and redundancy of merit yet was it not altogether the same in the Obligation For first the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person or substitution of one for another and therefore God by an act of Sovereignty did dispense though not with the substance of the Laws demands for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfaction and considering his decree he could not do it but with the manner of execution which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation so then God relaxed his Law to put in the name of a surety therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the payment of the same debt for Dum alius solvit necessariò aliud solvitur and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment that another persons sufferings may be valid to procure a discharge to the guilty person and that the satisfaction was made by another and not by the party to whom remission is granted no Protestant will deny 2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all accidents 1. In respect of place he did not locally discend into the place of the damned Nor 2. In respect of time and duration his sufferings had an end though they were infinite intensivè yet not extensivè in respect of duration nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image nor was he deprived of any measure of grace nor was he really but as to present sense and feeling forsaken nor did he lose his right to the creatures nor did his body see corruption all which are effects of mans sin and penal effects of it as I apprehend Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse were of the same kinde and by the dignity of his person raised to a more then equipollency with ours so as to merit for us eternal life Quid enim Majestas tanta par ipsi Patri poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Regin Cyrillus Alexandrinus and it conduced to a compensation in those sufferings which were unworthy the dignity of his person 3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment yet not altogether with the same obligation for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary not arising from the guilt of inherent sin but by way of vadimony and sucâ—ption our guilt or obligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputation of sin ours from a desert of sin called reatus culpae which guilt is inseparable from sinne which draweth reatus poetus along with it Christ was reatus poenae not culpae 4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation not only for our breach of the Law but for our non-suffering and therefore is not altogether the same The second thing to be cleared is this that it being not the same therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong for it is mercy in God to accept it the Law requires his personal sufferings and there is no promise made to any that they shall have benefit by Christs death but only to Believers And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason for such a payment is refusable which is not altogether the same and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infliction of the punishment belongeth it cannot procure a discharge to the guilty person for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering and the Law threatneth the offender and the surety is not the offender and none but he that had power to make the Law can dispense with any thing in the Law therefore that the Law may be dispensed with in respect of the manner of execution by transferring the punishment upon another and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender as if he had in person suffered this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver receding from his own right and therefore might constitute and ordain how and in what manner it shall be accepted and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us to free us from our personal sufferings and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing 3dly That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction and of God in admitting of this satisfaction that it should not procure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion but when man is turned unto God by faith seeking and humbly intreating for pardon Now to manifest this we must premise 1. That it was an act of special grace not only to us but to Christ himself that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us by vertue of whose mediation and sufferings we should be forgiven and made heirs of eternall life Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity in respect of his Godhead is equall with the Father and so not subject to any preordination or predestination as an act of grace but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Mediatorship is a servant of God and so subject to Predestination and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office is as much seen as in our Election unto life for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ Heb. 5 5. when he was put into the Priestly Office to make atonement for us 2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction it was an act of free grace to us and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God Isa 42.1 John 10.18 and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work at his commandment he laid down his life and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular persons and denied to others therefore Christ saith Power is given him over all flesh John 17.2 to give eternal life but it is with restriction only to as many as the Father had given him Now the sufferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limited by the will of God to the Elect only and Christ submitteth to it why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith in that order that he hath appointed 3. It is an act of grace
