly I make not Faith the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified but ascribe that to the active and passive obedience of Christ Thirdly Though Faith be our act yet is it Gods gift and therefore salvation is no lesse of grace though by Faith then if it were without it and if it be an instrument helping the principal Agent yet being wholly wrought by God and all the efficacy and activity that Faith hath it hath it not by any thing intrinsecal to it but extrinsecâ—â— and by Gâ—d◠〈…〉 the Covenant of Grace and merciful aâ—ceptance oâ— it this â—o way obscâ—â—eth the grace of God and therefore Paul â—â—â—th â—he inheritance is therefore by faith that it might be of grace and Rom. 4.16 Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through faith it is the gift of God Faith it is an emptying soul-humbling and a Christ-exalting grace it renounceth all its own righteousnesse it goeth out of it self into another relieth wholly upon Christ for righteousnesse and receives heaven as an almes and all from God as a free gift and the more faith there is in any the lesse pride and resting upon any thing in our selves Therefore hereby the grace of God is no way the lesse free though that be the instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Fourthly we do not make Faith an antecedent condition moving and inclining Gods will to receive us into Covenant with himself but we make it antecedent to our being admitted to partake of the benefits of the Covenant CHAP. IX Shewing how weakly he hath defended himselfe against the charge of Antinomianisme and likewise manifesting that the Authors brought by him in defence of his Errour do some in the same place and most of them joyntly bring in evidence against his cause MAster Eyre Page the 19th complaineth that his Doctrine is called an Antinomian Error pag. 19. which is somewhat like the temper of such evil men pag 27. which the world is too full of that are more ashamed to be thought to be evil then to do it And he saith if it be an Error it is an Anti-evangelical Error Is not this a good * Incidit in Scyllam c. choice to choose rather to be accounted a corrupter of the Gospel then an enemy to the Law which is by so much the greater sin as the Gospel excelleth the Law and although I willingly grant and judge his Error to be diametrically opposite to the Gospel yet if the Antinomist be cast into his right tribe he will derive his pedigree from this Anti-evangelical principle and therefore this childe will lie at his door still but he purgeth himself from this crime by saying that it hath been an old designe of Satan to blast the truths of God with odious nick-names This I acknowledge and he verifieth it himself by stiling the Doctrine of Justification by Faith to be a joyning in confederacy with Papists Socinians and Arminians for such he maketh all that distâ—r from him and enemies to the free grace of God yet he will not see this beame in his own eye when he can see a mote in his brothers 2. He saith that by all the Diagnosticks which Divines have given us to discerne between Truth and Error it hath the complexion of a saving Truth by which I am contented to try it and let me bear the blame of it if the beauty of that complexion vanish not at the warme breath of the nexâ— Argument as much as Jezabels painted colour faded when the heat did transforme her again into her first deformity I admit of the rule that he giveth to try it by That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ is certainly true and the contrary is as certainly false Now let such as he saith that are least in the Church judge which opinion giveth most glory unto God his or ours Either his which asserteth That an Infidel and an ungodly person * Mr. Eyre p. 10. so remaining under the reigning power of sin even while he lieth like a swine wallowing in the mire of sin committing uncleannesse and that with greedinesse yea in the very act of it if an Elect person he was justified from * Page 64. eternity in the decree of God and from the time of * Page 67 68. Christs death being united to him because they were then in him as a * Page 7. common person and so while they are thus in their * Pag 60 61. unregenerate estate being thus considered God beholds them as righteous persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them and Divine Justice cannot charge them with the least sin nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve so that while they are thus they have as much * Master Eyre page 122. right to salvation as ever they shall have though they may by faith have more knowledge and comfort of their happinesse yet they have no more right nor is their estate changed before God upon believing as to Justification but only their former blessednesse is made * Page 66 evident to their consciences This is the soile of that brutish opinion and although in so many words together Master Eyre * Page 76. hath not expressed his minde yet it is fairely without any wrong to his opinion without wire-drawing per fidiculas consequentiaruâ— by threeds of consequences which he disclaimes collected as may appear by comparing it with the places quoted in the Margin Now we hold and maintaine God purposed in his eternal