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 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
justified without the intervention of faith nay the Scriptures expressely threatning unbelievers with damnation and limiting salvation to Believers do evidently declare the contrary Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively for although this argument be infirme in matters of lesse consequence yet in fundamentals it is of great force such as this is by what means this righteousnesse of Christ shall be applied to justification therefore in such truths as concerne our salvation this is of maine importance it is not written therefore it is not to be believed Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely that we should be justified whether we believe or not believe the matter had been otherwise And when we make faith the condition necessary to justification we do not with Arminians make it a potestative uncertain condition depending upon the liberty of mans free will but though it be contingent in respect of us yet it comes to passe necessarily in respect of God who hath ordained unto faith such as he hath chosen in Christ unto salvation And it is an effâ—ct of the death of Christ which shall be given in Gods appointed time to such for whom Christ died Nor do we make faith a condition of Christs acquiring pardon nor an instrument to make his merits satisfactory nor an organical instrument of Gods acception of it Christs merits have their worth whether we believe or not and Gods will cannot be moved by any externall cause but it is a prerequisite condition by Gods appointment which is to be fulfilled by us through his grace working it whereby Christs righteousnesse shall be applied to us for justification And as for those Scriptures that speak of Gods being reconciled by the death of Christ they are to be restrained to actual Believers to whom Paul wrote his Epistles or if they be indefinitely understood of all the Elect they hold forrh no more then that Christ hath by a sufficient price paid removed the cause of enmity meritoriously but not by any formal application of it unto any until faith And whereas they speak of Gods reconciling us while enemies from whence our Adversaries inferre that we are reconciled while enemies antecedently to faith this only shewes what we were when Christ died for us enemies to God as well as others but that we are while we remain so reconciled is atheologon and not worthy of him that savours of the Spirit of grace nor can any sober man that keeps his wits company imagine any such thing in God who is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity 5. Besides in the fifth place it is considerable among what sort of causes the death of Christ is to be ranked it is a meritorious cause which is to be numbred amongst moral causes Christ in his death is not to be looked upon as a natural agent that the effect of his sufferings should work immediately but as a voluntary agent and hence the effect doth not necessarily follow but at the will of the agent moved thereby yea the effect of a moral cause or voluntary agent may sometimes precede the cause as in this of the death of Christ by which all that believed in Christ to come were justified as well as we though Christ had not as yet made an actuall satisfaction by his death for in this case the effect is wholly at the will of the Agent moved thereby who together with Christ hath suspended the effect untill faith I adde in the 6th place Bonum est ex integris causis and therefore where many causes concurre to the producing of one effect the effect is not accomplished till every cause hath contributed his proper influence Now there are three causes of mans justification which may therefore be called sociall causes but not co-ordinate but the two last subordinate to the first The first is the efficient cause that is God of his free mercy The second is the meritorious cause the death and obedience of Christ The third is the instumentall cause and that is saith Now as the efficient justifies not without the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental and much lesse the instrumental without the other but all three conjoyned constitute a person actually justified in the sight of God And whereas they argue that those Scriptures that speak of justification by faith are to be understood in foro conscientiae that they do but justifie us declaratively and serve to evidence justification but not to conferre justification upon us neither are we justified by faith say they in the sight of God I will therefore propound three arguments against this which is a chief corner-stone in the Antinomians building 1. That that doth change and alter the state of a sinner and put him into a new condition in refrence to God that doth more then evidentially justifie But faith doth thus alter the state of a sinner and the Major is above contradiction the Minor is no lesse true which I prove thus If before faith a mna is in the state of damnation and upon believing he be put into a state of salvation and that before God then faith doth really alter and change a mans estate before God But before faith a man is under condemnation and upon faith delivered from it Ergo. Mr. Eyre his answer to this was that the Law did condemne him but God dâ—d not To which I replyed If the Law be the Law of God and receive all its power and authority from God then when the Law condemneth then God condemneth But the Law is the Law of God and hath all its force and efficacy from the will of God Now look what answer he hath given to Mr. Woodbridge which you may see Mr. Eyre p. 112. Num 6. Vindiciae Justifica p. 112. Sect. 6. the same he gave to me which I shall answer in its proper place 2. What the Aposle denies to Works he attributes to faith therefore faith hath an influence into justification which works have not From whence I argue If faith do only declaratively justifie the sinner then faith doth no more towards the justification of a sinner then works because works may evidence my justification as well as faith but according to the Apostle faith contributes more to justification then works Ergo. The proof of the consequence that works may evidence justification will appear from p Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we q 1 John 3.14 know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren 3. Besides the controversie between the Apostle and the Justiciaries of his time was not whether faith or works do evidence our justication but by what we are justified in the sight of God From whence I argue That that makes the Apostle to assert an untruth that interpretation cannot be true But if the meaning of the
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
habere vim ad justificandas homines quà m Adami peccatum ad nos condemnandos which because it is the same in effect with mine I shall spare to English The next words of Mr. Eyre relating to this businesse are these Now as in Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all that shall perish were constituted sinners before they had a being by reason of the imputation of his disobedience to them so in Christ the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous Besides the former errours it is guilty of I finde a double violence offered to the sacred Text. First in that he limiteth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the all that sinned in Adam to them that shall perish as if the Reprobates only sinned in Adam and not the Elect and as if they were not in the same sin and condemnation which it may be he doth because he is of his brethrens minde the rest of the Antinomians who affirming that they are justified from eternity and so God seeth no sin in them and he himself saith pag. 61. That the Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins nor inflict upon them the least punishment which their sins deserve But contrarily he beholdeth them as persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them as uch who have no sin at all in his sight And yet this man is offended to be called an Antinomian though he is not ashamed to be one but against this grosse conceit because it is sufficiently confuted by others I will say no more but alledge two Scripture-testâ—monies 1 Joh. 1 last ver The first is in the 1 John 1. the last vers After the Apostle had