agnoscat Caeterùm quando praecipuus satisfactionis finis hic est ut debitor agnitâ sponsoris munificentiâ in illius amorem rapiatur aio debitum quidem solutum esse debitoris nomine sed solutionem tum demum ratam fore quum debitor beneficium agnoverit And accordingly we finde in Scripture how God hath limited the benefit of Christs death unto Believers John 3.16 God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish And in Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 John 6.40 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And This is the will of him that sent me that every one which seeth the Sonne and believeth on him may have everlasting life And Mark 16.16 Whosoever believeth not shall be damned nay is condemned already John 3.18 36. and the wrath of God abideth upon him Now that is a superficiall and senselesse Cavil that Mr. Eyre maketh against this Pag. 135. that such places as these are do shew only who have th◠fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit they that believe but the true scope of these places is to shew not only who shall be saved and have the benefit of Christs death to whom this priviledge belongs but to shew when and how Christs death became effectual namely upon and by believing so that Christs death it self is not available unto salvation without faith to apply it And out of his own Concessions I argue against him If only Believers have the fruition and benefits of Christs death then while they remain unbelievers they have no fruition or enjoyment of them or else Believers are not the only subjects of these priviledges But they are communicable both to such as believe and such as believe not Mr. Eyre ch 9. pag. 90. which is contradictory to Mr Eyre's answer to the letter of the Scripture and against this glosse of Mr. Eyres I may retort his own argument against Mr. Woodbridge Chap. 9. That interpretation of Scripture which giveth no more to faith then to other works of sanctification is not true and the reason he addeth is because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our justification unto faith and in a way of opposition to other works of sanctification But Mr. Eyre's interpretation of those Scriptures that require faith as necessary to salvation that they do not declare the persons that shall be saved and have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ attributes no more to fairh then to other works of sanctification for works of sanctification declare this Thus the Apostle makes it an evidence of a person in Christ to whom there is no condemnation that He walkes not after the Flesh but after the Spirit and in the same Chap. If ye by the help of the Spirit shall mortifie the deeds of the body Rom. 8.1 13. 1 John 3.14 ye shall live By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren Mr. Eyre Vind. p. 135. And in the same place he objecteth that the Apostle doth not say Without faith Christ shall profit us nothing But I answer Though this is no where expressely spoken yet it is evidently implied and is the intendment of the Holy Ghost For when Christ saith That unlesse they believe that they shall die in their sins and he that believeth not shall be damned is not this equivalent to this Proposition That without faith Christ shall profit you nothing 2 Cor. 13.5 And doth he not bid the Corinthians Examine themselves whether they be in the faith Prove your own selves know ye not that Christ is in you except ye be reprobates where though I think the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doeth not signifie reprobates as opposed to the Elect yet at the least it implies as much as unjustified And whereas he saith that if we can shew this agreement between the Father and the Son that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do believe he will yield the cause let him but stand to his word and the Controversie will soon be at an end For the making good of this over and above what is written I premise 1. That I suppose Mr. Eyre denieth not that there was a Covenant passed between the Father and the Son about reconciling the Elect believers by the death of Christ for that is evident from many Scriptures Isa 42.6 Gal. 3.16 And by those places wherein the things promised to Christ our Head and Mediatour are expressely mentioned Heb. 1.5 6. Acts 10.38 Eph. 1.22 Isa 11.12 Isa 49.18 Isa 53.10 11. Acts 2.27 and all the types prefiguring Christs death declare it but the question is not whether there were an agreement between the Father and the Son but whether they agreed that none should have actual reconciliation till they believe 2. I suppose Mr. Eyre doth not mean that we should shew him where the Scripture doth syllabically repeat these words and I judge him so rational that what can be proved by undeniable consequence from the Scriptures he will acknowledge it as authentick as a literal expression 3. I take it as a truth that will not be denied by Mr. Eyre that the Father and the Son had both one and the same will and that they fully and mutually agreed between themselves concerning the time and manner of our reconciliation with God so that what the Father willed the Son willed and vice versâ And so I joyne with him and argue 1. If God the