decree to justifie his Elect in time to that end he sent Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for their sins that a full satisfaction might be given to his Divine Justice as a foundation of Gods gracious act of Justification which is not immanent but transient and now by Christs death the price is paid and we are meritoriously redeemed but it was the will of the Father and the Son that none should have actual benefit as to a present discharge from the guilt of sin untill faith which faith is not the effect of free-will but a certaine effect of Gods decree and fruit of Christs death which shall be given to all the Elect for application of the righteousnesse of Christ and his satisfaction unto their actual Justification By which faith we are united to Christ and so partake of the saving benefits of his death Now let the Reader judge which giveth most glory to God in Christ his or ours First Doth he ascribe the whole work of salvation to the grace of God and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ so do we Nor Secondly Do we as he falsly accuseth us make men moral causes of their salvation let him prove it if he can Thirdly Nor do we
our sin was imputed to Christ that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him and he will have Christs being made sin and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him formally the same act in God For he saith this phrase that we might be madâ— doth not alwayes imply the final cause but sometimes the formal And so his meaning is that Christ was at the same time made sin for us and by that act of God we were made the righteousnesse of God in him To this I answer First it offers violence to the Text for that doth not say that we were then made but that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him it laid the foundation for this Secondly Let him assigne any other end that God had in this act in respect to us if this were not his end surely had it not been for this God would not have imputed our sinnes to Christ Thirdly That which he saith is manifestly false for this phrase that we might be alwayes doth expresse the finall cause his instance doth not prove the thing in hand He saith That when light is let in that darknesse might be expelled the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darknesse I answer if it be granted this hindereth not but that it might be the end why the light is let in as in a roome that hath shuts to keep out the light the room is dark now let a man that desires light open these shuts at the same time the light doth physically expell the darknesse and yet it was the end of the man in letting in the light to expel the darknesse Fourthly The imputation of sin to Christ and righteousnesse to us are two different acts and have two different effects and therefore are not formally the same for by imputing sin to Christ he is charged with the guilt of it and is obnoxious to death and the imputing righteousnesse to us is a discharge from the guilt and we are made capable of life Now if this were formally our discharge then we are discharged and so made righteous before Christ had made satisfaction even so soon as our sin was imputed but this is a manifest contradiction for it is not Christs being charged with our guilt but his making satisfaction that procures our discharge but this is but one drop of that river of contradiction that flows from him as from a fountaine with which his Book swells like the river of Jordan till it is foardable by no reason nor any humane understanding 4. I deny that the imputation of sin to Christ and the non-imputation of it to us If you speak of a formal non-imputation and discharge or else you say nothing to the purpose is but one and the same act in God they are two distinct acts terminated upon two distinct subjects The first upon Christ the second upon us Imputation of sin to Christ is a transient act done in time for God did not charge Christ with our sin from eternity and every transient act requireth the existence of the subject upon which it is terminated or produceth it as did Creation And therefore we that had no existence could not be the subjects of a formal non-imputation which is an actuall discharge from it and therefore that which you answer to this objection we were nor then and therefore righteousnesse could not be imputed by propounding another objection Our sins were not then therefore they could not be imputed I answer the reason is not alike for the non-existence of a subject to whom any thing should be impated is of greater efficacy to hinder the imputation then the non-existence of a sinne for the terme or subject of a transient act is of absolute necessity to be or to be produced by the act but there is no such necessity of the thing that is imputed the act may be without that but not without the other Besides a sin is a moral cause of punishment and therefore the effect which is punishment which is that that is meant by imputation of sin is at the will of him that is moved thereby and therefore sometimes goeth before the cause as in the death of Christ for which the Patriarchs were justified before Christ had given satisfaction and sometimes after it therefore the punishment might be inflicted on Christ before the sin was committed I shall now addresse my self to give an answer to such Scriptures as he hath alledged in defence of his own opinion The first is Matth. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased From whence he argueth that if the well pleasednesse of God which is here declared is terminated upon Christ mystical and not to Christ personal then God was well pleased with all his Elect who are Christ mystical when this voice came from heaven and consequently before many of them do believe To which I answer that I take it to be and have proved it an errâ—r to say that the Elect as Elâ—ct are myst cally uni ed to Christ for union necessarily pre-requireth existence and Christ had not a mystical body from eternity 2. I deny as then I did the assumption and say the well-pleasednesse of God was terminated upon Christ personal and not Christ mystical And the meaning is This is my beloved Son in whose person I am well pleased and with whose work and office as a Mediator I am well pleased but it was not the intent of God there to say for his sake I am actually well pleased with all the Elect antecedently to their faith Now I prove it was spoken of Christ personal and not Christ mystical 1. If Christ considered as Mediatour be personally considered then this is understood of Christ personal and not Christ mysticall The antecedent is true Therefore the consequence The reason of the consequence is because this is spoken of Christ as Mediator But Christ mystical is not the Mediaâ—our of the world for then we have so many Redeemers and Saviours of the world as are united to Christ and then Christ alone did not tread the winepresse of his Fathers wrath 2. Christ mystically considered was not baptized by John But this beloved Son in whom God was well pleased was baptized by John Ergo. 3. This was terminated on him to whom the Heavens were then opened and upon whom the Spirit descended like a Dove But this is true only of Christ personally not mystically considered 4. This voice was terminated on him for whose sake God is well pleased with such as believe But God is not well pleased with believers for the sake of Christ mystically considered but personally Ergo. 5. This voice is terminated upon him who is by a peculiar generation and Sonship so a Son that it is incommunicable unto others But this belongs only to Christ personal Therefore this voice was not terminated upon Christ mystical 6. Now to all this I adde this that the consideration of Christ as a pubâ—ick
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this
sense he imputeth it not when he pardoneth Secondly His second Argument is thus That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification By this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. To which I answer 1. By distinguishing upon your Major proposition that which doth secure presently actually fully and formally from wrath without any other cause intervening is Justification And then in taking the Proposition thus I deny the Minor that Election doth presently actually fully and formally discharge the sinner from guilt and wrath it is but a purpose in God to do it the sinner is not thereby discharged Hence as soon as he is borne he is a childe of wrath which he could not be if he were justified from eternity and so continueth untill faith and the death of Christ is a necessary cause intervening between this decree and the discharge for which he is discharged and without which supposing the decree he cannot be secured from wrath and Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth p. 140. that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justitià bestow upon the Elect those good things intended in Election How then did Gods decree secure them from wrath if he mean only eventually it doth secure because they shall not have sin imputed to the condemnation of their persons this is true but to little purpose to prove a present formal discharge such as Justification is Therefore when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Apostle doth not speak of the Elect antecedenter antecedently to their faith but executivè or consequenter as it is executed and compleated in those that are Elected as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burg. of Justif p. 186. hath observed Therefore by the Elect he meaneth the Elect Believers therefore if you resolve it either into a universal negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a universal affirmative all Elect persons are free from the charge of sin if by the Elect you understand the Elect before Faith and Regeneration both Propositions are absolutely false for otherwise Christ could not have been charged with our sin if Election did free us from the charge then was there no necessity of Christs dying and then no person is borne a sinner that is an Elect person nor was ever under condemnation then neither was Adam a sinner under condemnation for I take him to be an Elect person and then no man ever was under condemnation for we receive not guilt from him unlesse he also were guilty and we in him But if you take it for Elect Believers then both Propositions are true and this is agreeable