said that the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin ch 2.1 yet he saith If any man say we have not sinned he maketh God a liar and his Word is not in us And in the second Chap. ver 1. for the sins of the justified he is an Advocate to procure pardon 1 Cor. 11.30 My little children if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous The other is that of the believing Corinthians For this cause many are sick c. Nor will the Antithesis bear him out for the Apostle doth not compare the Elect with the Reprobates but all that sinned in Adam which is all mankinde with all that shall be saved by Christ A second violence offered to the Scripture such men are fit to make their own Creed is in that he saith that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved were constituted righteous the Text saith no such matter but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that shall be made righteous not were made righteou which if Mr. Eyre might have done the office of a Gamaliel to the Apostle he would have counselled him to say were made righteous if Mr. Eyre's opinion of an actual justification from the time of Christs death be true he ought to have said were made righteous but the Apostle saith they shall be made righteous No wonder if he misrepresent what I said when he makes so bold with the Apostle and sacred Text and here let me returne that most justly upon Mr. Eyre which he saith to Mr Woodbridge * Vide Mr Eyre p. 10. This is not to interpret Scripture but to deny it such a liberty to alter tenses and formes of speech at our pleasure will but justifie the seâ—uits blasphemy that the Scriptures are but a leaden rule and a nose of wax which may be turned into any forme Turpe est doctori cùm culpa redurguet ipsum But now it is observable in this diversity that the Apostle saith not many were made righteous Hosius lib 3. de Auth Scrip. c. As in Adam many were made sinners but many shall be made righteous by this it is observable that the Apostle doth contradict what Mr. Eyre hath affirmed that the righteousnesse of Christ came upon the Elect in the same manner antecedently to their birth as the sinne of Adam came upon all to condemnation antecedently to their being And the reason of this diversity is because the Apostle had respect to all those Elect who have not yet believed either because as yet they were not in being and those that were in being were not all as yet called And truly this is a very great difference between the manner of communicating Christs righteousnesse and Adams sin for we being seminâ—lly in Adam Vide Downh Cov. of Grace p. 296. and having a natural relation to him sinned in him as being in 〈◊〉 â—oynes and hence we were as truly sinners in him though not as compleatly and formally sinful as he And by generation the sin of Adam is actually communicated to all his posterity and to all alike because we were all alike in him When they actually exist and no sooner are they partakers of the human nature but they are formally constituted sinners and partake iâ—â—is sin But now it is a manifest errour to think that we are all thus seminally in Christ and have any such union with him â—nâ—ecedently to faith as shall be made hereafter more evident or that the community of his person is equivalent to such an unâ—on and therefore the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is not communicated to all from the time of their participation in the humane nature as for Infants their case is of a peculiar consideration and the fuller answer to that I referre till I shall speak to his Argument drawn from them We are not then in our generation much lesse before made partakers of Christs righteousnesse but in our regeneration when faith is ingenerated by the Holy Ghost in our souls Hence then that we should not dream of being borne just as we are borne sinners which indeed were a contradiction to imagine that we should be borne both just and sinfull under the guilt of sin at the same time and that we should not neglect the grace of justification as though we had it already and brought it into the world with us as we brought sin in The Apostle speaks of it in the future tense to signifie that we are not immediately constituted righteous but must expect this benefit in our effectuall vocation when we are brought to faith for Whom he predestinated them he calleth and whom he calleth them he justifieth and no other and properly never till then and to this purpose Dr. Downham Cov. of Grace p. 296. Reverend Dr. Downam expresseth himself in his Treatise of the Covenant of Grace And hence we see there is not the same reason for the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to all the Elect before their birth or faith that there is for the imputation of Adams sin unto his posterity before they have a being because as Mr. Burges hath observed the issues of the first Covenant fell upon Adams posterity
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
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
person but if by a full propitiation he understand an immediate discharge of the sinner from condemnation before faith to apply the benefits of Christs death this I deny and will make manifest in its peculiar and proper place Where I shall shew it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect person that the benefit of Christs death is suspended till faith And in this sense I acknowledge that the Elect had no actual right or interest in Christ if you take it for jus in re and not for jus adrem because his death was intended for their benefit not for the reprobate though they have not actual benefit and possession of the good things purchased untill faith In respect of Gods and Christs intention in his death surely an Elect person hath more right to the benefits of Christs death then the reprobate it being intended effectually for Peter and not for Judas and by vertue of this faith shall be given to apply it to all for whom Christ died and so they have a right to the thing but in respect of any right in the thing it self or actual discharge of the sinner I acknowledge in this respect there is no present difference between the Elect and reprobate this is that which soundeth so harsh in Mr. Eyre's eare which I shall sufficiently cleare when I produce in its due place Scripture-authority and Arguments to confirme it I shall now onely vindicate it from those monstrous absurdities that he unjustly loades it with First he saith Nothing could be spoken more contradictory to plain Scriptures but produceth not one place to confirme it but referres us to such Scriptures as he forceth to speak in defence of his own opinion where we shall examine whether what we affirme or he maintaines be most agreeable to the truth only I shall instance in two Scriptures to relieve this truth The first is in Ephesians 2.1 2 3. where the Apostle telleth the Elect Ephesians whom God had ordained to life and for whom Christ died that they were dead in sins and trespasses Wherein they walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience into which number in the third ver he puts himself and all believers before their conversion and saith that they were children of wrath by nature as well as others where the Apostles scope is to shew the freenesse of Gods grace in saving them by faith in Christ by an argument drawn from the change of their estate he telleth them the time was they were children of wrath as unable to help themselves as the dead to raise themselves to life therefore their deliverance was by grace Where by children of wrath the Apostle must mean an estate and condition opposite to their present estate of salvation and justification into which they are now brought by the grace of God and merit of Christ by faith Else first the Apostles Argument from the change of their estate were invalid Now if they would know when they were children of wrath seeing God loved them as elect from eternity and they were redeemed by Christ He answers that it was when they were dead in sins and trespasses and walked according to the course of this world according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience and then they were children of wrath but thus they did walk and live before faith and regeneration were wrought 2. Such an estate of condemnation is here meant as others are in that are