intercession which is the best Index and Interpreter of his minde and intention in his death limits and restraines the benefits of his intercession to Beleevers then it was his minde and intention in his death to limit the benefits thereof unto Believers because Christs intention of the benefits of his death and the fruit of his intercession are of equall latitude and by consequence what was his minde was the Fathers minde for Christ and his Father are one and have the same will but Christ limits the benefits of his intercession unto Beleevers as we may see in John 17.20 Christ prayes for them that shall believe in him John 17.20 Heb. 7.25 nor do these places only declare who shall have the benefit of Christs intercession but how and when it shall be obtained by faith by coming unto Christ for if they did obtain it before faith immediately from his death what need were there of Christs intercession for that which they did already enjoy From whence I argue 8. That that destroyes the end and use of Christs intercession cannot be agreeable to Scripture But to make Christs death to justifie us actually and immediately this destroyes the end of his intercession for Christ is now in heaven an Advocate for sin that it might be pardoned to them that believe so that Christ in his death took it away meritoriously and now he is in heaven to intercede for all that by faith seek for the benefits of his death that it may be formally applied Yea the children of God though they fall not from the state of justification by new sins they lose not their right to heaven yet they lose their aptitude for heaven and by every new sin they contract a new guilt and without a new remission of the sins committed they cannot be saved and hence Christ is a daily Advocate to intercede for us as St. John saith My little children 1 John 2.1 if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous I might adde to these many mâ—re but these are sufficient to demonstrate this truth and will prove a burdensome stone to Mr. Eyre if he endeavour to contradâ—ct them And as for those Arguments which he Chap. 14. useth to prove the actuall and immediate reconciliation of the Elect before faith they have all the same unhappinesse to fall like arrowes farre short of the mark intended and have most of them the same common fate to be guilty of a miserable non sequitur as shall in my reply to them in its proper place appear Now the next thing to be superadded for a full vindication of this truth is that this suspending the benefits of Christs death until faith is no way derogatory to the atonement made by Christs death which may as easily be proved as that Pilate was guilty of Christs blood And I prove it thus 1. If there were such an agreement as the arguments above declare then what wrong is it to the atonement made by Christs death that the effect of it should not be enjoyed untill faith when as it was the mutuall agreement between the Father and the Son to have it so it was his will to have it so and volenti non fit injuria there is no injury to him that is willing 2. If the death of Christ were in value a sufficient ransome for the whole world the very Reprobates not excepted and yet without injury and wrong to Christs satisfaction it is by the will of God ordaining and so accepting it to be only effectual for the Elect which comparatively in respect of the Reprohates is a small number why shall it be judged a wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit of it for whom it is intended should be for a time suspended for gracious and good ends at the will of the Father to make them see what they are and deserve and what need they have of Christ and to raise up their desires after him and to increase their love unto God for Christ and also for the honour of the Lord and his Christ that though he justifie the ungodly yet that he doth not justifie them so remaining that his enmity and hatred against sin may the more appear and that wicked men might not think God a justifier of the wicked in their abominations which is contrary to the purity of his nature and justice to do why should this be thought more injurious to Christs satisfaction then a peremptory excluding of all the race of the Reprobates from salvation by his death But 3. If notwithstanding the suspending the benefits of Christs death untill faith the death of Christ be no lesse satisfactory to divine justice and the intrinsecal worth and value of his merits no whit lessened and the efficacy and certainty of the effects of Christs death be no lesse established by our Doctrine then if the effect did immediately follow then this is no impairing of the atonement made by his death but the premises are true which I evidence thus 1. We willingly grant that the death of Christ was a full and compleat satisfaction to divine justice and a valuable compensation for the sins of those that shall be saved and God did not accept lesse at the hands of Christ then was due to our sins but he made satisfaction ad ultimum quadrantem to the last farthing the justice of God can require no more either at his hands or at the hands of those for