Father in his promise to Christ or his Covenant with him about his death and the effects of it did mention faith as the means by which the effects of his death should be applied then there was such an agreement that Christs death should not purchase actuall reconciliation without faith But the Father in his Covenant with Christ about the effects of his death made mention of faith for the application of it Ergo. The consequence of the major cannot runne the hazard of suspicion for what God would do upon Christs death he promised and more then he promised Christ could not nor did expect for in all this work of dying he was a servant of God subject to his good pleasure Now God promised to Christ what he did intend to do and Christ could expect no more And the assumption I prove from Isa 53.10 11. which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth a Covenant made with Christ pag. 138. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed he shall prolong his dayes and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many These words are delivered as in the Person of God the Father with whose words the Prophet began as we may see from Chap. 52. v. 3. Vide our English
description of our conference by introducing interlocutours as if I were ad incitas redactus and that they did interpose to helpe me for it seemeth to me to be his end in that relation hath made me willing to wipe off that obloquie by entring the lists once more with him whereas the true cause of that interruption was his popular appeales his usuall artifice to evade the force of an argument to enthrone himselfe as victor in the hearts of the in-judicious multitude In a word the ensuing reasons were no small motive to inforce me to this work The bridge of justification by which men must passe over from death to life is very narrow and one step awry may be the losse of many pretious soules and all gospel truth is a pretious depositum concredited to us ministers of the gospel and is a part of that * 2 Tim. 1.14 Jude 3. good thing committed to us and we are commanded earnestly to * contend for the faith once delivered to the Saints Aug ad Lauren cap. 64. and this doctrine of justification is articulus stantis vel cadentis Ecclesiae as Luther saith the Church standeth or falleth according as this truth is beleeved or violated and what Augustine saith of remission of sins that I may say of faith by which remission of sins is received per hanc stat Ecclesia quae in terris est per hanc non perit quod perierat et inventum est And therefore there is a necessity of keeping this doctrine pure and every minister is bound to preserve this truth and to keep the Philistins from throwing dirt into this well And if Shamma be recorded in Sacred writ for defending a field of lentills against the Philistins surely it cannot but be acceptable to God and man to defend that doctrine which is the summe of the gospel confirmed with the blood of Christ And if it were Pauls Eulogium to preach that faith which he did once destroy it cannot be Mr. Eyres encomium to destroy that faith he ought to preach And seeing God himself taketh care of the very haires of our head and numbers them all we have much more reason to make a precious esteeme of that truth which is worth all our heads and by which our very soules must be saved And no lesse care ought we to have of the honour of Christ and of his mysticall body For who is he that is a living member of Christ that is not sensible of the dishonour done to Christ our head and what dishonour is done to Christ by this doctrine by making an unbeleever a subject of justification and a member of Christs body let him that is least in the Church judge The Apostle could not without an absit thinke of it that a member of Christ should be joyned to a harlot shall I take the members of Christ and make them the member of a harlot God forbid and is it not an annoynted truth of the same authority 1 Cor. 6.15 that I must not take a harlot so remaining and make it the member of Christ If Mezentius was condemned for a wicked tyrant for tying a dead man to a living person can he be esteemed a good Christian and friend to Christ not to say a good minister that shall joyne an unbeleever dead in sins and trespasses as a member unto Christ the Lord give him the sight of this evill and God forbid I should cease to pray for him and I hereby beg a Collection of praiers for him from all that know him for I beleeve his owne principles will not suffer him to pray for the pardon of sin which in his opinion is pardoned long before it is committed And now that I might not trouble the Reader any further I will but mention a passage or two in his Epistle dedicatory and another in his booke and I will not hold him from the discourse it selfe Mr. Eyre hath in his second page of that Epistle perfumed his brethren opposite to his errours to render them acceptable to the magistrate It is remarkable saith he that they who ascribed unto magistrates a definitive and coercive power in spirituals have when magistrates would not serve their turns denied the power which they have in temporals refusing contrary to the rules of Christ to own them pray for them or to yeeld obedience to their lawfull