the men of this world children of disobedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 children of unbelief which notes a refractory contumacious disobedience of unbelief seated in the will which is more then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is remissible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is irremissible being a note of finall imperswasibility 1 Tim. 1.13 Paul was sometime a childe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore when the Apostle saith their condition by nature was such as theirs that are children of disobedience a note of such that shall perish surely they were such as were in an unjustified estate 3. If it be such an estate wherein they were dead in sins and trespasses did walk according to the prince of this world and according to the prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now effectually worketh in the children of disobedience having their conversation in the lusts of the flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh surely this was inconsistent with salvation and the estate of justification God cannot justifie a man with imputed righteousnesse but at the same time he sanctifieth him by imparted Prov. 17.15 and inherent righteousnesse It is not agreeable to the purity and holinesse of Gods nature to justifie a wicked man for He that justifieth the wicked be that condemneth the just even they both are abomination to the Lord and what God condemnes in others he will not do himself therefore they were not then justified Nor doth the Apostle make a naked comparison between the two estates and conditions derived from the first and second Adam but compares the same persons not barely in relation to these but as being really in both these estates at a different time being under the first before conversion and passing from it upon believing where it is observeable that the Apostle doth not say ye are by nature children of wrath which is all Mr. Eyre will acknowledge as you may see pag. 111. but ye were children of wrath he speaks of a condition they were in and delivered from The second Scripture is in the 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived neither fornicatours nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankinde nor thieves shall inherit the Kingdome of God such were some of you but you are washed but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Where you see the Elect Corinthians were while unsanctified such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God and therefore were in the same estate with other persons till they were washed and justified where he maketh an evident opposition between the time past and present they were then such as could not inherit eternal life and therefore were justified for if they were then justified what could hinder their salvation And he saith but you are justified he doth not say but you were justified restraining their justification to the time present upon their faith and sanctification being an evidence of the truth of that faith that makes him put their sanctification before their justification so that you see the Apostle affirmes while they were unsanctified they could not inherit the Kingdome of God that is they had no right to it by justification and were uncapable of it but upon the change
of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them dâ—ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quà m ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the
required as he sheweth for * Lex non requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque requirebat mortâ—m talem tantae efficaciae quae esset ut non mortem abolereâ— solùm sed etiam vitam introduceret eà mque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat multis nominibus praecellentiorem the Law did not require that God should die nor that any should die that had not sinned nor such a death of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect so as that God neither will nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction Sixthly It will not be denied that God may be said to be reconciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause by death removing the cause of enmity and meriting the favour of God for us for although God loved us from eternity yet this was amor ordinativus not collativus God did bear them good will in time to make them heires of grace and gloâ—y by Jesus Christ Bâ—ll on the Covenant of Grace p. 292. and this excludes not but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction but such as God did Elect he did not love them as already made heires of Grace by the influence of his love For the full understanding of this you must know that although God dâ—d so love the Elect as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath that is subject unto death and eternall damnation for their sins but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam and to be equally guilty of and liable to eternal death with others for which cause the Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others Man being created after Gods own Image free from sin before the fall was intimately conjoyned to God God loving and delighting in man and man loving and delighting in his God but man lapsed by voluntary Apostasie from God there is an avulsion of the creature from God and an aversion of God from the creature and by this sin the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved so that God who loved man created by him as his childe and from eternity willing him good for I speak only of the Elect in justice cannot but hate him now as corrupted by sin as a rebell against him not by any change of affection but of his outward dispensation and having included him under guilt as a son of Adam he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin which God hath threatened with eternal death and resolved by an immutable decree never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled and the authority of his Law preserved and the evil of sin discovered and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy and justice may be manifested in the salvation of his Elect So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God yet the change is in the creature and not in God for as the Schoolmen well observe these relations which are attributed unto God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord put not any new thing in God but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him so that when the world is created God who was not a Creatour before is now a Creatour thus when sin took hold of the Elect he that once was a childe of love is now a childe of wrath not by any new accident in God but by a new effect in the creature so that in this estate God cannot bestow upon him the good intended in election For the better understanding of this that of Aquinas is of great use God may velle mutationem where he cannot mutare voluntatem God may will a change though he doth not change his will Thus in Adam while he continued a man after Gods Image free from sin God willed him to be the object of his love and delight and when he was fallen to be the subject of his displeasure and anger in the effects of it being liable unto his wrath and eternall death yet is not here a change in God but in Adam Thus God with the same will decreed from eternity to make such a one a vessel of mercy and yet to permit him to sin and fall in Adam and so to remaine a childe of wrath deserving condemnation wherein God cannot actually save him considering his decree without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith Here is a change and a very great one in man but not in God a new relation yet no new immanent act in God Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5. Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat diligebat odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus amavit quod fecerat When God did hate us he wonderfully loved us he hated that in all of us that we had done he loved what he had made that is as the Schoolmen say Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made or as his creature and hated him as a sinner But now through the satisfaction of Christ God is so farre reconciled that the cause of enmity is removed although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ as Aquinas speaks well in this case Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet nam aeterno amore nos dilexit sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni Aug. in Joh. Tract 110. And before him Augustine Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi non sic audiatur non sic accipiatur quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus cum quo propter peccatum inimicitias habebamus Lombard l. 3. distin 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner Reconciliati sumus Deo ut dit Apostolus quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos ei
