did not intend a direct Series and order of the causes of salvation in this place from whence then it may be concluded those that are uncalled are unjustified so are the Elect Jewes Therefore A third reason is because they who are alienated from God they are not reconciled and by consequence not justified So are the Elect Jewes yet uncalled Therefore c. As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake that is as * De Judaeorum gente in genere disserit qui quòd Evangelium idest quatenus Evangelium non admittunc nempe in praesenti conditiâ—ne sunt Deâ— exosi c. Beza saith upon the place Quatenus Evangelium non admittunt sunt Deo exosi quod ad Electionem attinet c. That is as they refuse the Gospel they are enemies or hateful to God in the present condition for your sakes which is to be understood that God so ordered it for the Gentiles good that upon their rejection they might be called but as concerning the Election they are beloved for the promises God made to their forefathers but as to their present condition they are hatefull to God therefore unjustified Eleventhly That that maketh the witnesse of the Spirit to be false cannot be true But to make unbelievers though Elect persons the subjects of Justification doth this Therefore c. The assumption only needeth proof Rom. 8.15 yet it is evident because the Spirit doth witnesse to the Elect unregenerate that they are in a state of bondage whence that Spirit is called the Spirit of bondage but in this witnesse the Spirit is a Spirit of truth therefore the Elect unregenerated are not justified CHAP. VIII Shewing that we are justified by faith and that when the Scriptures speak of Justification by Faith it doth not understand it only declaratively but really in the sight of God nor objectively excluding the act and the instrumentality of Faith is proved HEre also for a right understanding of the matter in hand I shall premise First That we are not justified by faith in the sense of the Papists as if it did justifie us per modum causae efficientâ—â— morâ—â—oriae as a proper efficient and meritoriour câ—â—â—e which by its own worth or dignity deserves to obtaine Justification so Bellarmine saith Bellar De Justific l. 1. c. 17. it doth justifie impetrando promorendo inchoando justificationem Nor Secondly Do we say that faith justifies in an Arminian sense as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere the act of believing were imputed to us for righteousnesse or that Faith in the Covenant of Grace standeth instead of that obedience we owe to the Moral Law so as that our imperfect faith is for Christs sake accepted for perfect â—ighteousnesse Thirdly Faith doth not justifie us as the matter of our righteousnesse as a grace or a work or an act or a habit but the matter of our Justification is Christs righteousnesse and obedience Fourthly Faith is not to be taken objectively only that is for Christ as Mr. Eyre interprets it though it be willingly acknowledged that we are justified by no other righteousnesse then the righteousnese of Christ But Fifthly I take Faith subjectively and properly for the grace of Faith and that act of it whereby as a hand it layeth hold upon Christ for Justification and so it is to be taken with connotation to its object That if you ask for what I am justified I say the only righteousnesse of Christ imputed if you ask by what I am justified I answer by Faith as an hand to put on Christ as an instrument appointed by God to apply Christ so that Faith is not the matter of my righteousnesse but answereth in my participation of the righteousnesse in Christ to that which is the ground of my being partaker in Adams sin Sixthly This grace of Faith is the free gift of God not the birth or spawn of free will but the effect of Election and a fruit of Christs death Seventhly When the Scripture saith We are justified by faith it is to be taken for this grace of Faith relatively considered as to its object and by applying Christs righteousnesse a Believer is justified really in the sight of God by a change of his estate from death to life so that it doth not only declaratively evidence Justification to the conscience but instrumentally it justifieth us so as that I must be justified by it though I am not justified for it These things premised I shall now prove it It were needlesse to mention the Scriptures that expressely say we are justified by faith it being acknowledged that the Scripture clearly speaketh so but only the difference is how this is to be taken whether properly metonymically or both to which last I incline in the sense explained So that neither Christ alone nor Faith alone do justifie but that they are social causes though not co-ordinate and ejusdem generis of the same kinde or worth but Christ is a morall meritorious cause Faith the instrumental working only virtute agentis principalis by the power order constitution of the principal agent to the production of an effect far above its own native-worth or power Argument the first against declarative Justification The matter in controversie between Paul and the Justiciaries in his time was not by what we come to the knowledge of our Justification but by what means we are justified it is of farre greater concernment to be justified then to know his Justification he said we were justified by faith they by the Law whence I reason If faith taken subjectively for the grace of faith do only evidence Justification then we are no more justified by faith then by works But the Apostle ascribeth more to faith then to works Therefore faith doth more then evidence Justification The consequence is evident because works may evidence Justification nay works are of a more declarative evidencing nature then faith Hence the truth of faith is evidenced by works not only to others but to our selves and that works evidence this Justification of a sinner is apparent Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we know that we are passed c. 1 John 3.14 Now the Assumption I confirme thus that the Apostle attributes more to faith then to works because the Scripture no where saith we are justified by works in his blood but it saith we are justified by faith in his blood And when the Apostle speaketh of Justification by faith he meaneth of a Justification before God as in that third to the Romanes he concludeth by a sound argument that we are justified in the sight of God and not before conscience Thus if all have sinned and are come short of the glory of God and so are inherently wicked then we are
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
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
him that were virtually sinners in him and that act of his in eating the forbidden fruit was as truly ours though not so compleatly and perfectly as his for we are not formally constituted sinners till we are actually members of him by natural generation 2. A second Errour I conceive him guilty of is in that he saith That 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 and it 's so much the worse that he will father it upon the Apostle which he no way intended in that place that as Adams sin came upon men to condemnation before they had a being that so the righteousnesse of Christ was imputed to the Elect before they had a being To which I answer that it is a manifest untruth for the sin of Adam descends upon us not only by imputation but by propagation so doth not the righteousnesse of Christ that is ours only by imputation The sin of Adam becomes ours by vertue of a natural union in whom we are seminally antecedently to our birth but Christs righteousnesse becometh ours by spirituall and supernatural union to whom we are strangers and alienated from him by nature we are virtually united to Adam because we had existence in him as in our first Parent before we had a being but we were actually sinners whâ—n we had an actuall being because we had a compl aâ— being out of our cause but we are not actually united to Christ before faith Wotton de Râ—con pecc par 2. l. 2. c. 2â— p. 210 Hence learned Wotton in answer to this Objâ—ction saith Nos unum fuisse cum Adamo credentes unum esse cum Christo si utrumque verè dici possit tamen alio atque alio modo haec vera essâ— intelliguntur unum suimus cum Adamo originaliter liceat enim his verbis uti seminaliter ut arbor ejúsque omnes rami in glande aut alio quovis semine inesse dicuntur hác ratione fit ut non minùs verè in Adamo peccâsse quà m Levi apud Apostolum Heb. 7.9 decimatus esse in Abrahamo affirmatur jam verò longè alio modo in Christo esse censemur non naturâ aut proprie sed improprie per similitudinem quandam Praeterea semper ex quo creatus est Adamus unum cum illo in illo fuisse deprehendimur ut cum illo etiam quodam modo peccare potuerimus Quod de nostrâ cum Christo conjunctione sive unione affi mari non pâ—test uniri enim nos Christo cum illo conjungi oportet priusquam unum esse cum illo possimus existimari wh ch for the Readers sake I will English Although it may be truly said that we were one with Adam and believers are one with Christ yet this is to be understood in a different manner we were one with Adam and in him naturally originally and let it be lawful to use these words seminally as a tree and all his branches are said to be in the 〈◊〉 or in any other seed By this reason it comes to passe that we know that we sinned no lesse in Adam then Levi by the Apostle is said Heb. 7.9 to have paid tithes in Abraham But now we are reputed to be in Christ in a farre different manner not by nature or properly but improperly and by a certain similitude Moreover from the time that Adam was created we were alwayes one with him and in him that with him we may be said after a sort to have sinned which cannot be affirmed concerning our conjunction with or union to Christ for it behoveth us to be joyned and united to Christ before we can be esteemed to be one with him and he addes Quare tum primùm in Christo esse incipimus quum in illum credimus Wherefore we then first begin to be in Christ when we believe in him And let me adde that there are many different considerations and circumstances between the bringing in of salvation by the one and condemnation by the other and the Apostle giveth instance in Rom. 5.15 16. And besides these there are many other I shall think fit to adde but one Vide John Goodwin Treat Justifica part 2. pag. 17. taken nootice of by Master John Goodwin in his Treatise of Justification and in hâ—s words The sin of Adam by which he brought condemnation upon the world was as well the act of all his posterity as his own in which respect they may as truly be said to have brought condemnation upon themselves as Adam but the obedience by which Christ brought salvation into the world can with no propriety of speech nor with any consistence with truth be said to have been theirs or performed by them who are saved by it so that these cannot now be said with any more truth to have saved themselves then if they had not been saved at all It is said indeed that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himselfe 2 Cor. 5.19 but it is no where said that the world was in Christ reconciling it self to God Let no man blame me for his authority fas est ab hoste doceri And the ground of Mr. Eyre's mistake if it be not wilfull is that he thinks the Apostle doth compare the disobedience of Adam and the obedience of Christ as causes of the same kinde which produce their effects after the same manner which was not the intent of the Apostle but to shew that Christs death is no lesse efficacious unto Justification to them that are his one with him then the sin of Adam was to condemnation to them that were in him but not to shew that we were in Christ as we are in * Câ—nfertur autem A la nus cum Christo tum in re simili cùm in contrariâ siwiles enim sunt in eo quòd uterque quod suum est cum suis communicat sed in eo planè dissimiles quòd ille pecatum in suos naturâ derivat ad mortem Christus verò suam justitiam cum suis communicat per gratiam ad vitam Beza large Ann. on Rom. 5.12 Wotton de recon peccat par 2. l. 1. c. 9 p. 149 Adam that as we were in Adam antecedently to our being that so the Elect are in Christ antecedently to their birth and faith for as in the next Argument that I shall vindicate I shall shew that we are not united to Christ until faith And the very same answer doth Wotton give to Hemingius whose words are these Quod ad assumptionem attinet sumet ille pro concesso Apostolum Adami inobedientiam tanquam ejusdem generis causas comparare quae eodem plane modo effecta sua producant At verò id potiùs agere videtur Apostolus ut Christi obedientiam non minùs ad justificationem valere quà m Adami in obedientiam ad condemnationem imò Christi justitiam majorem
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
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
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
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
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
Apostle had been We are justified by faith that is faith doth evidence our justification and works do not evidence it this makes the Apostles words to be untrue and he should uphold a needlesse strife and they should be in the truth and he in an errour But we shall rather suspect this glosse then so farre question the credit of St. Paul who was Amanuensis Spiritûs Sancti the Penman of the Holy Ghost Vse 1 The first Use then may be to shew us the miserable estate of a Christlesse man an unbeliever not united to Christ by faith As the body without the soule is dead so is a man without Christ dead in sinnes and trespasses As a branch separated from the vine withers away and shall surely be cast into the fire so that soul that is without Christ will wither in his profession and make fuel for everlasting burnings What awretched condition doth this discover a multitude of persons to be in at this day not only such as are without Christ because without the means by which God offers and exhibites Christ though their condition be very sad but even of those to whom Christ is preached and salvation by Christ offered but yet alas they are as great strangers to Christ as if they had never heard of him they know not what union and communion with Christ means they never were cut off from their old stock but are members of the first Adam who are yet in their sins ready to perish everlastingly for want of union with Christ to give them a right unto his righteousnesse if God stop but their breath which he can as easily do as a man would crush a moth they are everlastingly undone and we may say of them as Christ of Iudas It had been good for them they had never been borne Let such persons as these are know that have lived under excellent means and yet are not drawn to faith It shall be more tolerable in the day of judgement for the Heathen that never heard of Christ then for them if they die in this estate they shall not be damned for not believing in Christ for Christ was never revealed unto them but Christ have been revealed unto you the unsearchable riches of Jesus Christ hath been laid open before your eyes God hath made many sweet offers of Christ and all his benefits unto your soules when God hath denied to Dives a drop of water to coole his tongue the windowes of heaven have been opened to you and the fountaines of the great deep of the bottomlesse mercy of God have been broken up and the Seas and depths of Gods mercies in Christ have been opened to you One would think the most iron-hearted sinner would be allured with such bowels of mercy as have wept over you and yet you have received all the grace of God in vain you have not been brought over unto Christ by faith how will this provoke the Lord to the sorest vengeance that the hand of a jealous God can inflict If the word spoken by Angels was stedfast and every transgression and obedience received a just recompense of reward how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation This will be condemnation with a witnesse That light is come into the world and men love darknesse rather then light Thou that art not united to Christ thou hast as yet no part nor portion in Christ thou art yet in the gall of bitternesse and in the bond of iniquity Indeed there is righteousness enough in Christ to justifie thee if all the sins of all the men in the world did lie upon thee yet if thou beest a member of Christ none of all these should condemne thee yea with reverence be it spoken God can no more condemne thee then he can condemne his Son that died for thee thou art as safe from condemnation as Christ but thou that art yet out of Christ by unbelief let me tell thee the very blood of Christ cannot save thee in this estate God must make a new Gospel and deny himself or else thou canst not come to heaven What claime canst thou lay to Christs righteousnesse that hast no interest in Christ himself will he give his blood to thee that never gave himself to thee Thou that art a Christlesse person thou art a gracelesse person for if God have not made Christ righteousnesse to thee to justifie thee he is not made sanctification to thee thou art a godlesse a hopelesse man in this estate As it was said of Coniah so may I say of thee Ob earth earth earth write this man childlesse a man that shall not prosper all his dayes he was a broken vessel in whom the Lord had no pleasure so thou art a broken vessel in whom the Lord hath no pleasure Oh earth earth earth write this man gracelesse hopelesse heavenlesse a man that shall not prosper all his dayes Oh what a dreadful thing must death needs be to thee when thou diest that hast no Christ to intercede for thee nor righteousnesse to appeare in If all the haires upon thy head were so many vipers in thy bosome they will not sting thy body more deadly then sin will sting thy soul unto death eternal Know therefore that without union with Christ it would be well with thee if thou couldest change conditions with the meanest beast or creature God hath given to serve thee yea take the Sodomites that now suffer the vengeance of eternal fire they shall have a Summers parlour in hell over that soule that hath had such offers of Christ as you have had and yet dies in a Christlesse estate without union with him I beseech you lay it strongly to heart before the wrath of the Lord break forth like fire against you and burne down to the lowest hell and there be none to quench it Vse 2 2. See what a blessed thing it is for the Lord to give a people the means whereby they may become one with Christ for God to give unto us his Word which is the means to cut us off from the old stock and to implant us into Christ for God to give us his Gospel and that his Spirit should attend upon the Word preached without which the Word preached would be as uselesse as the Gardners kniffe which cannot cut off a branch nor be helpful to the implantation of it without the hand of the Gardner to act and improve it and so the Word without the Spirit would implant none Oh râ—st it is the Spirit in the Word that works faith and so drawes and unites the soule to Christ Now that God should give a people his Word and his Spirit to apply Christ to them and them to Christ that there may be a mutual application of them as there is of the stock to the graft and the graft to the stock that the Beleever may apprehend Christ and be apprehended by him and so grow up into union and blessed fellowship and communion with Christ
not onely caring for thy credit that thy life be unblameable but that God may be honoured do'st thou abound in the fruits of righteousnesse art thou full of love peace long-suffering gentlenesse goodnesse meeknesse faith humility patience temperance He that is not thus fruitful is not ingraffed into Christ if thy faith be a dead faith that doth not manifest it self by good works if thou beest barren and unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ and hast nothing but the outward leaves of profession thou wert never truly ingraffed into Christ A 2d note is this he that is united to Christ lives the life of Christ for it is not he but Christ that liveth in him neverthelesse saith Paul I live yet not I but Christ liveth in me As a branch in the tree if it be a living branch partakes of the same life it doth not only cleave by adherence and continuation to the body of the tree but it is in the tree by a real participation of life partaking of the sap and influences of the root thus it is between Christ and a Christian united to him by a true faith Acts 3.15 he partakes of spiritual life from Christ hence Christ is called the Prince of Life 1 Cor. 15.45 and a quickening Spirit 1 Cor. 15.45 Now Christ is the Root Author and fruition of all spiritual life in us and thus he lives in us by his Spirit which is called the Spirit of life which is in Christ and by this he freeth us from the law of sin and death Rom. 8.2 The same Spirit that dwells in Christ dwells in a Beleever and quickens him as it raised Christ from the dead so it doth raise up us to newnesse of life and so to live a life in conformity to the life of Christ which appears in two things because it makes a Christian live by the same rule and to the same end 1. By the same rule Christ as Mediatour lived according to the written Word of God Pâ—al 40.8 The Law of God was written in his heart look what the Law did require there was a disposition in his heart suitable to that Law and hence Christ professed He came not to do his own will but the will of him that sent him It was his meat and drink to do the will of his Father John 4.34 And in the most difficult case wherein he could be tried though nature started and stood amazed at the greatnesse of the sufferings and therefore as man could not but fear the wrath of God and in this sense he feared and declined the bitternesse of the cup and desired it might passe away and unlesse he had put off the nature and affections of man he could do no otherwise yet knowing that immutable purpose of God and for that end he came to this home in that sense he voluntarily submitted and so though here were a diversity of wills yet not a contrariety of wills in Christ and truly his will was wholly agreeable to the will of God so in such as Christ lives by his Spirit he makes them so live as to make the will of God the rule of their life and to this end he writes the Law in their heart that they may both know and have an inward suitablenesse of Spirit to yield obedience to the will of God And hence he that hath had communion with Christ in his death is said to cease to sin for this end that he should no longer live to the lusts of men but to the will of God 2. Christ made the honour of God his end thus Christ saith He did honour the Father and sought not his own glory John 8.49 50. Thus also a Christian that is united to Christ seeks that glory of God and makes that his last end as Paul injoynes Whatsoever ye do 1 Cor. 10.31 do all to the glory of God Now if thou art one that doest make the will of God the rule of thy life and obey it from thy heart making God thy last end in all thou doest surely this is an infallible signe of a man in Christ 3. That man that is united to Christ cannot live to sin any longer as a graft cut off the old stock lives not in the stock any longer but wholly lives in another so that man that is united to Christ being cut off from the old stock lives not to corrupt nature any longer Nay there is nothing now so contrary to the life of a Christian as sin nothing so hateful nothing was more hateful to Christ he came into the world to destroy the works of the devil to destroy sin 1 John 3.8 Rom. 6.6 1 Pet. 4.1 2. and they that are in Christ their old man was crucified with him and thus he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin i. e. he that hath been crucified with Christ sin reignes no more in his heart so then they that are Christs have crucified the flesh Gal. 5.24 with the affections and lusts thereof they cannot cleave in their affections unto sin nay they cannot but hate it as being that that drew tears and blood from Christs heart who is now dearer to them then their own lives Therefore such as can give up themselves to the love of any one sin and suffer their affection to be insnared with the love of it were never united truly to Christ for separation from sin and union to Christ are inseparable companions Thus you see how we may know our union to Christ The last Use shall be to perswade every man to labour after this union seeing life and death stands in it Christ himself will profit us nothing without this union Wealth in the Mine doth not inrich any man till it be severed from its drosse and appropriated to a particular use water in the Fountain profits not a man till it be conveighed by some pipe into his cisterne light in the Sun doth me no good unlesse I have an eye to behold it Christ is a rich Mine in which are hid unsearchable treasures but what am I the better if he be not mine Tolle meum tolle Deum saith Luther Take away my propriety in Christ and the knowledge of a Christ will torment and not comfort my heart He is a Fountain of living water but unlesse faith be the conduit-pipe and cock to conveigh this water I may perish for all that he is a Sun of righteousnesse yet if he do not enlighten me I may be cast into utter darknesse therefore till Christ by some bond or union become mine and I his I may be as miserable as if this Mine had not been discovered as if this Fountain had not been opened as if this Sun had never risen Now this union and communion with Christ on our part is by faith Oh let us labour for faith Consider how freely God hath given Christ for us and how willing God is to give Christ to us consider how