whom he suffered by way of satisfaction and hence in his resurrection he gave him a publick acquittance and sent his Angel to roll away the stone from the Sepulchre as a publick Officer to testifie his acquitting him from the debt of our sins and so he sets him at liberty and brings him out of prison 2. The intrinsecall value and worth of Christs merits is no way diminished Christ did not compound with the Father as broken debtors with the creditour making him to take lesse then was due nay as we have shewed in some respect if you consider the dignity of the person there was more laid down then the Law required though in regard of the substance of the punishment it was that which the Law required and the justice of God and the love of the Father could require no more the prorogation or deferring the actuall enjoyment of the thing purchased by that satisfaction ariseth not from any impotency or defect in Christs sufferings but from the liberty of Gods will who in mercy accepts of that which a surety hath done for us which in it self was refusable till by an act of grace it was admitted as available for us but in that time onely that the Father should appoint whose will Christ as a Mediatour and Servant was obliged to obey 3. The death of Christ is no lesse efficacious and certain in the effects of it then if an immediate participation of it were granted the efficaciousnesse of Christs death is not to be
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
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
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
of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them dâ—ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quà m ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the
Father to lay it down accompanied with sufficient power to break through the sufferings he undertook and to raise up himself again all this constituted Christ God-man being perfectly righteous a fit person to become a surety and now it was just and righteous that Christ an innocent person should be charged with the sins of the Elect. Secondly I grant that no creature that was only a creature whether Angel or man could or ought to undertake this work 1. No Angel ought because Gods justice required that satisfaction should be given by the same nature that had sinne Bernard de pass Dom. 1. Cap. 46. nor was it meet he should be man only that our redemption and salvation might be attributed to none but him from whom we had our creation for that reason which Bernard alledgeth because our redemption would more oblidge us to love then our creation if therefore we had been redeemed by any other then him by whom we were made we should have loved him more then our Creatour Neither could any pure creature be fitly qualified for this work for whatever the creature can do is already debitum a due debt and therefore it cannot supper-erogate or merit any thing for us Thirdly I grant therefore that Christ was God and Man and that it was needful he should be both 1. He must be God that must satisfie God for God was offended and therefore to make satisfaction God in our nature satisfieth for our sin So that here is God satisfying God that if the sin be infinite in the object the satisfaction is infinite in respect of the subject suffering God in our nature and although his sufferings were not infinite in duration nor was there need they should be because he satisfied for such sins as should be broken off by repentance And his end was in suffering to satisfie therefore his sufferings must have an end yet his sufferings were unmeasurably great and what was wanting in the shortnesse was made up in the sharpnesse of the sufferings and it was impossible Christ should be held under the sorrows of death the duration of the prisoner in the Jayle is no part of the debt but accidentall to it he lies there but till the debt be paid Now Christ paid all so as fully to satisfie the justice of God and hence there was no need of his eternal suffering Besides it was needful he should be God that his obedience might be perfect and meritorious to dignifie his obedience and make it of infinite value that he might merit and support himself under his suffering and raise up himself again and performe the rest of the works of the Mediatourship And it was needful he should be Man for as he was God he could not suffer and that he might as justice requireth satisfie in our nature that our pardon might not be an act of dominion only and forgivenesse but an act of justice and satisfaction Fourthly I willingly grant that Christ did suffer whatsoever appertaines to the substance and essentials of the first death or the death naturall consisting in the separation of soul and body and though the curse doth not require any one particular death yet that the Lord might shew the hainousnesse of sin which deserves the worst death of all and that the love of Christ might be manifested and Gods justice declared God the Father appointed it and Christ undertook it to die the death of the Crosse a shameful and base death appropriated to the worst of malefactors Phil. 2.6 8. to shew the hatefulnesse of sin and the greatnesse of Christs humiliation and love in submitting to it he humbled himself to the death of the Crosse 2. I willingly grant Christs suffered and endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul not by sympathy with the body only but peculiar to his soul all that was due to the sins of the Elect that was