that the sufferings of Christ though in themselves they be adequately proportionable to the justice of God should be accepted for us therefore God may at his pleasure appoint the manner how whether absolutely and immediately or upon a future condition For as Scotus saith well Meritum Christi tantum bonum est nobis Scotus lib. 3. dist 19. qu. vind p. 74. pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo The value of Christs merits is to be accounted to us only so farre as God accepteth it and therefore to that which Mr. Eyre and his adherents urge that satisfaction was given and accepted I answer by distinguishing upon acceptance This may be taken in a two fold sense either in respect of the surety Christ and the price paid or in respect to the sinner and the actuall application of it 1. In respect to Christ and the value of his sufferings it was a full satisfaction that God neither can having admitted Christ a surety require more at the hands of Christ nor any thing else of the sinner by way of satisfaction to his justice but he never accepted it in respect of the sinner to effect his freedome and present discharge without some act of his intervening to give him interest in this satisfaction Nor do I judge faith to be a moving cause or organical instrument either of Christs satisfaction or of Gods acceptation of it for us Faith doth not make Christs satisfaction to be meritorious Faith is not the condition of Christs acquiring pardon but of the application of pardon the dignity and worth of Christs merits and satisfaction arise from the dignity of his person nor is faith the moving cause of Gods will to accept of Christs satisfaction for us that ariseth from Gods will of purpose ordaining it for us And therefore Mr. Rutherford speaks appositely Ruth Apâ—â— p. 42. Nos credendo non efficimus vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Deus Christi mortem pro peccatis nâ—stris acceptet neque ulla causalitas externa movere potest Dei voluntatem 4. It is of great consequence toward the clearing of this that the death of Christ doth not procure an immediate discharge to the sinner to consider that the death of Christ is not a naturall and physical cause of removing and taking away sin for then the effect must immediately follow but it is a meritorious cause which is in the number of morall causes and here the rule is not true Positâ causâ ponitur effectus for here the effect is at the liberty of the persons moved thereby and hence sometime the effects of morall causes precede the cause as for the death of Christ God pardoned the sins of such as died in the faith long before Christ was borne and sometime it followes a long time after at the agreement and liberty of the persons that are perswaded thereby to do any thing 5. Christ by his death did not absolutely purchase reconciliation and an actual discharge from the guilt of sin for any whether they believe or not believe for then faith were not necessary to salvation but at the most to consolation and finall unbelief would condemne none of those for whom Christ died but the Scripture saith He that believeth not shall be damned and Mark 16.16 John 8.24 If you believe not ye shall die in your sins and it makes faith necessary to salvation hence when the Jaylor said What must I do to be saved Acts 16 3â— 1 Pet. 1.9 Paul and Silas answered Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved And salvation is expressely said to be the end of faith when therefore we say that Christ died absolutely we must know that the word absolutely may be taken two wayes 1. As it is opposed to an antecedent condition to be brought by us by the power of our own free-will so that upon this shall depend the fruits of Christs death Or 2. Absolutely may be taken as opposed to any prerequisite condition ordained by God as a certain order and meanes to obtain the fruit of Christs death which condition is the fruit and effect of Christs death and in this latter sense the death of Christ was not an absolute purchase of reconciliation 't is true the Arminians hold that Christ hath purchased pardon for us upon condition of believing which believing they make not a fruit of Christs death but of their own free-will and thus they make Christ to open a door of hope for us but it 's possible that no man may enter in and be saved and thus by them we have only a salvability by Christ but no certainty of salvation but we affirme no such matter and say that Christ satisfied Gods justice so that God is not placabilis but placatus not appeasable but appeased and God is now reconciled and will give pardon but in that order and method himself hath appointed which is faith which faith God hath predestinated us unto that shal be saved Christ hath purchased it for us as well as remission of sins and therefore it shall infallibly be wrought that there may be an actual application of Christs death unto justification now in this sense the death of Christ is not absolute so as to exclude any condition and qualification wrought by the Spirit of Christ to apply his death Johan Cam. opus misc p. 5.32 col 2. And to this purpose learned Camero hath expressed himself A Christo satisfactio exigi non potuit nî Deus eum considerâsset ut eorum caput pro quibus satisfecit fructus ergo satisfactionis ad eos solos redire potuit qui membra forent hujus corporis ii autem sunt soli fideles credo igitur Christum prâ— me satisfecisse quia verè satisfecit sed satisfactionem illam deo novi mihi esse salutiferam quia mihi fidei meae sum consciu Neque tamen fructum satisfactionis ab ipsa satisfactione divello Christus enim pro te satisfecit sed eâ lege si tu id factum credas ut si captivum redimerem pretio numerato ìta tamen ut nî ille se redemptum agnoscat meo beneficio habeatur pro non redempto Et paulò post pag. 534. col 1. sect 4. Illud nempe est quod dixi pro nemine Christum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfecisse verùm hà c lege additâ ut qui naturà sumus è mundo mundo exempti verá fide Christo inseramur That he was no Arminian is evident to all that have read him And a little after in the 2. Col. p. 534. he answereth an Objection Sed ais in omni satisfactione tria tantùm requiri 1. Vt numeretur summa quae contractum aes exaequet 2. Vt numeretur creditori 3. Vt numeretur ejus nomine qui eam debebat Id quidem verum est quoties creditor non id praecipuè spectat in satisfactione ut cujus nomine satisfactum est is beneficium
might believe and thus eternal life must be antecedent and the cause of faith and not faith antecedent or any cause of eternall life And therefore as Gregory Nazianzen answered to one that affirmed * Gregorius Nazianzenus Epist ad Cledon Dialog Deum potuisse sine mente hominem servare potuit etiam utique sine carne voluntate solà sicut alia omnia quae effecit effecit corporaliter tolle ergo unà cum mente carnem quoque ut omni ex parte perfecta sit amentia tua So may I say to Mr. Eyre who affirmeth that we are justified without faith God might have done it and without the sufferings of Christ had he so decreed it take away therefore the death and satisfaction of Christ with Socinus as your doctrine of eternall justification doth as shall in its place be made evident and thus you shall declare your self to be perfectly mad A third argument is taken from Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood whence I argue The agreement between the Father and the Son was suitable to Gods eternal decree for Christ cannot be a propitiation for sins otherwise then God hath ordained him If God in his decree hath ordained Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood only then it was their agreement Christs death should not be available until faith But God in his decree hath