lovingly Christ invites us to come and how willingly he will imbrace every soul that comes John 6.38 For this is the will of the Father that whosoever come he should in no wise cast out The Spirit saith come Rev. 22.17 and the Bride saith come Whosoever will let him come and drinke of the water of life freely And to that end that faith may be wrought attend upon the Word of God for faith cometh by hearing it is the power of God to salvation and desire the Lord to draw thee unto Christ tell him thou art undone without Christ and there is nothing that thy heart is more set upon then Christ and if he will give thee Christ thou wilt be conntented whatever he do with thee and when the Lord seeth thee hunger and thirst after Christ and his righteousnesse and that nothing but a Christ will content thee he will say Be it unto thee according to thy desire if nothing but a Christ will satisfie thee why take Christ and let him everlastingly become thine and with his Christ he will give his Spirit if thou aske it to seal up this gift to thy heart to thy everlasting comfort Thus then being come to the end of this Sermon as it was delivered with as little variation as I could I shall prosecute this argument no further and if friends and enemies would have been so satisfied I had not troubled the Presse with this Sermon but I and it had been yet buried in silence but since it is the will of God I here submit it to the judgement of my Brethren and I doubt not but I shall receive from them a quietus est to discharge me from Mr Eyre's Arrest who hath in the Pulpit and Presse condemned this Sermon as wide from the Orthodox Faith which if he will undertake to shew and convince me wherein I promise him through the grace of Christ to be a thankful Proselyte Now the God of peace tread down Satan under your feet rebuke that spirit of Errour and division that is among you settle and confirme you in the truth as it is in Jesus to whose grace I commend you and rest in hope of your establishment JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH OR UNBELIEVERS NO SUBJECTS OF Justification CHAP. I. Being a Vindication of my Sermon preached at N. Sarum shewing that Union to Christ and Justification by Christ is not Antecedent to Faith ABout April which was Anno 1652. according to my course in the Lecture at New Sarum I preached the foregoing Sermon grounded upon the second to the Ephesians the 12. vers That at that time ye were without Christ being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope and without God in the world From which words the Point observed was this That a Christlesse estate is a Hopelesse estate for the explication and proof of the Point I referre the Reader to the Sermon it self That which I chiefly aimed at was to shew that the very Elect are said to be without Christ or in a Christless estate untill actuall faith because without union to Christ there is no communion with him but this union is the formall effect of faith or is made by believing After the Sermon Mr. Eyre took liberty to remonstrate and since in his Vindiciae Justifie he hath declared to the world that I said That the Elect themselves to whom Christ was peculiarly given by the Father before the foundations of the world for whom Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour whose sins he bare on his body on the tree even to a full propitiation had no right or interest in Christ nor any more benefit by his death then reprobates till they did believe and that they are but dreamers who conceit the contrary To which I answer that as he hath a faculty to speak of others what they never said so he can hear what they never spake he hath innovated my tearmes of which as in our conference so in his Printed relation where he is no lesse peccant he was always wittingly as I conceive guilty which because I minded him of before the people he stiles in his Book a provocation of language which I gave him But to the matter because I intend not a strife of words I shall first readily grant him that the Elect were given to Christ by the Father before the foundations of the world and Christ to them if he understand it onely of an immanent act terminated in God himself and understand by it no more then an eternall purpose in God to give Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for those whom in his eternal counsel he had fore-ordained to eternal life and to give them faith whereby they may become his members but if he judge this to be actually done and that Christ and all the Elect were one mystical body and so justified from eternity I wholly dissent from him Predestination is only a love of purpose and intention not of execution it being an immanent act leaveth no positive reall effect upon the person predestinated Hence when God is said to give Christ to the Elect from eternity it signifies only the will and purpose of God constituting and appointing Christ to die for the Elect but he was not actually given till in the fulnesse of time he sent him into the world and although in his death he gave him to die for them yet was he not actually given to them that they should possesse the benefits of his death until actuall faith and I shall further manifest this when I shall prove that an immanent act of God purposing to justifie us is not our formal justification Secondly Whereas he saith that Christ gave himself a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and bare our sins in his body on the tree even to a ful propitiation This I willingly acknowledge and blesse the Lord for if he understand it only of the fulness of satisfaction and not of an immediate discharge of the sinner for whom he died Christ did not satisfie the justice of God by divine acceptation but he satisfied the justice of God fully the dignity and excellency of his person did no way dispense with any degree of the extremity of the punishment due to our sin which was consistent with his Godhead and holynesse to suffer but it was to make the sufferings of one available for many And Scotus gives a considerable reason for it quia poenâ ab unà eximere Christum si valuisset valuisset etiam ex duabus Scotus in quar Sentent dist 46. Q. 4. Art 4. atque ita ex omnibus eum emancipare And I acknowledge there was not a deficiency but a redundancy of merit in his sufferings the justice of God cannot require any thing more at the hands of Christ our surety or of the sinner by way of satisfaction and in this sense he is well pleased with Christ as a publick
of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them dâ—ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quà m ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the
Father to lay it down accompanied with sufficient power to break through the sufferings he undertook and to raise up himself again all this constituted Christ God-man being perfectly righteous a fit person to become a surety and now it was just and righteous that Christ an innocent person should be charged with the sins of the Elect. Secondly I grant that no creature that was only a creature whether Angel or man could or ought to undertake this work 1. No Angel ought because Gods justice required that satisfaction should be given by the same nature that had sinne Bernard de pass Dom. 1. Cap. 46. nor was it meet he should be man only that our redemption and salvation might be attributed to none but him from whom we had our creation for that reason which Bernard alledgeth because our redemption would more oblidge us to love then our creation if therefore we had been redeemed by any other then him by whom we were made we should have loved him more then our Creatour Neither could any pure creature be fitly qualified for this work for whatever the creature can do is already debitum a due debt and therefore it cannot supper-erogate or merit any thing for us Thirdly I grant therefore that Christ was God and Man and that it was needful he should be both 1. He must be God that must satisfie God for God was offended and therefore to make satisfaction God in our nature satisfieth for our sin So that here is God satisfying God that if the sin be infinite in the object the satisfaction is infinite in respect of the subject suffering God in our nature and although his sufferings were not infinite in duration nor was there need they should be because he satisfied for such sins as should be broken off by repentance And his end was in suffering to satisfie therefore his sufferings must have an end yet his sufferings were unmeasurably great and what was wanting in the shortnesse was made up in the sharpnesse of the sufferings and it was impossible Christ should be held under the sorrows of death the duration of the prisoner in the Jayle is no part of the debt but accidentall to it he lies there but till the debt be paid Now Christ paid all so as fully to satisfie the justice of God and hence there was no need of his eternal suffering Besides it was needful he should be God that his obedience might be perfect and meritorious to dignifie his obedience and make it of infinite value that he might merit and support himself under his suffering and raise up himself again and performe the rest of the works of the Mediatourship And it was needful he should be Man for as he was God he could not suffer and that he might as justice requireth satisfie in our nature that our pardon might not be an act of dominion only and forgivenesse but an act of justice and satisfaction Fourthly I willingly grant that Christ did suffer whatsoever appertaines to the substance and essentials of the first death or the death naturall consisting in the separation of soul and body and though the curse doth not require any one particular death yet that the Lord might shew the hainousnesse of sin which deserves the worst death of all and that the love of Christ might be manifested and Gods justice declared God the Father appointed it and Christ undertook it to die the death of the Crosse a shameful and base death appropriated to the worst of malefactors Phil. 2.6 8. to shew the hatefulnesse of sin and the greatnesse of Christs humiliation and love in submitting to it he humbled himself to the death of the Crosse 2. I willingly grant Christs suffered and endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul not by sympathy with the body only but peculiar to his soul all that was due to the sins of the Elect that was consistent with his Godhead and Holiness Catechismus Romanus 4. Art Symb. Aquinas Part. 3 q. 46. art 5 6. the Papists deny not that he suffered inward grief in his soul and Aquinas that he suffered the greatest sorrow that could be but I affirme for quantity Christ might and did in this life endure the paines of hell he did not locally descend into the place of the damned he did indure the same that was due to us for substance and kinde though not in all accidents that belong to it he suffered and felt that heavy wrath of God due to mans sin his soul was so struck with horrour that all faculties for a time left there proper fruction and did concurre to relieve nature in that extremity he lay under the revenging stroakes of Gods justice due to mans sin it put him into a bloody sweat in the forethought of it and made him cry earnestly If it be possible let this cup passe My God my God why hast thou forsaken me God for a time withdrew the solace and comfort he was wont to finde in him that sensible refreshing of the light of Gods countenance which was wont to fill him with satisfactory sweetnesse was for a time withdrawn which is a part of the second death and answers to the pain of losse yet in all his time the union of the Manhood with the Godhead was untouched though there was a withdrawing of the sense and sweetnesse of the favour of God his righteousnesse and graces were no way diminished he was most pure in his passion free from all sin Christ brought none of this upon himself by his own sin but was called to this work and in all this conflâ—ct his faith was unshaken crying out My God even when to his present sense and feeling he was forsaken Fifthly I willingly grant that Christs death and sufferings was a very valuable compensation for the sin of man yea he satisfied Gods justice to the full not by divine acceptation God abated him nothing for the dignity of his person but he fully satisfied for the substance what the justice of God could fully inflict yea in respect of some circumstances he suffered more then was due indeed in respect of the substance of his sufferings neither as * Parker lib. 3. de discon li. 51. p. 97. Mr. Parker hath observed the love of the Father nor the justice of God could permit more to be imposed then what was necessary for him to bear as a surety Quoad substantiam poenae nihil plus perpessus est Christus quà m quod per legem debebatur neque enim vel amor Patris vel etiam justitia permittere potuit plura Filio ut imponerentur quà m quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant Quoad circumstantias autem patientis personam patiendi causam pâ—ssionis efficaciam plus quà m sufficiens satisfactio Christi à nobis dicitur In respect of circumstances as the person of the sufferer the cause of suffering and efficacy of the passion it was more then the Law
sic reconciliaverit Christus ut inceperit amare quos oderat sicut reconciliatur inimicus inâ—â—ico ut deinde sint amici qui ante se odorant sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus non enem ex quo illi reconciliati sumus per sanguinem Filii nos coepit diligere sed ante mundum priusquam nos aliquid essemus ergo nos diligenti Deo sumus reconciliati propter peccatum cum eo habebamus inimicitias Paulò pòst reconciliat autem cum offendioula hominum tollit ab oculis Dei And Calvin concurreth in the same opinion Calvin instit l. 2. c. 16. Num. 2.3 In hunc ferè modum Spiritus sanctus in Scripturis loquitur Deum fuisse hominibus inimicum in gratiam Christi morte sunt restituti hujus generis locutiones inquit Calvinus ad sensum nostrum sunt accomodatae ut meliùs intelligamus quà m misera sit calamitosa extra Christum nostra conditio Hence then we see that there is a reconciliation wrought by the death of Christ which imports not a change in Gods will as if God did then first begin to love or will well unto us as if he did hate and will to damne us before for then we must admit of a proper change in the will of God proceeding from an external cause which is contrary to Scripture and sound reason for as Rutherford hath well observed Ruth Apollexere p 37. Actus reconciliandi nihil novi ponit in Deo neque meritum Christi vel divinam voluntatem movet vel Deum ex nolente in volentem ex odio nos habente in diligentem ut fabulatur Grevinchovius transmature potest Grevinch pag. 109. 1. Quia Deus est immutabilis 2. Quia divinae voluntatis causa non magis dari potest quà m ipsius Dei But whereas we lay under wrath deserved by sin Christ hath causatively removed by his death the guilt of sin and so meritoriously reconciled us to God so that God is not only now placabilis by the death of Christ but placatus for he was placabilis from eternity or else he had never given Christ but now in respect of the satisfaction given he is placatus thus far that we lie no more that are the Elect under an indispensable necessity of perishing which we did before till satisfaction given and this is the formal effect of Christs death and this act of reconciliation which is a transient act done in time compleateth not the action of Election as Wallaeus seemes to affirme Wallaerus Cont Corvinum c. 25. p. 155. and superaddes no new thing in Gods will which was not there before but it removes causatively and meritoriously that that was the cause of enmity which hindred God from being able according to justice supposing his Decree to bestow the good things intended in Election and this reconciliation I grant is plainly held forth in these Scriptures Rom. 5.10 Isa 53.10 Col. 1.21 Col. 2.14 2 Cor. 5.19 1 Pet. 2.24 John 1.29 but this reconciliation is not our formal justification as I shall now prove but virtual only And therefore I adde Seventhly That this reconciliation wrought by Christ or removal of guilt causatively by his death and satisfaction is not properly and formally our justification I therefore affirme with Mr Rutherford Ruther Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 162. that this was a paying of a ransome for us and a legal translation of the punishment of our sins but it is not justification nor ever called justification but rather as he also judiciously hath observed it is justificationis fundamentum whose words are these Ruther Apol. exerâ— p. 42. Satisfactio ut à Christo praestita non est justificatio quia est Dei justificantis fundamentum And therefore his death was ever looked upon by Divines as the procatarctical or outward moving cause of the transient act of God in justification which is properly our justification it is a transient act of God upon Believers which he never did passe till then so saith Mr. Rutherford and therefore Mr. Eyre cannot shelter his opinion under Mr. Rutherfords authority Satisfaction Ru her Trial and Triumph of Faith p. 62. saith he is given indeed by Christ on the Crosse for all our sins before we do believe and before any justified person who lived these fifteen hundred years be borne but alas that is not justification but only the meritorious cause of it and a little after Justification is a forensical sentence in time pronounced in the Gospel and applied unto me now and never while this instant now that I believe Now for the further clearing and evidencing this truth that we are not actually justified untill faith Joh. 3.15 16. Mark 16.16 Acts 13.38 39. Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.2 Phil. 3.9 I shall lay down sundry Propositions to make this manifest and that it is no wrong either to Christ or the Elect that this benefit is suspended until faith besides the clear light of the Scripture as you may see in the Margin First Therefore there is a twofold payment of a debt one of the thing altogether the same which was in the Obligation another of a thing not altogether the same That payment which is of the same thing either by our selves or our surety is not refusable by the Creditour so that if we had paid it or Christ had been constituted a surety by us to pay it then God could not have refused it And therefore Christ being constituted a surety by God and not by us and paying not altogether the same God might have refused the payment and therefore may also appoint how in what order and time it shall be accepted whether to a present discharge or upon a future condition of faith to be performed by us by the help of his Spirit working this in us 'T is true that Christ being admitted by the creditor and taken into bond with us God cannot refuse to accept of Christs death as a satisfaction yet he might appoint as you shall see he did how it shall be accepted whether absolutely or upon some condition afterward to be performed by us Here are three things then to be explained and proved 1. That the sufferings of Christ were not altogether the same in the Obligation 2. That therefore 't is in the power of the Creditour at whose liberty and mercy it is to accept or refuse it antecedently before his acceptation to appoint or ordain it to be immediately available or to be acceptable upon condition 3. That it was agreed upon between the Father and Son that it should not be available to discharge the sinner until actuall faith 1 Therefore I grant which Mr Eyre alledgeth out of Mr. Owen that if he speak in respect of the substance of Christs sufferings there was a samenesse with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence and equivalency in respect of the adjuncts or attendencies yea a supereminency of satisfaction
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
intercession which is the best Index and Interpreter of his minde and intention in his death limits and restraines the benefits of his intercession to Beleevers then it was his minde and intention in his death to limit the benefits thereof unto Believers because Christs intention of the benefits of his death and the fruit of his intercession are of equall latitude and by consequence what was his minde was the Fathers minde for Christ and his Father are one and have the same will but Christ limits the benefits of his intercession unto Beleevers as we may see in John 17.20 Christ prayes for them that shall believe in him John 17.20 Heb. 7.25 nor do these places only declare who shall have the benefit of Christs intercession but how and when it shall be obtained by faith by coming unto Christ for if they did obtain it before faith immediately from his death what need were there of Christs intercession for that which they did already enjoy From whence I argue 8. That that destroyes the end and use of Christs intercession cannot be agreeable to Scripture But to make Christs death to justifie us actually and immediately this destroyes the end of his intercession for Christ is now in heaven an Advocate for sin that it might be pardoned to them that believe so that Christ in his death took it away meritoriously and now he is in heaven to intercede for all that by faith seek for the benefits of his death that it may be formally applied Yea the children of God though they fall not from the state of justification by new sins they lose not their right to heaven yet they lose their aptitude for heaven and by every new sin they contract a new guilt and without a new remission of the sins committed they cannot be saved and hence Christ is a daily Advocate to intercede for us as St. John saith My little children 1 John 2.1 if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous I might adde to these many mâ—re but these are sufficient to demonstrate this truth and will prove a burdensome stone to Mr. Eyre if he endeavour to contradâ—ct them And as for those Arguments which he Chap. 14. useth to prove the actuall and immediate reconciliation of the Elect before faith they have all the same unhappinesse to fall like arrowes farre short of the mark intended and have most of them the same common fate to be guilty of a miserable non sequitur as shall in my reply to them in its proper place appear Now the next thing to be superadded for a full vindication of this truth is that this suspending the benefits of Christs death until faith is no way derogatory to the atonement made by Christs death which may as easily be proved as that Pilate was guilty of Christs blood And I prove it thus 1. If there were such an agreement as the arguments above declare then what wrong is it to the atonement made by Christs death that the effect of it should not be enjoyed untill faith when as it was the mutuall agreement between the Father and the Son to have it so it was his will to have it so and volenti non fit injuria there is no injury to him that is willing 2. If the death of Christ were in value a sufficient ransome for the whole world the very Reprobates not excepted and yet without injury and wrong to Christs satisfaction it is by the will of God ordaining and so accepting it to be only effectual for the Elect which comparatively in respect of the Reprohates is a small number why shall it be judged a wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit of it for whom it is intended should be for a time suspended for gracious and good ends at the will of the Father to make them see what they are and deserve and what need they have of Christ and to raise up their desires after him and to increase their love unto God for Christ and also for the honour of the Lord and his Christ that though he justifie the ungodly yet that he doth not justifie them so remaining that his enmity and hatred against sin may the more appear and that wicked men might not think God a justifier of the wicked in their abominations which is contrary to the purity of his nature and justice to do why should this be thought more injurious to Christs satisfaction then a peremptory excluding of all the race of the Reprobates from salvation by his death But 3. If notwithstanding the suspending the benefits of Christs death untill faith the death of Christ be no lesse satisfactory to divine justice and the intrinsecal worth and value of his merits no whit lessened and the efficacy and certainty of the effects of Christs death be no lesse established by our Doctrine then if the effect did immediately follow then this is no impairing of the atonement made by his death but the premises are true which I evidence thus 1. We willingly grant that the death of Christ was a full and compleat satisfaction to divine justice and a valuable compensation for the sins of those that shall be saved and God did not accept lesse at the hands of Christ then was due to our sins but he made satisfaction ad ultimum quadrantem to the last farthing the justice of God can require no more either at his hands or at the hands of those for whom he suffered by way of satisfaction and hence in his resurrection he gave him a publick acquittance and sent his Angel to roll away the stone from the Sepulchre as a publick Officer to testifie his acquitting him from the debt of our sins and so he sets him at liberty and brings him out of prison 2. The intrinsecall value and worth of Christs merits is no way diminished Christ did not compound with the Father as broken debtors with the creditour making him to take lesse then was due nay as we have shewed in some respect if you consider the dignity of the person there was more laid down then the Law required though in regard of the substance of the punishment it was that which the Law required and the justice of God and the love of the Father could require no more the prorogation or deferring the actuall enjoyment of the thing purchased by that satisfaction ariseth not from any impotency or defect in Christs sufferings but from the liberty of Gods will who in mercy accepts of that which a surety hath done for us which in it self was refusable till by an act of grace it was admitted as available for us but in that time onely that the Father should appoint whose will Christ as a Mediatour and Servant was obliged to obey 3. The death of Christ is no lesse efficacious and certain in the effects of it then if an immediate participation of it were granted the efficaciousnesse of Christs death is not to be
