Word which saith that God made the Heavens and the earth Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us unlesse we beleeve that Word And so in the present case if any person suppose Peter have by faith the evidence of his Justification immediately or axiomatically it must be by assenting to some Axiome or Proposition of divine revelation Thou Peter art justified These things being premised we come now to prove that we §. 19. cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification axiomatically Two reasons I gave of it 1. Because such an immediate evidence of a particular mans Justification cannot be had without a particular testimony from God Thou Paul or Peter or Thomas art justified But there is no such thing written in Scripture Ergo no such evidence can be had Mr. Eyre saith I mistake the nature of justifying faith conceiving it to be a bare intellectual assent to a Proposition which yet is quite against my judgement and that which I do purposely oppose in my next argument I consent to Mr. Eyre in placing faith partly in the understanding and partly in the will But our question is now concerning that faith which is in the understanding how Peter for example comes to know or to be assured by faith immediately that he is justified And this say I must be by the assent of faith to some such Axiome Proposition or Word of God as was but now mentioned Thou Peter art justified Even as Paul was assured that neither himself nor any that were in the ship with him should perish by beleeving the testimony of God sent him by an Angel Acts 27 25. And because there is now a dayes no such testimony of a particular mans Justification therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way at least ordinarily and if there were yet I would not call that faith justifying faith but rather evidencing faith His Answer to the Argument is large and to me very confused He excepts against my terme of an axiomatical evidence I would change it if I could devise any terme more significant but at last yields it me yet thinks it fitter to say faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or instrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Christ But we shall shew fully that this organical evidence must be reduced to one of those three by me mentioned and cannot make a fourth way of evidence distinct from them The summe of his answer is That faith is such an assent to the truth of the Gospel as that withal the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and he that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-Promises and grace knows his interest and propriety therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing which causeth it And so faith doth evidence our Justification axiomatically by assenting to and withal tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospel which by a secret and unscrutable work of the Spirit are applied and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them Rep. How truly did I say that Mr. Eyres doctrine would at last § 20. leave the poor doubting Christian without all evidence of his Justification I need no other confirmation of it then these words wherein are many things delivered not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyres bare word but directly against experience reason and Scripture 1. I deny that faith is alwayes accompanied with such a taste of sweetnesse in the Promises of the Gospel as will give an evidence to the soule of his Justification The reasons are set down already in this chapter § 12. I remember what holy i Neither the letters nor pages are numbred and therefoâ—e I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place Bayne sayes of himself in one of his letters I thank God in Christ sustentation I have and some little strength suavities spiritual I taste not any But indeed I often tell my selfe Physick purgative and restorative are not to be taken at the same time c. Neither do I dare to deny but that it may be the case of one that is saved to die in as much darknesse as Spira himself if any man can prove the contrary let him Yea so separable is sweetnesse from faith that sometimes on the contrary excesse of sweetnesse hath hindred and overcome faith as it was in the disciples who for very joy beleeved not Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like case Gen. 45. 26. 2. I also deny that there can be no manner of sweetnesse tasted in the Gospel but by such as have interest and propriety in the grace thereof A propriety in conceit though not in truth or an interest possible and attainable though not actually obtained may make the Gospel taste not a little sweet The Scriptures tell us that some may be enlightened and taste of the heavenly gift and of the good Word of God Heb. 6. 4 5. and receive the Word with joy Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not justified nor pardoned 3. A taste of sweetnesse in the Gospel doth evidence to the soule sensibly and experimentally that God and his Word are good which may be an Argument to prove that he is justified But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him unlesse there intervene another act of the minde concluding himself to be justified according to the Promise made to such a faith Sugar will evidence its sweetnesse to my taste but my tasting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature unlesse I conclude it by the discourse of my minde because according to the rules of Philosophy None can taste but a living creature Beasts can taste as well as men yet-they do not know that they are living creatures because they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act which ability in the reasonable soule is usually called a power of reflecting upon its own act The case is much the same in Infants Therefore Mr. Eyres organical evidence is the very same with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument or if he understand it of that which is not only affected to prove but doth actually prove then it is the same with that which I below call syllogistical as being an act of the soule concluding its own Justification from the sweetnesse it tasteth in the Promises 4. But the truth is it is a most preposterous course to send the soul for its evidence of right and interest in the Promises to a taste of sweetnesse in them which will quickly appear if Mr. Eyres metaphorical expressions be made more grammatical Wherefore to taste sweetnesse in the Promises is either an act of the understanding judging of the Promise sub ratione bâ—ni
convenientis as a most suitable good and thus it is a knowledge antecedent to faith or at most but the beginning of faith it self Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have believed Or it is an act of the Will embracing delighting and taking complacency in the Promise as his best good and then it follows immediately not upon our right and interest in the Promise but upon our knowledge of that right for as we desire not that which we do not know so neither can we rejoyce in a right which we know not The Question then returnes viz. how the soul comes to know its right and interest in the Promise To say it knows it by taking complacency in it is to say it delights in it knows not what for the will follows the judgement and to take complacency in a good which we do not know we have a right in is naturally impossible Mr. Eyre therefore may speak truly when he sayes He that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-grace knows his interest therein such the taste may be but we are never the wiser in the understanding of the main question viz. How the soule comes to the knowledge of his interest in that Promise in which he tastes so much sweetnesse from answer to this Mr. Eyre makes an escape under the darknesse of his metaphorical expressions 5. I desire also to know whether it be the Promise of pardon and Justification in which the soule tastes such sweetnesse as thereby to have the evidence of his Justification or some other If some other how is it possible that faith should evidence to me my pardon and Justification by tasting sweetnesse in that truth which promiseth no pardon or Justification at all If it be the Promise of pardon let Mr. Eyre see that he consist with himself Promises are essentially boni futuri of a future good Therefore according to Mr. Eyre there can be now no Promise of pardon or Justification Not of the Act for that is past from all eternity not of the Effect for that is past as long as since the death of Christ and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promise It remaines then that it is the Promise of manifesting and declaring Justification But then behold the sense My faith doth evidence to me that I am justified by relishing the Promise which God hath made of manifesting and declaring Justification Hence it follows that I have the evidence of my Justification by beleeving that I shall have it And then either my faith must be false or the Promise must be false for if I do already know that I am justified that knowledge cannot be future else the same thing might be and not be at the same time But there can be no falshood either in a divine faith or in a divine testimony And I desire also Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he speaks of faiths evidencing with the Interpretations given before of those sayings in Scripture whosoever beleeves shall receive remission of sins Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving saith he is our act not Gods namely our knowing our selves to be justified Here he makes it intrinsecal to faith to beget assurance as it is a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise that is in the Promise of manifesting Justification for no other Justification is capable of being promised Lay all this together and one or both these two things must be the result either that I know I am justified before God manifest it to me for I beleeve and thereby know that I am justified and the Promise which I beleeve is that God will manifest my Justification to me Ergo he hath not yet manifested it or else the great Promise of justifying them that beleeve must be resolved into this ridiculous piece of non-sense He that hath the evidence of his Justification shall have the evidence of his Justification for in that he believes he hath this evidence and the thing that is promised is that he shall have this evidence Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith to its relishing §. 21. the sweetnesse of indefinite and general Promises but there must concurre withal a secret and inscrutable work of the Spirit to make these general Promises particular It is not the first time I have been acquainted both at home and elsewhere with Pretenders to assurance in such a way whose lives and ends I have known so well that I shall for their sakes esteem it no other whilest I live then a carnal groundlesse enthusiastical presumption Two Authours Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin as countenancing his doctrine namely k Of faith sect 1 cap 9 ◠4. Dr. Jackson and l Sound Bel. pag. 220 221. Mr. Shepheard But the former hath not a word of making the general Promise particular but saith only That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our soules namely that now we relish spiritual things which naturally we taste no sweetnesse in is a mystery inscrutable to which I consent The latter whose memory is very honourable and precious to me was the most violent opposer of this doctrine of any man on earth that ever I knew or heard of his works shew something of it but they that knew him can testifie more I heartily consent to him that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular according to the sense in which he explaines himselfe in the place quoted The soule saith he at this instant feeles such a special stirring of the Spirit upon it which it feeles now and never felt before as also its particular case so spoken to and its particular objections so answered and the grievousnesse of its sin in refusing grace so particularly applied as if God spake only unto it All this I beleeve to be true but it is nothing in the world to our purpose To make the common motives and invitations unto faith to become in this manner particular in their operation upon particular persons doth neither affirme nor deny any thing concerning the state and condition of those persons But to evidence to a man immediately that he is justified must be by a particular testimony and that as distinct from the testimony of Scripture which saith only that believers are justified as a proper or particular Proposition from a general I say therefore 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is §. 22. justified who hath not at the same time the evidence of his faith and so is this evidence of the Spirit alwayes at least implicitly syllogistical And the soule can have no setled comfort in it but by analysing the crypsis and resolving the whole evidence into its parts after the manner below specified He that beleeveth is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The case is so plain to me that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself for
any mans Justification I am perswaded the devils beleeve it and it cannot be denied but that the merits of Christ were a price of themselves sufficient to have purchased salvation for them yea and to have turned all the stones in the streets into men and to have glorified them in Heaven And it is very strange that a soule should be drawn to Christ upon a ground common to divels with himself or have the evidence of his Justification by believing such a truth in which the devils have as much interest as himselfe SECT VII THe third branch of my Argument succeeds Namely that we §. 29. cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification syllogistically Two Reasons I gave of this The first is because there cannot be found out a medium before faith it selfe c. The farther Explication the Reader may see in my Sermon Mr. Eyre answers That it is not needful It is sufficient that faith it selfe is the medium as thus He that beleeveth was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo. Rep. The Argument remaines good for the purpose for which I advanced it For I not knowing certainly in what sense Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence could conjecture at none more probable then that he placed the nature and being of justifying faith in the evidence knowledge or assurance of our Justification Upon which presumption as I had before proved that it was not assensus axiomaticus an axiomatical and immediate assent to this Proposition I am justified so in this Argument my intent was to prove that neither was it assensus syllogisticus an assent to the same Proposition deduced by way of Conclusion out of premisses And this the Argument proves invincibly Let us set Mr. Eyres syllogisme before us and the matter will be plain He that beleeves was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo I was justified before faith Hence it is manifest that the faith which I affirme of my selfe in the minor cannot consist essentially in my assent to the Conclusion for then the Syllogisme would consist but of two Propositions This is the manifest scope of the Argument which now I know Mr. Eyres minde better I see well enough doth him but little hurt and therefore I insist not on the vindication of it Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently seeing it was necessary I should suppose and confute what might be said when I did not know what would be said I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his sense of faiths evidencing Yet because I did easily foresee he might give that answer which here he doth I added the next Argument which meets with it to the full If we are said to be justified by faith because faith doth evidence §. 