consistent with his Godhead and Holiness Catechismus Romanus 4. Art Symb. Aquinas Part. 3 q. 46. art 5 6. the Papists deny not that he suffered inward grief in his soul and Aquinas that he suffered the greatest sorrow that could be but I affirme for quantity Christ might and did in this life endure the paines of hell he did not locally descend into the place of the damned he did indure the same that was due to us for substance and kinde though not in all accidents that belong to it he suffered and felt that heavy wrath of God due to mans sin his soul was so struck with horrour that all faculties for a time left there proper fruction and did concurre to relieve nature in that extremity he lay under the revenging stroakes of Gods justice due to mans sin it put him into a bloody sweat in the forethought of it and made him cry earnestly If it be possible let this cup passe My God my God why hast thou forsaken me God for a time withdrew the solace and comfort he was wont to finde in him that sensible refreshing of the light of Gods countenance which was wont to fill him with satisfactory sweetnesse was for a time withdrawn which is a part of the second death and answers to the pain of losse yet in all his time the union of the Manhood with the Godhead was untouched though there was a withdrawing of the sense and sweetnesse of the favour of God his righteousnesse and graces were no way diminished he was most pure in his passion free from all sin Christ brought none of this upon himself by his own sin but was called to this work and in all this conflâ—ct his faith was unshaken crying out My God even when to his present sense and feeling he was forsaken Fifthly I willingly grant that Christs death and sufferings was a very valuable compensation for the sin of man yea he satisfied Gods justice to the full not by divine acceptation God abated him nothing for the dignity of his person but he fully satisfied for the substance what the justice of God could fully inflict yea in respect of some circumstances he suffered more then was due indeed in respect of the substance of his sufferings neither as * Parker lib. 3. de discon li. 51. p. 97. Mr. Parker hath observed the love of the Father nor the justice of God could permit more to be imposed then what was necessary for him to bear as a surety Quoad substantiam poenae nihil plus perpessus est Christus quà m quod per legem debebatur neque enim vel amor Patris vel etiam justitia permittere potuit plura Filio ut imponerentur quà m quae illi necessariò tanquam sponsori ferenda erant Quoad circumstantias autem patientis personam patiendi causam pâ—ssionis efficaciam plus quà m sufficiens satisfactio Christi à nobis dicitur In respect of circumstances as the person of the sufferer the cause of suffering and efficacy of the passion it was more then the Law
contrary Malem Corberum metueret quà m haec inconsideratè diceret 3. Doth not the Apostle judge of Apelles as a real Christian a little after when he saith he was approved in Christ and of Rusus that he was chosen in the Lord in the 12th vers and was he guided by Revelation there and not here did not he elsewhere say of the Thessalonians that he knew their Election 1 Thes 1.4 speaking of them as of the better part because it is more then probable where God will have his Word preached there he hath some people and St. John writing to a religious Lady stiles her Elect because he had seen her and her children walk in the truth and if these persons were not known to be such by Revelation yet had they strong ground for a judgement of charity and why we should not look upon the union spoken of as reall or spiritual between them and Christ I am yet to seek for a Reason But further he saith this is meant of a being in Christ by external profession and Church-communion but can he or any other say it is meant of no more 2. From hence I gather faith gives a real implantation for if an hypocritical faith will give a man an external denomination of being in Christ it is in the resemblance it hath to true faith and true faith must do more or else an hypocrites faith were as good as the faith of an Elect person Yea 3. Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth that one is in Christ before another as he is called and converted really or in appearance if really converted then really in Christ then let us take it for granted that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ really before Paul then Paul was not in Christ for if he were really in Christ this cannot be true that they were really in Christ before him for he was in Christ and that really according to Master Eyre from eternity But I desire Mr. Eyre to let us see the Scriptures and hear his grounds for a twofold union to Christ and both real unions one from eternity the other at conversion or faith and if he prove it Erit mihi magnus Apollo In the last place I shall now take notice of what he saith to that Logical Axiome Non entis nulla sunt accidentia in his Book pag. 7. where I desire the Reader to observe his mistake for I applied it to union with Christ he to the imputed righteousnesse of Christ I said that union with Christ is a thing accidentall to man and that being an accident requires that the subject united of whom this is denominated that he is united to Christ must be existent because an accident cannot subsist without its subject whether it be an accident by inhesion or adhesion both subsist dependently and without the subject they subsist not concerning