ordain'd Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood The consequence of the major is evident because their agreement must be suitable to this decree I believe there is scarce a man of that face and forehead that will deny the Assumption they are the words of the Apostle Nor let Mr. Eyre here wilfully mistake as if we affirmed that faith made Christs death of a propitiatory nature as if it received its value and worth from faith this were ridiculous to make the instrumentall cause a meritorious cause but it makes Christs death to be peculiarly appropriated by God as a propitiation for him in particular that believeth and never till then A fourth Argement is this If Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining then it was the will of God the Father and of Christ that his death should nor be available before fairh But Christ himself cannot save an unbeliever so remaining Therefore it was the will of the Father and the Sonne that his death should not actually save until faith The consequence is as immoveable as the earth for God the Father and Christ the Mediatour did not will that which was impossible for Christ to do therefore they did not will that antecedently to faith an unbebeliever should be justified and by consequence that the benefit of Christs death should not be enjoyed before faith The Minor is proved from Rom. 11.23 And they also if they abide not still in unbelief shall be graffed in for God is able to graffe them in again Where the Apostle speaking of the hope there is of calling the Jewes again that were cast off for unbelief from being any members of the visible Church and so from being members of Christs body and from all present hope of salvation sheweth that though their case be seemingly desperate yet it is possible for them to be saved by an argument drawn from the power of God God is able to graffe them in again yet he limiteth this absolute power of God that this is possible If they abide not in unbelief where though it be true God is able to remove their unbelief to give faith yet so long as they abide in unbelief they cannot be graffed in again and so saved yea the very power of God is here limited from saving to wit by his own immutable will not to save an unbeliever and an unbelievers wilful rejecting of the grace God offereth Mark 6.5 compared with Matth. 13.48 and thus in Mark 6.5 Christ in his own countrey could do no mighty work there because of their unbelief their unbelief was so great that Christ marvelled at it and was in a manner hindred Calvin upon the place saith Marcus negans Christum potuisse eorum culpam amplificat à quibus impedita fuit ejus bonitas Nam certè increduli quantum in se est Dei manum suâ contumaciâ constringunt non quòd Deus quasi inferior vincatur sed quia illi non permittant virtutem suam exequi Mark denying that Christ could do any mighty work there amplifies their sinne by whom his goodnesse was hindred For certainly the unbelievers as much as in them lieth do binde the hands of God by their contumacy not as if God being inferiour in power is overcome but because they will not permit his power to be executed And truly God hath declared his immutable purpose in the Gospel that whosoever believeth not shall be damned hence Christ cannot save an unbeliever so remaining therefore untill faith this benefit of Christs death is not obtained ◠The whole energy and efficacy of Christs merit in respect of influx and derivation upon others depends wholly upon the will of God ordaining and accepting it which appeares if you consider it in reference to the Elect and Reprobate for why is it effectual unto one and not the other it is the will of God only that makes the difference because God hath ordained it for the Elect and accordingly will give faith to apply it not to the other Now my fifth Argument shall be by retortion of Mr. Eyre's first argument against Mr. Woodbridge There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is no such thing This hath been accounted a good argument amongst Christians I may draw the like argument from Scripture negatively thus It is no where written that God accepted the death of Christ for unbelievers that they should be justified antecedently unto faith Ergo there was no such will in God and consequently not in Christ As for those Scriptures which Mr. Eyre brings and sets them upon the rack to force them to give evidence to his cause the Reader may expect their answer in the Aanaskeuastical part of this discourse where it properly belongs 6. God the Father and the Son intended the benefit of Christs death only for the members of Christ and till they be the members of his mystical body they cannot be partakers of the benefit of his death and have communion with him in it for as none partake in Adams sinne that were not in him by a natural union so none but such as are in Christ by spiritual and supernatural union can be partakers of his sufferings and satisfaction but none are members of Christs mystical body untill faith therefore untill faith it was the will of the Father and the Sonne that none should partake in the benefits of his death This argument shall be more fully vindicated ere long from the objection Mr. Eyre made against it in our discourse 7. If Christ in his
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
be understood in respect of imputation to wit that God for the merit of Christs passion forgiveth our sins upon believing as if we had suffered and made satisfaction I willingly grant it but then we were not in him as one person making satisfaction for the person of him that suffered for us is distinguished from them for whom he suffered and by Mr. Eyre's opinion that we were really one in him and with him before our birth and faith can be understood no other way as I conceive 5. That to make us to be one with Christ antecedently to our birth when he suffered for us destroyes the ground of imputation of Christs righteousnesse for those which were truly in Christ in all his obedience and sufferings to them that obedience and sufferings cannot be made over by imputation for what need is there of imputation or what place is left for it when those to whom it should be imputed because of their union with Christ did themselves performe it wherefore either there was no such union or that imputation must be denied But the obedience and sufferings of Christ are evidently by Scripture declared to be ours by imputation Rom. 4.5 Hence our faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousnesse And Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him we are made righteousnesse as he was made sin that was by imputation therefore we were made righteous by imputation 2 Cor. 5.21 hence that union Mr. Eyre contends for I cannot say mole ruit suâ but for want of weight falls to the ground The next thing that we have undertaken to prove is that there is not any mystical union between Christ and us intecedently to faith which I demonstrate from Scripture-grounds thus First if Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they may believe and that believing they may be united to him then before faith such for whom Christ died are not united to him But Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they might believe and that believing they might be one with him The consequence of the Major is as evident as reason can make it unlesse we make Christ to pray in vaine to pray for that which was already done if therefore they were not one in Christ and the Father as the Father was in Christ and Christ in the Father before as this prayer intimates they were not then this union was not antecedent to faith The Minor are the words of Christ John 17.20 21. and need not a graine of allowance Christ in this place prayes for those for whom he was to die that after his death they might believe the instrumentall cause of that faith is set down to be the word of the Apostles the finall cause of that believing is that they might be one that is that they might be as members of the same body by faith nearly united to one another the manner how is declared by the near conjunction between the Father and Christ Secondly he prayes not only that they may be one or at unity among themselves Diodat in Lecum 171. John 21. but also that they may be one in us that is as Diodat upon the place in the communion of the Holy Ghost by which they may be