30. Justification syllogistically then may we be said as well to be justified by sense and reason as by faith because sense and reason concurre with faith in a syllogistical evidence As thus He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The Proposition only is the assent or act of faith The Assumption an act of sense or spiritual experience The Conclusion an act of Reason Mr. Eyre answers That the Conclusion is of faith As in this Syllogisme All men shall rise from the dead I am a man Ergo I shall rise from the dead Rep. That the Conclusion is de fide is said not proved and I would that way of disputing were lesse frequent with Mr. Eyre I acknowledge the Conclusion to be partly of faith and partly of reason and experience as Mr. o Vindiâ— grat pâ—g 41. fol. Pemble determines it And that the Schooles determine otherwise I will beleeve when I see That it is not purely of faith I thus prove The assent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine testimony But the assent to a Conclusion is grounded in the necessity of its p Vid. Frâ—â— Bâ—ur Meneriz dâ—f P. Râ—dial l. 2. c. 9. disquis 1 2. consequence upon such and such premisses which forceth the understanding to assent to it whether of it self it be of necessary or contingent truth or in what matter soever it be whether grammatical physical theological or the like So that a Conclusion is said to be de fide because it depends upon some principle of saith in regard of its supernaturality but formally Et quâ—tenus attingitur per actum Conclusionis Reason is principium assentiendi proximum the nearest q De Mendâ—z loq disp 1â— de demonstr sect 3. â— 47. principle and cause of my assent otherwise we must have some other definition of a syllogisme then our Universities have hitherto been acquainted with 2. In the present case the matter is clearer then Mr. Eyre is aware of We will suppose Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogisme He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified When he faith in the minor I beleeve he is supposed to speak not only of that faith which sin the Will accepting and embracing a promised good but of that ialso which is in the understanding assenting omni credibili to all truths proposed to be believed But according to Mr. Eyre it is a truth proposed to Peters faith that himself is justified Let it be expressed then in the Syllogisme and it runs thus He that beleeves all the objects of his faith and particularly that himselfe is justified he is justified But saith Peter I beleeve all the objects of my faith and particularly that my self am justified Ergo I am justified If the Conclusion be here de side then Peter beleeves he is justified because he believes he is justified which Conclusion I confesse is no act of reason Neverthelesse if Reason be yielded to be principium assentiendi the principle of assenting to the Conclusion there will be better sense in his Argumentation namely that Peter knows that he is justified or is perswaded thereof with a certainty of Reason because he beleeves it with a divine Faith and that he could not do if he were not justified As to the Syllogisme which Mr. Eyre proposeth for Illustration §. 31. All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again The Conclusion is partly of faith and partly of reason Of reason formaliter elicitivè of faith fundamentaliter imperativè as I may so speak it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith for I could not have this knowledge unlesse I did by faith assent to the Proposition But that it is not purely of faith I thus prove If a man be sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise then to assent that himself shall rise is not purely an act of faith Because a man cannot at the same time be sound and unsound in the faith of the same
since that o De traduct peccat ad vitam thes 5. 6. Conditio reconciliationis a parte nostra est Christi receptio the condition of reconciliation on our part is our receiving of Christ which must first be done Cum ex ea tanquam medio praerequisito reconciliatio ineatur because it is a means praerequisite to our reconciliation As for Dr. Twisse if he were capable of receiving any addition of honour by my testimony I should be more ambitious to perform it then Mr. Eyre could be desirous of the favour of his p Ep. dedic most noble Senatours I may not deny that I had bestowed some paines in comparing the Doctours expressions in several places but it pleased God to stir up a far better hand q In his Preface to Mr. Gâ—ayles book Mr. Constant Jessop a learned faithful suffering servant and Minister of Jesus Christ to do the Doctour the honour of vindicating his judgement and doctrine from those general misreports and misapprehensions that went abroad of him Something I should alsospeak concerning Mr. Eyres marginal quotations which are many of them false as I was once intended to have shewed the Reader in a List But considering that the difference of Volumes or Editions in which his Authors are extant may breed a mistake of some and that the Printer tells us Mr. Eyre was not able to overlook the Presse and so through the errour of that others might be mistaken I have thought fit to forbear 3. As for this my Reply though the Authors above mentioned and Mr. Eedes besides who yet hath misrepresented me in reporting that I deny faith to be an evidence of our Justification coming all out so long before me may seem to make my undertaking needlesse yet I was loth to deceive the expectations of so many as had so long waited for my Reply The truth is I had soon drawn up the summe of my answer so far as I was sure that I understood Mr. Eyre aright That I made no more haste to the Presse the Reasons were 1. The incessant emploiments I have had both at home and abroad which have made me uncapable of following works of this nature so close as they should be 2. The frequent and long-continuing bodily infirmities which have kept me from writing many weeks together 3. While the controversie was hot I was willing to see whether any thing would come out pro or con that might occasion any new enquiries I hear of none but Mr. Robertson who threateneth us with a few pedantick Scoticismes and Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter whom for the report I had heard of the man I greedily desired to reade But lighting by accident upon his discourse about the afflictions which befal the godly in this life I found him vox praeterea nihil and so leave him to those Readers who can be edified by his melody Mr. Eyres Comment upon the title page of my Sermon I passe over His digression in chap. 2. about publick disputes with the Ministers will have some more cautions before it passe for canonical if ever it be his lot to be exercised in that way as much as some worthy Ministers have been in some Churches which I have known In my Reply to his Arguments I have faithfully set down the strength of his argument though not every word in every place And so Reader I commend thee and this my writing unto the blessing of him who will one day owne it for his truth and thee for a childe of truth if thou walk in it BENJAMIN WOODBRIDGE THE METHOD OF GRACE IN THE JVSTIFICATION OF SINNERS CHAP. I. An Answer to M. Eyres 6. chap. The Question stated Justification what Justification by Faith what The consent of Protestants in making Faith the condition of Justification Or an instrumental cause thereof Proved also by the confessions of several Churches SECT I. IN our entrance upon the discussion of the present Question namely whether a sinner be justified in §. 1. the sight of God before he beleeve or not till he beleeve I must crave leave to digresse a little from Master Eyres method who first gives his answer to those Texts produced in my Sermon for proof of our Justification by Faith in his fifth Chapter and then states the Question in his sixth and seventh I shall therefore first examine those two Chapters beginning here with the former and so proceed to the entire Vindication of my Sermon by it selfe In the stating of the Question these three things are to be dispatched 1. What Justification is 2. What it is to be justified by Faith or what is the office of Faith in Justification 3. What is meant by the phrase In the sight of God or before God when we enquire concerning the Justification of a sinner before God or in Gods sight For the first when we enquire what Justification is it is supposed §. 2. that the word Justification is taken properly in sensu formali not in a diminutive comparative or tropical sense Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato The Reason why I observe this is because Master Eyre pretends to his Reader that I have no lesse then yielded the cause when I grant a Justification purposed of God and merited by Christ before Faith So then saith he pag. 147. by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed pag. 101. challengeth some one text of Scripture to prove that Justification doth in no sense precede the act of Faith Whereas I doubt not but the world may be said to be from eternity in some sense namely in reference to the counsel and purpose of God And he that is never justified at all simply may yet notwithstanding be said to be justified in some sense that is comparatively as being lesse unjust then another Jer. 3. 11. And many of those who are now alive and never yet tasted of death may neverthelesse be said to be already risen from the dead in some sense to wit in Christ the first fruits of them that slept And Justification it self may be called condemnation in some sense for the Scots say a man is justified when he is hanged and the word seemes to be used in a sense not much unlike Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified from sinne If Master Eyre do indeed think which I am perswaded he doth not that the Question between him and me is whether the wit of man cannot invent some sense wherein Justification may be said to go before Faith he should have acquainted his Reader with it here in the â—stating of the Question and not have kept him ignorant of any such controversie between us till he is come towards the later end of his book Wherein the particular nature and formality of this glorious blessing §. 3. of Justification doth consist is more particularly debated in
the following discourse Yet that the Reader may know what Justification it is which we speak of I shal here speak something briefly for explication of it leaving whatsoever is controverted to be proved in its proper place Justification then by our late Reverend a Larger Catech pag 94. in 12. Assembly is thus defined An act of Gods free-grace unto sinners in which he pardoneth all their sinnes accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight not for any thing wrought in them or done by them but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them and received by Faith alone This for substance is the Justification which the Question speaks of if thou wouldest have it Reader more particularly take it as followeth The efficient ut quod of our Justification is God himself that justifieth §. 4. and his grace the efficient ut quo for he justifies us freely of his grace Rom. 3. 24. Jesus Christ also as King and Lord of life is joyned by special commission with the Father in his great Act of justifying sinners John 5. 22. 26 27. Acts 5. 31. Matth. 28. 18 19. with Mark 16. 15 16. and Luke 24. 47. The righteousnesse and obedience of Jesus Christ is the onely meritorious cause of our Justification but whether his active or passive obedience either or both I do not dispute nor do I account it needful because all the active obedience of Christ was passive for it was part of his humiliation that being b See Bp. Usher Imman pag. 10 at the end of his Body of Divinity a Son he would subject himself to the payment of that tribute of obedience which was due onely from servants and all his passive obedience was active for he laid down his life of himself John 10. 18. The formality of Justification consists as I take it in a legal discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment and a donation of right and title to eternal life which discharge and gift because it was merited by the obedience of Christ without any contribution of merit from the sinner himself is truly called the c Christi justitia in justificatione fidelibus imputatur quatenus ejus merito justi coram Deo reputamur Ames Medul Theol. l. 1. c. 27. th 12. imputation of Christs righteousnesse and this is the sense of that phrase in the use of our Divines And these things I here take for granted reserving the proof of what is disputable in them to its proper place SECT II. THe second and more material labour is to explain in what sense §. 5. we are said to be justified by Faith Mr. Eyre gives us five senses of the phrase first of those that take Faith in a tropical and figurative sense as thus We are justified by Faith i. e. by the obedience and righteousnesse of Jesus Christ in whom we believe and upon whom we rest for life and righteousnesse Secondly of those which say we are justified by Faith instrumentally and relatively Thirdly Of the Papists who ascribe a meritoriousnesse to Faith and do also make our Justification to be by inherent righteousnesse or doing of righteous actions Foutthly of the Arminians who explode the word Merit and deliver their opinion to this effect That God in the legal Covenant required the exact obedience of all his Commandments but now in the Covenant of Grace he requires Faith which in his gracious acceptation stands instead of that obedience to the Moral Law which we ought to performe Fifthly of those that say that Faith doth justifie as a condition or Antecedent qualification by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God The last of these is that which I contend for according to the explication given of it in my Sermon pag. 9. 10. which why Master Eyre should account a new opinion and charge it here upon Master Baxter and elsewhere upon Doctor Hammond as the first parents and patrons of it I know not much lesse why he should so very often accuse it as a piece of Arminianisme and Popery seeing it is a thing so well known that the Synod of Dort and almost all our Protestants do very frequently call Faith the condition of our Justification d De reconcil pecc par 1. l. 2. cap. 18. pag. 99. 100. Mr. Wotton doth purposely dispute for it and hath saved me the labour of transcribing the testimonies of many famous Protestants who say the same either in expresse termes as Fox Perkins Paraeus Trelcatius G. Downham J. Downham Schaâ—pius Tho. Mathewes or equivalent as Calvin Aretius Sadeel Oleviaâ— Mâ—lancthon Beza to whom I might adde e Disser de morte Christi pag. 63. Est autem hic ordo stabilitâ—s haec conditio expresse posita in â—vangelio quod reconciliationis gratia beneficium vitae aeternae ad peccatores ex morte Châ—isti redundaret si crederent Idem in praelect de Just Habit. act pag. 395 396. Davenant f Collat. cum Til pag. 6â—7 â—taque in vocatione aliam habet fides rationem quam in Justificatione nam in Justificatione conditio est praerequisita ut ita dicam in vocatione gignitur fusius in Disput de satisfact pag. 365. Cameron g Praelect Controv. 2. de not Eccles Q. 5. pag. 331. in 4. Cum primùm credo tum justus sum cum justus sum tum credo veluti si malefico cuiquam veniz cum hac conditione proponatur si eam amplecti velit c. Praelect de Sacram. cap. 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. Whitaker h De vocat pag. 16 17. Reliquum est ut videamus foederis gratuiti conditionem ea auâ—em sola est sides Deus promittit justificationem vitam sub conditione fidei passim Rollock i Syntag. Theol. l. 4. c. 10. de Evang. pag. 1106. Promissiones Evangelii de remissione peccatorum vita aeterna pertinen quidem ad omnes homines non tamen abâ—olutè sed sub conditione apprehensionis per fidem infra ibid. verum absolutae tamen non sunt sed hac conditione circumscriptae ut credant in Christum Grotius k De Evang Decad. 4 â— 1. pag. 238 Proposuit enim Deus Christum propitiationem nimirum ut is esset râ—conciliatio nostra propter quem placatus nos adoptat in filios Dei Verum non alia ratione quam per fidem in ejus sanguinem id est si credamus c. Bullinger l De remiâ—s peccat cap. 6. pag mihi 621. Discernendum inter eam gratiam Dei quae nullas haber adjectas conditiones qualis est quòd sâ—lem suum producit super bones malos pluitque super gratos ingratos eam quae conditionaliter confertur ad quem modum peccatorum nobis remissio contingit cap. 4.