union he objecteth nothing from this Axiome therefore I will hear what he saith concerning imputed righteousnesse Object He saith It doth not follow that Christs righteousnesse cannot be imputed to us before we have an actual created being because accidents cannot subsist without their subjects For as much as imputed righteousnesse is not an accident inherent in us and consequently doth not require our existence Christ is the subject of this righteousnesse and the imputation of it is an act of God Answ What if imputed righteousnesse be not an accident inherent but an act of God yet in relation to us it is an accident by extrinsecall denomination and when it is imputed to us it is terminated upon us and we are denominated and constituted righteous by it and therefore it requires as much our existence as if it were an inherent accident for can he be made righteous and truly denominated so that is not a man nor any thing in rerum naturâ can any thing be predicated truly of that which is not can Paul be said to be learned before he had a being Surely this Axiome Non entis nullae sunt affectiones will be an unshaken truth when you and I shall cease to speak for it or against it I have spoken to the Logick of it and Mr. Baxter to the Divinity of it and who ever read it will finde it to be as he hath justly stiled it a very odde passage only this I shall adde We are speaking of imputed righteousnesse and he saith Christ is the subject of it if he mean of the righteousnesse imputed he saith true but if of the righteousnesse as imputed it is a very odde passage indeed for what need that to be imputed to Christ which is subjectively inherent in him already but take this righteousnesse as imputed and so we are the subjects recipient of it or the objects upon whom it is terminated and therefore it necessarily requires our existence Now to justifie the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to us before we have a being he urgeth that of the Apostle Rom. 4.17 that God calleth things that are not as though they were to this I shall give that answer which Davenant de morte Christi Davenant de morte Christi pag. 61. pag. 61. puts into my mouth Quanquam Deo quidem tanquam jam facta sint quae ille ut fiaent ab omni aeternitate disposuit nobis tamen non aliter accipienda sunt nisi secundùm modum illum dispensationis quo ab aeterno decreta in tempore complenda nobis in actum perducenda sunt Although truly to God those things are as if they were now done because nothing is past present and to come with him which he hath decreed that they should be and ordained them from all eternity yet to us they are not otherwise to be taken then according to that manner of dispensation wherein they were decreed and in time to be fulfilled to us and to be brought into act Mr Eyre objecteth further that the righteousnesse of Christ was actually imputed to the Patriarchs before it was wrought and our sins were actually imputed to Christ before they were committed so I see no inconvenience to say that Christs righteousnesse is by God imputed to the Elect before they have a being To which I answer there is not the like reason for both the righteousnesse of Christ and the sins of the Elect are both moral causes of their effects which work according to the will and pleasure of him that is moved thereby hence God the Father is moved to give pardon to such as believe as an effect of Christs death and it is at the will of God when to give it therefore the effect sometimes goes before the cause as if a man promise to give a man five shillings for going so farre upon his errand the man may give it before he hath taken a step though he give it only for that reason here the effect goeth before the cause and thus he gave pardon to such as did believe in Christ before his death Sometimes it followes after it and not immediately
to their consciences but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne And what diminution is it of the grace of Christ if they were justified from the time of Christs death to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ forasmuch as they were not virtually only but actually and formally as you affirme p. 63. justified at his death Nor will it help you to say you speak there of the non-elect for we are bound to presse all men to believe as you there acknowledge and it is not known who are Elect neither to the Minister nor to the people therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency you extenuate the merit of Christs death if they were actually justified as you affirme And there is the same ground of Faith to all the ability of Christ to save and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached Fourteenthly He affirmeth Faith if it evidences our Justification is a signe is a dark and unsatisfying evidence as other works of Sanctification are 1 John 3.14 where he contradicteth the Apostle who saith By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren not we hope not we conjecture but we know it is a sure and stedfast signe Little children let no man deceive you 1 John 3.7 saith John he that doth righteousnesse is righteous is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person Rom. 8.1 and in Rom. 8.1 he saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus and he givesh this as a signe Rom. 8.13 Who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit doth the Holy Ghost by Paul give us a dark unsatisfying evidence of our being in Christ What is more frequent