commands as if none must hold the sword but such as will use it to fight their quarrel and to effect that by force of arms which they themselves cannot doe by strength of argument But is this an irrefragable argument to prove eternall justification or a lively demonstration of a man parboiled in his passion is this the effect of charity or the foame of a passionate man was he sick of a fever or troubled with the scurvy when this passage fell from him I am sure there is neither charity nor verity in it if it be examined by the law of God or the knowne lawes of the land if he be able let him produce any proofe of our disobedience to authority least the world say he hath linguam mentiri doctam But nothing is more usuall then for the nocent to accuse the innocent * 1 K. 18.17 4 Eph. 3. Ahab accused Elijah for troubling of Israel when himselfe was the person that troubled Israel * Athaliah crye's treason treason when her selfe was the traitor 2 K. 11.14 * 4 Act. 5. Tertullus accused Paul that he was a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition when himselfe was the ring-leader of a notorious faction And were I minded to recriminate and did seeke rather to d sparage his person then to weaken his case I might more justly retort the charge upon himself for his bold attempt in indeavouring to affright the chiefe magistrate of the city of N. Sarum from or for his proclaiming the Lord Protectour fearing it seems that I may use his own words that he would not serve his turne and therefore he would not have him hold the sword because he would not use it to fight his quarrel But in this suggillation of his to make his brethren odious and obnoxious to authority the reader may observe how closely be followeth Lysanders Counsel vbi leonina pellis non sufficit assumenda est vulpina that where the lions skin will not serve he will eeke it out with a fox skin he would stop our mouths or pull out our tongues because he cannot answer our arguments as Herod dealt with Iohn Baptist cutting off his head because he would not hold his peace but reprove him for Herodias so he would silence us by power who he cannot overcome by reason To whom I will say as Hieron in his Apol. 3. ad Ruff talibus institutus es disciplinis ut cui respondere non poteris caput auferas et linguam quae tacere non potest secas In his third page of the same epistle he would have the magistrate punish
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
Annotations and they clearly hold forth the effect and fruit of Christs passion where observe a plain promise to Christ or Covenant with him about dying and making his soul an offering for sin When thou shalt make his soul an offering or as the Hebrew if his soul or when his soul shall make it selfe an offering for the second Person Masculine and the third Foeminine are in letters and sound the same so I take it the speach of the Father introduced by the Prophet speaking unto Christ that when his soul shall make it self an offering for sin then he promiseth he shall see his seed that is his issue and posterity that should be borne to him as an effect of this which words do not import that all his issue and posterity should be an immediate effect of it but he should see it he should live and survive to see it after his resurrection he should die no more but live for ever and see the fruit of his death The will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand that is he shall daily see souls brought to salvation as a fruit of his death He shall see of the travel of his soul and be satisfied As a woman when her travel is past is filled with joy to behold the fruit of her wombe so Christ should be satisfied to see a numerous issue of faithful soules begotten to God by his death And what that satisfaction is in particular he tells him it shall be the justification of many for whom he died and then he tells him how they shall be justified He saith it shall be by * Notitiâ sui his knowledge or the knowledge of him not his own knowledge taken subjectively the knowledge that he hath of God Vide English Annot. or of them but his knowledge taken objectively that is the knowledge whereby they know him and this is not a bare knowledge of Christ whereby we are justified for the devils themselves both know and acknowledge him but by knowledge is meant faith the antecedent put for the consequent because the knowledge of him is the ground of trust I shall not need to prove that knowledge is put for faith * John 17.3 John 4.42 And the words that follow are a reason for he shall bear their iniquities though in the Hebrew the word is copulative yet it is often used as a cause And if this be granted it renders a reason why he should justifie them because he did bear their sins where the persons are described whom he should justifie not all promiscuously but Believers whose sins he undertook to discharge for he did bear the sinnes of none but Believers Now let Mr. Eyre tell us why God speaking to Christ of our justification by him should say that Christ should justifie us by his knowledge or by faith in him 1. His death alone antecedently to faith did justifie those whose iniquities he did bear unlesse it were to declare his will that his death should be effectually applied only by faith and that none should have immediate benefit but expect it by faith 2. That that was Gods intention in giving Christ was the intention of Christ in dying But God in giving Christ intended not the benefits of Christs death unto any untill faith Therefore Christ died not to purchase immediate forgivenesse unto any untill faith and by consequence there was a mutual agreement The Major is beyond all contradict on because of the unity of heart and will between Christ and God therefore he intended not his death for any nor in any other way then God intended it The Minor is written as with a Sun-beam in Scripture John 3.14 15 16. John 3.14 15 16. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse Even so must the Son of man be lifted up That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternall life For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life In which words you have a threefold cause of mans salvation 1. The principal Gods love ver 16. 2. The meritorious Christ death 3. The instrumental our faith Secondly You have a comparison between Christ and his Type in two things 1. That as the Serpent must be lifted up for a meanes of healing or else it could not heal and none would look to it so there was a necessity of Christs being lifted up upon the Crosse God must deliver him up to death and he must be considered as dying or else there is no salvation by him 2. The end that such as did look to it might be healed of the stingings of the fiery Serpent so this was the end of Christ dying that whosoever believe should not perish Now as the Scripture sheweth those stingings were deadly and none were healed but such as looked to the brazen Serpent so are the stingings of sin deadly and none are healed by Christ but such as believe Now as Mr. Woodbridge observes they were not first healed and then did look up to see what healed them but they did first look and then were healed so we have nor first everlasting life given us and then we believe but first we believe and then we have everlasting life Now to this Mr. Eyre answers nothing but denies it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew in what order we are justified in the sight of God but in so doing he doth not only senselessely beg the question but doth overthrow that wherein the truth and verity of the type consisted for as the brazen Serpent though endued with a healing vertue yet it healed none till he did look so though Christ as dying be sufficiently able to save yet saveth not any till he look to him by faith and in so doing doth destroy that that was the main end of God in giving Christ and of Christ in dying that upon believing we should be saved And therefore I come to the third thing considerable and that is Gods end in giving Christ and Christs end in dying both these are expressed in the same words the Son was lifted up that whosoever believeth c. and Gods end was that whosoever believeth c. where the verity of the major is confirmed that they had the same end Now the Minor is no lesse evident for if Gods end in giving Christ to die for us and Christs in dying were to limit the benefit only to Believers then it followes by undeniable consequence that untill faith none are actually justified by Christs death otherwise the benefit of Christs death is equally extended to Believers and unbelievers and if he saith faith is only a consequent condition and not antecedent then he must corrupt the Text and alter the sense of the Holy Ghost and say that God gave Christ to give eternall life and Christ was lifted up to purchase eternall life that they for whom he was so given and so died
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
be understood in respect of imputation to wit that God for the merit of Christs passion forgiveth our sins upon believing as if we had suffered and made satisfaction I willingly grant it but then we were not in him as one person making satisfaction for the person of him that suffered for us is distinguished from them for whom he suffered and by Mr. Eyre's opinion that we were really one in him and with him before our birth and faith can be understood no other way as I conceive 5. That to make us to be one with Christ antecedently to our birth when he suffered for us destroyes the ground of imputation of Christs righteousnesse for those which were truly in Christ in all his obedience and sufferings to them that obedience and sufferings cannot be made over by imputation for what need is there of imputation or what place is left for it when those to whom it should be imputed because of their union with Christ did themselves performe it wherefore either there was no such union or that imputation must be denied But the obedience and sufferings of Christ are evidently by Scripture declared to be ours by imputation Rom. 4.5 Hence our faith is said to be imputed to us for righteousnesse And Christ was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him we are made righteousnesse as he was made sin that was by imputation therefore we were made righteous by imputation 2 Cor. 5.21 hence that union Mr. Eyre contends for I cannot say mole ruit suâ but for want of weight falls to the ground