Quibus condition bus peccata remittantur per tot passim Musculus m System Theol. tom 2. pag. 247. ad obj 5. Promissiones Evangelii semper requirere Conditionem fidei dâ—mus Brochmand n Thesâ— Salmur parâ— prior de Justif Thes 37. fide igitur justificamur non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae c. sed tanquam Conditione foederis gratiae quam à nobis Deus exigit loco conditionis foederis legalis the Professors of Somers in France o Sâ—hol in Luc. cap 11. Deus promisit nobis remissionem cum hac Conditione si nos prius remiserimus proximo c. Piscator p Opeâ— Tom. 1 pag. 420. 4â—3 vide loca Wallaeus q In Thoms Diatâ—ib pag. 148. Promissiones de fine sunt conditionaâ—ae c. vide locum passim Abbot r Christ Theol. lib. 1. cap 22. ad Thes 2 Promissio remissioniâ— peccatorum vitae aeteâ—â—ae sub conditione fidâ—i c. Wendeline s Of the Covenant pag 66. and elsewhere frequently onely mislikes the tearme in some respect because it seemes to take away all causality from Faith in the matter of Justification and therefore chuseth rather to call it an Instrument then a Condition Ball t Treatise of Justif Sâ—ct 2. cap. 1. Pemble u In Eph. 2. pag. 250. Bayne x Voâ—st loc com â—x cap. 3. ad Rom. pag. 23 Tit. 6. Mr. Blake of the Covenant cap. 6. pag. 26. Mr. Bulkley of the Covenanâ— part 4. cap. 1. and many others All which being considered I shall neither account it Popery nor Arminianisme to maintaine that Faith is the condition of our Justification before God till Master Eyre hath proved that it cannot be made a condition but it must withal be made a meritorious cause or that to make it the condition of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a sinner be to deny that Christs righteousnesse is at all imputed to a sinner or to affirme that God of his grace doth accept of Faith as our legal righteousnesse which is a palpable contradiction None of which he hath performed in his book nor ever will do When he distinguisheth those that take Faith objectively from those that make it an instrument in Justification it is a distinction without §. 6. a difference on purpose to impose upon the Reader as if they were two sorts of Authours whereas the very same men that take Faith objectively for Christ beleeved on do yet universally make Faith an Instrument in our Justification Our Protestants do indeed maintaine against the Papists and that most truly that the righteousnes of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification or the righteousnesse for which we are justified but the same Authours do as unanimously affirme that Faith is the instrumental cause thereof though otherwhile they call it a condition and most use the words promiscuously Thus y Instit l. 3. c. 14. §. 17. Calvin z Epist 45. p. 210. Beza a Loc. com clas 3. cap. 4. §. 47 48. Peter Martyr b Explic. cat par 2. q. 61. 3. pag. 399. Vrsine c Thes Theol. cap. 35. 11. Junius d Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 36. p 456. Polaenus e De Justif per. fid cap. 4. §. 64. Sect. 6. §. 153. Gerhard f Enchyr. Theol. p. 134. Hemmingius g Synops pur Theol. disp 33. 27. the four Leyden Professours h In Heb. pag. 486. Hyperius i Meth. Theol. p. 227. Sohnius k Harm Evang. p. 279. Exam. Conc. Trid. ses 6. Kemnitius l Loc. Com. 31. 33. Bucanus and all the rest that ever I read both Lutherans and Calvinists voting concurrently for Faiths antecedency to Justification At last Mr. Eyre gives us his own sense of Justification by Faith in §. 7. these words My sense of this Proposition we are justified by Faith is no other then what hath been given by all our ancient Protestant Divines who take Faith herein objectively not properly and explain themselves to this effect We are justified from all sinne and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ who is the sole object or foundation of our faith or whose righteousnesse we receive and apply to our selves by Faith Yet I say it doth not follow that it was not applyed to us by God or that God did not impute righteousnesse to us before we had Faith If Mr. Eyre had concluded as he began leaving out the exception which brings up the rear and understanding our ancient Protestants in their known sense this one sentence had confuted all his book and saved me the pains of such an undertaking It is most true that our Protestants maintaine that we are justified by the obedience of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and it is as true that they maintaine a sinner to be justified by Faith as the instrument or condition of his justification Nor can I finde one amongst the ancient Protestants that did ever dreame of a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith no though for the most part they place Faith in a particular assurance To the single testimonies already mentioned let us adde a few more out of the Confessions that the difference betweene our Protestants and Master Eyre may the better appear We begin with the m Oâ—thodox Tig. eccles Minist confess Tract 2. fol. 43 44. Tigurine Confession Nullis humanis vel operibus § 8. vel meritis sed per solam Dei gratiam id est per sanctam illam crucifixi filii Dei passionem innocentem mortem homines justitiam consequi peccatis mundari docemus quod mortis Christi innocentiae meriti participes tunc reddamur cum Dei filium nostrum esse propter peccata nostra ut nos nimirum justos beatos redderet mortem subiisse vera constanti fide credimus To the same purpose the n Corp. Synt. Confes fid p. 45. Helvetian Confession Propriè ergo loquendo c. To speak properly God alone doth justifie us and justifies us onely for Christs sake not imputing to us our sinnes but imputing to us his righteousnesse But because we receive this justification not by any works but by faith in Gods mercy and in Christ therefore we teach and beleeve with the Apostle that a sinner is justified by Faith alone in Christ not by the Law or any works Therefore because Faith receiveth Christ our righteousnesse and attributes all to the grace of God in Christ therefore Justification is ascribed to Faith principally because of Christ and not because it is our work to the same purpose pag. 89. § 13. The o Gallic confess ibid. p. 105 §. 20. French Confession agrees Credimus nos c. We beleeve that by Faith alone we are made partakers of this righteousnesse as it is written that he suffered to obtaine
salvation for us that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish The p Ibid. p. 128. â— 11. English consent Tantùm propter c. Onely for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits are we reputed just before God So q Ib. p. 157. 25. Scotland Sed qui corde c. They that do in heart sincerely beleeve and with their mouth confesse Jesus Christ do most certainly receive those blessings First in this life remission of sinnes and that by Faith alone in the blood of Christ The r Ib. p. 173 22 Belgick Confession in like manner Meritò igitur jureque dicimus c. We do therefore well and rightly say with Paul that we are justified only by Faith or by Faith without the works of the Law But to speak properly we do by no means understand Faith it self by it self or of it self to justifie us as which is onely as it were an Instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousnesse Christ then himself is our righteousnesse who imputes to us all his merits but Faith is the Instrument by which we are coupled unto him in the society and communion of all his good things and are continued therein Of the same Faith are all the other s Argent p. 223 c. 3. Paâ—t 2. August p. 22 c. 1. Saxâ—n p. 79 80 81. Wiâ—â—emberg p. 14â— c de justif Palat p. 210. si â—emissionem Churches whose Confessions follow Thus t Just lib. 3 c. 11. §. 10. Calvin Fateor hoc tam incomparabili beno nos privari donec Christus noster fiat Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur ut nobis imputetur ejus jusâ— itia sed quia ipsum induimus insiti sumus in ejus corpus unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est ideo justitiae societatem nobis cum to esse gloriamur Thus u Ubi supra Epist 45. Beza Quae obedientia Christi viz. nobis per fidem Christo unitis datur nostraque fit per imputationem x Loc. com clas 3. c. 4. §. 65. Thus Peter Martyr Si quid Deus condonat vel remittit id facit hominibus jam regeneratis non autem à se alienis filiis irae quales necesse est eos esse qui nondum sunt justificati Istis inquam nihil remittitur Quare obligati sunt ad â—mnia And thus all our more ancient Protestants that I can read but it is a tedious thing to me to transcribe so much of humane testimony and what is written is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Eyre differs from our ancient Protestants notwithstanding his pretended agreement almost as farre on the one hand as the Papists do on the other in the very foundations of his discourse For first it is manifest by the testimonies produced that our Protestants when they plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ intend the very first act of Justification which Mr. Eyre rejects and ascribes no more to the righteousnesse of Christ then that it obtaines the effects of our justification but not the Act pag. 62. § 4. 2. Our Protestants do so plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ as that they require and assert the necessary existence of Faith in us as the instrument or condition or antecedent of our Justification Mr. Eyre contends for a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith at present coexisting 3. They plead for a Justification which begins upon believing and therefore must needs be a transient not an immanent act of God He for a Justification which is an y Augustan Confes de fide p. 21. Non est hic opus disputationibus de praedestinatione aut similibus immanent act and included in the decree of election as part of it pag. 65. § 5. 4. They when they speak of Justification by Faith meane Justification before God He the manifestation and declaration thereof onely to the conscience So that Mr. Eyres opinion and that of the ancient Protestants look so little like Countrey-men that it may not expect to be owned by them though it challenge kindred of them CHAP. II. An Answer to Mr. Eyres seventh Chapter What is meant by Gods sight Two parts or degrees thereof Mr. Eyres Exposition contradicts it selfe and the Truth Gods Will or Purpose never called by the name of Justification in Scripture The consequences which Mr. Eyre denies to follow upon his doctrine necessary and unavoidable A large enquiry whether Justification consist in Gods Purpose not to punish Imputation and non-imputation what in the use of Scripture Gods electing love no Justification Rom. 8. 33. answered Several Arguments proving that Justification is not Gods purpose of not punishing The foure objections which Mr. Eyre makes against himselfe not answered by him Not the first Nor the second Nor the third Nor the fourth of Mr. Eyres second and third Proposition SECT I. NExt we shall enquire what it is to be justified before God or in Gods sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3. 11. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 20. by which the Septuagint render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 143. 2. a word that hath many faces and significations in a Drus observat cap. 17. Scripture But in the matter of Justification which is a forensical terme unlesse the whole body of our Protestants be mistaken it signifies as much as Gods judgement As to be justified in mans sight or before men is to be justified in mans judgement or for man to justifie and to be righteous in a mans own eyes is to be righteous in a mans own judgement or to justifie a mans selfe In like manner to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in Gods judgement or for God to justifie Compare 1 Cor. 4. 4. Luke 16. 15. Numb 32. 22. and many other places Now this judgement of God is either a judgement of justice by which no flesh living shall be justified Psal 143. 2. or a judgement of mercy and grace 2 Sam. 22. 25 26. Col. 1. 22. Heb. 13. 21. by which only a sinner can be justified or stand in the sight presence and judgement of God In this judgement of God we consider these two degrees or parts §. 2. The first is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle calls it Rom. 1. 32. Jus b Vid Joh. Driâ—d de capt Redempt c. 2. mem 3. de Reg. dogmat Sac. Script l. 3. p. 96 97. Dei that Rule Law or Constitution of God determining of rewards and penalties whence Gods Precepts Statutes Threatenings and Promises are so often called in Scripture his judgements The second is the sentence which God the righteous Judge shall passe upon all men according to this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the day of judgement Accordingly my opinion is that a sinner is justified in Gods sight either ipso jure
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
what is Why saith Mr. Eyre to shew that we are justified not by works or righteousnesse in us but by the righteousnesse of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by faith Very good and this is as much as I stand for namely that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith But know Reader that when we speak of apprehending Christs righteousnesse we mean not an intellectual apprehension when a man comes to discern and know that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth but the right and interest which is given us by the Promise in the righteousnesse of Christ when we believe And in this sense are our Protestants to be understood when they say the righteousnesse of Christ is apprehended by faith Therefore when a De instit lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80. Bellarmine denies that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend our Protestants reject him as a Quibler b Ames Bill ener page 314. in 12â— Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehensionem quà m speculationem intellectus Rectè Contarenus Accipimus Justificationem per fidem Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem Protestantes appellant apprehensionem non eâ significatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus sed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus This I thought good here to observe once for all that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend but might know the different use of it in our Protestants writings and Mr. Eyres The mistake in my Conclusion was that I told unbelievers that §. 2. Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which Mr. Eyre denies to be true If he mean they may appeal by faith I consent but that is nothing to his purpose If that they may appeal without faith or that Christ intercedes that their sins may be forgiven who yet live in impenitency and unbelief let him prove it Of this also I shall speak more when I come to debate how farre we are reconciled in the death of Christ In the mean time I wonder why Mr. Eyre should quarrel with Mr. Baxter for asserting universal Redemption in the sense of Davenant Cameron Testardus Crocius Amyraldus and others when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point namely when he sayes Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Christ we were as good bid the devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High-Priest I inferre Ergo Christ died for all men though I say not for all equally or else we were as good preach the Gospel to divels as to men But let that passe After Mr. Eyre hath leaped from one end of my Sermon to the other he comes to the middle which indeed doth most concern him And whether he hath convinced me of errour in that also is our next enquiry And first he considers that place which was then my text Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ His answer is double First saith he we may without any violence to the text place the comma after justified as thus Being justified by faith we have peace with God Reply And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy former or §. 3. latter printed or manuscript to warrant such a punctation As to the division of the sentence the Syriack the Ancients c Lib. 5. advers Marcion c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo suit belsum ei justificabimur ejus eâ—iâ— Christus ex cujus fide justificabimur Tertullian d Trans lat cdit Loud 1636. Justificati ergo ex side pacem habeamus Et Exâ—os 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophylact e Edit Henr. Savill Fronto Duc. Paris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostome f In loc Origen and our Protestant Commentatours both Lutherans and Calvinists agree with our Translation And if Mr. Eyre will be just and allow the same liberty to others which he takes himself as small a matter as a comma is the mis-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture The Psycopanycists and some Papists when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jesus To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise elude the place by putting the comma after day and so reade the words thus g Vid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43. Verily I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise 2. I accept of Mr. Eyres observation that the illative particle therefore shews that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing and that the Apostles scope in the whole chapter foregoing is to prove that we are justified by faith is more plain then to need proof So that these words are the Conclusion of the former dispute issuing into this doctrine That we are justified by faith The uses whereof the Apostle immediately subjoynes But this way not taking Mr. Eyre is provided of another which is this If saith he we take the words as commonly they are read the sense comes all to one sâ—il That being justified by Christ we have peace with God who by the faith he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation Rep. This is somewhat worse then the former The Apostle saith Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Mr. Eyre to turne out faith from its office in Justification will have the words read by transposition Being justified by our Lord Jesus Christ we have peace with God through faith Or the word faith in the beginning of the verse must signifie our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus Christ in the latter part of the verse must be put for faith which as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures so is it without all precedent in Scripture which is neither wont to put faith for Christ nor Christ for faith though both are often included where but one is mentioned Some I know do fasten such a sense on a text or two but without any necessity or compulsory reason SECT II. THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jesus Christ §. 4. that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5. 44 45. Love your enemies c. that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before Adoption Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known manifested and declared to be Rom. 3. 26. That
he might be just i. e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be just So John 15. 8. and 13. 35 c. So here That we might be justified is that we might know that we are justified Not the being of our Justification but the knowledge and feeling of it is a consequent of faith Rep. 1. I would never desire that any Argument of mine should conclude more firmely then that text Mat. 5. will infer that none are the children of God in the sense there meant before they love their enemies and performe the other duties there enjoyned for it is manifest the Lord there speaks of becoming the children of God not by adoption but by similitude of manners Reader see ver 46 47 48. and give judgement impartially Now in this way it is impossible to be a childe of God till these things be done and therefore that part of the answer strengthens my Argument 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is said to have set forth his Son c. that he might be just I answer that there is no necessity of understanding the word just of being known and acknowledged to be just for it will be a kinde of tautologie To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse That he may be declared to be righteous Nor yet will it follow that God was not just before but that he had not been just now if Christ had not suffered for sinners But if by the word just be meant declared to be just it will not reach our case We seek such a sense of the word Justification when God is the justifier and man the object which throughout all Mr. Eyres book is a non-inventus when man is the justifier and God the object such a sense is necessary because God is capable of no other Justification from man as man is from God 3. As to the thing it self I acknowledge it readily That things are many times said to be in Scripture when they are only manifested and declared to be but such an interpretation is seldom warrantable unlesse the subject-matter invite to it as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord speaking to those that were already disciples that if they brought forth much fruit they should be his disciples it is most natural to understand it of being manifested or of continuing his disciples But we may not therefore interpret Justification by faith of a manifestation or declaration that we are justified not only because the texts wherein that phrase is used suppose no Justification before it but also 1. Because other Scriptures deny them that beleeve not to be justified John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19 22 23 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places And 2. Because when to be in Scripture signifies to be manifested or declared it is understood perpetually of an external publike manifestation or declaration to many not of an internal spiritual private discovery to the soule or conscience of a particular person for proof of which I desire no other witnesse then these very texts which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned supposing them all to be understood as he would have them Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God our bringing forth much fruit declares us to be the disciples of Christ both publikely and in the sight of many witnesses God is declared to be just still publikely and in the judgement of many yea of all good or bad men or devils But this sense will by no meanes fit Mr. Eyres turne for he contends for no more then that Justification is manifested upon faith to the believers own conscience nor do I think he will so much as pretend that he that believes is by his faith publikely declared to the world to be a justified person So that neither can Justification by faith be allowed to be understood of a declarative Justification nor if it might could it yet at all gratifie his design Of all places it cannot have that sense in this text 1. Because §. 5. Justification by faith is expressely opposed to Justification by works Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified But it is most certain and Mr. Eyre confesseth it roundly that works do manifest and declare our Justification page 79 80. Ergo by Justification here is not meant the declaration or manifestation that a person is justified 2. Justification in regard of its common nature is the same whether it be by faith or works namely as it signifies a constituting of us just before God for Christians attain that righteousnesse by faith which the Jewes sought after by works as the Apostle doth more largely expresse it Rom. 9. 31 32. Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse have not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law Ergo Justification when ascribed to faith must be taken in the same sense as when it is denied to works But the Jewes by their works sought to be justified before God and not simply that it should be manifested to them that they were justified before their works were wrought for they sought to be justified by works as the matter for which they should be justified And therefore when the Apostle opposeth himself directly to their principle it is in these words By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh living be justified that is in the sight of God as it is expressed by the Psalmist Psal 143. 2. and by this Apostle in this Argument Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo to be justified by faith in this place is not simply to be assured of a mans Justification but to be justified before God 3. And because Mr. Eyre doth use to oppose Justification by faith to Justification by Christ I desire him to consider that Justification by faith is here the very same with Justification by Christ for after he had said ver 16. We have beleeved in Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ he addes ver 17. but if while we seek to be justified by Christ But to be justified by Christ is not meerly to have it by Christ declared that we are justified This is not only a concession but a main principle of Mr. Eyres Ergo to be justified by faith here is not simply to have the knowledge of our Justification But Mr. Eyre hath another answer a very strange one and that §. 6. is this In the text it is We have believed that we might be justified by faith so that from hence it can be inferred only that we are not justified by faith before believing Rep. As if the question between the Jewes and