in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
sins be imputed then that first transgression why should the sins of any other parents be imputed And the reason is not alike for none but Adam could be a publick person representing all mankinde and that sin was not only personal and proper to Adam but common to the whole nature and that by the will of God ordaining him a publick person For it is a mixt act in God when he doth impute Adams sin partly arising from his Sovereignty and partly from his Justice grounded upon that naturall relation although I deny not upon other considerations the sins of the immediate parents sometimes are and may be imputed to the children And whereas he saith Unlesse they can shew any proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not as immediately flow from Christs obedience to the Elect as death did from Adams disobedience the Argument will stand in force I answer here needs no other proviso or restriction but only to shew that we are not in Christ in a natural way as we are in Adam and therefore the benefits of his death cannot immediately follow our birth or be antecedent to it but is limited to the time of our ingraffing into Christ and the parallel holds firme for as in Adam we all virtually sinned and so were virtually condemned so we grant Christ hath meritoriously redeemed us and we are virtually justified in him and as sinne is not actually imputed unto any of Adams posterity till they have an actuall being and are actually members of Adam so are not we actually justified till we be actual members of Christ by faith As for the Logical Axiom Non entis nulla sunt accidentia it was used in my next Argument and therefore I shall consider it in its proper place CHAP. III. Containing an answer to M. Eyre's exceptions against my Argument deduced from our union with Christ shewing that where there is no union there can be no communion his unjust charge refuted and the nature of our union with Christ further declared MY next Argument against which Mr. Eyre is risen up to offer violence was drawn from our union to Christ Where there is no union there can be no communion for union is the ground of all communion which I made evident by an induction of the severall unions in the world and that there was no communion where there was not a preceding union But we are not united unto Christ untill faith Therefore we had no communion with him in his death to an actual justification And in the further prosecuting of the Argument I shewed that this union is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ therefore it did presuppose the pre-existence of the person before he could be united and that this union was a thing accidental as to the nature of man and it being attributed to us as the subjects of this union it must require our existence for an accident cannot subsist without its subject because * Where I take accidens pro omni quod de pendenter habe esse ab alio quâ— tenus opponit sub stantiae ne strictè pro omâ— quod inhaesive solùm existit in alio Accidentis esse est in esse vel dependenter esse and unlesse the subject exist nothing can be truly predicated of it for Non entis nullae sunt affectiones and that this union was the formal effect of faith Now let us see what Mr. Eyre saith to the Argument First he saith that I called our union with Christ a personall union which seems to fav ur that absurd notion that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personaliâ—y also and is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God I am sorry that I must confute him as the fellow did Bellarmine in one word and his shamelesse dealing in this respect is the more injuriously evident in that I did not only tell him in our conference in publick before a great multitude of witnesses that I neither said nor did own any such thing but did declaâ—e that I said and meant that it was such a union whereby the person of Christ is united to the person of a Bel ever yet is he a man of that face and fore-head to print and declare that to the world which he hath God Angels and men if not his own conscience to witnesse against him but this he hath done to render me odious to the world the Lord forgive him and let him see the evil of these and the like slanders against me and others of his brethren that differ from him And let him now know that I utterly abhor that Familistical notion that there should be an hypostaticall union between Christ and a Believer for Christ is one person and a Believer another Apage Theologiam hanc erco relegandam I forced my self publickly to oppose it as you may see in the Epistle before my Sermon and whether your Doctrine or mine do most favour that absurd notion that the Reverend Doctor doth condemne Dr. Chambers that a Believer loseth not only his own proper life but his personality also and is taken up into the person into the nature and person of the Son of God I desire no better Umpire to determine I affirme that the union made between us and Christ by faith is such a union whereby the person of a Believer is united to the person of Christ What is here that savours of such a notion yea Mr. Hooker Souls union pag 7 8. what is there which our Reverend Divines have not said before me Reverend Mr. Hooker in a Treatise called the Soules Exaltation and in the Sermon called the Souls Vnion with Christ expressing what this union is and how it is made by faith hath this passage he saith It is a totall union the whole nature of a Saviour and the whole nature of a Believer are knit together and page 8. Christ is the Head of the Church not only according as he is God but as he is God and man and a Believer is a member not only according to his body but according to his body and soul whole Christ being the Head and the whole Believer being a Member therefore a whole Christ and a whole believer must be joyned together Perkins 2. Vol. in Com. upon Gal. 2.20 p. 216. and so 1 Vol p. 36.78 The whole person of every faithful man is verily conjoyned with the whole person of our Saviour Christ God and man And the like testimony we have from Reverend Mr. Perkins Of this conjunction saith he two things may be noted The first that it is a substantial union in that the person of him that believeth is united to the person of Christ but Master Eyre makes all the Elect to be one person with Christ antecedent to their faith Because saith he they are given to Christ and Christ to them
at the time of his passion when our sins were laid upon him as our surety And 2. That we are not united antecedently to our faith I prove by these ensuing reasons Although it be willingly acknowledged that Christ was a common person in his death and a surety for all the Elect and what he did was for them yet this constitutes not the mystical union between Christ and us this only rendred him capable of having our sins imputed to hâ—m and served to lay a foundation for our partaking in his righteousnesse when we should be implanted into him by mysticall union through faith 1. Christ is united to us as he is a Head and we his members but the consideration of Christ as dying for us Ratio capitis non est ratio causae meritoriae Dr. Twiss in answ to Mr. Cotton p. 10. and so becoming a meritorious cause of our salvation is different from the consideration of Christ as a Head for in his death as he is our Mediatour purchasing salvation by the merit of it he is an efficient moral cause of salvation and in this channel runnes the meritorious cause but Christ as he is a Head is an efficient physicall and naturall cause of salvation and thus only he is a Head by actual pouring out his Spirit upon the Elect in the appointed time for their conversion whereby they are brought to faith and so united to Christ Now the moral cause may exist long before the effect follow and therefore doth not necessarily require the existence of the subject but the efficient natural cause hath its effect immediately following aâ—d therefore when Christ will as a Head unite any to him the person must exist for that that is not cannot be united and then as the Head diffuseth nerves to the several members and conveighs animal spirits by which the members are quickened and live so Christ conveigheth his Spirit into their hearts to work faith by which they are united to Christ and so partake of righteousnesse and spiritual life from Christ 2. To make a mysticall union between Christ and the Elect before their birth or faith be it when it will whether from eternity or Christs death Mr. Eyre p. 8. will necessarily establish that Familisticall notion that Mr. Eyre fasteneth upon us That the personality of a Believer or Elect person is taken up into the nature and person of the Son of God for it makes them and Christ to be but one person for as yet they have no being therefore if they be they must be in him and subsist in his person and so this childe is fairely laid at his own door that he would father upon us but we say no such thing for this union being by faith and not till we exist Christ is one person Peter another Paul a third and so as many distinct persons as are mystically united 3. If they were truly in Christ before their personall being and union to Christ by faith then they and Christ being but one pâ—rson all and the singular parts of Christs obedience and sufferings together with all and singular the effect thereof and benefits may be attributed to them because they being one with him personally are said to do it in him as we that were all one in Adam united to him by a natural union tanquam in radâ—ce humani generis as in the root and common parent of all mankinde are said to do what Adam did but all and every part of Christs obedience and sufferings with all the singular effâ—cts and benefits cannot be attributed to any sinner believing in him for of whom with any shew of truth and without horrible blasphemy may it be said that He gave himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour unto God Eph 5.2 That by the eternall Spirit of God he offered up himself without spot to God that the chastisement of our peace was upon him Hâ—b 9 14. Isa 53.5 and that by his stripes we are healed For this can agree to none but Christ personally Isa 63.3 not mystically considered And Christ is said to tread the Wine-presse of his Fathers anger alone but if they were then truly in him then all the Elect of God did tread this Wine-presse with him and mysticall Christ was crucified not Christ alone that was the Son of God And therefore we see most absurdly Mr. Eyre p. 9. that Mr. Eyre applies that to Christ mystically considered which is peculiar personally to Christ the Son of God Matth 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased What if this were spoken to Christ as a publick Person and Mediatour for the Elect doth it therefore follow it was meant of Christ mysticall certainly the consequence will never be granted upon his bare word 4. If we were in Christ when he died and suffered for us antecedently to our birth so as to be mystically united having no subsistence but in the person of the Mediatour then we were punished in him and gave satisfaction in him and so no place is left for pardon of sin in our justification for if we were punished in Christ and suffered in him then what place is left for pardon for pardon and punishment are contrary He that suffereth the full weight of punishment is not pardoned and to this purpose Polanus in his Comment upon the 9th Dani. the 8th Quest Polanus in Dan. c. 9. ver 24. quaest 8. Neutiquam propriè loquendo sumus puniti in Christo cùm Scriptura disertè doceat nos esse justificatos in Christo quòd si sumus in Christo justificati absoluti non igitur damnati puniti Ephes 1. v. 6. Ait Paulus de Deo nos gratìs sibi acceptos fecit in illo dilecto nos ergò Deus non punivit sed omnium nostrum poenam Christo impâ—suit Isa 53 6. sicut dicitur Isa 53. v. 6. Jehova facit ut incurrat in eum iniquitas omniûm nostrûm Christus torcular calcavit solus nos non calcavimus Neque vero idem est nos esse punitos in Christo Christum esse punitum pro nobis seu nostro loco Nam si Christus est punitus nostro loco sequitur nos non esse punitos sed poenam nobis esse remissam quid quaeso est aliud remissio peccatorum quà m condonatio culpae poenae Quomodo igitur haec consentient Deum nobis remisisse peccata tamen punivisse nos propter eadem Proinde sic ex Scriptura statuendum Deum Christo paenam nostrorum peccatorum imposuisse ut nobis illam remitteret proprio filio suo non pepercisse ut nobis parceret If any man object that Polanus doth not absolutely deny that we were punished in Christ but that we cannot properly be said to be punished in him I answer Nor do I absolutely deny it if that Doctrine that we were punished in Christ
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
Head the spirit of every mans own faith is very necessary to all even to Infants For the just shall live by his own faith and not by anothers as neither any man is learned by anothers learning but by that learning which is in himself So also I will adde one Testimony more from Zanchy because Mr. Eyre shelters his opinion of justification from the time of Christs death under Zanchies authority John 6.56 Zanch. De tribus Elo. l. 40. cap. 3. p. 106. Tom. 1. Qui edit meam carnem bibit meum sanguinem in me manet ego in eo Alludit ad illam incorporationem quae fit inter edentem bibentem inter cibos comestos cibus extra nos manens minimè nos nutrit cibus sumptus dum in nobis manet nutrit vivificat c. Idem contingit nobis cum Christo extra nos positus non alit à nobis sumptus nutrit vitam adfert atque conservat He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleeh in me and I in him Up-which words Zanchy saith He alludeth to that incorporation which is made between the eater and the drinker and between the meat eaten meat without us doth not nourish us but inwardly taken while it abideth in us it nourisheth and quickeneth us The same happeneth to us with Christ Christ without us that is not united doth not nourish us but taken by us it nourisheth and bringeth and preserveth life Where you see Zanchy maketh Christ not to justifie and save us while we are disunited but when applied and united by faith then he saveth us I will end all with CAMERO Si quis ergo propriè loqui velit dicet Christum pro solis credentibus satisfecisse Johan Camero in opusâ— Mise p. 531. col 1. ii enim soli membra illius sunt Sicuti ergò Adam suos tantum peccato infecit ita Christus peccatum in suis tantùm abolevit Christi verò membrum non est ullus qui in Christum non credit Audi quid dicam fides te facit Christi membrum at fides illa te non servà sset nisi Christus pro te satisfecisset If any man therefore will speak properly he will say that Christ satisfied only for Believers for they only are his members Therefore even as Adam infected only his own with sin so Christ hath abolished sin only in his but no man is a member of Christ but he that beleiveth Hear thou what I shall say faith maketh thee a member of Christ but that faith would not save thee unlesse Christ had satisfied for thee To what hath been spoken I shall superadde some considerations about this union to Christ taken from the several similitudes under which this union is set forth in Scripture First It is compared to the Marriage-union Now as before marriage the wife hath no right nor title to the name body goods of the husband so before faith the soul hath nor that right to Christ his Body Name Goods Purchases Therefore this union is not made till faith and in this Mr Eyre yields the cause that the conjugal union is not till faith Secondly It is expressed by a body consisting of divers members Now Rom. 12.4 5. as no member is a true and living member of the body but that which by nearnesse and vital ligatures is united to the head from whence every member receives strength and sensation 1 Cor. 12.12 13. Eph. 1.22 23. so no man is a living member of Christs body untill by faith on his part and by the Spirit as by vital ligatures he is bound and united to Christ whereby he receives the life of justification and santificaction and lives by a life derived from Christ as the Head but no man but a Believer is thus united as an integral part of this body Thirdly It 's compared to a building or house whose stones are closely cemented together and do all lie directly and perpendicularly upon the foundation Eph. 2 2â— 21. Now as a stone in the quarry is not united in the building till it be hewen and squared and then by the hand of some Architect laid directly and evenly upon the foundation so a man in his natural estate till he be drawn out of this condition by the Spirit of God 1 Tim. 3.15 and hewed and squared out of the Spirit of bondage and by the same hand of the Spirit as the chief Master-builder brought to faith 1 Peâ— 2.5 and built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone he is not a lively stone in this building this is done by the work of the Spirit an unbeliever hath not the Spirit dwelling in him Fourthly it is compared to an ingrafture of a branch in a tree Now a branch may be in a stock two wayes 1. By contiguity or continuity or corporal adherency to the stock and so every branch that is dead may be in the tree but these partake not of the juyce and nourishmnt of the stock and such branches the husbandman will cut off and cast into the fire 2. A branch is in the tree by a reall participation of the sap and influences of the root Thus a man may be in Christ two wayes 1. By external profession of faith for that which maketh us to be in Christ any kinde of way is faith now if our faith be a dead faith such as makes us come to Christ to shelter us from the fire only and it derive not spiritual life and sanctification from Christ this man is a dead branch which the Father will cut off and cast into the fire if it so abide and untill a true faith such as is peculiar to the Elect all are but dead branches yea the very Elect themselves untill effectual vocation and were never truly in him But 2. There is a living operative precious unfeigned faith which so unites the soul to Christ that now it partaketh of the power of his death it is crucified with him and dies to sinne and yet also it lives and is partaker of the quickening Spirit and power of Christs Resurrection whereby it lives and the life it lives in the flesh it lives by the faith of the Son of God Gal. 2. â—0 and it lives unto God as its end as well as from God as the principle of its life this is the true branch that partaketh of the sap and influence of the Root Christ Jesus unto a heavenly life and none are such branches but such as are truly cut off from the stock of Nature and ingraffed by faith into Christ That which Mr. Eyre addeth in the Margin by way of Comment upon Heb. 2.11 He that sanctifieth Mr. Eyre vind pag. 8. and they that are sanctified are all of one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereunto saith he some do make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the substantive and
alwayes thus God pardoneth us that believe since the death of Christ and that not from the time of Christs death but it may be long after upon believing and so our sins were a moral cause of punishment God might impute this to Christ before they are committed by us for a morall cause will admit of the effect to go before it self that is the cause of it and both the Patriarchs to whom Christs righteousnesse was imputed and Christ to whom our sins were imputed were existent and the merit of the one and demerit of the other may be communicated at the will of God moved thereby because there are subjects capable of this imputation but now Christs righteousnesse which is imputed to us cannot be imputed for want of a subject to whom it may be imputed for how can that which is not be made righteous and it is the will of God it should be imputed to none but Believers hence then till faith this benefit is not enjoyed Thus have I vindicated my second argument and for the third which he objecteth against That God made a Covenant with Christ that the Elect should have no benefit by his death till they believe I have defended and confirmed that already sufficiently As for this Argument which he brought for the Negative drawn from Matth. 3.17 This is my well beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to it already and it is answer enough to deny his Assumption as I then did that this voice This is my well beloved Son in whom I am well pleased was not terminated or spoken to Christ mysticall but to Christ personal yet as a publick person and Mediatour And to make Christ mystical and Christ the Mediatour the same is unheard of Divinity nor doth it speak him any great Gamaliel in Theology that affirmeth it As for the scandall he raiseth upon me that I compared my self to Christ and him to Judas and used him uncivilly in language I deny it and have many to bear witnesse of me to the contrary and for the answer to it I referre the Reader to the Epistle to the Reader And I now shall addresse my self to some short answer to his Book and as by the grace of Christ I have not hitherto my conscience bearing me witnesse in the Holy Ghost written any thing which I knew or suspected as unsound so I trust I shall not erre or handle this subject deceitfully but by manifestation of the truth commend my self to every mans conscience as in the sight of God to whom I commend thee Religious Reader and to the Word of his grace who is able to build thee up and give thee an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ CHAP. IV. Shewing four material differences between us and M. Eyre wherein he hath departed from the Orthodox faith concerning the Doctrine of free Justification of a sinner through Faith in Christ reduced unto four several Questions which are in this Chapter clearly stated THE Doctrine of Justification through Faith in Christ is deservedly stiled Doctrina stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae and therefore the differences amongst Christians in this point are not of so small concernment as Curcellaeus judgeth that they ought not to breed a Controversie for it is a fundamental Article of our Christian Religion yea all Religion lives or dies with it nothing concernes the glory of God more the honour of Christ or the comfort of a Christian and such goates as shall soile with their feet these waters Ezek. 34.18 or with the Philistines throw dirt into this well do at once strike at the glory of God the honour of Christ the peace and safety of the world and being commanded to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the Saints let not the world wonder that I who am by Mr. Eyre represented as Heterodox in this point stand up both to defend it and my self against those errours wherewith he hath darkened and obscured this blessed truth and endeavoured to render me and his Brethren that dissent from him as those that have overthrown the freenesse of Gods grace in making Justification the effect of Faith and Faith the condition of the Covenant of Grace The matters in controversie depending between us may be reduced to four Heads or unto four severall Questions 1. Whether Justification be an immanent or a transient act whether it be from eternity or a transient act of God done in time 2. Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually justified and reconciled to God antecedently not onely to their faith but to their birth 3. Whether a Believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this is understood only tropically by taking faith for the object Christ or whether it be taken subjectively for the act with connotation to the object 4. Whether faith be the condition of the Covenant of Grace God hath made with us For the first Question Whether Justification be an immanent or transient act whether we be justified from eternity or whether it be a transient act of God done in time Here are three termes to be explicated 1. What Justification is 2. What an immanent act is 3. What is meant by a transient act 1. Then by all the Orthodox it is unanimously affirmed that the word justifie or justification is not to be taken in this question sensu Pontificio as the Papists take it that is sensu Physico in a physical sense as if to justifie signified to make just by infusion of an inherent righteousnesse as Bellarmine and his confederates take it for till Etymologies have gotten the supremacy above the Scriptures as the Pope above the Kings of the Earth and so long as the written Word is acknowledged the only Touchstone of divine Truth and that Christs righteousnesse and our works cannot be admitted as corrivals that sense must no way be acknowledged and received in this dispute yet let this be observed against this new Doctrine of Infidels Justification in the state of their unregeneracy though they remain adulterers murtherers parricides yet if Elect say they they are justified even then when they are in the snare of the Devil 2 Tim. 2.26 Eph. 2.2 led captive by him at his will and pleasure Though they walk according to the course of the world the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience for Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth he is well pleased with the unregenerate though not with their unregeneracy That GOD when he justifieth a man through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed doth at the same time begin to justifie him physically he doth infuse an habituall and an inherent righteousnesse of Sanctification for God justifieth none whom he doth not sanctifie at the same time Secondly Justification may be taken sensu forensi in a juridical or judiciary sense as in Rom. 8 33. Who shall lay any thing to the