then this he that is in Christ is a new Creature they that mortifie the deeds of the body shall live Gal 5.24 They that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ and shall be saved but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark and unsatisfying evidences of Justification 2. He saith that nothing that followes Faith is so apt to evidence or prove Justification as Faith because it is the first of all inherent graces but I take this for an errour and that works are every way as declarative of Justification if not more is an apparent truth For first if we speak of evidencing Justification to others it is more for saith the Apostle Thou hast faith shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works James 2.18 And Abraham was in this sense justified by his works If any man shall say he is a justified person Vers 2â— 1 John 1.6 James 2.20 and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar and the truth is not in him and works of Sanctification are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience then Faith For how shall I know my saith is a true faith an unfeigned faith and peculiar to the Elect but by the effect of a true Faith the works of Sanctification therefore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith nor is his reason of any worth because it is the first of all inherent graces this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Justification is a lame consequence of which Master Eyre's Book is too full Fifteenthly He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification I take this also for a manifest errour if it be understood aright of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification Indeed if you take a condition in a strict sense for a condition performed by us without the help of grace meriting and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense it is true it is inconsistent with grace but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified salvation is no lesse of grace though it be by faith as the Apostle speaketh Ye are saved by grace through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith Eph. 2.8 and saith we are saved by it and yet he saith We are saved by grace because it is Gods gift Sixteenthly He saith pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us viz. by our own strength yet God hath his order method in the bestowing of them c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely and freely given and alike merited by Christ and yet God may for order and methods sake deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction why is it any wrong to Christs death if Justification merited by Christ be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice Seventeenthly In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error First â—ag 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend or any breach of that Law committed by man And secondly in * Sin is apparently the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice with his negative act of non-election or preterition which ought to be distinguished He saith Though men will not impute sin or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed for what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish before the Law was given To which I answer that Gods preterition or non-election though it be justly called a hatred negatively yet this was an act of Sovereignty and not of Justice nor is this hatred an imputing of their sin nor was their sin foreseen the cause *
many not that Faith is the cause of Gods acceptation of the merits of Christ but of applying it to us Secondly That which Mr. Eyre addeth that our Saviour after he had tasted death to bring many sons to glory boasts and glories in this atchievement Behold I and the children which thou hast given me Heb. 2.13 Therefore it was the will of God that his death should be immediately available for their reconciliation for they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I answer Mr. Eyre hath dealt fraudulently in citing this Scripture for he hath left out the 11th Vers which is the true Key to unlock this and to shew us who are there called his children for these that are called children are called brethren in the 11th Verse and the same persons are understood without all question and who were his brethren why they that were sanctified for both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one wherefore he is not ashamed to call them brethren Now a man is not sanctified before Faith therefore not a brother before Faith therefore not a childe 1. The scope of the place is this the Apostle is comforting the believing Hebrews against the scandall of the Crosse to which the Apostle answereth in v. 9. 