mystically united to me and by me to thee and truly this latter union to Christ is the ground of the former of being united to one another now if they were mystically united before this would make Christ either ignorant of this union or his prayer to be in vain to pray for that that was done long before from eternity as Mr. Eyre saith but either of these were fearful impiety to imagine therefore this union is not till faith A second Argument I frame from the same place is this They that are not really united as members of the invisible Church to the rest of the members and mysticall body of Christ are not united to Christ But before faith no man is a true member of the invisible Church and so united to the rest of the members of the mystical body Therefore not to Christ The Major will not be denied by any but such as are baptized into a spirit of errour the Reason is plaine because the union between the members is a fruit of our union to the same Head but no man is united to the company of Believers to have a true fellowship and union with them but a true Believer For what communion hath a Believer with an Infide and Christ prayes that they might believe that they might be one that is that they might be mutually united as by one faith as members one of another and the same body So Piscator upon the place Pisca in â—oc 17. Job 21. in Anal. Vt per unam fidem inter se devincti tanquam membra unius corporis cujus caput est Christus mutuo amore sese complectantur That being knit together by one faith as members of one body whereof Christ is Head they may with a mutuall love embrace each other now a true communion of love cannot be between true Believers and those that are yet unbelievers therefore neither between them and Christ And hence I argue 3. Christ and Belial are not united Every unbeliever is a son of Belial Therefore they are not united 2 Cor. 6.15 The word Belial is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncalled man nequà m a very wicked man a man that will profit none but is hurtful to all in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebricians agree not from whence it is derived but the signification given is either a man that will profit none or good for nothing or one that will be subject to no yoke I deny not but Interpreters do think many of them that Satan is in this place understood and Beza saith it very well agrees to him though he take it for a wicked man and Bullinger and Calvin take it for the Devil the head of all wicked men but I see not why it may not be taken here for a wicked man and not for Satan for it 's ordinary in Scripture by this word to understand very wicked men so in Deuteronomy it 's taken for an Idolater Deut. 13.13 and of such is the Apostles discoursing here that Believers should have no communion with Idolaters and so Elies sons being very wicked 1 Sam. 2.12 are called sons of Belial And it 's very agreeable to the scope for in the verse before he exhorteth them not to be unequally yoaked together with unbelievers he blames them for having too much familiarity with Heathens whether in marriages or in their feasts eating things sacrificed to Idols he would not have them draw in the same yoke by which Metaphor he would disswade them from keeping company with them and so partaking with them in their sins His Argument is drawn à contrario Your condition and profession is as
contrary to theirs as righteousnesse is to unrighteousnesse as light and darknesse and therefore as there is no fellowship between righteousnesse and unrighteousnesse between light and darknesse so neither should there be between you and them yea Christ hath no communion with Belial and you should be like Christ Christ and the devil can as well agree as a Christian and a wicked man a Christian is called by the same name and should be as Christ in the world Now as Christ hath no communion with Belial whether you take it for the Devil or a wicked man is all one Therefore neither should you Now then if Christ and a wicked man have no communion then have they no union But they have no communion who will make such a swine the member of Christ 1 Cor. 6.15 Shall I take the member of Christ and make it the member of an harlot God forbid And with the like abhorrency would Paul hear of making a member of an harlot a member of Christ a son of Belial a member of Christ 1 Cor. 6.11 But such is every unbeliever though elect the Apostle tells the Corinthians they were Idolaters Fornicators such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God 1 Cor. 6.17 4. He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit But an unbeliever and Christ is not one Spirit Therefore they are not joyned The Proposition is expressely written and the Minor is evident because an unbeliever is one that walketh according to the Prince of the power of the aire Eph. 2.2 the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience or unbelief for so it signifies rather then disobedience it signifies imperswasibility and contumacy in not believing 5. He that is none of Christs is not joyned to Christ An unbeliever is none of Christs in respect of incorporation The proposition shineth brighter then the Sun at noon-day The Assumption is proved from Rom. 8. He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of Christs But an unbeliever hath not the Spirit of Christ Surely the Spirit of Christ is a holy sanctifying Spirit and will not dwell in such an unclean stie as the heart of an unbeliever 6. He that hath no fellowship with God hath no union with Christ But an unbeliever hath no fellowship with God The Major will admit of no contradiction the Assumption I prove from the first Epistle of John ch 1.6 He that saith he hath fellowship with God and walketh in darknesse is a liar and doeth not the truth an unbeliever walks in darknesse practising the unfruitful works of darknesse he will contradict common sense and experience that denieth this 7. He that is in Christ is a new creature 2 Cor. 5.17 But an unbeliever is not a new creature Therefore he is not in Christ There is none but an Atheist can cast a stone at either of these Propositions 8. Where there is perfect resistance there is no union But between Christ and the heart of an unbeliever there is perfect resistance Therefore there is no union between Christ and him Christ will not be united to an unbeliever hence he brings all the Elect to faith nay it were dishonourable to Christ to be joyned to an actuall unbeliever the mysticall body of Christ would be a monstrous het erogeneous body if it consisted of Believers and Infidels and an unbeliever resists the grace and Spirit of Christ seeking to draw him to faith as Stephen told the Jewes They were a stiffe-necked people they did alwayes resist the Holy Ghost so is it true of every unbeliever Rom 8.7 The carnal minde is enmity against God it is not subject to the Law of God neither indeed can it be By this time I doubt not but the Reader seeth how I have more then enough confirmed this truth That without faith there is no union to Christ and that Mr. Eyre's opinion runs crosse to the very vein of the Gospel I will only adde a testimony or two more Beza setteth his seale to this truth Sed hoe demùm sciendum nos per fidem Christo ipso uniti Spiritûs Sancti vinculo Beza in his large An upon Gâ—l 4.28 ut bonorum ipsius fiamus participes ut omnes fideles hà c ratione sint unus Christus mysticus ut loquitur etiam Apostolus 1 Cor. 12.12 Beza in his large Ann. upon Gal. 4.28 But this finally we must know that we through faith by the bond of the Spirit are united to Christ that we may be partakers of all the good in him that all Believers by this means may be one mystical Christ So Learned Calvin Calv. in Rom. 8.4 Suam justitiam nullis communnicat Christus nisi quos Spiritûs sui vinculo sibi conjungit Christ communicateth his righteousnesse to none but such as he unites to himself by the bond of his Spirit Davenant also consenteth with us Absque fide Dâ—venant De m rte Christi pag 60. sive ante fidem nulla nobis actualis conjunctio cum Christo ac proindè ex merito mortis ejus nulla remissio peccaetorum nulla justificatio nulla cum Deo Patre reconciliatio Without faith or before faith we have no actuall conjunction with Christ and therefore from the merit of his death there is no remission of sins no justification no reconciliation with