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
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
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
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
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
and redundancy of merit yet was it not altogether the same in the Obligation For first the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person or substitution of one for another and therefore God by an act of Sovereignty did dispense though not with the substance of the Laws demands for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfaction and considering his decree he could not do it but with the manner of execution which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation so then God relaxed his Law to put in the name of a surety therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the payment of the same debt for Dum alius solvit necessariò aliud solvitur and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment that another persons sufferings may be valid to procure a discharge to the guilty person and that the satisfaction was made by another and not by the party to whom remission is granted no Protestant will deny 2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all accidents 1. In respect of place he did not locally discend into the place of the damned Nor 2. In respect of time and duration his sufferings had an end though they were infinite intensivè yet not extensivè in respect of duration nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image nor was he deprived of any measure of grace nor was he really but as to present sense and feeling forsaken nor did he lose his right to the creatures nor did his body see corruption all which are effects of mans sin and penal effects of it as I apprehend Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse were of the same kinde and by the dignity of his person raised to a more then equipollency with ours so as to merit for us eternal life Quid enim Majestas tanta par ipsi Patri poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Regin Cyrillus Alexandrinus and it conduced to a compensation in those sufferings which were unworthy the dignity of his person 3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment yet not altogether with the same obligation for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary not arising from the guilt of inherent sin but by way of vadimony and sucâ—ption our guilt or obligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputation of sin ours from a desert of sin called reatus culpae which guilt is inseparable from sinne which draweth reatus poetus along with it Christ was reatus poenae not culpae 4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation not only for our breach of the Law but for our non-suffering and therefore is not altogether the same The second thing to be cleared is this that it being not the same therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong for it is mercy in God to accept it the Law requires his personal sufferings and there is no promise made to any that they shall have benefit by Christs death but only to Believers And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason for such a payment is refusable which is not altogether the same and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infliction of the punishment belongeth it cannot procure a discharge to the guilty person for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering and the Law threatneth the offender and the surety is not the offender and none but he that had power to make the Law can dispense with any thing in the Law therefore that the Law may be dispensed with in respect of the manner of execution by transferring the punishment upon another and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender as if he had in person suffered this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver receding from his own right and therefore might constitute and ordain how and in what manner it shall be accepted and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us to free us from our personal sufferings and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing 3dly That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction and of God in admitting of this satisfaction that it should not procure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion but when man is turned unto God by faith seeking and humbly intreating for pardon Now to manifest this we must premise 1. That it was an act of special grace not only to us but to Christ himself that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us by vertue of whose mediation and sufferings we should be forgiven and made heirs of eternall life Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity in respect of his Godhead is equall with the Father and so not subject to any preordination or predestination as an act of grace but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Mediatorship is a servant of God and so subject to Predestination and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office is as much seen as in our Election unto life for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ Heb. 5 5. when he was put into the Priestly Office to make atonement for us 2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction it was an act of free grace to us and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God Isa 42.1 John 10.18 and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work at his commandment he laid down his life and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular persons and denied to others therefore Christ saith Power is given him over all flesh John 17.2 to give eternal life but it is with restriction only to as many as the Father had given him Now the sufferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limited by the will of God to the Elect only and Christ submitteth to it why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith in that order that he hath appointed 3. It is an act of grace
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
yet if it be acknowledged a transient act Mr. Eyre p. 65. would it make a change in him it would adde a relative respect and an extrinsecall denomination and so in making it an immanent act there must be a new relation of the person justified to God but he addeth it maketh a great change if you take it for the delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law Surely he that is not is not capable of an actual change which you must hold or your justification is not compleat because the deliverance is not a present deliverance Secondiy Let us come to his passive Justification If Justification saith he be taken as most commonly it is for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation but an actual and immediate reconciliation Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance but not in respect of any act of Gods deliverance as if we could be justâ—fied and none to justifie for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish and that justly and yet he will not acknowledge another act as we do a transient act of God whereof Christs death is the cause and yet some act he must finde out or we cannot be justified Now his opinion from hence is this That Christ at his death standing as a common person and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice by which they satisfied in him and in his Resurrection receiving a publick discharge for himself and them and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God even while they remaine unregenerate persons Wherein in two things he differs from us and departs from the truth 1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith 2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled both these I have already disproved in the Vindication of my Sermon but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter Thirdly When it 's said we are justified by faith he taketh it altogether objectively He saith Faith is taken objectively for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God if taken for the act it only evidenceth justification page 76. as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from any hand in Justification which if it were the Apostles meaning he might have put in the Name Christ and left out Faith and his meaning had been more plaine which in this weighty controversie of Justification though the Trope be more elegant had been more needful And in many places where he speaketh of Justification he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith and yet addeth faith as that grace by which this object is apprehended Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15 16. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the wo ks of the Law Here the Apostles Scope is to shew that the believing Jewes into which number he puts himself and Peter and Barnabas seeing that they could not be justified by the Law did for this end that they might be justified believe on Christ that they might be justified by the faith of Christ where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith and the matter of their Justification and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ and not for the Grace of Faith as if the meaning should be that they were justified by the Christ of Christ where he must exclude Christ or Faith for one is redundant nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification for then there is no reason nor truâ—h in it for to say that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification these being as able to declare it as faith as it is said Little children let no man deceive y u he that doth righteousnesse 1 John 3.7 is righteous that is is declared thereby to be righteous Besides to make Paul to say that they believed that they might be justified that is that they may know by believing that they had been justified before had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe as if the doing a thing for a certaine end were a certain means to assure that the end hath been obtained already Besides it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument in reproving Peter for his dissimulation building up that in his Practice which in his Doctrine he did destroy the Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvation and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gentiles and eating things forbidden by the Law but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Law and therefore did renounce hopes of salvation by that and believe in Christ for Justification and this he taught And when he came to Antioch before certain Jewes came down from James he used his Christian liberty and did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come down he withdrew himself he separates from the Gentiles by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation Now Paul blames his practice that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Christ he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation but how salvation is obtained So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified in Rom 3.11 saith Rom. 3.11 it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even a righteousnesse that is of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ where by Faith is necessâ—rily understood the grace of Faith and not Christ who is expressely set down in the next words where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified and he saith not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ if Christ without Faith justifie why doth the Apostle mention Faith for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification but by what we are justified I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre he saith Mr. Eyre p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is
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
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
justified without the intervention of faith nay the Scriptures expressely threatning unbelievers with damnation and limiting salvation to Believers do evidently declare the contrary Neither let any reject this argument drawn from the Scripture negatively for although this argument be infirme in matters of lesse consequence yet in fundamentals it is of great force such as this is by what means this righteousnesse of Christ shall be applied to justification therefore in such truths as concerne our salvation this is of maine importance it is not written therefore it is not to be believed Indeed if Christ had merited this absolutely that we should be justified whether we believe or not believe the matter had been otherwise And when we make faith the condition necessary to justification we do not with Arminians make it a potestative uncertain condition depending upon the liberty of mans free will but though it be contingent in respect of us yet it comes to passe necessarily in respect of God who hath ordained unto faith such as he hath chosen in Christ unto salvation And it is an effâ—ct of the death of Christ which shall be given in Gods appointed time to such for whom Christ died Nor do we make faith a condition of Christs acquiring pardon nor an instrument to make his merits satisfactory nor an organical instrument of Gods acception of it Christs merits have their worth whether we believe or not and Gods will cannot be moved by any externall cause but it is a prerequisite condition by Gods appointment which is to be fulfilled by us through his grace working it whereby Christs righteousnesse shall be applied to us for justification And as for those Scriptures that speak of Gods being reconciled by the death of Christ they are to be restrained to actual Believers to whom Paul wrote his Epistles or if they be indefinitely understood of all the Elect they hold forrh no more then that Christ hath by a sufficient price paid removed the cause of enmity meritoriously but not by any formal application of it unto any until faith And whereas they speak of Gods reconciling us while enemies from whence our Adversaries inferre that we are reconciled while enemies antecedently to faith this only shewes what we were when Christ died for us enemies to God as well as others but that we are while we remain so reconciled is atheologon and not worthy of him that savours of the Spirit of grace nor can any sober man that keeps his wits company imagine any such thing in God who is of purer eyes then to behold iniquity 5. Besides in the fifth place it is considerable among what sort of causes the death of Christ is to be ranked it is a meritorious cause which is to be numbred amongst moral causes Christ in his death is not to be looked upon as a natural agent that the effect of his sufferings should work immediately but as a voluntary agent and hence the effect doth not necessarily follow but at the will of the agent moved thereby yea the effect of a moral cause or voluntary agent may sometimes precede the cause as in this of the death of Christ by which all that believed in Christ to come were justified as well as we though Christ had not as yet made an actuall satisfaction by his death for in this case the effect is wholly at the will of the Agent moved thereby who together with Christ hath suspended the effect untill faith I adde in the 6th place Bonum est ex integris causis and therefore where many causes concurre to the producing of one effect the effect is not accomplished till every cause hath contributed his proper influence Now there are three causes of mans justification which may therefore be called sociall causes but not co-ordinate but the two last subordinate to the first The first is the efficient cause that is God of his free mercy The second is the meritorious cause the death and obedience of Christ The third is the instumentall cause and that is saith Now as the efficient justifies not without the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious without the instrumental and much lesse the instrumental without the other but all three conjoyned constitute a person actually justified in the sight of God And whereas they argue that those Scriptures that speak of justification by faith are to be understood in foro conscientiae that they do but justifie us declaratively and serve to evidence justification but not to conferre justification upon us neither are we justified by faith say they in the sight of God I will therefore propound three arguments against this which is a chief corner-stone in the Antinomians building 1. That that doth change and alter the state of a sinner and put him into a new condition in refrence to God that doth more then evidentially justifie But faith doth thus alter the state of a sinner and the Major is above contradiction the Minor is no lesse true which I prove thus If before faith a mna is in the state of damnation and upon believing he be put into a state of salvation and that before God then faith doth really alter and change a mans estate before God But before faith a man is under condemnation and upon faith delivered from it Ergo. Mr. Eyre his answer to this was that the Law did condemne him but God dâ—d not To which I replyed If the Law be the Law of God and receive all its power and authority from God then when the Law condemneth then God condemneth But the Law is the Law of God and hath all its force and efficacy from the will of God Now look what answer he hath given to Mr. Woodbridge which you may see Mr. Eyre p. 112. Num 6. Vindiciae Justifica p. 112. Sect. 6. the same he gave to me which I shall answer in its proper place 2. What the Aposle denies to Works he attributes to faith therefore faith hath an influence into justification which works have not From whence I argue If faith do only declaratively justifie the sinner then faith doth no more towards the justification of a sinner then works because works may evidence my justification as well as faith but according to the Apostle faith contributes more to justification then works Ergo. The proof of the consequence that works may evidence justification will appear from p Rom. 8.1 Rom. 8.1 There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit By this we q 1 John 3.14 know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren 3. Besides the controversie between the Apostle and the Justiciaries of his time was not whether faith or works do evidence our justication but by what we are justified in the sight of God From whence I argue That that makes the Apostle to assert an untruth that interpretation cannot be true But if the meaning of the