to the scope of the place for he had said a little before Whom he predestinated them he called and whom he called that is unto faith them he justified Mr. Eyre p. 64. As for the Answers which he giveth to the Objections framed by himself I have considered them and derected the weakness of them already There remaineth but one Objection which I have not yet given any Animadversion upon and therefore will do it here Object He saith 't is objâ—cted that hereby by making Justification to be Gods eternal will not to punish Justification and Election are confounded His answer to this is that they are not confounded because Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto his will not to punish includes precisely and formally only some part of the meanes To this I answer that according to Mr. Eyre's opinion there is no distinction at all between Election and Justification for if it be the same act of Gods will if the object be the same if the end of God in both be the same if the means conducing to that end be the same then is there no difference at all according to him bur the antecedent is true Therâ—fore That with him it is the same act pag. 61. is evident pag. 62. for he acknowledge no transient act but an immanent eternal act of his will purposing salvation in Christ that the object is the same needeth no proof the end is the same the glory of Gods grace in both and that the means conducing to that end is the same Let him that hath but a sparke of reason judge for if the act be the same the object the same and the end the same in both why the meanes should not be the same no reason can be imagined and let him assigne what means God hath appointed for the execution of the eternal Election and we shall easily shew it that the same thing God hath appointed as a necessary Medium to effect our Justification according to his opinon which hold it to be one and the same eternal act of his will And let the Reader observe that he maketh no cause of our Justification but Gods own eternal good will and pleasure as in the case of Election for Christs death with him is not the cause of the act of Justification but of the effects of it of the thing willed and so Christs death with him is no antecedent meanes to effect the act of Justification but a subsequent meaâ—â—â—o fulfill the purpose of his will and what a good friend he is to the Gospel to debase the merits of Christ let the undestanding Christian judge As for those arguments which he useth to disprove that our faith pag. 52. or faithful actions are that Evangelical righteousnesse by which we are justified maketh nothing against me For if we speak of our Evangelical righteousnesse that is the matter of our righteousnesse or that for which we are justified I acknowledge it is wholly in Christ subjective and it is ours only by imputation and that faith is but the instrument to apply this as for that Reverend * Mr. Baxter Brother and Servant of Christ against whom these are leveled he hath since explained his meaning that he understandeth not faith to be the matter of our righteousnesse or a co-ordinate righteousnesse with Christ but he calleth it our subordinate Evangelical righteousnesse in which he disagreeth from us and I confesse it had been more satisfaction to his Brethren if he had not used that terme And therefore being not concerned in it I passe them by The next File of Arguments that he brings up against our cause we finde in the 9th Chapter which though he will have them give fire yet they do no execution nor will they stand the Field and abide the shock of a solid answer which because they are a company of tame Souldiers we will take them prisoners and see how they will abide to be examined He saith that faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie for Justification Where I
that is the eye or the visive faculty Secondly It must be moved acted and directed by the superiour agent to its end as a Carpenter useth his artificial instruments to the building of a House Thirdly That it be used to produce an effect exceeding the efficacy and activity of the instrument so that the effect is more noble then the instrumental cause of it As a Minister is Gods instrument by whom men are converted and brought to faith but is not called an instrument in respect of the natural birth of a childe begotten by him because in the first the effect transcends the efficacy of the instrument but it is not so in respect of the natural birth because there is a proportion between the cause and the effect Fourthly It must be subservient to the action of the principal agent hence the action of the principal agent and the instrument is the same Fifthly That it have an influence into the effect by a proper causality I will apply this to faith only I will here adde whether it be in the nature of true causes and to what cause it must be reduced because there are but foure Heads of causes The Material Formall Efficient and Final * Scalig. Exer. 297. s 3. Some excâ—pt that an instrument is not in the number of true causes because it doth not move nisi moveatur unlesse it be moved but this is not essential to a cause to move and not to be moved for so the Efficient should not be a cause because it is moved