1. That he was subjected unto death for our sakes not for his own therefore his Crosse should not offend us 2. That he did but taste of death he was but a little while under it 3. It is was by the special grace of God that his death for a short time should stand for our eternal death deserved Therefore we should rather gloriously esteem of his suffering then be offended 2. He giveth a second reason in the 10th Verse it made for Gods glory as well as for our salvation for it behoved him for whom are all things and by whom in bringing many sonnes to glory to make the Captaine of our salvation perfect through suffering In v. 11. he gives an account how Christ could die and how this could be accepted in our stead He answereth Because that he is one of our kin and nature Now least it should therefore be thought that all are redeemed because all partake in the community of nature with Christ as man He sheweth who indeed are his kindred brethren for whom he died they are sanctified ones They that are sanctified and he that sanctifieth are all of one as if he should say Christ died for them that are one with him Now none are one with him but such they are not only all of one common lump but of the same body and have the same God for their Father Hence if none be united but sanctified ones and if Christ will claime kindred with none but sanctified ones then none but Believers are his brethren and children Now as to your Argument that they could not be the children of wrath and of Christ at the same time I retort it upon you and say therefore it is evident they were not Christs children immediately from the time of his death for then they could not be children of wrath which yet the Apostle expressely affirmeth of the Elect Ephesians before regeneration Thus the Captain of the Life-guard of his opinion lieth bleeding at the feet of the truth that he doth oppose Secondly If it were the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities then was it his will that our discharge procured thereby should be immediate But it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the paiment of our debt and a full satisfaction for our iniquities Ergo. I deny the consequence of the Major Proposition which he endeavoureth to prove because saith he it is unjust that a debt when it is paid should be charged upon the Surety or Principal I answer if it had been the intention of God and of Christ that the payment should have procured an immediat discharge it were unjust But that rests to be proved and will while the world stands We deny not the value of the price or satisfaction but that God or Christ intended it for a present discharge 1. Because Christs death though it be the meritorious cause yet it is not the only cause of Justification 2. Christs was Gods servant in the work of Redemption and if it were the will of God to limit this benefit till faith it behoved Christ as Mediatour to obey 3. The merit of Christs death is not to be valued only by the intrinsecal value of it but by the constitution and acceptation of God it is said that by grace he tasted death for every man It was an act of grace to Christ that he should be Mediatour that the sufferings of his humane nature united to the divine person of the Son of God should be accepted as a ransome for us from eternal death Hence Christs death was not an act of pure justice but of justice mixed with grace and is so farre accepted as the divine will of the Father pleaseth as we see in denying the fruit of it to Reprobates and limiting it to the Elect which might have ransomed all And why is it any more injustice to have it limited for a time by the will of God for application to the Elect when it shall certainly be done then to have it by the will of God absolutely limited to them alone Hence Christs death is so far meritorious as the will of God is to accept it hence Gods will must not be regulated by the death of Christ for the time maner of application or else it must be injustice in God which is a harsh expression in you but Christs death must be regulated by Gods will in accepting it and I have else where given sufficient reason why God did limit the benefit of it untill faith And from what goeth before it followeth Christs death was not solutio ejusdem but tantidem for then it would have produced an immediate discharge This is the great Argument upon which his cause depends and you see how invincibly it is overmatcht by opposing the Doctrine of Justification by Faith 3ly If nothing hindered the reconciliation of the Elect with God but the breach of the Law then the Law being satisfied it was the will of God that they should be immediatly reconciled But nothing hindered their reconciliation with God but the breach of the Law I shall here distinguish in answer to this Argument upon the hinderâ—ng of reconciliation 1. Reconciliation may be hindered by that which is the cause of separation which at first made the breach or reconciliation may be hindered for want of a fit means to apply the benefit of reconciliation And thus I apply it to the Minor And deny it though nothing do hinder by way of guilt as a cause of separation for want of satisfaction yet something did hinder by way of application
scimus hyssopum singulari purgandi excoquendi efficaciâ pollere Itâ Christus Spiritu suo vice aspergilli utitur ad nos sanguine suo abluendos dum seriò poenitentiae nos sensu afficit dum excoquit pravas carnis nostrae cupiditates dum pretioso justitiae suae colore nos tingit and without these ceremonies thus performed the atonement was not available Sixthly if it be the Will of God that the death of Christ should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect without any condition performed by them then it was his will that it should be for all of them But it is the Will of God that it should be available for the immediate reconciliation of some of the Elect viz. infants or else they cannot be reconciled I answer Mr. Eyre is hardly put to it that he must run to the Philistins to sharpen his goad this argument is taken from Suarez who argueth against faith in general upon this ground because Infants are justified without it Now this argument proveth if it proveth any thing at all that we are justified without it and not before it and so believers are not the sole subjects of justification as Mr. Eyre elsewhere affirmeth but the case of Infants is not to be urged in most questions especially when we are speaking of what God requires in those that are adulti of age unto salvation but I deny his minor and affirm that Infants are not united to Christ without saith they are saved by faith as well as we Thus * Zanch. 