God the Father So Zanchy Ait ponent sibi caput non autem ponetur Docet ergò etsi Pater ille Zanch. Tom. 5. in Commen in Hoseam cap. 1. pag. 28. est qui caput hoc dedit Ecclesiae singulis Ecclesiae membris ut est Ephes 1. nemini tamen caput esse posse nisi quis illud propriae voluntatis assensu de adultis loquor sibi ipse ponat Sibi etiam quisque hoc caput verè coram Deo ponit cùm illud sibi à Patre in Evangelio oblatum fide suâ propriae voluntatis assensu suscipit amplectitur c. Vt enim uniamur huic capiti Christo spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus etiam ipsis parvulis pernecessarius est Justus enim ex solâ suâ fide vivet non alienâ sicut nec quis doctus est alienâ sed suâ quae in ipso est Doctrinâ He saith and they shall appoint themselves one head Ephes 1.22 not shall be appointed he teacheth therefore that although the Father be he who hath given this Head to the Church and to the singular members of the Church as it is Ephesians the first yet notwithstanding he can be a Head to none unlesse to him who by the assent of his own will I speak of them that are of age appoint him a head to himself Every man also doth appoint this Head to himself truly and that before God when he doth receive and embrace by his own faith and proper assent that Head offered to him by the Father in the Gospel For that we may be united to this Christ as a
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
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
pray tell me now what reall difference you make between the duties of an Elect unregenerate person and of a Regenerate person Let not the ignorant Reader mistake me here I affirme not that any duties of an unregenerate person are acceptable to God or that the want of faith hope and love maketh but a failing only in the manner and circumstances of the dutie but I have only presented the Reader with a glasse to let him see that Mr. Eyre for all the seeming difference he maketh between the actions of the Elect Regenerate and unregenerate yet indeed maketh none and according to him it cannot be found Pag. 18. Thus the Reader may see that one truth of Mr. Eyre verified where he saith We may no more judge of Books by their Title then of strumpets by their foreheads and although his Tittle-Page hold forth the Gospel-language of free Justification yet if thou read the Book thou shalt finde Esaus hands though thou sometimes hearest Jacobs voice And therefore the Reader that is judicious will not be like a silly fish taken with the bait though it swallow the hook I have given thee a few Animadversions but a judicious Reader will observe more This is enough to give the Reader warning to preserve him from the infection of this aire And I hope sufficient to reduce them that are led captive by him into the same Errour CHAP. VI. Proving that we are not justified from Eternity HERE I shall premise these few things First That as we hold Justification to be a transient act done in time so there is no transient act but it presupposeth necessarily an immanent act in God And therefore secondly I acknowledge there was an eternal and an immutable act of Gods will decreeing to justifie his Elect in time through faith in Christ Thirdly As for that conditionate decree which Arminians make in God making the condition antecedent to the act of Gods will I no way acknowledge and judge it absolutely inconsistent with Gods Nature and Essence but such a conditional decree as is so called subsequently not in respect of God willing but in respect of the thing willed sive objecti voliti is not repugnant to him especially in such contingent effects as come to passe by vertue of his decree ordaining them Thus God willeth salvation to the Elect which salvation they shall be brought unto by faith in Christ not that faith is the cause of the act of Election or God willing their salvation yet it may be the cause of the thing willed a subsequent condition wrought by God for the execution of his decree And therefore when the Orthodox acknowledge Election to be absolute they understand it not exclusively to the means which God hath ordained for the obtaining of salvation for God in the same eternall act did ordain the end and the meanes hence Paul telleth the Thessalonians that God hath from the beginning chosen them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit 2 Thess 2.13 1 Pet. 1.2 and belief of the truth and Peter saith The strangers he wrote unto according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ And as I acknowledge this to be an eternall decree Because he chose us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy so I willingly grant it to be immutable for he that changeth his purpose doth it for want of wisdome in deliberating or for want of power to execute it neither of which can be ascribed to God without blasphemy And hence the Scripture saith The foundation of God standeth sure having this seal The Lord knoweth who are his Fourthly I grant that Christ was elected and constituted to be a Head and all the Elect were predestinated to be his members and in this sense we were chosen in him not existing but only we were pre-ordained unto salvation by him And that this act was one in God in respect of whole Christ mystical although I deny that the Elect were by this act of God mystically united unto Christ which is done upon believing yet I grant a certain relative respect and mutual relation between them In which sense the Elect are called his people before he saved them from their sins and while they were not yet converted and his sheep for which he laid down his life although not yet brought home to him yet was not Christ the meritorious cause of their Election much lesse their foreseen faith or good works although he be the cause of the effects of their Election as therefore this salvation unto which we are predestinated is the act of God so Christ is the effect of Gods love of Election and the means of salvation and our salvation is the end in respect of us but as this salvation is our good so Christ is the cause of it Fifthly Though Christ were thus predestinated to be a Head and the Elect his Members yet was not he a Head actually from eternity nor the Elect actual members because he had not a mystical body from eternity and although God decreed from eternity to justifie the Elect through faith in Christ yet were not they actually justified For * Praedestinatio enim anâ—e applicationemgratiae nihil ponit in praedestinatis sed latet solùm in praedestinante Ames Medul Theol. cap. 25. sect 2. Predestination maketh no internall difference between the Elect and Reprobate untill actuall grace be given for applying the things intended in Election nor doth Predestination necessarily presuppose the existence of its terme * Praedestinatio enim nec terminum nec objectum suum necessariò praesupponit ut existens sed ponit ut existat ità ut vi praedestinationis ordinetur ut sit Amesii Medul c. 25. s 8. nor object but the futurity of both Having premised these things which I have the rather more fully done because he representeth me and such as differ from him as Arminians and Papists I shall now prove that we were not justified from eternity 1. Gods decree to justifie is terminus diminuens is a terme of diminution and therefore is not actuall Justification 't is amor ordinativus but it is not amor collativus it is a love ordaining and preparing good things for us but not an actuall bestowing them Justification is an actual bestowing of some special mercy a discharge from the guilt of sin and death a passing us from an estate of death into an estate of life this may be intended but is not actually performed by Predestination for it 's a known rule Praedestinatio nihil ponit in Praedestinato but I will not strangle the question so by the prejudice of a word or two therefore I argue 2. The Scripture no where speaketh of an eternal Justification Therefore we were not justified from eternity The Antecedent is acknowledged and made use of by Mr. Eyre and a negative argument in matters of great
and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1â— To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscienceâ— but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateniâ—gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law
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.