by the end and so all adjuvant sociall causes should be excluded Therefore it is a true cause yet not a first cause as * Plato Galenus ut refert Scheib Met. l. 1. c. 22. p. 308. some imagine but is reducible to one of those foure Heads of causes which are generally acknowledged to be as above recited Therefore I take it to be reduced to the Efficient and so it is an instrumental efficient cause not the externall impulsive efficient cause of it that is peculiar to the merits of Christ Now that faith is such an instrumental cause I prove because all those properties of an instrumental cause above cited belong to it First It is a necessary antecedent unto Justification as I have already proved for without Faith no man is justified it is not barely antecedent as causa sine qua non as a cause without which a thing is not done which is only present in the action but doth nothing therein and therefore is an equivocal cause and that is indeed none having nothing but the name of it but is that by which it is done Secondly Faith is moved acted directed by GOD the superiour Agent unto this end GOD is the principall Agent in Justification Acts 13.48 Faith is wrought by GOD in the soul for it is his gift and directed by God to this end to bring us to Justification He hath ordained us not only to life but to Faith as a means to obtain it As many as were ordained unto life believed * And whom â—e predestinated them he also called and whom he called he also justified And if God had not appointed Faith as a meanes to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Faith could not produce such an effect and God hath expressed his will That he gave his only begotten Sonne that whosoever believeth should not perish but have eternal life These two Propositions have been sufficiently confirmed already Thirdly That the effect to wit Justification doth exceed the efficacy and act vity of Faith I think none will deny so if we consider the excellency of the priviledges of Justification how thereby our sins are pardoned we reconciled adopted into the number of Gods children and so are made coheirâ—s with Christ of eternal life How could Faith merit or effect this There is no proportion between this grace and the great things received by it Fourthly It is subservient to the action of the principal Agent not that it is needful to God as if he could not produce the effect without it had it been his will and pleasure as a Carpenter dependeth upon his instruments in working without which he cannot build But God judged it the fittest means to apply Christs righteousnesse to Justification and hath given to Faith this peculiar office to apply it so as that God hath concluded with himself to justifie none unlesse they believe Hence though Justification be Gods act yet Faith which he worketh and freely giveth is the means by which Gods eternal will and purpose to justifie is executed not by working any new will in God but being that condition upon which God hath purposed promised and by Covenant obliged himself to performe it and thus it concurreth with God and God with it to the act of Justification Fifthly and lastly Mr. Ball p. 19. It hath an influence by a peculiar causality into Justification as Master Ball saith on the Covenant of Grace As the eye is an active instrument for seeing and the eare for hearing so is Faith for justifying Hence the Scripture frequently saith we are justified by and through Faith which indemonstrably sheweth the instrumentality of this grace And although this act be nothing but a receiving and so equivalent only to a passive instrument God effecteth Justification and passeth the sentence forgiveth the sinner Faith receiveth the mercy offered receiveth Christ and in him forgivenesse and so believeth unto Justification Nor do we in so saying Deify Faith nor commit sacriledge against Christ the power of life and death is Gods and he forgiveth not Faith Christ is our righteousnesse for which we are justified Faith is not our righteousnesse but an active lively instrument of the soul wrought by God to apply this righteousnesse and it is more properly called in reference to God his work then his instrument yet as it is subservient to his end or work of Justification I see not any reason why it may not as fitly be called his instrument to our Justification as any thing else he useth to produce an effect by may be called his instrument not because he needs it but because he will not do it without it And hence there is a twofold action in Faith as in other instrumental causes one instrumentall the other proper and peculiar to it self The instrumental action of Faith is that it helpeth the action of God in justifying because now God according to his own constitution in the Gospel may justifie which observing his own order he cannot do untill Faith that which is proper to it is as it relates to the subject and so it is an instrument of the soul to receive and apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Nor have I asserted any thing in this that is inconsistent with the freenesse of Gods grace For First I make not Faith an uncertain effect depending upon mans free-will upon which the act of Justification should depend Acts 13.48 but a certain