The next thing that we have undertaken to prove is that there is not any mystical union between Christ and us intecedently to faith which I demonstrate from Scripture-grounds thus First if Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they may believe and that believing they may be united to him then before faith such for whom Christ died are not united to him But Christ prayeth for those for whom he died that they might believe and that believing they might be one with him The consequence of the Major is as evident as reason can make it unlesse we make Christ to pray in vaine to pray for that which was already done if therefore they were not one in Christ and the Father as the Father was in Christ and Christ in the Father before as this prayer intimates they were not then this union was not antecedent to faith The Minor are the words of Christ John 17.20 21. and need not a graine of allowance Christ in this place prayes for those for whom he was to die that after his death they might believe the instrumentall cause of that faith is set down to be the word of the Apostles the finall cause of that believing is that they might be one that is that they might be as members of the same body by faith nearly united to one another the manner how is declared by the near conjunction between the Father and Christ Secondly he prayes not only that they may be one or at unity among themselves Diodat in Lecum 171. John 21. but also that they may be one in us that is as Diodat upon the place in the communion of the Holy Ghost by which they may be mystically united to me and by me to thee and truly this latter union to Christ is the ground of the former of being united to one another now if they were mystically united before this would make Christ either ignorant of this union or his prayer to be in vain to pray for that that was done long before from eternity as Mr. Eyre saith but either of these were fearful impiety to imagine therefore this union is not till faith A second Argument I frame from the same place is this They that are not really united as members of the invisible Church to the rest of the members and mysticall body of Christ are not united to Christ But before faith no man is a true member of the invisible Church and so united to the rest of the members of the mystical body Therefore not to Christ The Major will not be denied by any but such as are baptized into a spirit of errour the Reason is plaine because the union between the members is a fruit of our union to the same Head but no man is united to the company of Believers to have a true fellowship and union with them but a true Believer For what communion hath a Believer with an Infide and Christ prayes that they might believe that they might be one that is that they might be mutually united as by one faith as members one of another and the same body So Piscator upon the place Pisca in â—oc 17. Job 21. in Anal. Vt per unam fidem inter se devincti tanquam membra unius corporis cujus caput est Christus mutuo amore sese complectantur That being knit together by one faith as members of one body whereof Christ is Head they may with a mutuall love embrace each other now a true communion of love cannot be between true Believers and those that are yet unbelievers therefore neither between them and Christ And hence I argue 3. Christ and Belial are not united Every unbeliever is a son of Belial Therefore they are not united 2 Cor. 6.15 The word Belial is as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an uncalled man nequà m a very wicked man a man that will profit none but is hurtful to all in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Hebricians agree not from whence it is derived but the signification given is either a man that will profit none or good for nothing or one that will be subject to no yoke I deny not but Interpreters do think many of them that Satan is in this place understood and Beza saith it very well agrees to him though he take it for a wicked man and Bullinger and Calvin take it for the Devil the head of all wicked men but I see not why it may not be taken here for a wicked man and not for Satan for it 's ordinary in Scripture by this word to understand very wicked men so in Deuteronomy it 's taken for an Idolater Deut. 13.13 and of such is the Apostles discoursing here that Believers should have no communion with Idolaters and so Elies sons being very wicked 1 Sam. 2.12 are called sons of Belial And it 's very agreeable to the scope for in the verse before he exhorteth them not to be unequally yoaked together with unbelievers he blames them for having too much familiarity with Heathens whether in marriages or in their feasts eating things sacrificed to Idols he would not have them draw in the same yoke by which Metaphor he would disswade them from keeping company with them and so partaking with them in their sins His Argument is drawn à contrario Your condition and profession is as
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
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
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
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
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