Christ apprehended and applied by faith not by any new act of Gods will I dare not determine but pardoned he is and justified he is his state is truly changed and that coram Deo in the sight of God and a new relative relation there is in God to this person as a Father a great change wrought in the sinner but none at all in God and the Believer is the subject upon whom this act of God passeth Acts 13.39 Acts 16.31 Rom. 4.24 John 8.24 John 3.36 16. John 17.20 he is the adequate subject of it for all Believers are thus justified and none but Believers God did not will that our sins should be immediately forgiven but mediately by faith as in John 3.16 Gods end in giving Christ was that only Believers should have benefit by his death and John 17.20 Christ prayeth for them that believe on him and surely he had the same intentions in his death that he had in his intercession And I added that the sinnes of Believeres were laid upon Christ thus Christ was made sin for us 2 Cor. 5.21 Isa 53.16 that knew no sin and the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all and by the merits and satisfaction of Christ imputed we are accounted just and so are acquitted before God as righteous Hence God is said to be in Christ reconciling the world to himself not imputing their transgressions to them 2 Cor. 5. and we are said to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Rom. 3.24 25. 1 Cor. 1.30 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And Christ is made to us righteousnesse wisdome sanctification and redemption I shall now come to enquire what is meant by an immanent act and whether Justification were from eternity and what is meant by a transient act First Then by an immanent act I understand such an act as is terminated in agente in the agent and not in any thing without it There are some actions which do remain in God and are terminated in himself being confined in his own breast within the compasse of his own understanding and will not but that they may have an external object but nothing in these immanent acts hath any thing without them for the subject or terme As for example a man may purpose and intend to do something in his minde and heart as to relieve a poor mans wants this thought and purpose of heart is an immanent action and so long as it remaines in his minde and breast and he reveal it not and do not yet act accordingly this is yet an immanent action and the poor man is not yet actually the better for it but if he declare his minde and doth practise what he intended here is a transient act for now he doth outwardly expresse and performe what he did inwardly purpose Now the poor man is comforted and his wants actually relieved Let us referre this to God there are some Cabinet secret thoughts and purposes in God from eternity about justifying a sinner through the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended and applied by faith which Christ God will prepare and give to procure a sufficient righteousnesse and will also give faith to the sinner to believe on Christ for salvation Such thoughts as these are were in the minde of God from eternity these thoughts were immanent acts in God and work no present change upon the sinner who had no being from eternity and untill God do actually declare and fulfill the thoughts of his heart the sinner is not justified but only God really intends it Secondly There are actions in God which passe from God upon the creature and do work a change and alteration upon the creature and these we call transient actions when therefore God doth not only declare by his Gospel what his thoughts were to his Elect in pardoning them through faith in Christ but doth in time give Christ for them and them to Christ by drawing their hearts unto Christs by faith now God actually performes the thoughts of his heart and as he intended upon believing to justifie them for Christs sake so now as soon as he hath brought them to faith he doth actually forgive them all their sins justifie their persons and accept them as righteous in Christ Now of this sort are all Gods actions that relate to man except Predestination which is an immanent act of God and all the rest Justification Sanctification Adoption are transient acts of God for all these imply a positive change in the creature and do put something either physically or morally into the justified adopted sanctified c. But concerning Predestination Tritum est in Scholis eam nihil ponere in Praedestinato It is generally received by the Schoolmen that Predestination puts nothing into the predestinate or makes no present change indeed virtually it is the cause of all those transient actions that are done in time And * Aquin. p. 1. q. 13. artic 2. c. Aquinas gives a reason of it Quia Praedestinatio est pars Providentiae Providentia verò non est in rebus provisis sed est quaedam ratio in intellectu provisoris Because Predestination is a part of Divine Providence Now Providence is not in the things foreseen or provided for but is a certain purpose or counsel in the understanding of the foreseer And hence all our Divines are wont cautelously to distinguish between the decree and the execution of the decree they grant the Decree hath no cause but the free will and wise prudence of God but the Execution of the Decree depends upon faith because Pardon Reconciliation is granted to none but Believers Let me adde in the third place that an immanent action is from eternity and is the same with Gods Essence for whatsoever is in God is God but a transient action is the same with the effect produced Hence Gods Decrees are as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burgesse Justifi p. 168. rightly observes the same with his nature for an act of Gods understanding or will is not any thing distinct from his understanding or will but the very same with it * Scheib Met l. 2. ca. 3. De Deo p. 137. Actus vitales Dei ut est ejus intellectio volitio habent ibi realem identitatem ad essentiam divinam All vital actions in God as his understanding and will are have a reall identity or samenesse with his Divine Essence for otherwise the simplicity of Gods nature would be overthrown therefore though we may conceive distinctly of them yet they are not really distinguished in God But now in transient actions it is otherwise for they are the same with the effect produced Mr. Eyre will have it to be an immanent action done from eternity not a transient act done in timo Gods transient act in creating is Creation and in justifying is Justification By this that hath been said it appeareth
that Justification is a transient not an immanent action For though I deny not that God did from eternity with an absolute fixed and immutable will purpose in time to justifie his people through faith in Christ which faith he will also give and Christ did merit and if this will satisfie Mr. Eyre as he saith it will if he be not a Reuben as unstable as water and fall from his word the controversie is at an end Yet this is not Justification no more then Gods purpose to sanctifie is Sanctification as shall be made to appear in its place Justification leaveth a positive change upon the person justified He is thereby passed from death to life from a state of hatred into a state of love and friendship but an immanent act leaveth no such change nor do I mean with Aquinas and the Papists a physicall change as when the Lord makes a wicked man a holy man an unclean man a chaste man a passionate man a meek man this is a naturall change and is the work of Sanctification but it is a relative and morall change Take a man that is in prison for some capitall offence and also exceeding sick a double change may be wrought upon this man First let his offence be forgiven and he set at liberty he is now a free man acquitted and set at liberty that before was in bond a dead man here is a relative change but he may be as sick still as he was when in prison let the Physician come and heal his distemper here is a cure wrought his health restored this is a natural physical change so it is here upon Justification there is a relative change wrought We that were debtors to the Law and liable to death and condemnation our sin through faith in Christ is pardoned now we are acquitted and set free from condemnation here is a change of our estate but then also by Sanctification the Lord heales our natures Now Justification is a transient act of God in time upon the Believer acquitting him for Christs sake from the guilt of sin and through his righteousnesse imputed he is accepted unto life eternall The second Question is Whether all the Elect for whom Christ died be actually reconciled and justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to their faith but their birth also 1. It is not denied upon neither hand that the Elect are the persons and the only persons for whom Christ intentionally and effectually died 2. It is not denied that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation and that a full satisfaction was made thereby to the justice of God for the sins of the Elect. 3. It is acknowledged that Christ in his death was a common person making satisfaction for the Elect and such as shall believe and by vertue of Christs death they shall infallibly be brought to faith and that God hath thus farre accepted of this satisfaction as that he neither will nor can require any thing more at the hand of the sinner by way of satisfaction nor at the hands of Christ and that in regard of the price paid we are redeemed 4. It will not be denied but that by the death of Christ God may now freely give us the pardon of sins which without the satisfaction of Christ supposing his eternal decree not to pardon us without a satisfaction he could not do 5. We deny not but Christs Resurrection from the dead was a manifest signe that the full price of redemption was paid and that God gave him a publick discharge from the guilt of our sins and that he rose again as a publick person for our justification that we may be said virtually to die and suffer and rise with him and virtually to be justified in his justification But it is denied by us and affirmed by Mr. Eyre that we stand actually justified and reconciled to God from the time of Christs death antecedently to our faith and birth and that it was the will of the Lord to give us a present discharge from the time of Christs death but God hath limited the benefit of this untill faith So that no person in the state of unbelief and unregeneracy is a subject of Justification this we affirme and Mr. Eyre denies who will have all the Elect though Infidels and in their unregenerate estate under the power and dominion of sin to be actually justified The third question is Whether a believer be justified by faith instrumentally and when the Scripture saith we are justified by faith whether this be understood tropically by taking faith for the object Christ excluding the act or whether it be taken properly for the act with connotation of the Object Now here first it is agreed upon all hands by Pretestants and PÃ pists Orthodox and Socinians Antinomians Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants that it is plainly assâ—rted in Scripture that we are justified by faith It cannot be denied because it is syllabically written the only contention is about the sense I would there were more contending for the Grace then for the right understanding of the Word 1. Then to believe signifies an act of the understanding yielding assent unto Divine Testimony but because the will * Ames Med. cap. 3. Num. 2â— consequently is moved by that assent to embrace the good assented unto and offered in the Gospel therfore faith that is truly saving and justifying consisteth in both faculties therefore we reject their opinion that will have it to be onely an act of the understanding yielding a true * Wotton De reconci lib. 1. par 1. c. 13. n. 1. p. 78. assent to Divine Testimony upon the authority of the Revealer though this be necessary to salvation this comprehendeth not the whole nature of justifying faith which is seated in the heart for with the heart man believeth unto salvation Nor 2. Can we rest in their opinion who define it by assurance and say it is an assurance grounded upon Divine Promises that Christ died for us in particular and that our sins are forgiven For this assurance is a consequent of faith and Justfication and an * Proprium objectum fidei justificantis est Christus vel miscricordia Deâ— in Christo non propositio sive Axioma Ames Bell. Ener Tom. 4. Lib. 5. Cap. 2. Sect. 22. Axiome or Proposition is not the object of faith but Christ and it is a relying upon Christ for pardon not a believing that I am already pardoned it is therefore a * Fider est acquiescentia cordis in Deo tanquam in authore vitae vel salutis aeternae ut per illum ab omni malo liberemur omne bonum consequamur Ames Medul c. 3. num 1. fiducial act or recumbency upon God in Christ for pardon 3. It is questioned Ames Medull c 27. de justificat n. 15 16. whether Faith in the point of Justification of a sinner be to be taken tropically or properly Master Eyre will have
of the loved and hated Mr. Eyre p. 66. compared with pag. 5. are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth and yet findeth fault with me for asserting the same that there was no difference between the Elect and Reprobate as to their present condition whilest the Elect are unregenerate but only in the purpose of God intending to make a difference by bringing the Elect unto faith in Christ that they may be justified which was all I said or intended Fifthly He saith Gods eternall decree to justifie Mr. Eyre p. 64. compared with pag 140. is Justification because it secures men from wrath and by this immanent act of God they are discharged and acquitted from their sinnes Then what need Christ to die here is forgivenesse without a satisfaction Christs death was not the câ—use of this immanent act or will in God And yet he contradicteth himself for pag. 140. he saith that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justititiâ bestow upon them those good things intended towards them in his eternal Election Surely Justification is one of the good things intended in Election and therefore God could not bestow this salvâ justitiâ till their sin was satisfied for but with him they were according to the first place discharged from sin by this immanent act yet Christs death was not a cause of this act and if they were actually discharged from sin how did that lie as a block in the way to hinder any of the good things intended And he citeth a place which he owneth out of Mr. Rutherford pag. 140. God might will unto us that which he cannot actually bestow upon us without wrong to his Justice and this he understands of Gods saving and pardoning us but if we were actually discharged we were actually pardoned and that without the merit of Christs death and satisfaction to his justice Sixthly He interpreteth pag. 60. what is meant by Gods sight when it is said We are justified in his sight this phrase he saith is variously used 1. Sometimes it relates unto the thoughts and knowledge of God c. 2. Sometimes it relates more peculiarly unto his legal justice and although in articulo providentiae in the Doctrine of Divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo justificationis in the article of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and God is never said to blot our sins out of his knowledge but out of his sight Now saith he pag. 62. If we take it for the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed and determined in himself not to impute to us our sins c. and this was from eternity And with him the 63. pag. the essence and quiddity of Justification stands in this will of God not to punish this is properly Justification in his judgement and then God knew them to be righteous yet he saith in the article of Justification knowledge is constantly distinguished from sight throughout the whole Scripture and God is never said to blot sins out of his knowledge as much as if he should say If you take this phrase as it is never to be taken then we were justified from eternity And the Scripture doth not acknowledge this eternal Justification for when it speaks of the Doctrine of Justification it speaketh of blotting out sins out of his sight and this is to be referred to his legal Justice and this is the most proper and genuine use of it saith he and so we were justâ—fied in the sight of God when he exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood for all our sins and yet this Justification is not the most proper acceptation of Justification for that was from eternity and yet we were then most properly justified in his sight how well this agrees let the Reader judge Seventhly He taketh Faith objectively Mr. Eyre p. 47. Pag. 58 76. not for the act with connotation of the object but for the object excluding the act as if the word Faith signified Christ and yet when we urge him with such places where it is said We are justified by Faith and the like he understands it of a declarative Justification and so taketh Faith subjâ—ctively not objectively So he taketh it p. 73. In this sense men are said to be justified by the act of Faith in regard Faith is the Medium or instrument whereby the sentence of forgivenesse is terminated on their conscience Eightly Pag. 63. He affirmeth that the judgement of Dr. Twisse is most accurate in placing the essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish pag. 63. yet he saith and that truly in respect of this immanent and eternal act of God that the merits of Christ do not move Gods will not to punish or impute sinne to us yet he acknowledgeth no other act that Christs death is the meritorious cause of he saith it is the meritorious cause of the effects of this eternal Justification Pag. 67 but the Scripture maketh Christs death the meritorious cause of some act of God justifying us can Christ cause the effect and not the act Merit is an outward procatarâ—â—ical cause moving the principal agent extrinsecally ad agendum and hence God is said for Christs sake to forgive us Christs death doth morally work upon him by way of motive and objective moving and is a remote cause of the effect and God as the principall efficient is the immediate cause and what influence then can this remote cause have to produce the effects of Justification and no way by any causal influx to cause the act Though I still willingly acknowledge that the internal moving cause is Gods own will for nothing out of God can be the cause of his will unlesse we make God beholding to another for his being 9thly He giveth a very superficial slight answer to those Scriptures that speak of receiving remission of sins by believing Acts 10.43 Acts 26.18 Though it be said whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin it is not said saith he by believing we obtain remission of sins true who would make an instrumentall cause the meritorious cause of remission of sins but if by obtaining be meant no more then a receiving and possessing what we never had before so we do by Faith obtain remission of sins he distinguisheth between the giving of remission and the receiving it as if one were long before the other To which I answer If you take giving for the will of God ordaining to give remission so it is long before receiving but that is not an actual bestowing of the thing purposed but if you take it for an actual collation of the thing given it implies the receiving of it for Relata se mutuo ponunt tollunt thus giving and receiving are together and so forgivenesse of
to their consciences but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne And what diminution is it of the grace of Christ if they were justified from the time of Christs death to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ forasmuch as they were not virtually only but actually and formally as you affirme p. 63. justified at his death Nor will it help you to say you speak there of the non-elect for we are bound to presse all men to believe as you there acknowledge and it is not known who are Elect neither to the Minister nor to the people therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency you extenuate the merit of Christs death if they were actually justified as you affirme And there is the same ground of Faith to all the ability of Christ to save and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached Fourteenthly He affirmeth Faith if it evidences our Justification is a signe is a dark and unsatisfying evidence as other works of Sanctification are 1 John 3.14 where he contradicteth the Apostle who saith By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren not we hope not we conjecture but we know it is a sure and stedfast signe Little children let no man deceive you 1 John 3.7 saith John he that doth righteousnesse is righteous is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person Rom. 8.1 and in Rom. 8.1 he saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus and he givesh this as a signe Rom. 8.13 Who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit doth the Holy Ghost by Paul give us a dark unsatisfying evidence of our being in Christ What is more frequent then this he that is in Christ is a new Creature they that mortifie the deeds of the body shall live Gal 5.24 They that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ and shall be saved but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark and unsatisfying evidences of Justification 2. He saith that nothing that followes Faith is so apt to evidence or prove Justification as Faith because it is the first of all inherent graces but I take this for an errour and that works are every way as declarative of Justification if not more is an apparent truth For first if we speak of evidencing Justification to others it is more for saith the Apostle Thou hast faith shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works James 2.18 And Abraham was in this sense justified by his works If any man shall say he is a justified person Vers 2â— 1 John 1.6 James 2.20 and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar and the truth is not in him and works of Sanctification are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience then Faith For how shall I know my saith is a true faith an unfeigned faith and peculiar to the Elect but by the effect of a true Faith the works of Sanctification therefore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith nor is his reason of any worth because it is the first of all inherent graces this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Justification is a lame consequence of which Master Eyre's Book is too full Fifteenthly He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification I take this also for a manifest errour if it be understood aright of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification Indeed if you take a condition in a strict sense for a condition performed by us without the help of grace meriting and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense it is true it is inconsistent with grace but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified salvation is no lesse of grace though it be by faith as the Apostle speaketh Ye are saved by grace through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith Eph. 2.8 and saith we are saved by it and yet he saith We are saved by grace because it is Gods gift Sixteenthly He saith pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us viz. by our own strength yet God hath his order method in the bestowing of them c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely and freely given and alike merited by Christ and yet God may for order and methods sake deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction why is it any wrong to Christs death if Justification merited by Christ be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice Seventeenthly In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error First â—ag 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend or any breach of that Law committed by man And secondly in * Sin is apparently the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice with his negative act of non-election or preterition which ought to be distinguished He saith Though men will not impute sin or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed for what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish before the Law was given To which I answer that Gods preterition or non-election though it be justly called a hatred negatively yet this was an act of Sovereignty and not of Justice nor is this hatred an imputing of their sin nor was their sin foreseen the cause *