5. Tom. in Com. in Hoseam p. 28. Zanchy Vt uniamur huic capiti Christo Spiritus propriae fidei per sese omnibus ipsis etiam parvulis pernecessarius est justus enim ex solâ fide suâ vivet non alienâ assensus autem propriae voluntatis omnibus adultis est necessarius c. ac proinde etiam parvuli quodammodo sibi ponunt hoc caput cùm Spiritu fidei interno in hoc caput donantur That we may be united to Christ the spirit of a mans own faith by it self is necessary to all yea to Infants also for the just shal live by his own faith not by another mans but the assent of our own proper will is necessary to all that are of age And a little after he saith and therefore also Infants do in a manner appoint themselves this head when they are given unto this head by the internal Spirit of faith So also learned * Rivet ad vers Babyl Jesui Tom. 297. p. 254. Rivet Agnoscimus Deum in Infantibus supplere quod deest propter aetatis imbecillitatem internâ Spiritûs sui operatione qui fidei semen in ipsis ingenerat vi suâ eis applicat meritum Christi cujus suo tempore in eis sensum est excitaturus We acknowledge that God supplyeth in Infants what is wanting through the weaknesse of their age by the internal work of his Spirit who engendereth a seed of faith and by his power applyeth the merits of Christ to them whereof he will raise up a sense in his time therefore I acknowledge there is at lâ—ast wrought in them semen fidei a seed of faith by which they become members of Christ and that relation which is in their faith to Christâ— merits is the instrument by which they obtain remission of sins and without which they could not be saved nor may this seem strange seeing we grant that in men grown up they are meerly passive in the first work of grace their understandings and wills no wayes concurring antecedently to this work and seeing it is a work wrought in us without us why may not children be capable of this Besides if Adam had stood even Infants before the use of reason had been sanctified and Christ was so from the wombe and John Baptist and Infants received the seale of the righteousnesse of faith and are they capable of the seal of the righteousnesse of faith and not of faith And therefore though they have not the use of knowledge this hinders not a seed and work of faith they have not actual reason yet they have reasonable soules and when it s said that faith cometh by hearing it is to be applied to persons that are of age to whom the ordinary meanes to beget faith is hearing of the Word preached Seventhly if it were the Will of God that Christ should have the whole glory of our reconciliation it was his Will that it should not in the least depend upon our works and conditions because that conditions will share with him in the glory of this effect and our salvation would be partly of works and partly of grace partly from Christ and partly from our selves nay it would be more from our selves then Christ Ans I shall here distinguish upon conditions A condition is either strictly and properly taken for an absolute condition required on our parts performed by our selves without the help of grace no way given and merited by Christ upon which the effect of Christs death should depend as a cause of the effect if not deserving yet at least-wise obliging God to give the effect such a condition would indeed share with Christ and the honour of our salvation would be ascribed partly to our selves and partly to Christ nay we should be more beholding to our selvs then to Christ because notwithstanding all that he hath done we might have been miserable unlesse we had by the liberty of our Will and improvement of our natural abilities performed this condition but we deny and abhor such a condition as derogatory to Christ Secondly a condition may be taken in a lesse proper sense for an Evangelical condition appointed by God to suspend the benefit of Christs death till the condition be performed which condition is not the fruit of free-will but the absolute purchase of Christ and the free gift of God and shall be infallibly given in the Lords due time to all for whom Christ died effectually to apply the benefit of his death unto justification this condition we acknowledge nor is it any wrong to Christ for it is not the matter for which we are justified and it is the fruit of his death and freely wrought by his own Spirit and the death of Christ is not rendered the lesse certain or effectual but as absolutely effectual as if the effects were already enjoyed Eighthly If it were the Wil of God that his people should have strong consolation and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves I answer that the consolation and joy of Gods people is no whit lessened or abated by this condition before explained for their salvation is as firme and sure as if that condition were not required for they are not left to perform the condition by natural strength as for the condition which Calvin opposeth it is a condition of works
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
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