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
rewarding of the believer with a right to blessednesse I gather from ver 4 5. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse Where the imputing of faith unto righteousnesse is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works Ergo as the imputing works unto righteousnesse were to give a right to blessednesse according to works sub ratione mercedis so on the contrary to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to give the beleever a right and title to blessednesse sub ratione mercedis The difference only is this the former is of debt the latter of grace as we shall further shew anon 2. Thus also we finde the Apostle interpreting the phrase for after he had said that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them also ver 11. he explains himself ver 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law but by the righteousnesse of faith The reason whereof he renders ver 16. That it might be by grace that the Promise might be sure to all the seed So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham and all that walk in the steps of his faith by which a right to life is given both to him and them is the imputation Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exâ—lic in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteousnesse to them 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse unto all generations for evermore The meaning of which words is easie to be learned from the story it self Numb 25. 12 13. Wherefore say Behold I give unto him my Covenant of Peace And he shall have it and his seed after him even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line from one generation to another as the reward of his zeal is that which the Psalmist calls the imputing it to him unto righteousnesse to all generations Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing and so could not constitute him righteous universally but only in part and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to Yet it shews the Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith to shew that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousnesse 4. The imputation of righteousnesse in respect of the terminus à quo is all one with the non-imputation of sin ver 6 8. and what is it to non-impute sin but not to render the wages of sin by destroying the guilt and punishment of it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessednesse though this reward be not of debt but of grace This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter we leave Mr. Eyres glosse to go seek entertainment where it can finde it SECT V. THere remain three texts more which I mentioned in my Sermon §. 13. to prove that Justification follows faith namely Acts 10. 43. Through his Name whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sin And 26. 18. To turne them from darknesse to light and from the Power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith And 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses To the two former Mr. Eyre answers That the giving of remission and receiving it are two things The former is Gods act and the latter is ours A Prince may pardon a Malefactour and he thereby is secured from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively as when we are said to receive God and Christ and his Word Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely by believing Sometimes it is taken passively in which sense giving and receiving are not two acts but one and the same as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold Matth. 19. 29. In all which and the like places our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance eternal life a hundred fold And thus to receive remission of sin is all one with Gods giving remission or to have our sins remitted and pardoned In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith as was before observed out of Contarenus So do the Scriptures also Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin That the Promise to wit of Justification by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve In which place Gods giving righteousnesse by the Promise and our receiving it are one and the same act compare ver 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life c. Whence also it is manifest that Gods giving and our receiving are both one act Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousnesse is called the coming of grace or righteousnesse upon us ver 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense as the receiving of the inheritance for they are joyned both together in the text Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance But for us to receive the inheritance is no more then to be made partakers of the inheritance not by any act of ours but by the free and effectual gift of God 3. To receive remission what act of ours is it Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly but by his answers to former texts and his instance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it I presume he meanes that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do unlesse it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge till after long searchings and experience and it is very improper to say a man receives such an act of his own which himselfe works out with much labour and travel of minde if our knowledge of remission were by immediate
revelation or enthusiastical inspiration the expression were much more tolerable 4. To the instance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned though he do not know it till a great while after I answer in the words of k Christ set forth p. 26 â—7 Reverend Dr. Godwin Gods Promises of forgivenesse are not as the pardons of a Prince which meerly contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitour upon marriage with his childe whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation So as all that would have pardon must first seek out for his childe and thus it is in the matter of believing The Promises hang all upon Christ and without him there is no interest to be had in them He that hath the Sonne hath life 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle shews §. 14. the excellency of the Gospel above the Law in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin 2. And but in an external typical manner 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice c. Rep. All which things I readily grant Yet 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned and then came to the offering of sacrifice or to the Priest So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true High-Priest the Lord Jesus that sinners may partake therein 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification and faith only for proof of which Mr. Eyre confesseth my Concordance would furnish me with many more places then I have taken notice of I will never be brought to beleeve that it is required as a consequent of Justification for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents as well as faith even by Mr. Eyres grant Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance that we are justified because unto that also many other things may be required and not faith only As for example self-examination and proving of our selves 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence in adding one grace to another 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 10. a good conscience towards God and man and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ 1 John 3. 20 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren 1 John 3. 18 19 14. and the like And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts proving Faith's antecedency to Justification By all which the Reader may see that when I said the only answer made to these Texts was That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience this account is true and perfect though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect there being not one of all the places mentioned but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification It was therefore necessary that I should prove that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon the asserting of which against Mr. Eyres exceptions is my next undertaking CHAP. IV. An Answer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter and part of the Ninth His saying and unsaying Many Arguments proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is to be taken proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is be taken properly for the faith in us and not for Christ Faith and works how opposed in the matter of Justification That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification virtually or axiomatically or syllogistically Sinners according to Mr. Eyre the causes of their own Justification Nor is Justification taken properly in all the Scriptures as he expounds it SECT I. THe first Argument proving that when the Apostle §. 1. pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God or in the sight of God and not in the Court of Conscience is this The Question between him and the Jewes was not whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God And he concludes that it is by faith and not by works Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand not the act or habit of faith but the object scil Christs righteousnesse or righteousnesse imputed His reason is because else there were no opposition between faith and works seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no lesse then love Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works and for the imputation of faith unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. still as opposed to works ver 4 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation But now we have another answer which overthrows the former namely that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousnesse What aileth thee O Jordan that thou art turned backward Yea he will not allow that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when or the conâ—tion upon which we are justified Yet I think all men besides himself will grant that his designe is to shew the way and meanes by which a sinner may come to be justified Though I confesse I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this For if the Justification of all that are justified be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ as he supposeth then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner no counsel given him what course to take that he may be justified Only he may be told that if he be justified the way to know it is to beleeve And when the Jewes say We must be justified by works and the Apostle By faith they are both out for we are justified by neither And the Gentiles were in an errour in seeking to be justified by faith as well as the Jewes in seeking it by works if they seek any thing more then to know that they are justified But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion §. 2. that saith is put for its object Christ and his righteousnesse though he give us not one text that may convince us of it we must of necessity examine the truth of it And yet when I consider how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it selfe and how solidly already confuted by Mr. a De reâ— onâ— pâ—c par 2. l 1. c. 15. Wotton who also hath set down the testimonies of no lesse then fourty Authours Fathers and Protestants besides Papists all
coâ—senting with him I confesse I can hardly think it worth my labour yet something must be done this only being premised which hath also been before observed That when our Protestants sometimes say the word faith in this Proposition we are justified by faith is to be taken objectively they intend not to exclude faith it selfe from its concurrence to our Justification as Mr. Eyre doth for we have shewed in the first Chapter their unanimous consent in making faith the instrument or condition of our Justification But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cause of our Justification which they truly say is only the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ who is the object of our faith So that we are justified by Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and yet by faith as the instrument or condition upon which the righteousnesse of Christ hath effect upon us to our Justification And so I come to prove that faith is to be taken subjectively for the grace or act of faith not objectively for Christ throughtout the Apostles discourse for Justification by faith SECT II. 1. SUch an Interpretation of the words as makes non-sense of most §. 3. of the Scriptures which speak of Justification by faith is not to be admitted But to put faith for Christ beleeved on makes non-sense of most of those texts which speak of Justification by faith Ergo. For proof of the minor we shall begin where the Apostle begins to dispute for Justification by faith Rom. 3. 21 22. But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ put faith for Christ believed or and the words run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by Christ of Jesus Christ or put it for the righteousnesse of Christ and they run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by righteousnesse of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve Almost the very same words doth this Apostle use Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found in him not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Where in like manner if faith be put for righteousnesse we must reade the words thus Not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through righteousnesse I hope the Reader doth not expect that I should spend time in confuting these absurd paraphrases I count that sufficiently done in mentioning them In the same Chapter to the Romanes ver 25. Whom God hâ—â—h set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood According to Mr. Eyre we must reade it Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Christ in his blood or at best through righteousnesse in his blood But his blood being here set forth as the object of the faith mentioned in the text the blood of Christ must be made the object of his righteousnesse if by faith be meant righteousnesse which will resolve the words into a pretty piece of sense Again ver 26. God through the death of Christ is said to be the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus What 's that of him that christeth in Jesus or what is it It is an easie matter to say that faith is put for Christ or his righteousnesse but the mischief is the substantive cannot be varied into a verbe or participle to make an intelligible Proposition for example We are justified by faith that is will Mr. Eyre say by Christ or his righteousnesse But then change the substantive into a verbe or participle and give me the sense of it As He that beleeveth in Christ is justified If faith be put for Christ what is it to beleeve in Christ or what do we mean when we say We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ We are justified by Christ in Jesus Christ or by righteousnesse in Jesus Christ This latter I confesse hath a more tolerable sound but not a grain more of sense For when we say We are justified by faith in Christ Christ in that Proposition is the object of faith and we the subject But if faith signifie righteousnesse then Christ is the object of his own righteousnesse Of the non-sense of this Interpretation the Reader shal see more in that which follows 2. Justification by Christ or his righteousnesse was finished in his death according to Mr. Eyre Ergo if faith signifie Christ or his righteousnesse we were justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead But many yeares after Christs death there were many who were to be justified by faith Rom. 3. 30. It is one God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future tense which shall justifie the circumcision and uncircumcision that is Jewes and Gentiles by faith which is the application of the general Conclusion ver 28. We conclude That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Ergo they were not justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead 3. But because Mr. Eyre by his marginal Annotation referres us §. 4. to Rom. 4. let us make some enquiry into that Chapter And if we prove that faith in that Chapter is meant of the act not of the object this controversie is ended We begin with the third verse Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse What can be more plain then that it was Abrahams believing which was imputed to him of the sense of that phrase we have spoke already even as when it is said of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse I appeal to common sense whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse or if something be to be understood which is not expressed let every mans fancie be left to its liberty to supply what he sees sit and we shall be much the better for the Scriptures 2. The same is also delivered more generally of all believers ver 5. To him that worketh not but beleeveth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse If there had been no more spoken in all the chapter this had been enough to prove that by faith here is meant the act not the object For 1. It is the expresse letter of the text To him that worketh not but believeth 2. That faith is here meant which is a mans own before it be imputed His faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is no mans before it be imputed If it be let us know what act that is distinct from imputation and antecedent to it by which Christs righteousnesse is made ours 3. That faith is here meant which is so a mans owne as that in individuo it is no bodies else But Christs righteousnesse is not so any one mans as to be no bodies
else for then should be but one man in the world to whom the righteousnesse of Christ were imputed The Proposition is manifest because the faith here spoken of is determined to the person of the beleever To him that beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision ver 11. And the truth is that otherwise I mean if His faith be His Christ Abrahams faith or Davids faith or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us with the very same propriety of speech as it is said to be imputed to him or them 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness the words are non-sense Put faith for righteousness and the words run thus But unto him that believeth his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness What sense is that or put it for Christ and they run thus But unto him that believeth his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousnesse I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctiâ—ication that is the Authour of both but to impute him unto righteousnesse is a barbarisme To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase His Christ in Scripture and of making Christ as distinct from his righteousnesse the object of justifying faith 3. We have already proved that to impute faith unto righteousnesse §. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life If then faith be put for Christ to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward Christ with righteousnesse And if for righteousnesse it is to reward righteousnesse with righteousnesse both which are absurd 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousnesse was the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised ver 10 11. If faith do here signifie Christs righteousnesse the words sound thus The righteousnesse of Christ which he had in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse And because he could not have it but by imputation therefore the full sense will be this The righteousnesse of Christ which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Spectatum admissi c. 5. Consider we also what is said ver 9 10 11 12. from whence §. 6. we advance three Arguments more 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful was the habit or grace of faith not the object A conjugatis Even as it is the habit of wisdom goodness temperance c. from whence a man is denominated wise good temperate c. but the faith which was imputed to him was that from whence he was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful for faith was imputed to him unto righteousnesse saith the Apostle ver 9. and that in his uncircumcision ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might become the father of all the faithful that are in uncircumcision that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ver 11. for so stands the connexion of the sentences and the beginning of this ver 11. And he received Circumcision c. is answered immediately by ver 12. And the father of circumcision c. The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith be blessed with faithful Abraham 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing then Abrahams faith signifies his believing and not Christs righteousnesse The reason is because to be a childe of Abrahams faith is to follow or imitate him in that which is called his faith as when Mr. Eyre calls me a sonne of Mr. Baxters faith And if we are like him by believing then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists between him the Father and us the children But we become the children of Abrahams faith even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse by believing ver 10. The father of all them that beleeve ver 11. That walk in the steps of father Abrahams faith Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham ver 16. 3. And I would that Mr. Eyre or some body else would make sense of the Apostles words if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse ver 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision to them that walk in the steps of his faith What is that Why to them that walk in his Christs righteousnesse I am even sick of this non-sense let me adde one word more that I may rid my self of this nausâ—ous work 6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter is that which is §. 7. described at large from ver 18. to the end where it is said that Abraham against hope believed in hope And being not weak in faith he considered not his own nor Sarahs age ver 19. That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith ver 20. And was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform ver 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse is manifest from the very next verse ver 22. And therefore it â—as imputed to him unto righteousnesse To make this the description of Christs righteousnesse would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous that I professe Reader I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase lest some prophane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt I might adde that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousnesse of Christ another may make as bold to interpret it of the Wisdome Power Goodness Faithfulness or any other Attribute of God for these also are the objects of faith and so to be justified by faith is to be justified by the Wisdome of God or by his Goodness c. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith will be as good sense thus expounded as if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse unless it be in those places where faith is particularly and expressely determined to Christ as its object and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act not for the object SECT III. NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth to §. 8. prove that faith must be put for its obiect the righteousnesse of Christ Else saith he the Apostle contradicts himself in opposing Justification by faith to Justification by works because faith it selfe is a work of ours Answ But by his favour I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apostle and that as perfectly as if he had studied to do it on purpose then that the Apostle contradicts himself For it is as manifest as light can make it that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works Rom. 4.