Reprobatio neque damnationis neque peccati quod incretur damnationem est propriè causa sed antecedens tantum Ames Medul c. 25. s 40. 1 John 3.4 Rom. 5.13 of this act And they that were not could not have any sin imputed yea it chargeth God with untruth and with unjustice to impute sin before committed for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth or in the transgression of the Law Now where there is no Law there is no transgression therefore the Apostle proveth That before the Law was promulged there was some Law given and transgressed by which sin entered into the world and death by sin which was that * Not the Moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared as Master Eyre seemes to intimate in the same place positive Law forbidding Adam and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and had there been no Law there had been no trangression but now from eternity there was no Law given nor any person to whom it should be given and therefore from eternity there was no transgression and therefore to make God impute that which was not is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men yea and in justice too will it charge upon God to make him impute sin to them which they â—â—ver committed and for this to hate them and passe them by and not Elect them Here is a complication of errours in this passage God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by 〈◊〉 act that he is guilty of his Law be violated nor adjudge any man to punishment nor execute or inflict any punishment untill sin be committed So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin and doth not precede it and is a transient not an immanent act And a little after he contradicteth himself A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or representative which necessarily supposeth a Law for sin is the transgression of the Law Why then it necessarily followes no man was a sinner from eternity and so God did not impute it but let it go for one of his Paradoxes the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God together with his own eternall Essence Eighteenthly When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him and that the Elect are children of wrath as well as others and tell him a man cannot be a child of wrath and a justified person at the same time then the argument will not hold and is invalid as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures Pag. 110 111 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110 111 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified immediately from the time of Christs death he can use the same Argument and then it is a divine Oracle his words are these p. 138. It was the will of God saith he that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be children of Christ and children of Wrath at the same time and because this deserves a more full examination and it was an Argument used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference I will reserve what I have to say further to it to another place Ninteenthly He saith That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing then they had before Unhappy man Mr. Eyre pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters Fornicators Adulterers effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankinde had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as after What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be that admits of such Sodomites and Whoremongers to be the actuall heires of it If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven they were a blessed people Oh blessed Sodomites Oh blessed Whoremongers if this Doctrine be true here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints they knew not their happinesse before they had as much right to salvation as before only they had more knowledge of it after believing but if they had as much right why doth the Apostle say as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God why then what a wrong is this to them when they have a right to the Kingdome of God Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old to be called the dirty Sect then such panders for the flesh as these But I hope such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap they are as dear to God and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as when they lie in Abrahams bosome Twentith He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the unregenerate are impure and sinful which though they are all pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight But are their persons acceptable and justified so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God And are their best actions such as are their praying hearing for the matter good and duties commanded and are all the sins pardoned which make them only evil in Gods sight and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight who will believe you can the want of faith which is by you pardoned hinder the acceptance of their works and not the acceptance of their persons Nay what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate if they be justified persons as you say they are for the best works of unregenerat justified Infidels as you will have it are as you say of the regenerate pleasing to God not only comparatively because better then the works of Reprobates or then the sins of unregenerate persons but absolutely 1. Abstractly as you affirme of the others and in themselves for they are such things as are lawful and commanded and if they faile in the manner of doing it in faith hope and love this is but a faile in the manner and Gradus non variat speciem and the Regenerate Elect faile in the measure of faith hope and love neither in them doth their faith hope or love merit the acceptance of their duties And 2. Concretely as they are acted by justified persons and so passe through the hands of pardoned persons and the sins are washed away in Christs blood this want of faith hope and love is pardoned I
upon a man at the same time as sinful and righteous if you mean by it an estate of sin and a righteous or justified estate for this would ascribe to God a fallible judgement to judge them otherwise then they are but if your meaning be he may see at the same time what they were by nature and what they are by grace 't is not denied but to look upon them as being in their naturall estate and in a state of grace at the same time implies an errour in his judgement which is blasphemy to imagine and is a contradiction in adjecto 5. Christs death is the meritorious cause of our Justification But Christs death was not the meritorious cause of Gods eternall purpose Therefore that immanent act or eternal purpose of God to justifie us is not our justification The Major is expresly delivered in the Scripture Eph. 4.32 2 Cor. 5.19 Rom. 3.25 Heb. 9.12 God for Christs sake had forgiven the Ephesians God was in Christ reconciling the world c. and whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith c. He hath obtained eternal redemption for us c. And to deny it were with Socinus that cursed Heretick to deny the satisfaction of Christ The Minor is acknowledged by himself page 67. It may be he will answer as he saith in pag. 66 67. If Justification be taken for the will of God so Christs death is not the * Nihil movet voluntatem Dei nisi bonitas sua Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art 2. cause c. but if you take it for the thing willed or effect of this will by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law c. so it hath Christs death for the adequate cause but the vanity of this distinction is discovered in the foregoing Argument and here the Reader may see he maketh Christs death the cause of Justification passively taken but of no act of God in justifying Besides our deliverance from the Law is an effect of Justification not Justification it self which is an act of God for Christs sake forgiving us upon which followeth our delivery from the Law 6. If we were actually and formally justified from eternity then Christ died in vain or his death was not to purchase forgivenesse but to apply forgivenesse or to manifest Gods love not to satisfie Gods justice But Christs death was not in vaine he died not only to apply but to purchase forgivenesse not to manifest Gods love only but to satisfie Gods justice Therefore the first consequence is evident because his death was in vain as to the act of Justification for as in the former Argument Christs death was not the cause of that act and Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other and yet he will have Christs death to be the cause of the effect of that will how can it cause the effect and be no cause of any act of Gods will for we acknowledge it the cause of the transient act of Gods will which is properly our justification which act he will not acknowledge The second inference is evident for if we were justified from eternity then we were forgiven from eternity and then either Christ doth but apply it at the most for he did not purchase it or only he doth but manifest Gods love to the world but the Scripture is evident That he hath purchased forgiveness In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of our sins and he died to satisfie Gods justice hence he is a propitiation for our sins 7. This overthroweth the merit of Christs death because if we were justified from eternity then Justification is a due debt to the Elect and then what place is left for Christs merit for it must be bonum indebitum that that is properly merited was not due before but if we were justified then it was due and so no roome is left for Christs merits 8. That which will not secure the sinner from wrath is not Justification But this decree will not secure the sinner from wrath The Major is evident for how can he be justified that is not secured from condemnation The Minor I prove because notwithstanding Gods decree Christ must die there was a necessity of Christs death supposing Gods decree not to pardon sin without a satisfaction I grant that Gods decree doth eventualy secure the Elect but not actually it is true because a man is Elect he shall not as to the event be damned but God will give faith to apply Christs righteousnesse but this is not an actual acquittance or discharge from sin when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect that is to such as are declared or evidenced to be Elect by believing or effectual vocation And that the Apostle must mean so is evident the Apostle is comforting in that Chapter Believers that are in Christ against condemnation Now this he proveth because they are Elect The Elect shall not be condemned but you are Elect Now how shall this be known by faith and our effectual vocation Hence in the 30. ver he speaketh of effectual vocation as that that precedeth and is a sign of Election and hence we are commanded to make our Calling and Election sure Why is Calling put before Election because our Election is unknown to any till it be evidenced by their effectual Calling Now surely the Apostle did not barely propound Election as a signe of Justification without some means to know it for how can a thing so secret be a comfort till it be manifested and how shall it be manifested but by Faith and Sanctification therefore surely they being the subjects of his discourse must be understood by the Elect Now if you take the Proposition as an universal Negative or universal Affirmative No Elect Believer can be justly charged with sin or All Elect Believers are freed from the charge of sin both are true but to take it for the Elect antecedently to Faith the Proposition is not true for the Word may and doth charge him with sin for it threateneth damnation to him but it threateneth damnation for nothing but sin and God doth look upon him as a sinner and he ought to charge himself with sin therefore though all Elect Believers shall be freed from sin yet all the Elect are not formally discharged from sin As for your weak and feeble endeavour to cast an Odium of simplicity upon so learned a man as Master Burges who is well known to be an Aristotle to Mr. Eyre that he should speak as weakly as if he said Omne animal is rationale and to excuse it should say that by omne animal he meant omnis homo and to prove the expression legitimate should alledge that homo is often called animal which is true but very impertinent to prove that omne animal may be put for omnis homo but it may be very justly retorted upon Mr. Eyre thus His opinion is as
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
till they are able to plead their discharge Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redemption If you take the wrath of God in the first sense for the will of God to punish according to the tenor of the law so they were not under wrath if you take it in the third sense for the execution of wrath they were never under it for how could they be under it when God never intended it what then did Christ redeem them from only the bare threatenings of the Law why so long as it was only a threatening and God intended not to execute it what need Christ have died according to him surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath and there was a will in God to punish theiâ— sins as well as the sins of the Reprobate though he would punish their sins in Christ the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect person still lieth under till he be delivered through faith in Christ and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus 10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling then were not they justified from eternity But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath The consequence of the Major is evident because a man cannot lie under the effâ—cts of wrath and yet be delivered from that wrath The Minor I prove thus by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture which are many 1. To be in a state of alienation from God so as to have none of their persons nor services accepted Thus God is * Psal 7.11 angry with the wicked every day yet so are the unregenerate though Elect they are under the power of sin And their prayers are rejected The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8 And so are all the services of unregenerate men though Elect persons which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth and they are truly called wicked persons because they are under the reigning power of sin 2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth for so saith the Apostle Rom. 3.19 Rom. 3.19 where he sheweth all persons in their natural estate are under the Law that is the damning power of it and become guilty before God there was a time that this was true but if they be justified from eternity then they never were under this damning power nor were guilty before God for if they were freed from eternity when were they guilty if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free then they were not justified from eternity 3. They are subject to the curse of the Law Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law therefore there was a time the Elect were under it and if under it they were not justified from eternity Acts 26.18 Heb. 2.14 Tit. 1.15 4. Yea they are under the power of Sathan but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power they are in bondage to death they have no outward enjoyment sanctified these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath and how can they be justified where these effects remain and these all remain till faith Acts 13. 11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity therefore were not the Elect justified The consequence appeareth Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio by Election the Elect are ordained to life by reprobation men are ordained to condemnation these are contrarie and among contraries there is the same reason Now if the Elect be justified because of Gods decree then are the Reprobate condemned but the Reprobates are not condemned actually therefore neither are the Elect actually justified Now this assumption is evident for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation yet sin is the cause of the Reprobates condemnation but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of it 's true God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done good or evil they had not then according to Scripture done evil and then God could not condemne them though he might passe them by and not Elect them which is negatively or privatively called hatred 12. If Gods decree to create the World was not Creation nor his will to call Calling nor to glorifie Glorification then his will to justifie was not Justification To this Mr. Eyre answereth There is not the same reason for Creating Calling Glorifying all which do import an inherent change in the person Created Called Glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being compleat in the minde of God To which I answer that his reason is of no force for to be the subject of a moral change doth as necessarily require the existence of the person as to be the subject of a physical and natural change for though the act may be perfect in Gods minde yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act because he hath not existence can he be pardoned and acquitted and declared just that is so farre from being an offender that he never yet was a man The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being but he is not a subject capable because as yet he is not so God may will Justification but he cannot justifie deliver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation till the person exist who may be the subject of this change CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death I Shall here first premise a few things that it may be known what we affirme and what we oppose First Then it is willingly granted that Christ in his death was a Mediator and surety and publick person and that what he did and suffered was intended for the benefit of the Elect. Secondly That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect so that the whole satisfaction is made and the price paid and quoad meritum the work is done and in this respect he hath made an end of sin because he hath fully satisfied for it so that there need no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 1.3 Dan. 9.24 but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood Thirdly God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ that in respect of Christ our surety God requires no more at his hands nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction it being the full value that his justice did require Fourthly By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation in an Arminian sense as if our redemption were
to be compleated by an act of our Faith performed by the power and liberty of our own free-will so that upon this condition to be fulfilled by us without the assistance of grace the fruits of Christs death shall depend for this had been to purchase for us only a salvability not salvation and to make us our own Saviours but Christ died absolutely to purchase salvation as absolutely is opposed to an Arminian sense of a condition already explained but if absolutely be taken to oppose Faith as a condition to apply Christs righteousnesse by the order which God hath appointed in his Gospel which Faith God hath ordained as a means to bring us into possession of Christ and his righteousnesse which faith God hath ordained his Elect unto and Christ hath merited and shall be infallibly given for this end In this sense I deny that Christs death was absolutely a discharge from sin And therefore affirme that an Elect person is not actually reconciled so as to be immediately justified and discharged from the guilt of sin from the time of Christs death antecedently unto faith nor did God accept of the satisfaction of Christ for a present discharge to the sinner but Christ having laid down the price the Father and Sonne did agree upon a way and order when this benefit shall become theirs and that not to be till actual faith according to the tenor of the Gospel which promiseth salvation only to him that doth believe Having thus explained my self I now shall prove it by these following arguments First If Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe then are they not actually discharged untill Faith But Christ did not die absolutely for the Elect that their sins should be pardoned whether they believe or not believe Therefore c. As for the assumption it is such a sacred truth that none that have a spark of modesty or grace left will deny for if Christ have died absolutely that they shall have pardon though they die in unbelief let them shew this and I will yield the cause for if Christ had died to have the sins of the Elect pardoned whether they have faith or not then an argument drawn from Christs satisfaction and Gods accepting it so would be nervous and strong to prove an immediate reconciliation but this can never be proved for Without faith it is impossibe to * Heb. 11.9 John 3.26 Acts 13.48 please God And He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him And As many as were ordained to life believe◠And the Consequence of the Major is proved thus if Christ did not die absolutely to discharge them from sin without faith then he died for them conditionally that they believe and the benefit of his death is limited untill faith Nor will it availe to say that faith is a subsequent condition not antecedent which I disprove by these following Arguments 1. If an unbeliever remaining so cannot be the subject of Justification then Faith is not a subsequent but antecedent condition of Justification But an unbeliever cannot be the subject of Justification Therefore c. The Major will not be denied where Reason dwells the Minor I prove thus because the Scripture no where maketh an unbeliever the subject of Justification 2. Because then Justification is a priviledge common to Believers and unbelievers but the Scripture peculiarly and solely applieth it to them that believe 3. Because no man out of Christ or disunited can be saved by Christ for Christ saveth none but his Members Christ is called the Saviour of his Body Eph. 5.23 and no unbeliever is a member of Christ for as much as the mystical union is made by Faith for which I referre the Reader to my Sermon and the Vindication of it Secondly Justification and Sanctification are inseparably joyned But were not sanctified from the time of Christs death and antecedently to faith Therefore we were not justified It is evident to experience that Sanctification is not in the least moment of time separated from Justification indeed we grant a priority of nature and order but not of time Hence the Apostle maketh all that are in Christ new creatures 2 Cor. 5.17 1 John 1.6 And if any man saith St. John hath fellowship with God or Christ and walketh in darknesse he is a liar and doth not the truth for then a man might be the member of Christ and the limbe of the Devil at the same time if justified he is a member of Christ if unsanctified a childe of the Devil 1 John 3.8 He that committeth sinne is of the Devil nor can it be agreeable to the purity of Christs Nature and Holinesse to have an unsanctified member of his body nor will the purity and holinesse of God the Father bear it that any should be his childe that is not holy nor can he that is a holy God justifie a wicked wretch so remaining Institu Calvin lib. 3. c. 11. whence Calvin in answer to Osiander when he objected Contumeliosum hoc fore Deo naturae ejus contrarium si justificet qui reipsâ impii manent Atqui tenendum est memoriâ quod jam dixi non separari justificandi gratiam à regeneratione licèt res sint distinctae It is contumelious and contrary to Gods nature to justifie those that remaine wicked To which he answereth But we must remember that which I now said the grace of Justification is not separated from Regeneration although they be several things Thirdly If we were justified antecedently to our birth from the time of Christs death Eph. 2.1 2 3. 1 Cor. 6.9 John 3. then we were never borne sinners under the guilt of sin But this is contrary to many plain Scriptures that say we were children of wrath and such as were unrighteous and could not in our unregeneration inherit the Kingdome of God and for further proof I referre the Reader to the ninth Argument against eternall Justification Fourthly If the state and condition of a man be truly altered and changed and that before God upon believing then was he not justified from the time of Christs death But his estate is truly altered in the sight of God upon believing Hence it is said that they are his people which once they were not 1 Pet. 2.10 1 Peter 2.10 Which in times past were not a people but are now the people of God which in times past were not under mercy but have now obtained mercy Hosea 1.10 Hosea 2.23 which words are taken from the Prophet Hosea upon which words Zanchy observeth that a people are called Gods people three wayes 1. According to Predestination thus it 's said God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew 2. In respect of the Covenant under the Law and so the Sons of Abraham were Gods people and they that were excluded from that Covenant were none of his 3.