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
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
for the want of Faith as a meanes to unite the soul to Christ hindered it for as none are partakers of Adams sin but such as were in him so none are partakers of the reconciliation wrought by Christ but such as are in him Now it is by Faith that we are implanted into Christ and therfore until Faith we are not partakers of the benefit of actual reconciliation Mr. Eyre doth erre toto coelo when he thinketh we conceive a new will and affâ—ction to be in God upon believing which was not before for we acknowledge no new immanent act in God this were to make him mutable but we acknowledge a transient act of God to passe upon the believer and that there is a change of Gods dispensation toward the believer though not a change of affection and God loved them before with the love of benevolence not with the love of complacency and delight which he could not do while they remained unjustified The first love is terminated upon their persons yet the nature of Justification consists not in it because it is a love of good-will and purpose to do them good The second is a love terminated upon their graces and so a delighting in his own work so a loving them for what he hath wrought in them and now he pardoneth by vertue of the Covenant of grace and the promise Whosoever believe shall not perish but have everlasting life Fourthly If it were the will of God that the sin of Adam should immediately overspread his posterity then it was the will of God that the satisfaction and righteousnesse of Christ should immediately redound to the benefit of Gods elect This consequence is denied the reason that he bringeth is that there is the same reason for the immediat transmission of both to their respective subjects for as the Apostle sheweth Rom. 5.14 both of them were Heads and Roots of mankind To which I answer deny that there is the same reason for the immediate transmission of both for though they be both Roots of mankinde yet we are in the first Adam in a naturall way and so sinned in him before we had a being and were formally and actually sinners as soon as we had an actual being but we are in the second Adam by a supernatural work of the Spirit working Faith and this is not wrought alwayes at our birth but a long time after Besides the scope of the Apostle is not to compare Adam and Christ as causes in eodem genere of the same kinde that did in the same manner in every respect communicate the issues of their actions to their respective members but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious nay more powerfully efficacious to save all that are in him then Adams sinne were to condemn all that are in him and the efficaciousnesse of Christs death consists not in the immediate conferring of the things purchased for though in regerd of causality the effects are immediat yet not in respect of application but in the certainty of collating the things purchased and the excellency of the things obtained for it is farre moâ—e efficacious to save one man then to damn all the world The first is an act of Impotency this an act of Omnipotency and they for whom Christ died shall as certainly be justified and saved as if the work were already done Fifthly If the sacrifices of the Law were immediately available for the typical cleansing of sins under that administration then the sacrifice which Christ hath offered was immediately available to make a real atonement for all those sinnes for which he suffered The reason of which consequence is this because the real sacrifice is no lesse efficacious then the typical Heb. 9.14 But those legal sacrifices did immediately make atonement without any condition perfermed on the sinners part Lev. 16.30 I answer that the consequence of the major may justly be questioned for if they were immediate it followeth not that therefore Christs sacrifice must be so or else it is of lesse efficacy First because that such as brought those sacrifices were actually the people of God and professed faith in Christ and if the Profession were outward only they had an outward cleansing if real they had by faith in Christ a spiritual cleansing signified by the outward cleansing but all that shall be cleansed by the sacrifice of Christs death were not in being much lesse had an actual faith to apply it nor is the death of Christ lesse efficacious because they did but typically cleanse they could not purge the conscience Heb. 9.25 26. hence they were often repeated but Christ by one sacrifice once offered hath cleansed us they had their power and efficacy only in reference to Christs blood which was typified thereby Secondly we say that Christs death doth immediately cleanse in respect of causality though not in respect of actual application the defect is not in Christs blood but in the want of faith that it might be applied But Thirdly I deny the minor those legal sacrifices did not immediately make atonement without any condition on the sinners part for that is apparently false For First the man that would have an atonement made for him by sacrifice must have it be done by the slaying of a beast offered up and burnt with fire to signifie that without blood there 〈◊〉 no remission Levit. 1. and to set forth the grievous sufferings of Christ Secondly Levit. 1. he must bring his sacrifice to the door of the Tabernacle without which it should not be accepted yea blood should be imputed to him and he should be cut off Lev. 17.4 this Tabernacle signified Christ Heb. 9.11 Heb. 9.11 by whom all services as a door must have passage to and acceptance with God and he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary Profession of faith though it were a duty commanded and a sin not to do it yet he must voluntarily bring it to shew his voluntary service and profession of faith in Christ Thirdly he must put his hand upon the head of the beast Levit. 1.4 Exod. 29.10 Lev. 1.4 whereby he confessed his sins and worthinesse to die though through Gods mercy this death was inflicted on the beast by which was signified that he must confesse his sins and worthinesse to die and that God hath laid his iniquities upon Christ and by this laying on of the hand is signified his apprehending Christ Exod. 24.8 and likewise the blood was sprinkled upon the people Heb. 9.19 Heb. 9.19 The Priest took the blood of calves and of goats and he sprinkled the book and all the people under which is typified the application of Christs blood to the conscience upon believing Hence Calvin saith upon Heb. 9.19 Calvin apud marl Heb. 9.19 Quòd autem ex hyssopo aspergillum fiebat lanâ cotcinâ non dubium est quin mysticam asperginem quae fit per Spiritum representaverit