4 5. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth c. Not working is opposed to works Beleeving is not working with the Apostle Ergo believing is opposed to works Judge then who will for I am indifferent in so just a cause whether the Apostle contradict himselfe or Mr. Eyre him 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification stands thus according to Scripture That he that worketh doth himself effect that righteousnesse for which he is justified personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man to make him just before God And hence righteousnesse by works or by the Law is called our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousnesse of another even of the Lord Jesus Christ for which only he is justified And hence righteousnesse by faith is opposed to our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith So that he that is justified by works is justified for his own sake but he that is justified by faith is justified for anothers sake §. 9. But because this is the total summe of all Mr. Eyre hath to say for the abuse of the word Faith from its own native sense to a tropical I shall set down my answer more fully I distinguish therefore 1. Of works 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action and so no doubt but faith is a work so is laughing crying speaking reasoning and the like 2. Strictly for that obedience by which the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled really or in conceit and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to or of being made the conditions of our Justification by the righteousnesse of another In this sense doth the Apostle take works when he opposeth them to faith b Vid Conraâ— Vorst Schol. in loc Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt and ver 2. If Abraham were jâ—stified by works he hath whereof to glory Both which Propositions were false if works were any thing lesse then perfect legal righteousnesse for he had said before that there is no glorying for a sinner before God * Vid. Joh. Piscat Schol. in loc ex Olev Calvin Rom. 3. 23. Not that I think the Jewes themselves who sought righteousnesse by works did conceive they were able so to keep the Law as not at all to sin but rather thought such was their blindnesse that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification if they forbore the outward acts of sin and performed the outward act of duty c Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. Joh. Reynol Coâ—f with Hart. ch 7. D. 4. p. 264. neglecting the inward purity of heart d Sic Mâ—rmon in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉 or if their good works were more then their evil works or finally if they did perform those ceremonial observances which were required in the Law for the expiation of sinne Matâ—h 19. 18 19. and 23. 25 26 27 28. Luke 18. 11 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this That all had sinned against the Law Rom. 3. 19 20 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law for it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10 11. Now works being taken in this strict sense it is manifest that faith is not works no e Fidem non esâ—e opus Viâ— Câ—mâ—ron prâ—lect in Mâ—â— 16. â—7 opâ—r p. 47 48. nor a work as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous as the Apostle expressely witnesseth Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith that is requires not faith in order to Justification but the man that doth them shall live in them 2. When we speak of Justification by works and of Justification §. 10. by faith the particle By hath not the same sense in both Propositions But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousnesse for which a person is justified in the latter it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition upon which we receive the gift of Christs righteousness Of the use of that particle in such a sense the Reader shall finde many instances in answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter When then he disputes that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense we are justified by works because faith is a work I deny the consequence with the proof of it The former because to be justified by faith is to be justified by the righteousnesse of another through faith as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us but to be justified by works is to be justified by and for a righteousnesse wrought by our selves The latter because faith is not a work as the Apostle useth works that is no part of that righteousnesse for which we are justified What can be objected against this the Reader will meet with in the following discourse In the mean time I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument in all the following places which are very many wherein it is objected against me that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies even unto nauseousnesse SECT IV. THe second general Argument proving that Justification by §. 11. faith is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification is this It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three wayes Either as an Argument affected to prove it or axiomatically or syllogistically which termes because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three wayes Ergo we cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification This Reader is the summe and scope of my second Argument which I have here set down distinctly that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake common to Mr. Eyre with some of my own friends as themselves have told me as if I had denied all use of faith in evidencing Justification which is as farre from my judgement as the East is from the West I confesse I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken because there is an ellipfis in my words which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension for whereas it is said in my Sermon page 3. It is a most unsound Assertion that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The full sentence should have been
this It is an unsound Assertion that we are said to be justified by faith because that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The proof of this is the manifest tendency of every branch of this Argument and of each Argument under each branch And I am apt to think Mr. Eyre himself so understood me when he comes to particulars for he doth not once charge them with impertinency which he might have done with advantage enough if it had not been clear that they were all levelled at another scope then simply to prove that faith is of no use to evidence Justification As to the thing it self I am so far from denying faith to evidence our Justification that I do assert as followeth 1. As the word evidence signifies that which is affected to argue another thing so faith doth â—vidence our Justification yea and is the first thing that doth evidence it 2. Faith doth also evidence Justification axiomatically to all those that have a particular testimony from God that they are justified As those whom Christ tells in the Gospel that their sinnes were forgiven them Matth. 9. 2 5. Luke 5. 20 23. and 7. 47 48. If any man now living hath the like testimony from God that his sins are forgiven he hath no better way to evidence it to himselfe then without any more ado to beleeve that they are forgiven 3. Faith doth also concurre to the evidencing of Justification syllogistically but then the whole evidence is not of faith as we shall shew by and by I do therefore acknowledge the use of faith in evidencing Justification in all those wayes by which it may be evidenced though not of faith only in the last nor at all in the second unlesse there be any man that hath heard God saying to him Thy sins are forgiven thee Come we on then to the proof of particulars And first that we §. 12. cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect thereof To evidence Justification as an Argument is no more then for faith to have such a relation unto Justification as that where the one is the other must needs be also and he that knows the relation they have to each other cannot but know that where faith is there Justification must needs also be Even as laughing and crying may be said to evidence reason in a childe though it may not evidence it to the childe himself because he knows not the dependance of these actions upon his reason so we say where there is smoak there is some fire Groanings argue some ill affection in the body and generally every effect doth argue and evidence its cause to them that know the connexion between the cause and effect Mr. Eyre disclaims faiths evidencing in this way though in answer to Rom. 4. 24. above debated of his Book pag. 44. § 6. he hath as plainly yielded it as can be in these words Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us that we whether Jewes or Gentiles are the persons to whom this grace belongs if God hath drawn our hearts to beleeve and obey the Gospel in regard that none do or can beleeve but such as are ordained to life and to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ What is this but that faith doth evidence our Justification as an Argument seeing that where one is the other is also where there is faith there is Justification It seems the same thing is good Divinity out of Mr. Eyres mouth but out of mine an errour Yet though Mr. Eyre will not owne that faith doth evidence Justification in this way he thinks fit to give his Reader his sense of my Reasons There are therefore three Reasons in my Sermon why we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument The first is this Because then Justification by faith is not necessarily so much as Justification in conscience A Christian may have faith and yet not have the evidence that he is justified As a childe may laugh and cry and yet not have the evidence or clear knowledge that himselfe hath reason c. Mr. Eyre answers 1. By intimating that this agrees not with what I allege out of the Apostle 1 John 3. 20. to prove that if our hearts condemn us God doth much more condemn us 2. If faith did evidence only as a signe it would be a dark and unsatisfying evidence 3. Nothing that precedes faith doth prove a man justified nothing that follows it is so apt to prove it as faith it selfe 4. Wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of this grace In the least spark of fire and the least twinkling starre there is some light Rep. To the first I say that it never came into my minde to prove that God condemns every one whom his own conscience condemns but that if conscience condemns truly then the judgement thereof is according to the judgement of God and so God condemns as well as conscience But if a beleevers heart shall tell him that he is not justified and his sins not pardoned his conscience is erroneous and judgeth otherwise then God judgeth 2. The two next answers are like chips in pottage that do neither good nor hurt as I see When I can understand whether they make with me or against me I shall consider them farther 3. The fourth answer that whosoever hath faith hath some evidence of his Justification for that he meanes by grace or else it s nothing to the purpose I deny utteâ—ly if by evidence he mean not that which would prove it if it were rightly understood but a mans actual knowledge that he is justified And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it why the least spark of fire hath some light and the least twinkling starre True So the least degree of true faith hath that in it which if it were rightly apprehended would make some discovery that a man were justified But these sparks of fire give no light at all when they lie buried under heaps of ashes and such black and dâ—smal clouds may cover the face of the Heavens that we cannot see not only the lesser stars but not those of greatest magnitude And the Scripture testifieth not only positively that a gracious soule may walk in darknesse but to expresse the greatnesse of this darknesse addes an universal negative And may see no light that is as f Childe of light page 5. 6 8 9 10. Dr. Godwin hath excellently proved he may be without all evidence of his Justification of which the said Doctor gives several instances in David Job Heman and Christ himself and proposeth largely the causes and cure of such darknesse in all which he hath bestowed a great deal of excellent and acceptable paines to no purpose if Mr. Eyres doctrine here be true How many soules have I known and g See Mr. Tho.
Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
note Reader that the words as well are not a note of parity as Mr. Eyre mistakes them I doubt not unwillingly but of similitude for I do not mean that works do evidence with an equal degree of clearnesse or certainty but in the same way or manner or that they are an evidence of the same kinde and nature as faith is if faith evidence barely as an effect And so we may be said to be justified by works by the very same reason as we are said to be justified by faith if to be justified by faith be no more then by faith as an effect to know that we are justified which is that which Mr. Eyre will never be able to answer while he lives But let us see what he sayes for his denial of works to evidence as well as faith First saith he they do not evidence so clearly and certainly as faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality 2. Works do evidence in the judgement of charity and before men but not in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires Rep. All this is nothing Majus minus non variant speciem If works evidence Justification in the same way and manner as faith doth though not with such a perfect degree of evidence as faith doth then are we justified by works as well as by faith if to be justified be to know that we are justified 2. The Scriptures tell us that works Christian and spiritual works are a very clear and certain evidence 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren So 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. with ver 10 11. It is true there may be works like good works which are not so in truth and there may be faith like true faith which yet is not faith unfeigned but when works are brought to the light and manifested that they are wrought in God they are a very sure evidence as sure for ought I know as faith it selfe though I will not dispute it 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I have fought a good sight I have finished my course I have kept the faith hencefâ—rth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousnesse c. 3. What he sayes in the second place that works do evidence before men but not with that clearnesse and certainty which the conscience requires is point blank against the Scriptures 1 John 3. 18 19. My little children let us not lâ—ve in wâ—rd neither in tongue but in deed and in truth And hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him 4. Observe also Reader that Mr. Eyre doth here as also in other places distinguish between faith and works and yet to oppose me will not allow that we are justified by faith because faith is a work Before I passe to the next branch of this Argument I must acquaint §. 17. thee Reader that in the close of this I added these words Whether works be the first effect namely of Justification or the second and by consequence the first evidence or the second is not at all material in this case because the Apostle when he denies Justification by works excludes works altogether Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. The Reason why I added this was Because when Mr. Warren proposed this Argument against Mr. Eyre all the answer he could get was this Question Whether Works were the first evidence or the second The impertinency of this Question I thought fit to discover by observing that the Apostle denies to works any influence at all into that Justification which he speaks of and therefore he speaks not of Justification by way of evidence whether first or second But the principal intent of the Argument was to prove the main Conclusion That the Apostle when he disputes for Justification by faith cannot be understood of Justification declared in couscience for works have an efficiency in producing that Justification But the Apostle rejects works from having any hand at all in that Justification which he disputes for Therefore he meanes not Justification in conscience To this Mr. Eyre hath held it his wisest course to say nothing If he should have distinguished of works as that he must do if he do any thing he knows well enough what advantage he had put into my hands against himself Whether this be an Argument of a minde desirous to advance the truth the day will make manifest SECT V. I Come now to the second branch of my Argument and that is §. 18. That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification immediately or axiomatically which before I prove I must speak something by way of Explication By an axiome we mean a sentence or Proposition manifest by its own light worthy to be believed for its own sake so that it is no sooner proposed but the mind h In intellectione perfecta reperiuntur tria Primum est conformitas actus cum objecto secundum necessitas assentiendi tertium impotentia ad falsitaâ—em Pâ—imum vocatur veritas Secundum evidentia Tertium certitudo P. Hâ—rt de Meâ—doz de Anim. d. 8. sect 1. §. â— assents to it presently that it is true As in naturall things that every whole is more then its part That man is a reasonable creature That two make four or the like These things are evident to our reason at first view without any farther proof And there is a double evidence in all such assent The one is the evidence of the object or the truth assented to which must be clearly represented in the Axiome or Proposition The other of the subject which is the light of reason within us by which we assent to a Proposition of evident truth and have the clear knowledge thereof Even as unto our seeing of any thing there must concurre an external light to make the object visible and internal sight in the eye to evidence the same object to each man in particular for though the light shine never so clearly a blinde man can see nothing nor the most quick-sighted without outward light The case is the same in supernatural verities as That Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God that he is come into the world to save sinnâ—rs that whosoever believeth on him shall be saved and the like Which things because they are above the reach and comprehension of natural reason therefore our mindes assent not to them nor have the evidence of them till they be informed with a more supernatural light and principle namely faith which is the eye and sight of the soule Heb. 11. 26 27. Hence the Apostle in that chapter ver 1. describes faith to be the evidence of things not seen and sayes ver 3. By faith we know the world was made by the Word of God That God made the world is evidenced objectively by the
judgement If a man shall come to him and say Sir I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified and that all my sins are pardoned but whether I beleeve or no or ever did that I cannot tell Would he allow this perswasion to be of God If not then doth not the Spirit testifie to any man immediately that he is justified but the evidence of the Spirit as I said before is if not expressely yet implicitly syllogistical If so I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles He that doth not believe cannot be assured that he is justified But thou dost not believe Ergo thou canst not have assurance from the Spirit that thou art justified What will be here denied Not the major for that 's an undoubted truth grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation Not the minor for the man whom we are now convincing of his errour in pretending to assurance by the Spirit is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo he cannot truly say he hath faith though he have it because to affirme that for truth which we do not know to be true is a lie though the thing should be so as we say Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion that his assurance is not from the Spirit else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture Secondly Mr. Eyres words do also contradict themselves notoriously §. 23. First he tells us that faith evidenceth our Justification by assenting to and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever otherwise he could taste no sweetnesse in them To tell us that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions and then to say in the same breath that it can taste no sweetnesse in general Propositions but they must be first made particular by the Spirit is to say and unsay 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel must first be made particular by the Spirit before the soul can taste any sweetnesse in them for which I confesse there is all the reason in the world for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending the Proposition assented to and tasted must be before the act assenting and tasting But then hence it will follow that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit that he is justified For this Proposition thus made particular by the Spirit is the object of his assent and taste that is of his faith Ergo it exists before his faith even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them But to say it is evidenced to any man before he believes that he is justified is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned as well he may A mans faith suppose Peters can evidence no more to him subjectively §. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest But this Proposition He that believes is justified doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified for the former is general and the latter is proper And otherwise every one in the world that believes that Proposition might thereby have the evidence of Peters Justification as well as of his own Even as we know by faith that they to whom the Lord said Your sins are forgiven you were justified as well as themselves And all believers one as well as another know by faith that the world was made by the Word of God Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so Object But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter Answ I ask whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all mens faith If not then neither of their obedience which will introduce Antinomianisme with a vengeance If so as most undoubtedly so then this particular testimony of the Spirit is no object of Peters faith which I farther argue thus It is no object of Pauls faith that Peter is justified Ergo it is no object of Peters faith The reason is because the rule of all mens faith is one and the same equally Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect ibid. ver 1. which is but one Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the testimony of the Spirit that which Paul cannot or hath no ground to beleeve upon the testimony of Scripture then Peters faith doth not act by the same rule that Pauls doth but there will be as many rules of faith as there be persons in the world that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit 5. To conclude to make a general Proposition particular is to §. 25. change the substance and nature of it for it cannot be general and particular too though I readily grant as before that a truth proposed in common may be made particular in respect of its effectual operation upon one and not upon another but the Proposition it self remaines general still Ergo this particular testimony of the Spirit must be some other then that of Scripture unlesse by being made particular be meant no more then that a particular is inferred out of a general which is a syllogistical evidence not axiomatical which Mr. Eyre now disputes for But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and Mr. Eyre I think is of the same mind for he produceth not one text for it That which seemes most to favour it is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention and therefore I answer it for the sake of some others Compare this verse with the foregoing and with a parallel place to the Galatians and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sonnes God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts crying Abba Father So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Then it followes ver 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very same Spirit so I render the words beareth witnesse c. Hence I gather that this witnesse of the Spirit is not any secret revelation of a Proposition as this Thou Peter or Paul art justified made by the Spirit to the soul But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument that we are the children of God And because Arguments by themselves do not m Argument◠non arguunt extra dispositionem evidence actually but virtually therefore the Spirit by this work helping us to conclude our selves the children of God doth thereby witnesse that we are Gods children SECT VI. MY second
Argument to prove that faith doth not evidence Justification §. 26. axiomatically was this The faith which justifies is that which is to be preached and pressed upon the whole world But we cannot presse it upon every man in the world to believe that he is justified and that if he doth not beleeve this he shall be damned Understand Reader that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove that justifying faith is not a mans assurance that he is justified which I presumed was Mr. Eyres judgement because that Justification which is in Scripture made an immediate consequent of believing is with him a knowledge that we are justified I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an assurance because otherwise a man might beleeve and yet not be justified by faith And so the proving that faith was not an assurance would withal have proved that it doth not evidence Justification axiomatically or immediately But now I perceive that he doth not place the formality of faith in an assurance but rather makes this an essential property and effect of that if I understand him And so I confesse this Argument is not directly against him Neverthelesse it will not be amisse to examine his answer for if I mistake not either he must make faith to be an assurance tantamount or else he contradicts himself His answer therefore is this We do not presse every man to believe that he is justified but to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners 2. Amplexu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth but Mr. Eyre cannot §. 2◠own it if he will be true to his own principles 1. He hath told us before that faith is essentially assensus cum gustu an assent with a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise assented to But this circumstance must concurre to make the Promise an object of my faith namely that I have right and interest therein otherwise I can taste no sweetnesse in it that is otherwise I could not truly beleeve it for to taste sweetnesse is essential to faith Wherefore when we presse all men to believe and all men equally and that with a true faith it is supposed that all men have equally a right in the Promise or else they are commanded to beleeve without an object to be believed for the object of faith is the Promise in which I have right and interest according to Mr. Eyre And this is that which I say is tantamount to a perswading of all men to beleeve that they are justified To argue it a little farther The right which I have in the Promise is either antecedent to my faith or consequent to it If antecedent I have what I would for then when in the preaching of the Gospel the Promise is proposed as an object of that faith which we perswade all men to the right of all men equally in that Promise must be presupposed it being not the Promise simply but the Promise in which men have right that is the object of faith If consequent then the first act of faith cannot be a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise because till I beleeve I have no right in the Promise and therefore can taste no sweetnesse in it according to Mr. Eyre To what he here sayes that we presse all men to believe there is §. 28. a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners because it is the summe of that which the soul assenteth to and tasteth sweetnesse in and thereby immediately comes to know its own Justification we must endeavour to understand more particularly 1. By sinners he meanes all or some only 2. The sufficiency of the merits of Christ must be understood either as distinguished from their efficiency and then the meaning is That Christ merited Justification for men sufficiently yet they are not thereby actually justified or as including their efficiency and then the meaning is that men were actually and most sufficiently justified in the meritorious death of Christ 3. The same sufficiency of Christs merits may be considered either absolutely and in themselves in respect of their own intrinsecal worth and value or relatively and ordinatively in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death and of Christ in giving up himself which distinctions being premised it were an easie matter to ring the changes upon the foresaid Proposition and vary it into innumerable formes but I shall mention no more then I must needs When then it is said that every man is to beleeve that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners the meaning must be either 1. That the merits of Christ were of themselves sufficient to have purchased Justification for all sinners though they did not purchase it de facto for any This is false Or 2. That Christs merits are indeed sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but the effect which is the actual Justification of sinners is suspended till we beleeve Nor can this be proposed to be believed by all men equally for it is false in respect of the Elect who according to Mr. Eyre were justified actually sixteen hundred yeares ago in the death of Christ Or 3. That the merits of Christ were sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but were never ordained to be effectual to the Justification of all upon any termes or conditions whatsoever Nor can this be the Promise or Proposition which is the object of our justifying faith according to Mr. Eyre The reason is because supposing that every man in the world should beleeve this which is no contradiction and therefore may be supposed as possible yet they should not be justified notwithstanding seeing Christ never intended that every man should be justified by his blood upon any termes Or 4. That the merits of Christ were ordained of God and Christ to the obtaining of Justification for every sinner most sufficiently if they should or would believe This is most true but Mr. Eyre rejects it as too much gratifying those that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sense which is a needlesse feare and the two Arguments which he here proposeth against it he might have seen long since answered by Reverend and Learned Bishop Davenant of famous memory in his Dissertation De Morte Christi cap. 3. page 22 23 30 31. In short let Mr. Eyre state his Proposition how he will To say the merits of Christ are sufficient and but sufficient before faith to Justification is that which the Elect cannot believe without errour To say they are sufficient in reference to their own value and intrinseca◠greatnesse n Vid. Job Raynoll Apolog. thes parag 14. can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Christ for righteousnesse nor can the believing it ever evidence
article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