In respect to their exclusion or admittance to the Covenant in the Gospel and thus the Elect Gentiles were once not a people and then made a people to the Covenant of Grace And in this sense I adde all unregenerate though Elect are not Gods people untill faith And hence Zanchy saith thus that whereas the words should have run thus that in the place where it is said ye are not my people there it shall be said ye are my people instead thereof he saith it is said ye are the Sonnes of God and he assigneth three reasons the third is Vt meliùs hâc locutione indicaret rationem quâ justificamur salvamur nempe per fidem verbum Dei apprehensantem si enim filii Dei sumus ergò nati ex Deo si nati ex Deo ergò per semen Dei in nos illapsum à nobis apprehensum in nobis retentum semen Dei est verbum Evangelii in nos illabitur per virtutem Spiritûs sancti à nobis verò fide quae it idem opus est Spiritûs sancti solâ recipitur ergò solâ fide fimus filii Dei He speaketh thus that he may the better declare the manner of our Justification or Salvation ta wit by faith apprehending the Word of God where he taketh faith not objectively but subjectively with connotation to the object for if we be the sons of God we are therefore borne of God if borne of God therefore by the seed of God falling into us and received and retained by us The seed of God is the Word of the Gospel it falleth into us by the power of the Holy Ghost but of us it is only received by faith which again is the work of the Holy Ghost therfore by faith alone we are made the sons of God where you see that Zanchy maketh this great change to be by faith and that such a change is made is evident for before faith they are * Eph. 2.1 2 3. 2 Tim. 2.26 Acts 26 18. Ezek. 44.7 Heb. 2.15 Mark 16.16 dead in sins and trespasses are children of disobedience in whom Satan acts and rules by whom they are led captive at his will and pleasure they are under his power they are unrenewed uncircumcised slaves in bondage to death subject to damnation children of wrath but upon believing are new * 2 Cor. 5 17 2 Pet. 1.4 John 1.12 Eph. 1.5 1 Pet. 1.3 23. creatures partakers of the Divine Nature they are actually instated into the number of children to which they were predestinated are begotten again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead are borne again not of corruptible seed but incorruptible the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever But could this be affirmed of them ever since Christs death surely no thâ—refore here is a change and that before God wrought in their estate by effectual vocation and therefore they were not justiâ—â—ed before Fifthly If we are exhorted to believe in God for pardon and remission of sins then were not we pardoned from the time of Christs death before faith But we are thus exhorted to believe in God for the pardon of sins Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16.31 and the Scripture was written for this end that we might believe and that believing we might have life through his Name John 20.21 The consequence is confirmed because if we were justified already before faith it were a needlesse exhortation to call upon us to believe for pardon when we are pardoned already and therefore we might be called upon to believe to get assurance of our pardon but not to obtain pardon it self it were an exhorting us to seek for that by faith which according to Mr. Eyre is to be evidenced not to be obtained through faith and so were a needlesse and a groundlesse exhortation Sixthly Such as were not mystically united to Christ at his death could not be justified actually by his death But Believets that now live were not then mystically united Therefore The Major Proposition will need no shield and buckler to defend it for Christ justifieth none but such as are in him as the first Adam brings condemnation to none but such as are in him so the second Adam gives life and salvation to none but such as are in him The Minor is proved because that that is not cannot be united Believers were not then existing Besides 2. This union is made by faith They that were not existing were not then believers 3. Christs being a common person is not sufficient to make the mystical union 4. Christ as a publick person is a surety but Christ as united to us is a Head which are different considerations in the one he is a meritorious moral cause of salvation in the other a physical cause or efficient natural cause 5. The mystical union is by a work of the Spirit 1 Cor. 6.17 He that is joyned to the Lord is one Spirit but if the mystical union be made by Christs being a publick person that needeth not any new work of the Spirit to joyn Christ and Believers together 6. Those places where it is said Ephes 2.5 6.13 Ephes 2.5.6.13 Col. 2.13 14. Col. 2.13 14. That we were quickened with Christ and are made to sit together in heavenly places And in Christ Jesus we who were sometimes afarre off are now made nigh and that the handwriting of Ordinances was blotted out signifie no more then that in and through him as a meritorious cause we obtain such mercies but they hold not forth Believers to be existing in him before they had a being and our sitting in heavenly places is spoken only in regard of the certain right we have thereunto jus ad rem though not jus in re and in a qualified sense in Christ our Head who is already ascended Seventhly Christ in his death was not mystically but personally considered For though he were a publick person and Mediatour yet as so he was personally not mystically considered in his death and resurrection and the Justification that he received from God Therefore we were not justified actually from the time of Christs death The Antecedent is thus made good because it was not Christ mystical that was crucified but Christ the Son of God and He trod the * Isay 63.3 Wine-presse of his Fathers wrath alone Christ mysticall is not the Saviout of the world then the work of Redemption is to be attributed to every Believer and they are as truly Saviours of the world as Christ but this is blasphemy to imagine and therefore if he were not mystically considered in his death then not in his Resurrection nor in that Justification he received and so by consequence we were not justified by his death nor were in him antecedently to faith Eightly If we were pardoned from the time of Christs death then as Bellarmine objecteth against our Divines that make faith an assurance then it is
effect of Gods eternal purpose and a fruit of Christs death which shall infallibly in Gods due time be wrought Now all Gods purposes of grace are free Secondly I make not Faith the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified but ascribe that to the active and passive obedience of Christ Thirdly Though Faith be our act yet is it Gods gift and therefore salvation is no lesse of grace though by Faith then if it were without it and if it be an instrument helping the principal Agent yet being wholly wrought by God and all the efficacy and activity that Faith hath it hath it not by any thing intrinsecal to it but extrinsecâ—â— and by Gâ—d◠〈…〉 the Covenant of Grace and merciful aâ—ceptance oâ— it this â—o way obscâ—â—eth the grace of God and therefore Paul â—â—â—th â—he inheritance is therefore by faith that it might be of grace and Rom. 4.16 Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through faith it is the gift of God Faith it is an emptying soul-humbling and a Christ-exalting grace it renounceth all its own righteousnesse it goeth out of it self into another relieth wholly upon Christ for righteousnesse and receives heaven as an almes and all from God as a free gift and the more faith there is in any the lesse pride and resting upon any thing in our selves Therefore hereby the grace of God is no way the lesse free though that be the instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Fourthly we do not make Faith an antecedent condition moving and inclining Gods will to receive us into Covenant with himself but we make it antecedent to our being admitted to partake of the benefits of the Covenant CHAP. IX Shewing how weakly he hath defended himselfe against the charge of Antinomianisme and likewise manifesting that the Authors brought by him in defence of his Errour do some in the same place and most of them joyntly bring in evidence against his cause MAster Eyre Page the 19th complaineth that his Doctrine is called an Antinomian Error pag. 19. which is somewhat like the temper of such evil men pag 27. which the world is too full of that are more ashamed to be thought to be evil then to do it And he saith if it be an Error it is an Anti-evangelical Error Is not this a good * Incidit in Scyllam c. choice to choose rather to be accounted a corrupter of the Gospel then an enemy to the Law which is by so much the greater sin as the Gospel excelleth the Law and although I willingly grant and judge his Error to be diametrically opposite to the Gospel yet if the Antinomist be cast into his right tribe he will derive his pedigree from this Anti-evangelical principle and therefore this childe will lie at his door still but he purgeth himself from this crime by saying that it hath been an old designe of Satan to blast the truths of God with odious nick-names This I acknowledge and he verifieth it himself by stiling the Doctrine of Justification by Faith to be a joyning in confederacy with Papists Socinians and Arminians for such he maketh all that distâ—r from him and enemies to the free grace of God yet he will not see this beame in his own eye when he can see a mote in his brothers 2. He saith that by all the Diagnosticks which Divines have given us to discerne between Truth and Error it hath the complexion of a saving Truth by which I am contented to try it and let me bear the blame of it if the beauty of that complexion vanish not at the warme breath of the nexâ— Argument as much as Jezabels painted colour faded when the heat did transforme her again into her first deformity I admit of the rule that he giveth to try it by That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ is certainly true and the contrary is as certainly false Now let such as he saith that are least in the Church judge which opinion giveth most glory unto God his or ours Either his which asserteth That an Infidel and an ungodly person * Mr. Eyre p. 10. so remaining under the reigning power of sin even while he lieth like a swine wallowing in the mire of sin committing uncleannesse and that with greedinesse yea in the very act of it if an Elect person he was justified from * Page 64. eternity in the decree of God and from the time of * Page 67 68. Christs death being united to him because they were then in him as a * Page 7. common person and so while they are thus in their * Pag 60 61. unregenerate estate being thus considered God beholds them as righteous persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them and Divine Justice cannot charge them with the least sin nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve so that while they are thus they have as much * Master Eyre page 122. right to salvation as ever they shall have though they may by faith have more knowledge and comfort of their happinesse yet they have no more right nor is their estate changed before God upon believing as to Justification but only their former blessednesse is made * Page 66 evident to their consciences This is the soile of that brutish opinion and although in so many words together Master Eyre * Page 76. hath not expressed his minde yet it is fairely without any wrong to his opinion without wire-drawing per fidiculas consequentiaruâ— by threeds of consequences which he disclaimes collected as may appear by comparing it with the places quoted in the Margin Now we hold and maintaine God purposed in his eternal decree to justifie his Elect in time to that end he sent Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for their sins that a full satisfaction might be given to his Divine Justice as a foundation of Gods gracious act of Justification which is not immanent but transient and now by Christs death the price is paid and we are meritoriously redeemed but it was the will of the Father and the Son that none should have actual benefit as to a present discharge from the guilt of sin untill faith which faith is not the effect of free-will but a certaine effect of Gods decree and fruit of Christs death which shall be given to all the Elect for application of the righteousnesse of Christ and his satisfaction unto their actual Justification By which faith we are united to Christ and so partake of the saving benefits of his death Now let the Reader judge which giveth most glory to God in Christ his or ours First Doth he ascribe the whole work of salvation to the grace of God and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ so do we Nor Secondly Do we as he falsly accuseth us make men moral causes of their salvation let him prove it if he can Thirdly Nor do we
say that Christ purchased onely a new way of Salvation whereby we may be saved if we performe the conditions required of us we acknowledge no condition to be performed by us by the power of free-will but a condition as freely purchased and given and as certainly bestowed as the Salvation it self so that Christs death is no way rendered uncertain or lesse sure Fourthly Doth he say that God justifieth the ungodly so do we but we dare not say with him that he justifieth the ungodly so remaining under the reigning power of sin but whom he justifieth he also sanctifieth at the same time for we think it dishonourable to God to the purity and holinesse of his nature to justifie a man while he is a servant of sin The Lord is of purer eyes then to delight in an unsanctâ—fied wretch and it is a wrong to God to make him a Father of such an unclean beast and such a prophane ungodly person his adopted childe though he did purpose to adopt him yet he did not he could not adopt him without changing his nature We judge it a wrong to Christ that a limbe of the devil should so remaining be made a member of Christ For he that committeth sinne is of the Devil or 1 John 3.8 if he that hath the Devil for his father should have at the same time Christ for his head but all sinners that are under the reigne of sin have the Devil for their father John 8.44 Ye are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do And thus you may see which Doctrine ascribeth most glory to God in Christ Thirdly He purgeth himself from this crime by describing Antinomists in Austins time from Eunomeus their leader of whom St. Austine saith Fertur usquè ad eo c. August de Haeresibus c. 54. It is reported that he was such an enemy to goodnesse that he affirmed though a man did commit or lie in any kinde of sin it should never hurt him if he had but that faith that he taught and of the same straine were the Gnosticks who for their filthy lives were called Coenosi the dirty sect And what saith Mr. Eyre lesse doth he not say that the unregenerate while they so remaine that is let them commit or lie in any kinde of sin yet if Elect they are justified that is secured from wrath and so it shall not hurt them yea though they have no faith if those were the dirty Sect I am sure this is no better And he further saith of the Corinthians whom the Apostle called unrighteous fornicators adulterers abusers of themselves with mankinde c. such as could not inherit the Kingdome of God That they had no more right unto salvation after faith then before 1 Cor. 6.9 10 11. Mr. Eyre pag 122. so then by him they had right unto salvation and these sins could not keep them out of Heaven when the Apostle saith as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Is not this as bad as the opinion of Eunomius nay of the two the first borne of abominations because he will make God the justifier of these while they so remaine Fourthly He vindicates himself from Antinomianisme by the authority of some godly men that have asserted Justification in foro Dei before faith who were never accounted Antinomians 1. From the authority of Mr. Pemble in his Vindiciae Grat. to which I answer That if Mr. Pemble saw reason to alter his judgement as it seemeth he did in his Treatise of Justification Mr. Eyre upon deliberate thoughts may finde as much reason if he hath as much ingenuity to change his minde although he hath doated upon an erroneous opinion as many persons do upon a vaine fashion when it is new yet let him have but a little more time and serious thoughts about it and he will see cause to lay it aside as men do when their fashions grow stale And that Mr. Pemble dissents from him I shall make to appeare by a testimony or two of Mr. Pembles in his Book of Justification which is directly contrary to what he formerly asserted in his first Sect. Cap. 3. pag. 22. of his Treatise of Justification he hath these words The condâ—tion required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification is true faith whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priviledge that by faith and faith only a sinner shall be justified and pag 23. speaking of the Covenant of Grace The other Covenant is the Covenant of Grace the tenor whereof is Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved the condition of this Covenant is faith And pag. 24. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Christ Jesus believed on and embraced by a true faith where he taketh faith subjectively and objectively which act of Justification of a sinner although it be properly the onl wo k of God for the only merit of Christ yet it is rightly ascribed unto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that maine condition of the New Covenant which as we must performe if we will be justified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine Justification and life for when God by grace hath enabled us to performe the condition of believing then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant then is the sentence pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last judgement So in pag. 57. We confesse faith is a work and in doing of it we obey the Law c. but now we denie that faith justifieth as a work which we performe in obedience to this Law it justifieth us onely as a condition required of us and an instrument embracing Christs righteousnesse Thus his first authority is found to beare witnesse against him His second witnesse is Mr. Rutherford whom he scoffingly derided when in our conference he told me with contempt as appeared to them that heard him that it was Mr. Rutherfords judgement which he hoped I did like well enough and here he suborneth Mr. Rutherford to serve his turne and had he had the honesty to quote his Author and recite his whole minde he had found but little shelter for his opinion on his words the place cited is this Sanè prius quam Electus credit cessat ira Dei adversus ipsum Rutherford Apol. Exercit. pag 45. omnésque effectus irae erga ipsius personam Ãdque propter Christi meritum Sed non virtute illius palmaris promissi Evagelici Qui credit in Christum non venit in condemnationem nunquam enim removentur effecta irae Dei adversus peccatum Electi virtute illius promissi donec quis actu credit Verily saith he before an Elect person do believe the wrath of God ceaseth against him and all the effects of Gods wrath towards
proper certain and true difference that is to say the Law propoundeth salvation upon condition of fulfilling the Law but the Law of faith propoundeth the same salvation under the condition of believing only in Christ to wit that on both sides a condition be taken in the same sense that is that they have the same order to their respective Covenants otherwise faith is not a condition so as to be the matter of our righteousnesse as the fulfilling of the Law is Thus you see how he maketh Faith the condition of the Covenant antecedent to salvation thereby expected As for Maccorius we yield you his Testimony but could produce if need were a hundred for one of greater name and note Your last is Dr. Ames whose testimony you might have left out because he speakeâ—h far more against you then for you in the same place for he saith that it was quasi concepta as it were conceived in the minde of God and so the like phrase is to be given to the death of Christ as it were or virtually pronounced but he doth not say it was so really and formally as if we were so justified from eternity or from the time of Christs death yea a little after which you could not be ignorant of he saith Est autem haec justificatio propter Christum non absolute consideratum Ames Medul l. 1. c. 27. s 14. quo sensu Christuâ— est causa ipsius vocationis sed propter Christum fide apprehensum quae fides vocationem sequitur tanquam effectum justitiam Christi ex quâ apprehensâ justificatio sequitur unde justitia dicitur esse ex fide Rom. 9.30.10.6 justificatio per fidem Rom. 3.28 This Justification is for Christs sake not absolutely considered in the sense wherein Christ is the cause of effectual vocation but for Christs sake apprehended by faith which faith followeth effectual vocation as the effect and the righteousnesse of Christ being apprehended Justification followeth hence it is said that righteousnesse is of faith Rom. 9.30.10.6 and Justification by faith Rom. 3.28 And in the sixteenth Section thus Neque est propriè loquendo specialis siducia Nor is it to speak properly a special trust or assurance speaking of justifying faith whereby we apptehend or know the remission of our sins and our justification Fides enim justificans praecedit justificationem ipsam ut causa suum effectum sed fides justficationem apprehendens necessariò praesupponit ac sequitur justificationem ut actus objectum suum circa quod versatur For justifying faith goeth before Justification as the cause before its effect but Faith comprehending Justification necessarily presupposeth it to go before as the act its object about which it is conversant so that faith as it is assurance followeth Justification but as it is a resting on Christ for pardon in its justifying act so it goeth before Justification as the cause goeth before the effect Thus having examined his authorities we see that if they may be impartially examined and permitted to speak their own minde they all give in evidence against the cause that he maintaines CHAP. X. Containing a vindication of such Scriptures as are brought by Mr. Woodbridge for Justification by faith and mis-interpreted by Mr. Eyre together with an answer to such Scriptures as he hath brought to defend his Errour of Justification antecedent unto faith THE first Scripture is Rom. 5.1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God 1. He will have the Comma to be placed after justified as thus being justified by faith we have peace with God But first This is a reading contrary to the common acceptation of the place by all men Secondly It offereth violence to the Text for the scope of the place is to shew the efficacy of faith unto Justification as may appear by the illative particle therefore which hath not relation onely to the words immediately foregoing but to the summe and substance of the whole Chapter for the fourth Chapter containeth an Argument to prove Justification by Faith and not by the works of the Law drawn from the example of Abraham the Father of the faithful after this manner By what meanes Abraham the Father of Believers was justified By the same it behoveth his children to be justified that is all Believers but Abraham was not justified by any works neither preceding nor following his faith but by faith Therefore we must look for Justification by faith only In the third verse he confirmeth the Assumption because Abraham believed and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse that is his faith was imputed not in an Arminian sense but his faith properly taken in relation to the object and hereupon he commendeth exceedingly the faith of Abraham the grace of faith and sets it forth in many excellent properties which can no way agree to the object and then stirreth up us to an imitation of this faith telling us that it was not written for his sake only but for ours also and assureth us that our faith also shall be imputed for righteousnesse if we believe then he describeth the object of this faith God in Christ as raising Christ from the dead where he setteth forth the two main pillars of Faith Christs Death and Resurrection and this is illustrated by Gods end in both these 1. He delivered him to death for our offences that is to satisfie for our sins 2. He raised him again for our Justification to declare he was absolved from our sins and so had made full satisfaction hence then he drawes down this conclusion and shewes a new effect of faith and so a new argument Being therefore justified by faith we have peace with God as if he should say By what we have peace we are justified But by faith we have peace therefore we are justified Thirdly Neither can faith be taken here for the object excluding the act but for the grace and act of faith with relation to its object for then we shall make the Text admit of a Tautology for the meritorious cause is expressed Therefore here by faith the act must be understood for it is said Being justified by faith we have peace through our Lord Jesus there Christ the meritorious cause of Justification is expressed therefore the same thing is not understood by faith yea here saith Beza Beza in Loc. three causes are enumerated of our salvation Tres hîc enumerat causas nostrae pacis Apostolus fidem Deum Jesum Christum non coordinatas ejusdem generis sed subordinatas incipiente Apostolo à causa nobis per Dei gratiam datâ intrinsecâ instrumentali nempe fide cujus scopus objectum est Deus Pater interveniente Jesu Christi propitiatione Here saith Beza the Apostle doth enumerate three causes of our peace Faith God and Jesus Christ not coordinate causes and of the same kâ—nd but subordinate The Apostle beginning from an intrinsecal instrumental cause given us by the
our sin was imputed to Christ that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him and he will have Christs being made sin and our being made the righteousnesse of God in him formally the same act in God For he saith this phrase that we might be madâ— doth not alwayes imply the final cause but sometimes the formal And so his meaning is that Christ was at the same time made sin for us and by that act of God we were made the righteousnesse of God in him To this I answer First it offers violence to the Text for that doth not say that we were then made but that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him it laid the foundation for this Secondly Let him assigne any other end that God had in this act in respect to us if this were not his end surely had it not been for this God would not have imputed our sinnes to Christ Thirdly That which he saith is manifestly false for this phrase that we might be alwayes doth expresse the finall cause his instance doth not prove the thing in hand He saith That when light is let in that darknesse might be expelled the immission of light is formally the expulsion of darknesse I answer if it be granted this hindereth not but that it might be the end why the light is let in as in a roome that hath shuts to keep out the light the room is dark now let a man that desires light open these shuts at the same time the light doth physically expell the darknesse and yet it was the end of the man in letting in the light to expel the darknesse Fourthly The imputation of sin to Christ and righteousnesse to us are two different acts and have two different effects and therefore are not formally the same for by imputing sin to Christ he is charged with the guilt of it and is obnoxious to death and the imputing righteousnesse to us is a discharge from the guilt and we are made capable of life Now if this were formally our discharge then we are discharged and so made righteous before Christ had made satisfaction even so soon as our sin was imputed but this is a manifest contradiction for it is not Christs being charged with our guilt but his making satisfaction that procures our discharge but this is but one drop of that river of contradiction that flows from him as from a fountaine with which his Book swells like the river of Jordan till it is foardable by no reason nor any humane understanding 4. I deny that the imputation of sin to Christ and the non-imputation of it to us If you speak of a formal non-imputation and discharge or else you say nothing to the purpose is but one and the same act in God they are two distinct acts terminated upon two distinct subjects The first upon Christ the second upon us Imputation of sin to Christ is a transient act done in time for God did not charge Christ with our sin from eternity and every transient act requireth the existence of the subject upon which it is terminated or produceth it as did Creation And therefore we that had no existence could not be the subjects of a formal non-imputation which is an actuall discharge from it and therefore that which you answer to this objection we were nor then and therefore righteousnesse could not be imputed by propounding another objection Our sins were not then therefore they could not be imputed I answer the reason is not alike for the non-existence of a subject to whom any thing should be impated is of greater efficacy to hinder the imputation then the non-existence of a sinne for the terme or subject of a transient act is of absolute necessity to be or to be produced by the act but there is no such necessity of the thing that is imputed the act may be without that but not without the other Besides a sin is a moral cause of punishment and therefore the effect which is punishment which is that that is meant by imputation of sin is at the will of him that is moved thereby and therefore sometimes goeth before the cause as in the death of Christ for which the Patriarchs were justified before Christ had given satisfaction and sometimes after it therefore the punishment might be inflicted on Christ before the sin was committed I shall now addresse my self to give an answer to such Scriptures as he hath alledged in defence of his own opinion The first is Matth. 3.17 This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased From whence he argueth that if the well pleasednesse of God which is here declared is terminated upon Christ mystical and not to Christ personal then God was well pleased with all his Elect who are Christ mystical when this voice came from heaven and consequently before many of them do believe To which I answer that I take it to be and have proved it an errâ—r to say that the Elect as Elâ—ct are myst cally uni ed to Christ for union necessarily pre-requireth existence and Christ had not a mystical body from eternity 2. I deny as then I did the assumption and say the well-pleasednesse of God was terminated upon Christ personal and not Christ mystical And the meaning is This is my beloved Son in whose person I am well pleased and with whose work and office as a Mediator I am well pleased but it was not the intent of God there to say for his sake I am actually well pleased with all the Elect antecedently to their faith Now I prove it was spoken of Christ personal and not Christ mystical 1. If Christ considered as Mediatour be personally considered then this is understood of Christ personal and not Christ mysticall The antecedent is true Therefore the consequence The reason of the consequence is because this is spoken of Christ as Mediator But Christ mystical is not the Mediaâ—our of the world for then we have so many Redeemers and Saviours of the world as are united to Christ and then Christ alone did not tread the winepresse of his Fathers wrath 2. Christ mystically considered was not baptized by John But this beloved Son in whom God was well pleased was baptized by John Ergo. 3. This was terminated on him to whom the Heavens were then opened and upon whom the Spirit descended like a Dove But this is true only of Christ personally not mystically considered 4. This voice was terminated on him for whose sake God is well pleased with such as believe But God is not well pleased with believers for the sake of Christ mystically considered but personally Ergo. 5. This voice is terminated upon him who is by a peculiar generation and Sonship so a Son that it is incommunicable unto others But this belongs only to Christ personal Therefore this voice was not terminated upon Christ mystical 6. Now to all this I adde this that the consideration of Christ as a pubâ—ick
had in Christ but only the way and means by which we obtain the things purposed in Election to wit in Christ or for Christs sake And therefore as it is not said that we were sanctified from eternity though he chose us in Christ that we should be holy so neither are we justified from eternity for there is no difference because a man cannot be the subject of a moral change to passe from a state of death and life till he do exist though he may be predestinated to be the subject of such a change in time any more then he can be the subject of a physical or natural change Nor doth that passage in the 6th Verse confirme it where it is said He hath made us accepted in the Beloved for that is to be understood of the Elect Ephesians as they were now regenerate and not to be referred to Gods eternall purpose And all this is made more manifest in that those that were Elect and chosen in Christ are said to be children of wrath without God without Christ and without hope in the world which as we have shewed is inconsistent with the state of Justification The second place in Timothy where it is said 2 Tim. 1.9 10. That grace was given us in Christ before the world began but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ holds forth no such thing as eternal Justification but grace is said to be given in respect of the firmnesse and immutability of Gods purpose Therefore in this place Gods giving is not an actual collation but an eternal preparation of grace to be given infallibly to the Elect. And thus Augustinus Apostolus datam dixit gratiam August de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 34. quando nec erant adhuc quibus daretur quoniam in dispositione ac praedestinatione Dei jam sactum erat quod suo tempore futurum erat The Apostle saith Grace was given when they were not as yet to whom it should be given because in the appointment and predestination of God that was done which in its time should be done Vide Junius Calvin and to this Junius and Calvin give in their suffrage with him The other Scriptures alledged by hâ—m are in pag. 128. which relate to the death of Christ from whence he would prove because it is said that we were then reconciled and had redemption in his blood therefore we were justified before faith from the time of Christs death But observe how the places brought for our Justification from Christs death do utterly overthrow the eternity of Justification For if we were then enemies and then reconciled then was he not reconciled from eternity That in Ephes 1.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins signifieth nothing but that the price of redemption was paid by him and we have forgivenesse of sins because it is purchased for us but it is not actually given For although Christs death be the meritorious cause of Justification yet is it not the only cause and therefore we are not actually justified till all those causes be actually which have an influence into it Col. 1.20 21. and that in Col. 1.20 21. signifies no more but that peace is thus farre made by the blood of his Crosse that now the cause of enmity is removed by a satisfaction made by the death of Christ and God is now willing to forgive such as believe whence he addeth these mercies named shall be enjoyed if they continue in the faith grounded Ver. 23. and setled and be not moved from the hope of the Gospel Eph. 2.13 14. And the like I affirme of that place Ephes 2.13 14. and of that in 2 Cor. 5.19 2 Cor. 5.19 20. we are causally and meritoriously reconciled Thâ—s was Gods designe in Christ in giving him to die but God and they were not actually reconciled that believe not Hence the Apostle exhorteth in the same place the Corinthians to be reconciled to God and when God justifies and is actually reconciled the reconciliation is mutual there is a change in Gods dispâ—nsation though not a change in his affection and when it is saâ—d that we are said to sit with him in heavenly places this is spoken in regard of a right purchased Eph. 2.6 and the certainty of the thing to be obtained though we do not yet personally sit with him and all such places as speak of our being enemies to God and that while we were enemies we were reconciled signifie nothing but this that we were translated out of a state of enmity into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ as soon as we believe Rom. 5.10 as that Rom. 5.10 for in the first verse he speaketh of them that were already justified by faith and in the 11th We have now received the atonement so that there he speaketh of actual believers not that they received this while they remained unbelievers and enemies to God and if you understand it of what was done for us before we had faith and were regenerated it signifieth nothing but the reconciliation meritoriously made by removing the guilt of sin by a sufficient price paid even while we were actually in the state of enmity but the paying of the price is not the whole nor the formalis ratio justificationis For this price paid is part of the matter of our righteousnesse but the formal nature of Justification stands in the imputation of this righteousnesse which is an actual bestowing of it and in our receiving of it by faith then Mr. Eyre pag. 132. and not till then are we formally justified Here Mr. Eyre objecteth two things First That Christ did not only pay the price of our reconciliation Object 1 but that God did so farre accept it for us that upon the payment he did not impute our sins to us for the Apostle define Justification to be a non-imputation of sin 1. This is petitio principii a begging the question to say God did accept it so as he did not impute sin to us that is at the same time when our sins were imputed to Christ 2. I adde that Gods imputing sin to Christ is virtually a non-imputing it to us but not formally and therefore not a formall Justification 3. I adde that the non-imputation of sin containeth not the whole nature of Justification unlesse under it be comprized the imputation of righteousnesse Secondly He objecteth that the paiment of the full price for our Object 2 deliverance from the curse of the Law is a yielding the question that we are actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid To this objection I have already given sufficient answer but because it is the maine Argument to which he and all of his judgement trust I will here also give a solution to it I
answer then by denying the consequence For in the first place payment of a debt is refusable when it is not the same in the obligation but now if there were nothing else to say but this this were enough to prove it not the same dum alius solâ—it necessariò aliud solvitur while another payeth the debt another thing is paid But secondly if a surety of our own appointment pay the debt then it may also be available but the surety is provided by God and not by us And thirdly he paid not the same but the value Fourthly besides Christs death was meritorious for the discharge of another not only by the intrinsecal value but by the constitution of God for if God had ordained it it might have been efficaciously sufficient even for the Reprobate Therefore as Scotus * Scotus lib. 3. distin 19. qu. vin p 74. saith well Christi meritum tantum bonum est nobis pro quanto acceptabatur à Deo Therefore if it wholly depend upon the will of God to accept it and how farre he will accept it it is not injustice for God not to give a present discharge for though he did accept it for them yet not for an immediate discharge and why is it any more wrong to Christs death to suspend the application of it untill faith then to deny the efficacy of it to a farre greater number if God had so accepted it Seeing Christs death shall be as effectuall to all intents and purposes and as certainly applied as if presently the benefit were obtained for faith also is merited and shall be given And God did suspend it till faith as that which in his wisdome he saw most convenient Because 1. Faith answers to that which is the ground of our being partakers in Adams sin it unites us to Christ 2. Hereby God doth not justifie an ungodly wretch so remaining which is contrary to the purity and holinesse of his Nature 3. Hereby Christ is not made a Patron of wicked men remaining so under the reigning power of sin 4. Hereby the Doctrine of the Gospel is freed from scandal it is no Doctrine of licentiousnesse 5. Hereby God will have Christ to be acknowledged as a Redeemer the soul to see his need of Christ and to prize his love and he will have him to acknowledge and take him for his Lord that will have benefit by him and therefore untill then it is the will of the Father and the Son that the benefit of this satisfaction shall not be injoyed untill faith And Volenti non fit injuria If the Reader desire further satisfaction let him peruse the Vindication of my Sermon upon this subject CHAP. XI Containing an answer to those Arguments Master Eyre hath brought to prove the antecedency of Justification to faith that we are actually reconciled from the time of Christs death and that faith is not an antecedent condition of Justification FIrst he saith that the Essence and Quiddity of Justification consisteth in the will of God not to punish and that he endeavoureth to prove by two Arguments 1. Because the definition which the Holy Ghost gives of Justification is most properly applied to this act and saith he it is a certain rule Cui convenit definitio convenit definitum that is Justification to which the definition of Justification doth agree Now saith he the definition which the Psalmist and the Apostle gives of Justification is Gods not imputing sin and his imputing of righteousnesse To this I answer by acknowledging the Argument but I deny that the non-imputing of sin and the imputation of righteousnesse is the whole definition of Justification but it is a non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse according to the tenour of the Gospel by vertue of that signal promise He that believes shall be saved And this is intended by the Psalmist and Apostle if it be a full definition for Justification is a forensical judicial act now according to the tenour of the first Covenant which requireth personal and perfect obedience we cannot be saved Now God hath made a new Covenant with us by Christ revealed in the Gospel wherein he hath promised whosoever believe shall be saved Now when God as a fruit and effect of this Covenant doth not impute sin and impute righteousnesse to a person this is truly Justification but thus God dealeth with none untill actual faith Secondly I answer Gods eternal purpose is not formally a non-imputing of sin but a purpose of not imputing it Therefore till this purpose be brought into act we are not pardoned and justified for although his will be actuall yet his non-imputation is not actual but to be done in time for neither is the sin in actual being which how it can be remitted before it be committed let him shew for it is not actually but potentially a sin And therefore in what sense it is a sin in that sense it is remitted onely and neither is the sinner to be pardoned in actuall being but Justification is a change of the state and condition of the person justified passing him from death to life and that for Christs sake but how can the state of the sinner be changed who is yet unborne and never was yet actually a childe of wrath and Christs death is not the cause of Gods eternal will and purpose and consequently if that be Justification we are justified without the merits of Christ and then Socinian doctrine takes place but the Scripture expressely mentions Christs death as the cause of our Justification for which God justifieth us In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins and God hath set him forth a propitiation through faith in his blood and for Christs sake God is said to forgive the Ephesians Thirdly Whereas you say the words both in the Old and New Testament whereby imputation is signified which are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both of them signifie an act of the minde and will an immanent act I answer that sometimes when they are related to men they so signifie Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.17 Psal 32.1 Psal 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. yet that they are so taken when attributed to God I absolutely deny but do alwayes hold forth a transient act and not an immanent act as Gen. 15.6 Gen. 38.15 Numb 18.27 Psal 32.1 Ps 106.31 Rom. 4.6 8. 3 Cor. 5.19 nor can any place be produced relating to God as his act where it is so taken for it will ascribe a fallible judgement unto God to say that he imputeth not sin to a justified person that is to say he judgeth and esteemeth them not to have sinned for Gods judgement is according to truth and therefore such as have sinned he looketh upon them as such as have sinned and he cannot esteem them such as never did sin though he may if he will pardon them deal with them as with such as have not sinned and in this
sense he imputeth it not when he pardoneth Secondly His second Argument is thus That which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification By this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. To which I answer 1. By distinguishing upon your Major proposition that which doth secure presently actually fully and formally from wrath without any other cause intervening is Justification And then in taking the Proposition thus I deny the Minor that Election doth presently actually fully and formally discharge the sinner from guilt and wrath it is but a purpose in God to do it the sinner is not thereby discharged Hence as soon as he is borne he is a childe of wrath which he could not be if he were justified from eternity and so continueth untill faith and the death of Christ is a necessary cause intervening between this decree and the discharge for which he is discharged and without which supposing the decree he cannot be secured from wrath and Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth p. 140. that sin lay as a block in the way that God could not salvâ justitià bestow upon the Elect those good things intended in Election How then did Gods decree secure them from wrath if he mean only eventually it doth secure because they shall not have sin imputed to the condemnation of their persons this is true but to little purpose to prove a present formal discharge such as Justification is Therefore when the Apostle saith Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect The Apostle doth not speak of the Elect antecedenter antecedently to their faith but executivè or consequenter as it is executed and compleated in those that are Elected as Mr. Burgesse * Mr. Burg. of Justif p. 186. hath observed Therefore by the Elect he meaneth the Elect Believers therefore if you resolve it either into a universal negative No Elect person can be justly charged with sin or a universal affirmative all Elect persons are free from the charge of sin if by the Elect you understand the Elect before Faith and Regeneration both Propositions are absolutely false for otherwise Christ could not have been charged with our sin if Election did free us from the charge then was there no necessity of Christs dying and then no person is borne a sinner that is an Elect person nor was ever under condemnation then neither was Adam a sinner under condemnation for I take him to be an Elect person and then no man ever was under condemnation for we receive not guilt from him unlesse he also were guilty and we in him But if you take it for Elect Believers then both Propositions are true and this is agreeable to the scope of the place for he had said a little before Whom he predestinated them he called and whom he called that is unto faith them he justified Mr. Eyre p. 64. As for the Answers which he giveth to the Objections framed by himself I have considered them and derected the weakness of them already There remaineth but one Objection which I have not yet given any Animadversion upon and therefore will do it here Object He saith 't is objâ—cted that hereby by making Justification to be Gods eternal will not to punish Justification and Election are confounded His answer to this is that they are not confounded because Election includes both the end which is the glory of Gods grace and all the means from the beginning to the ending conducing thereunto his will not to punish includes precisely and formally only some part of the meanes To this I answer that according to Mr. Eyre's opinion there is no distinction at all between Election and Justification for if it be the same act of Gods will if the object be the same if the end of God in both be the same if the means conducing to that end be the same then is there no difference at all according to him bur the antecedent is true Therâ—fore That with him it is the same act pag. 61. is evident pag. 62. for he acknowledge no transient act but an immanent eternal act of his will purposing salvation in Christ that the object is the same needeth no proof the end is the same the glory of Gods grace in both and that the means conducing to that end is the same Let him that hath but a sparke of reason judge for if the act be the same the object the same and the end the same in both why the meanes should not be the same no reason can be imagined and let him assigne what means God hath appointed for the execution of the eternal Election and we shall easily shew it that the same thing God hath appointed as a necessary Medium to effect our Justification according to his opinon which hold it to be one and the same eternal act of his will And let the Reader observe that he maketh no cause of our Justification but Gods own eternal good will and pleasure as in the case of Election for Christs death with him is not the cause of the act of Justification but of the effects of it of the thing willed and so Christs death with him is no antecedent meanes to effect the act of Justification but a subsequent meaâ—â—â—o fulfill the purpose of his will and what a good friend he is to the Gospel to debase the merits of Christ let the undestanding Christian judge As for those arguments which he useth to disprove that our faith pag. 52. or faithful actions are that Evangelical righteousnesse by which we are justified maketh nothing against me For if we speak of our Evangelical righteousnesse that is the matter of our righteousnesse or that for which we are justified I acknowledge it is wholly in Christ subjective and it is ours only by imputation and that faith is but the instrument to apply this as for that Reverend * Mr. Baxter Brother and Servant of Christ against whom these are leveled he hath since explained his meaning that he understandeth not faith to be the matter of our righteousnesse or a co-ordinate righteousnesse with Christ but he calleth it our subordinate Evangelical righteousnesse in which he disagreeth from us and I confesse it had been more satisfaction to his Brethren if he had not used that terme And therefore being not concerned in it I passe them by The next File of Arguments that he brings up against our cause we finde in the 9th Chapter which though he will have them give fire yet they do no execution nor will they stand the Field and abide the shock of a solid answer which because they are a company of tame Souldiers we will take them prisoners and see how they will abide to be examined He saith that faith doth not justifie as a condition required on our part to qualifie for Justification Where I