believe c. Answ I am sure he knows that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place and of the last also that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ till they beleeve But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument §. 38. wherein I say that neither Justification in conscience nor before men are of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer § 11. which I am apt to think he would have taken no notice of but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me He refers me to some texts of Scripture to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men and in conscience though I cannot learn what account he had of the former from any of the texts mentioned But be it what it will be I give him this brief reply That in comparison of Justification before God neither the one nor the other are much worth though they may be of some worth in these inferiour Judicatories Not only children but grown persons for ought I know may be saved without being justified of men or of their own consciences And I will never beleeve that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith which one may live and die without and yet be saved Who will prove to me convincingly that a Christian may not live many years and die at last in melancholy or madnesse under which distempers the judgement of men or of conscience is not much valued and yet be saved or that a soul may not for some grievous sin go with sorrow and darknesse to the grave and never see light till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light CHAP. V. An Answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter whether faith be the condition of Justification The Affirmative proved from Scripture Mr. Eyres Arguments to the contrary all invalid SECT I. TO Mr. Eyres Argument That if we were justified by §. 1. faith we were not purely passive in our Justification I gave this answer That to beleeve is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico but the use of it in Justification is to qualifie us passively that we may be morally orderly capable of being justified by God or though physically it be an act yet morally it is but a passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God As the reading of the book or acceptance of a pardon amongst men is a condition without which an offendor is not pardoned Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is not the condition of Justification wherein I do the more gladly joyne issue with him because upon this assertion of ours doth he take occasion to asperse the received doctrine of Protestants with the reproachful names of Popery and Arminianisme Here therefore I shall shew three things 1. What a condition is 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification 3. That all Mr. Eyres Arguments §. 2. to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive A condition then is diversly described by divers Authours Some describe it thus a Navar. Enâ—hâ—r page â—8 Conditiâ— est suspensio ali cujus dispositioniâ— tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Others thus b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist in verb Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam dispâ—situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum Others thus c Pet. de Perus ibid. Est verbâ—rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam dâ—â—ponens vult dispositum regulari d In L. 1. F. de â—oud demonstr Bartolus thus Conditio est quidam futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditur Any of these will serve my turn these things being agreed 1. That it pertaines to him that disposeth of any thing to propound upon what condition his will is that it be disposed of or not disposed of 2. That the nature of a condition consists mainly in suspending the actual obligation of the disposer until the condition be performed 3. That it is the will of him that makes the condition which is the cause of the obligation that comes upon him when the condition is performed of which we shall see more anon Now that faith is the condition upon which God hath suspended §. 3. his actual donation of righteousnesse to a sinner is so plain and evident to me that I confesse I cannot but wonder that men acquainted with the Scriptures should so much as question it Several expressions there are taken notice of by e Vide Bartelum late in L. 1. F. de cond Demonstr Azor. Inst Moral par 3. l. 4. c. 24. Civilians and Moralists as signes or notes of a condition and scarcely one can I finde which the Scripture doth not use somewhere or other in describing the order and habitude of faith to our Justification But I shall instance but in one or two I begin with that Rom. 10. 6 9. The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved That salvation here includes Justification appears from the very next words ver 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse And I appeal to common sense whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest signe of a condition upon which Justification is suspended or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words that can more plainly expresse the matter of a condition Try it by comparison with other Scriptures Gen. 43. 4 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us we will go down but if thou wilt not send him we will not go down and Gen. 34. 22. Only herein will the men consent to us If every male amongst us be circumcised Herein will they consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is upon this condition will they consent as we render that word 1 Sam 11. 2. on this condition will I make a Covenant with you See Gen. 18. 26. 28 30. Exod. 4. 23. Prov. 2. 1 4. Jor. 18. 8 10. and hundreds of other places In all which the particle If is manifestly conditional nor upon the strictest observation which I have made in reading the Scriptures am I able to espy so much as one place wherein the said particle hath any other use when it supposeth to any thing that is future by vertue of a Promise Indeed Mr. Eyre did f Chap. 5. §. 6. before mention two places wherein he will have the particle If not to propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but only to describe the person to whom it belongs viz. 2
Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour and Heb. 3. 6. whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence unto the end As to the former place it should have been proved and not said only that the particle If is not a note of a condition if to be a vessel of honour be to be glorified in heaven Or if to be a vessel of honour do signifie a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God sanctified and meet for the Masters use and prepared unto every good work as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it then the particle If is a note of more then a condition even of a true proper cause of an effect that follows naturally and not by Promise for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment The next place Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose if the particle If be there granted to be meerly a description of the person because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory but simply affirmative The text saith not whose house we shall be if we hold fast but whose we are if we hold fast Neverthelesse g Parall l. 3. in loc Junius upon ver 14. which in sense is much the same with this doubts not to affirme the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat scil Christus nempe ut maneamus in ipso atque hanc conditionem nâ—tat Apostolus his verbis siquidem principium illius subsistentiae c. which testimony I quote the rather that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition as he doth somewhere represent him yea and on this verse he is expresse that continuance in the faith is the condition of our continuing to be Gods house §. 4. And that the words Rom. 10. 9. If thou beleeve with thine heart c. cannot be a description of the person meerly I prove largely below in a particular debate of that place I have here only one word to speak against it Either it describes the person from his faith to signifie that as such that is as a believer he is the subject of Justification and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty to a blessing consequent by vertue of a promise then is it antecedent as a condition Or it is a meer description of the person shewing that that is the man that shall be justified though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification but may as well follow after it as go before it But 1. This cannot be current sense if Justification be either from eternity or immediately in the death of Christ or at any time before this description be made for example Is it sense to say If thou be the man that dost or at any time shalt beleeve thou shalt be elected or Christ shall die for thee when both election and the death of Christ are long since past or if a man should say If thou shalt be glorified thou shalt be justified would not such a speech suppose that the person to whom those words are spoken was as yet not justified though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place 2. Let us take some parallel place and see how it will accord with it As the words of Christ to the father of the childe that was possest Mark 9. 23. If thou canst beleeve all things are possible to him that believeth Or the same words to his disciples Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustard-seed nothing shall be unpossible unto you If faith do here only describe the person and not propound the condition then whether the father had at present believed or no his childe must have been presently healed notwithstanding supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe and whether the disciples beleeve or no at present all things are possible to them presently they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other But more of this hereafter Another note of a condition is the particle if not or except which §. 5. we finde also used in Scripture in this matter for men are threatened that they shall not be justified except they beleeve John 8. 24. If you beleeve not or except you believe you shall die in your sins when men are threatened with damnation except they believe are they threatened absolutely or conditionally if the first then all the men of the world shall be damned for this is to be preached to all men that if they believe not they shall be damned If conditionally then faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you you shall see my face no more Josh 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more except you destroy the accursed from amongst you Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament then it is clear from hence that their destroying the accursed from amongst them was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of Gods Presence Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved See also Luke 13. 3 5. Rev. 2. 5 22. and multitudes of other places In all which the same particle is a note of a condition unlesse we shall have the modesty to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to §. 6. them that believe prove the same thing particularly Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life with many places of like nature To all which I guesse what Mr. Eyres answer will be by what he saith of the last of these chap. 13. § 14. pag. 135. This text saith he and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit They that beleeve Many such cathedral determinations we have from him without §. 7. so much as a pretence to proof especially in his answers to Scriptures alledged against him yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense 1. It
cannot indeed be denied but that the same words which propose the condition upon which a benefit is obtained may also consequentèr declare the persons to whom the said benefit doth belong but that such manner of speech as is used in these texts doth only shew the persons who and not the condition or meanes by which a benefit is obtained is contrary to the perpetual sense of Scripture Let us transcribe a few texts of many Numb 21. 8. And it shall come to passe that overy one or whosoever is bitten when he looketh upon it namely upon the brazen Serpent shall live I do the rather instance in these words because the Lord illustrateth the method of Redemption by them John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish c. If the protasis had been full it had run thus As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed even so c. And do those words that whosoever looked on him only describe the person that was healed but not propound the condition or meanes of healing common sense cannot endure it Their looking up to the brazen Serpent was antecedent to their healing and a meanes ordained for them to use that they might be healed and their healing followed by vertue of Gods power and faithfulnesse Ergo it was a condition of their healing And the distributive particle whosoever doth sufficiently shew that it was every one promiscuously one as well as another for whose healing the Serpent was lifted up through their looking on it and not a note of distinction to difference one from another So Mark 11. 23. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain believingly Be thou removed he shall have whatsoever he saith Is this also a description of the person but not a propounding of the meanes by which those works may be obtained to be wrought see the like expressions Matth. 13. 12. and 16. 25. and 18. 4. Mark 9. 41. Rev. 22. 17. and other places without number To all which if Mr. Eyre can oppose but one that will admit such a sense as here he puts upon the texts under debate he shall do more then any Authour else that I can yet meet with 2. If these and the like places do only describe the persons that shall be saved then do they ascribe no more to faith in reference to salvation then unto works Works of righteousnesse being as proper and peculiar to them that shall be saved as faith it selfe and therefore the description of the person might as well be taken from them as from faith 3. That which serves only to describe a person in specie cannot be proposed to another person as a meanes by which he may enjoy a like benefit no more then if the said person had been described in individuo for example suppose the Lord had described them that shall be saved not from faith their specifick quality but by their proper names and had said God gave his Son to death that Peter and Paul and James and John c. might be saved were it not against all sense and sobriety to go to Geofry Roger and Anthony and tell them if they will be Peter and Paul they shall be saved or suppose the description had been from the species and the words had run thus God gave his Son that whosoever is borne of Jewish Parents should be saved were it not ridiculous with all seriousnesse earnestnesse and tendernesse of compassion to exhort and beseech and charge the Gentiles to be borne of Jewish Parents that they might be saved yea suppose they had been described from their Election as they might have been more properly then from their faith had it not been absurd to exhort men that they would be elected that so they might be saved I conclude therefore that the texts before us are not a description of the person but a proposing of a condition upon which only salvation is attainable words that are meerly descriptory can never be resolved into a command or exhortation SECT II. LEt us now see whether Mr. Eyre hath done any thing towards §. 8. a proofe that faith is not the condition of Justification His first Reason is this That interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true But to interpret Justification by faith meerly thus that faith is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification as to repentance charity new obedience c. Answ 1. If the Proposition be true as I believe it to be most true Mr. Eyre hath hitherto deluded us grossely in interpreting Justification by faith for a knowledge or evidence that we are justified seeing works concur to such an evidence and that by his own concession as was above demonstrated 2. The Assumption also I presume proceeds upon the supposed principles of those whom he opposeth and not according to his own sense for I think he will not say that any works of Sanctification do qualifie us for Justification 3. I deny the Assumption And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it Why Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond say so Yet are neither of these Authours of such authority with Mr. Eyre in other cases as that their word should passe for a proof And yet hath he not fairly represented them neither Dr. Hammond I confesse is to me lesse plain and intelligible but if Mr. Eyre will undertake that his notion is the same with Mr. Baxters he might have seen in very many places of Mr. Baxters writings that he makes works but the secondary lesse principal conditions at most and denies them to be any conditions at all in reference to our first entrance into a state of Justification And must we yet believe against an Authours owne words that he ascribes no more to faith then unto other works of sanctification in the matter of Justification 4. I also do make repentance a necessary condition of remission of sins because the Scripture doth so Luke 24. 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and 3. 19. Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. But I conceive withal that the one is included in the other and that their difference is rather respective then real if we speak of faith as it is in the will partly as to the object faith respecting Christ immediately and repentance God Acts 20. 21. partly as to the termes the same motion of the soule in respect of the terminus à quo namely dead works being called repentance and in respect of the terminus ad quem namely God in Christ more peculiarly faith Heb. 6. 1. Repentance also in its formal
not have saved him without his reading and much lesse would his reading have saved him without that favourable Law yet his life is a thousand fold more worth then his reading of two or three lines and therefore he owes a thousand times more thanks to his Prince for giving him his life upon such a condition then to himself for reading supposing his reading to have been the purchase of his life If a man sell a farme to his friend for five hundred for which another would have given him a thousand what more common then to say He hath given his friend five hundred in the buying 3. But in sober sadnesse doth Mr. Eyre think the welch man speaks §. 25. properly in his God blesse her father c That were a jest indeed How comes it then to be a ridiculous object if there be not some h pleasing deformity in it that flatters the fancie and surprizeth k See Sie râ—de la Câ—ambre Charact. of the Passions ch 4. of laughter p. 210. the soule so moving laughter And what can that deformity be except the welch idiome but the fallacy of non causa pro causa putting that for the cause which is not the cause as we are wont out of Cicero when we see a little man girt with a great sword to transplace the Subject and the Adjunct and say who tied that man to that sword Had the welch man cried as he was bid God blesse the King and the Judge the propriety of the speech had spoiled the jest and deprived it of that facetiousnesse and lepidity which now causeth us to make merry with it A certain discovery that the speech is not proper nor the condition of reading the cause of his pardon the speech becoming ridiculous upon no other account but because it would insinuate that to be the cause which was no more then a condition But the serious judgement of all offendors who escape death by this means and the wisdome of our statâ— determining it to be an act of royal grace and favour to pardon a man on this condition might one would think be of as much authority as one welch mans word It is true indeed the Law nor the Judge could save him unlesse he read nor will God save us unleâ—â—â— we believe Heb. 3. 19. They could not enter in because of unâ—eliâ—f Not through defect of power or mercy in God which are both inâ—inâ—te but because he hath confined himself in the dispensation of pardon and salvation that he will bestow it upon none but them that believe Is it therefore not of grace because not without faith Whereas the Apostle sayes It is of faith that it might be of grace Rom. 4. 16. In that which followes I finde nothing which is not answered already §. 26. or must not be answered in due place for whereas Mr. Eyre sayes that the performance of the condition makes the conditional grant to become absolute the words are ambiguous If he mean it makes it absolute as that without which it had never been absolute I grant it if he mean it makes it absolute by contributing any direct causality I deny it for upon performance of the condition the conditional grant doth indeed become absolute not by the worth or efficacy of the condition but by the will of the Promiser that upon the existence of such a thing or action will be obliged and not without it We have already given several instances of conditions which have nothing of worth in them to engage the Donour and therefore cannot be the cause of the gift for nothing can produce an effect more noble and excellent then it selfe Nor doth it receive any addition of intrinsecal worth by being made the condition otherwise we might work as rare feats by the influence of our wills as l Magnet cure of wounds Van Helmont thinks may be wrought by the magick of the fancie 'T is but willing a pin to be worth a pound and it shall be done And when he addes in the next place that if faith be the condition of the New Covenant in such a sense as perfect obedience was the condition of the old man must needs be his own Justifier if he mean such in the matter and particular nature of the condition It is true if he mean such in the common nature of a condition it is false for we have shewed before both from Reason and Scripture Divines and Lawyers that some kinde of conditions are so far from being inconsistent with grace as that they advance it rather As suppose some benefit of very great value be bestowed on a worthlesse person upon condition that he acknowledge the rich superlative grace and love of the Donour to be the only cause of it Finally thus he speaks As in the old Covenant it was not Gods threat that brought death upon the world just so in the New if it be a conditional Promise it is not the Promise that justifies a beleever but the beleever himself The answer is ready Death came into the world by sin as the culpable meritorious cause but sin could not have slain us but by the Law 1 Cor. 15. 56. Rom. 5. 13 14. Ergo. It is not warily said that Gods threat did not bring death upon the world 2. And when Mr. Eyre hath proved that our performance of the Gospel-conditions hath the same proportion to our salvation as sin hath to our destruction the Papists shall thank him Rom. 6. last The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Mens not-accepting of the grace of God may make that grace without effect as to themselves 2 Cor. 6. 1. Rom. 3. 3. But that therefore their acceptance is the cause of Gods being gracious to them is wilde reasoning And as to worthy Dr. Kendal out of whom Mr. Eyre quotes these passages he hath publickly enough and in Mr. Eyres hearing for one declared himself to be no enemy against conditions of Justification or salvation That he that is pardoned upon his reading doth not pardon himself §. 27. I proved thus because then he must concurre either to the making of the Law which gives pardon upon such a condition or to the pronouncing of the sentence of absolution upon himself according to that Law This Mr. Eyre saith is an impertinent answer because the question is not whether a man did concur in making the Law and Rule of his Justification but whether he had any causal influxe in producing the effect thereof Rep. My answer if he will call it so was very pertinent as to the case of an offendor saved by his Clergy whose pardon is perfected by a Law which gives the remote right and sentence passed according to that Law which produceth his immunity it selfe If then the said offendor cause his own pardon it must be by concurring some way or other to the production of one of these The case is altogether