Justification to be effected by it as an inherent grace only it puts the subject into a capacity of being actually justified by the righteousnesse of Christ according to the tenour of the Covenant 2. Faith doth not justifie as a Work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse 3. Though Faith be a Work it is not ours but Gods and therefore none of our Works justifie 4. Though there be a priority of nature in Faith unto Justification yet there is not any priority of time but the same moment that Faith is wrought we are justified Sixthly That Interpretation of any phrase of Scripture which involveth a contradiction is not to be admitted but to say Faith is a passive condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction I subscribe the Major with both hands and should be loth such a pouring showre of contradictions should fall from my pen as have done from yours which were enough to drown the reputation of a man that would be counted one of the more manly sorts of Divines And I deny your Minor it implieth not a contradiction to say Faith is a condition of Justification Your proof is this to be both passive and active in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction Now that is active which is effective which contributes an efficacy whether more or lesse to the production of the effect a condition hath not the least efficacy I answer therefore it is peccant against the Law of opposition for iâ— is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Praedicatum non disponitur cum subjecto secundum eandem subjecti partem naturam For faith is active and pâ—ssive in a different sense if you take faith in genere physico it is actâ—ve if you take it in genere moris it is passive for it is only a condition making us câ—â—â—ble according to the Covenant of Juâ—â—ification not meritoâ—â—ously deserving or by it self effecting Justification but it is not aâ— the same time active and pâ—â—sivâ— in genere phisico nor active and passive at the same time in genere moris and therefore here is no contradiction Besides faith as it is an act it is active and some way helpeth the agent not that God needeth it but because he will not justifie us without it but in regard that this is a receiving it is equivalent to suffering and is a going out of our selves renouncing our own righteousnesse and so is rightly judged passive though formally it be an action yet virtually it is but a passive reception In the next place we shall consider his Arguments which he bringeth in the 14th Chapter to prove that there was no Covenant between the Father and the Son to suspend the effects of his death untill faith and that it was the will of God that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation and Justification of all the Elect antecedent to Faith Now because these Arguments are his Triarii his Souldiers in the rereward in which he puts most confidence if we can but rout these the day will be our own His first Argument runs thus There is no such Covenant doth appear Ergo there is none A negative Argument I acknowledge in matters of great consequence is availeable Therefore I deny his Assumption and all those Scriptures which promise Justification upon believing and that limit the benefit of Christs death unâ—ill faith is proof enough to prove there was a Covenant between the Father and Christ to suspend the benefits of Christs death untill faith but because he will see the place we referre him to Isa 53.10 When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand He shall see the travel of his soul and be satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many for he shall bear their iniquities Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth this place holds forth the Covenant between God and Christ about the effects of his death if you take the words as a prediction of the Prophet they hold forth a promise of God to Christ of the fruit of his death when God should make his soul an offering for sin or when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin for the words will bear it Now this promise is virtually a Covenant and doth not limit the benefits of his death to the present time but first presupposeth this work to be done and then as a fruit of this he shall see his seed not all his seed presently but he shall see it and prolong his dayes the pronoun is wanting and therefore the words have a twofold sense given them some expound them of Christ who after his Resurrection should die no more others of his issue and race of the Saints and say the Authors of our English Annotations the ancient Greek and old Latine go both that way and so take the meaning he shall see his seed that shall prolong its dayes with a supply of the relative and if so this maketh clear against Master Eyre But however take it which way you will there is enough to evince it He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied that is he shall see that as the fruit and effect of his death which shall give him full content he shall be much refreshed and gladded as a woman after hard travel that seeth the fruit of her womb and he shall live to see it And then follow the words which are the words of God delivered as in his person for Christ was not the Prophets servant But by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him not his knowledge taken subjectively but objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him where knowledge is put for faith as This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent and so Paul counted all things loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ his Lord. Now here God describeth how Christ shall justifie many by his knowledge or by faith on him Whence I argue If God in the Covenant made with Christ did mention faith as a means by which he should justifie many that is all his seed that should be the travel of his soul then was there such a Covenant that the fruits and benefits of Christs death should not be enjoyed untill faith for it is added that he shall bear their iniquities not that this should be a present discharge but to signifie that none else but Believers should be pardoned because he shall bear their sins and theirs only but if they be justified before faith then he beareth the sins of unbelievers and so unbelievers and Believers are the subjects of Justification contrary to the Scriptures But God made such a Covenant and made mention of Faith in it as a means whereby he should justifie
in the Papists sense not in ours And when the Apostle saith Rom. 4.16 Our salvation is of grace that it might be sure to all the seed the same Apostle saith in the same verse It is of faith that it might be of grace and yet you are willing to leave out those words because they make against you nor is it lesse sure by faith Acts 16.48 then if it were without it for faith is merited and shall be given As many as were ordained to eternal life believed Phil. 1.29 and To you it is given not only to believe c. Ninthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available while they live in this world then it was the Will of God it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation Ans This consequence is denied the argument maketh against a condition in an Arminian sense not in ours for upon the first moment that a man believeth he is justified and all his sins past are actually pardoned his sins to come virtually so that no following sin shall unjustifie him though it may take away his aptitude for heaven yet not his right and though his sin may deserve damnation and without actual repentance and faith he cannot be saved yet grace shall be given to inable him to repent and believe so that though there must be nova remissio yet there is not nova justificatio though a new remission is needful yet not a new justification pardon of sin is a continued act but our justification quoad statum is done simul semel once and for all this you know to be the Orthodox opinion yet you fraudulently conceal it and oppose us as if we held a condition in an Arminian sense and that so often as we fall into sin we fall from justification and so no man could be sure of salvation untill death Tenthly If it were the Will of God that the death of Christ should certainly procure reconciliation then it was his Will it should not depend upon termes and conditions performed by us Answ Still your consequence doth halt down-right for the salvation of the Elect is not uncertain as to the event but as certain as the unchangeable decree of God can make it but this is Crambe bis vel ter recocta fastidium parit Eleventhly If he willed this blessing to his Elect by the death of Christ but conditionally then he willed the reconciliation and justification of the Elect no more then their non-reconciliation Answ If Mr. Eyre be not he may and I am ashamed of this grosse and wilful ignorance I beleeve he knows it as well as he knows there is a God that the Orthodox abhor these positions of the Remonstrants that we acknowledg that God willed the salvation of Peter with another manner of intention then of Judas and that we acknowledge no condition antecedently to their Election but that he hath absolutely predestinated the Elect unto the end and as absolutely to the meanes and that God did not stand indifferent to the event whether they shall be justified saved or no but absolutely decreed them unto life as the end unto justification as the meanes unto faith as a means to bring them unto justification so that though they be not justified nor reconciled actually yet he absolutely willed that they should be reconciled and therefore gave Christ to die for them and will give faith to apply the benefits of his death As for the proof of his consequence if he willed their salvation only in case they believe then he willed their condemnation if they believe not I distinguish upon Gods Will it is either secret or revealed voluntas signi or beneplacity praecepti or propositi if you look to the will of Gods purpose and his good-will and pleasure he absolutely willed their reconciliation so that nothing shall hinder it but he did not will an absolute reconciliation without Faith there was no condition of his will though of the thing willed but if you look to the revealed will of God the will of precept so he declareth it is his will that he that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned and thus he willeth their damnation if they believe not Twelfthly If God willed unto men the benefits of Christs death upon any condition to be performed by them it will follow that God foresaw in them an ability to performe some good which Christ hath not merited conditional reconciliation necessarily presupposeth free-will Answ Still his arguments are guilty of this common fate to be lame in the consequence and to fall very short of the mark intended It doth not follow that God foresaw any such ability in man nor doth such a condition as we establish enthrone free-will we yield him that God willed this blessing upon a possible condition not possible to nature but possible by grace not because man can performe it for it requireth the same Almighty power that was required to raise Christ from the dead Eph. 1.18 but because God by his Spirit will work and give it And those he calleth his adversaries do mean it in this sense it is a fruit of a promise made to Christ and an effect of his death that Faith shall be given but not a fruit of the Covenant made with us but rather the condition by which we are really received into Covenant Thirteenthly If God did will that our sinnes should be accounted to Christ without any condition on our part then was it his will that they should be discounted without any condition on our part But the Antecedent is true Ergo. I answer 't is pity that a man whom we hope means well that his Arguments should go out like a snuffe of a candle in the socket as these do And I confesse it is a ridiculous argument and inference yet I will give a solution to it I therefore deny his consequence It is readily granted that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ did not depend upon any condition of ours for we had not then a being when this imputation was made nor was it needful either for Christ or us that any condition on our parts should be the ground of this imputation it was a free act of God in mercy taking off the guilt from us and transferring it on Christ and his sole will and pleasure was the cause of it but that therefore it was the will of God that it should without any ondition on our part be discounted to us is a miserable consequence more fit to be laughed at then refuted But to omit nothing that may have the face though not the force of an argument unanswered I deny the consequence and the reason of it and affirm that the charging our sins upon Christ was not our discharge formally considered the imputing out sinnes to Christ was not a formall non-imputing them to us virtually it was it was a foundation laid for the
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
contrary Malem Corberum metueret quà m haec inconsideratè diceret 3. Doth not the Apostle judge of Apelles as a real Christian a little after when he saith he was approved in Christ and of Rusus that he was chosen in the Lord in the 12th vers and was he guided by Revelation there and not here did not he elsewhere say of the Thessalonians that he knew their Election 1 Thes 1.4 speaking of them as of the better part because it is more then probable where God will have his Word preached there he hath some people and St. John writing to a religious Lady stiles her Elect because he had seen her and her children walk in the truth and if these persons were not known to be such by Revelation yet had they strong ground for a judgement of charity and why we should not look upon the union spoken of as reall or spiritual between them and Christ I am yet to seek for a Reason But further he saith this is meant of a being in Christ by external profession and Church-communion but can he or any other say it is meant of no more 2. From hence I gather faith gives a real implantation for if an hypocritical faith will give a man an external denomination of being in Christ it is in the resemblance it hath to true faith and true faith must do more or else an hypocrites faith were as good as the faith of an Elect person Yea 3. Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth that one is in Christ before another as he is called and converted really or in appearance if really converted then really in Christ then let us take it for granted that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ really before Paul then Paul was not in Christ for if he were really in Christ this cannot be true that they were really in Christ before him for he was in Christ and that really according to Master Eyre from eternity But I desire Mr. Eyre to let us see the Scriptures and hear his grounds for a twofold union to Christ and both real unions one from eternity the other at conversion or faith and if he prove it Erit mihi magnus Apollo In the last place I shall now take notice of what he saith to that Logical Axiome Non entis nulla sunt accidentia in his Book pag. 7. where I desire the Reader to observe his mistake for I applied it to union with Christ he to the imputed righteousnesse of Christ I said that union with Christ is a thing accidentall to man and that being an accident requires that the subject united of whom this is denominated that he is united to Christ must be existent because an accident cannot subsist without its subject whether it be an accident by inhesion or adhesion both subsist dependently and without the subject they subsist not concerning union he objecteth nothing from this Axiome therefore I will hear what he saith concerning imputed righteousnesse Object He saith It doth not follow that Christs righteousnesse cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created being because accidents cannot subsist without their subjects For as much as imputed righteousnesse is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not require our existence Christ is the subject of this righteousnesse and the imputation of it is an act of God Answ What if imputed righteousnesse be not an accident inherent but an act of God yet in relation to us it is an accident by extrinsecall denomination and when it is imputed to us it is terminated upon us and we are denominated and constituted righteous by it and therefore it requires as much our existence as if it were an inherent accident for can he be made righteous and truly denominated so that is not a man nor any thing in rerum naturâ can any thing be predicated truly of that which is not can Paul be said to be learned before he had a being Surely this Axiome Non entis nullae sunt affectiones will be an unshaken truth when you and I shall cease to speak for it or against it I have spoken to the Logick of it and Mr. Baxter to the Divinity of it and who ever read it will finde it to be as he hath justly stiled it a very odde passage only this I shall adde We are speaking of imputed righteousnesse and he saith Christ is the subject of it if he mean of the righteousnesse imputed he saith true but if of the righteousnesse as imputed it is a very odde passage indeed for what need that to be imputed to Christ which is subjectively inherent in him already but take this righteousnesse as imputed and so we are the subjects recipient of it or the objects upon whom it is terminated and therefore it necessarily requires our existence Now to justifie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to us before we have a being he urgeth that of the Apostle Rom. 4.17 that God calleth things that are not as though they were to this I shall give that answer which Davenant de morte Christi Davenant de morte Christi pag. 61. pag. 61. puts into my mouth Quanquam Deo quidem tanquam jam facta sint quae ille ut fiaent ab omni aeternitate disposuit nobis tamen non aliter accipienda sunt nisi secundùm modum illum dispensationis quo ab aeterno decreta in tempore complenda nobis in actum perducenda sunt Although truly to God those things are as if they were now done because nothing is past present and to come with him which he hath decreed that they should be and ordained them from all eternity yet to us they are not otherwise to be taken then according to that manner of dispensation wherein they were decreed and in time to be fulfilled to us and to be brought into act Mr Eyre objecteth further that the righteousnesse of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarchs before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say that Christs righteousnesse is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a being To which I answer there is not the like reason for both the righteousnesse of Christ and the sins of the Elect are both moral causes of their effects which work according to the will and pleasure of him that is moved thereby hence God the Father is moved to give pardon to such as believe as an effect of Christs death and it is at the will of God when to give it therefore the effect sometimes goes before the cause as if a man promise to give a man five shillings for going so farre upon his errand the man may give it before he hath taken a step though he give it only for that reason here the effect goeth before the cause and thus he gave pardon to such as did believe in Christ before his death Sometimes it followes after it and not immediately
as absurd to pray for pardon of sin as for the incarnation of Christ and I may adde at for an immanent act in God as to pray for predestination because if it be a thing done already then it is in vaine to pray for that that is done Jameâ— 5.15 16. but we are commanded to pray for pardon as Peter taught Simon to pray for pardon Pray that if it be possible c. And though the Elders of the Church must pray for the sick and if they have sinned it shall be forgiven them And Christ teacheth us to pray Burgess Justifi page 199. forgive us our sins Now in that prayer we do not pray for assurance only but for pardon it selfe For as Mr. Burgess hath well observed to my hand that we must not depart from the literal sense of the words without an evident necessity But the plain sense is that God would forgive our sin our Saviour minding brevity would speak his sense in the most perspicuous and clear manner that may be And it is not as he observeth so taken in other places when the Prophet Isaiah speaking of the Israelites How their land was full of Idols Isaiah 2 94. and both great men and mean men did humble themselves before them prayeth Isa 2.9 that therefore God would not forgive them can any imagine that he meant that God would not give them assurance of their forgivenesse And so Matth. 12.32 the Evangelist saith All other sins may be forgiven but that against the Holy Ghost Now in that sense other sins are said to be forgiven in which sense that is denied to be forgiven and that is denied to be forgiven not in respect of assurance but really And so as he saith when it is applied to men it is not meant of assurance For we are commanded to pray that God would forgive us as we forgive others and this last forgivenesse it not meant of assurance therefore neither is the former Ninthly Such as are under the power of Satan are not justified But all unbelievers are under the power of Satan Therefore we were not justified from the death of Christ antecedently to faith The Major is not liable to contradiction because if a man be justified he is accquitted by the Judge then what power hath the Jayler to keep him in prison neither will God nor Christ permit a soul under Satans power that is discharged from guilt that very act of Gods is his deliverance from the power of Satan The Minor is evident from Scripture which saith of the Gentiles to whom Paul was sent by special commission from Christ to open their eyes It is said that he was sent to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light Acts 26.83 from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgivenesse of sins and inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ Where it is evident that these Gentiles were Elect for whom Christ died that when he was in heaven yet appeared in a vision to Paul as he was going to Damascus to persecute the Saints And converts him and then sends him as a special Embassadour and Apostle to the Gentiles to open their eyes to turne them from darknesse to light from the power of Satan to God c. If they were from the time of Christs death justified and pardoned then they were not under Satans power for that is inconsistent with Justification and if they were pardoned already what need he send him to open their eyes to turne them from Satan to God that they might receive forgivenesse this was the end why he was sent nor can it be meant of receiving the knowledge of their pardon assurance of their forgivenesse but that they might receive forgivenesse it self And to this end also the Apostle Paul saith of the Ephesians That they walked according to the Prince of the power of the aire the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience intimating they were no lesse ruled and acted by Satan then other worldly men in whom he now effectually worketh Tenthly If we were justified from the time of Christs death then the Elect Jewes are already justified whom God will call in this latter age of the world But the Elect Jewes are not yet justified Therefore Justification is not from the time of Christs death The consequence of the Major will not be denied The assumption I prove 1. Such as are notingraffed as members into Christs body are not justified The Elect Jews yet uncaled are not yet ingraffed into Christs body The major is expresly confirmed because Christ is the Saviour of his body Eph. 5.23 that is only of his body that the Elect Jews are not members of his body Eph. 1.23 I prove because they are not members of his Church which is the body of Christ 2. They that are not called are not justified But the Elect Jewes are not called The Major is proved from Rom. 8.30 Whom he praedestinated Rom. 8.30 them he called and whom he called them he justified and none else and why Mr. Eyre should deny that the Apostle doth here set down the order of the causes of salvation contrary to all reason and authority I cannot imagine but that he is not able to answer the Argument and the contrary may be proved out of the Text for if in every thing else that relates to the salvation of man in this place the Apostle hath observed the due order why should we think he hath not assigned the right order of Vocation and Justification For here the Apostle setteth down the golden chain of salvation For the first cause is Gods foreknowledge not a simple prescience or foresight a foresight of approbation nor a foresight of mens faith or works but * Pet. Martyr-Bullinger Pareus Erasmus whom he thus foreknew or acknowledged loved and approved without all cause in them moving therunto whom he thus foreknew with the knowledg of approbation so as to choose unto himself by that foreknowledge so the Learned render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly whom God thus forknew he pedestinated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he predestinated that is certainly appointed and ordained unto the end by certain means he did infallibly ordain them unto glory as the end and appoint the means conducing to that end namely Christ and Faâ—th and whatsoever is needful to salvation Now when the Apostle speaketh thus who can judge but he meanes a special order in this place Thirdly in the next place he setteth down the means and that is effectual Vocation Whom he predestinated them he also called that is called them unto faith Fourthly Whom he called them he justified that is pardoned for Christs sake apprehended by Faith And lastly Whom he justified them he glorified under which is comprehended Sanctification which will end in glory which is the last link in this golden chaine and it 's against all reason to think the Apostle