the same in our justification before God which consists in a Law of grace and in sentence passed according to that Law which because we must purposely prove by and by I shall here supersede for a while One thing more I added for illustration in these words It is God §. 28. that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we beleeve Mr. Eyres answer consists of two parts the one is a concession of what I say with an explanation how glory is called a reward and sayes That a reward is for a work two wayes 1. When a work is proportionable to the wages 2. When it is not answerable to the wages yet is due by Promise as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an houres labour though the work be not worth it yet it is a due debt and he may challenge it as such Rep. Against which I have not much to oppose yet if the houres work neither in respect to its selfe nor any circumstance that attends it as the Art Danger Detriment of the Labourer or the necessity pleasure profit c. of him for whom he labours all which corne into the m Less de just jured 2 c. 18. d. 3. value of the work deserve the said twenty shillings then is the reward though partly of debt quia operanti aliquid abest because the workman puts himself to expence of time and strength and he for whom he worketh hath the benefit and advantage thereof yet is it also of grace n Azor. Insiit Mor. p 3. l. 11. c. 3. quatenus excedit meritum inasmuch as it exceeds the value of the work And that the Labourer may challenge it ariseth from civil not from natural justice But I readily grant that glory is not our reward in this sense But how then is it a reward Because it comes after and in the place of the work saith Mr. Eyre Rep. Of which I shall speak more hereafter for the present what is said sufficeth me viz. That the reward follows the act whereof it is the reward for hence it follows that if Justification be given as the reward of faith then must it needs follow faith But we have proved before that Justification even the imputation of righteousnesse is the gracious reward of faith Ergo it must needs be consequent to it His second answer is this Though the blessings of the Covenant be given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order in bestowing them first he gives grace imputed and then inherent Rep. My Argument is à pari we are not glorified unlesse we believe §. 29. yet by beleeving we cannot be said properly to glorifie our selves so though we beleeve that we may be justified yet will it not follow that we may be therefore said to justifie our selves properly the reason is the same on both sides Now whereas Mr. Eyre will have us when beleevers yet to be passive in our glorification meerly because God doth first give faith and then afterwards give glory I wonder he sees not the insufficiency of such answers and how the Arminians get ground by them Say plainly Doth God require and charge us to beleeve and repent that we may be saved or doth he not If he doth then doth he require a condition to be performed on our parts in order to our Justification though he give it us for as o Dr. Twisse observes often Medium ad aliquid obtinendum o Vindic. Grat. de crrat p. 163. ex contractu vel foedere illud demum est conditio A means ordained to obtain any thing by Contract or Covenant is a Condition If he doth not what shall become of those many places wherein God exhorts and commands men to repent and beleeve that they may be saved Then unbelief and impenitency are no sins nor are men thereby the causes of their own ruine and destruction contrary to Scriptures John 3. 19 and 8. 24. passim The reason is plain because man 's not being the object of a gift of God precisely cannot be meritorious of his damnation Indeed Mr. Eyre told us before that he that doth the least work towards the procuring of a benefit is not only physically but morally active in obtaining it I wonder at my heart then why we pray for grace and salvation or why we do or suffer any thing for obtaining a Crown and Kingdom p Authores elus primi fuere Sadoc unde Sadducaei Baythos de quibus videsis Joh. Drus de trib sect Judaeor l. 3. c. 3. 4. Joh. Cameron Myroth in Mat. 22. 23. This very conceit was that which drew many in former ages to deny any resurrection other then what was past already and by some improvement may bid faire for a resurrection of that and like consequences The very substance of Religion and the vital act of faith consists in looking to the reward promised in Heaven Heb. 11. 6 26. 2 Cor. 4. 16 18. And had I not known some Christians fallen and falling off from prayer and ordinances and other spiritual duties upon this very ground that they are passive altogether in their salvation and that they neither can nor must do any thing toward it I would not have lost so much time as to have taken notice of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to Mr. Eyres tenth Chapter My first Argument against Justification before faith vindicated from all Mr. Eyres exceptions SECT I. HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justification §. 1. from many expresse testimonies of Scripture and discovered the fruitlesnesse of all Mr. Eyres attempts against them We proceed to the Vindication of the Reasons added in my Sermon for proof of the same point These Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter They are five in number and the first is this If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word that may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he remains in unbelief Ergo. Mr. Eyre first denies the Assumption For the Gospel declares that God hath transacted all the sins of the Elect on Jesus Christ and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby they are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Lev. 16. 30. Rep. 1. Supposing the tenour of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this yet I deny that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law to absolve the sinner from the sentence of a former Law The Reason's plain because it is but narratio rei gestae a meer historical narration of what
righteousnesse as our natural being in the first Adam to our partaking in his condemnation Yea. 3. It is a great deal more necessary and therefore I deny §. 6 Mr. Eyres consequence for though it were yielded that condemnation comes on men only by the Law of Adam yet will it by no means follow that Justification descends to us from Christ as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himselfe was justified The reason is plain because Adam represented all mankind as virtually in the same obligation with himself b Vide Paul Ferrium scholast Orthod spe c. 20 §. 3. and his offence was the act of the whole humane nature though it be not imputed to particular persons till they begin to exist and his condemnation was so far forth the condemnation of all mankinde it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with himselfe either in his obedience or Justification otherwise we are justified by works or he by grace for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied Gods justice in him and to have merited eternal life in him in the very same propriety of speech as we are said to have sinned and dyed in Adam which I will never beleeve while I live because it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the justification of a sinner The grace of our justification is usually placed in these c See the Assemb confes cap. 11. §. 3. two things 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us 2. And his obedience and â—â—tisfaction accepted in our stead But in neither of these is there any grace at all if we have merited and satisfied in him as we are said to sin and die or be condemned in Adam For the Law it self will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able for it inflicts the penalty but in ordâ—r to satisfaction and the punishment of sinners is not eternall but because they cannot satisfie by bearing it But if we have satisfied in Christ it seems we were able to do it â—b esse ad posse valet consequentia And justice it self will accept of satisfaction being performed And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us then he did with Adam in condemning him so neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us then he did with Christ in justifying him if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense in which Adams sinne and condemnation is ours How much safer is it to say with the Scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitiation for our owne sinnes or of purchasing in him redemption for our selves The conclusion is the Law that justified Christ cannot justifie us though the law that condemned Adam were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us which yet I have already denyed Ergâ— there must be some other Law according to which sinners are justified and that is that Law of grace preached in the Gospel whosoever beleeveth shall be saved called the law of faith Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. 4. No saith Mr. Eyre those places are to be understood of the §. 7. new covenant made with Christ not of the conditionall promise as I would have it Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres disputing that is dictating I acknowledge my selfe unworthy to be compared with him in any respect yet the truth if he think himself in the truth is worthy of a more laborious defense then a frigid so 't is or 't is not so though I may not be worthy of a better answer I am perswaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument hat may compell me to understand them improperly 1. For the law of faith it is expresly opposed to the law of works Where is boasting then it is excluded By what law of works nay but by the law of faith The law of works is the law that requires us to performe works that we may be justified Ergo the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto justification even that doctrine which manifesteth the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law as he had before described it v. 21 22. Thus Beza Evangelium vocat legem fidei id est doctrinum quae salutem propâ—nit sub conditione si credideris opposâ—tam doctrinae quae justitiam salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris To the same purpose Paraeus Aretius Hemmingius c. And therefore the Apostle having said that the law of faith excludes boasting he addes immediatly v. 28. we conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law To put faith for Christ is such a piece of boldnesse as I dare not adventure upon as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead The reasons are mentioned before 2. And as for the law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteousnesse which is of faith in the very next foregoing verse v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwise make sense of the Apostle when he sayes the Gentiles attained it by faith v. 30. and the Jews fell short of it by stumbling at Christ through unbelief v. 31. And a few verses below chap. 10. 6. the Apostle calls it the righteousnesse which is of faith and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach the voyce and tenour of which he describes v. 9. If thâ—u shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved and all this in opposition to the righteousnesse of the law which the Jews sought after the summe of which is comprehended in these words The man that doth them shall live by them v. 5. Hence it is manifest that the law of righteousnesse is that by which only righteousness is attainable and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that beleeve in Jesus though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moses SECT II. IN the next place Mr. Eyre offers us some Arguments to prove §. 8. that justification is not the discharge of a sinner by that signall conditionall promise of the Gospel he that believes shall be saved Let us try then for whereas he censures that saying of mine every man is then condemned when the Law condemnes him I stay not to answer him he might have seen if he would that I intended no more then that whosoever is condemned is condemned by a Law What then are the Arguments The first is crambe bis shall I say or
decies cocta that it will inferre justification by works for answer to which I referre the reader to chap. 4. and 5. having proved in the former that it is the Act or grace of faith which the Apostle perpetually opposeth to works and in the latter that benefits may be given of grace which yet are given upon condition His second Argument therefore is this If justification be by that signall promise he that beleeves shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published But the Fathers of the old Testament were justified before the publishing of that gracious sentence or any like it Ergo. Rep. A particular explicite faith in Christ was not absolutely necessary §. 9. to salvation till the times of the Gospel and the doctrine of faith and remission was in former times very sparingly and darkly revealed especially in the time between Adam and Moses Yet was the faith of the ancients the same for substance with the faith of Christians and of a like necessity to justification and salvation For Abel was justified by faith Heb. 11. 4. and Enocâ— v. 5. and Nâ—ah v. 7. and Abraham Rom. 4. sic de caeteris and surely they could not believe without a Preacher by whom they might heare of him on whom they beleeved But supposing the promise of remission to be suitable to those times of darker dispensation and the condition of that faith which was then required as sufficient to salvation I passe the proposition 2. I deny the assumption which hath here no other proofe then the old Argument so t is namely that there was not a promise of forgivenesse preached unto the world upon condition of repentance and returning unto God which is the substance of faith before the incarnation of our Lord. There were many Preachers of righteousnesse in the old world Noah d See Dr Golls Sermon before the Astrologers p. 28 29. Manasse Ben. Israel Concil in Gen. 4. 26. 3. is reckoned the eighth 2 Pet. 2. 5. beginning at Enos Gen. 4. 26. And he no question preached faith and repentance to the world that they might escape the destruction of soul and body at once who notwithstanding his preaching perished by their disobedience or unbelief the Greek word signifieth either 1 Pet. 3. 20. and he by his faith is said in a comparative sense to have condemned them Heb. 11. 7. And in the book of Job who lived before the law we finde the world had notice of such a conditionall promise though not from any written word but by tradition or by Preachers immediatly raised up Job 8. 4 5 6. If thy children have sinned against him If thou wouldest seek unto God betime and make thy supplication to the Almighty if thou be pure and upright surely now he would awake for thee c. and this he tells us was the faith of the Fathers many generations before v. 8 9. compare v. 20 21. So chap 33. 27 28. he looketh upon men and if any say I have sinned he will deliver his soul from going down into the pit So chap. 22. 21 22 23. Acquaint thy self with God lay up his words in thy heart If thou returne to the Almighty thou shalt be built up c. see also chap. 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. And what lesse doth the Lord say to Cain Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted namely if thou dost well as Abel did shalt thou not be accepted as well as he And wherein Abel's well doing consisted the Apostle tells us Heb. 11. 4. By saith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice then Cain So that from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Moses the world was not altogether without notice of the promise of salvation upon condition of faith and repentance c Vide Mos â—myrâ—â— Spec. anima lâ—er special pâ—r 3 anima i. General par 3. 4. In Moses's time the matter is clearer then to need proofe Heb. 4. 1 2. Let us therefore feare least a promise being left us of entring into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it for unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them being not mixed with faith in them that heard it Hence 1. it is manifest that salvation was promised Israel under the type of rest in Canaan 2. That it was not promised them absolutely but upon condition whether the condition were expressed or understood otherwise their non-entrance into Rest must have been imputed wholly to Gods unfaithfulnesse and not to their unbelief whereas the text sayes expresly it was their unbelief which made the promise of no effect to them and they could not enter in because of unbelief chap. 3 19. 3. That the Gospel is preached to us as it was to them and therefore the same condition is required of us as was required of them namely faith otherwise we also shall fall short of the promised rest as they did v. 1. The third Argument is this If justification be only by a declared §. 10. discharge then elect infants that die in their infancy have no justification Rep. I deny the consequence where 's the proofe I can find no other but this that infants are insensible of this declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise which is nothing in the world to the purpose Cannot infants have right to a benefit by law or the declared act of a Rector or Lawgiver because they are unsensible of it and cannot plead it They are condemned by law whiles infants Rom. 5. 14. They may be servants or free by law Do not our laws provide for the rights of Minors Pupils and Orphans even in their infancy 2. It doth also ruine the maine pillars of Mr. Eyres discourse All the places which I before alledged to prove justification by faith according to him are to be understood of the manifestation of justification to the conscience Give me leave then to retort his owne Argument The justification spoken of in the places aforesaid Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39. c. is that without which no man can be saved But some may be saved without justification manifested and declared to the conscience as infants Ergo the justification mentioned in those places is not justification in conscience or manifested unto conscience The fourth Argument succeeds The making justification a §. 11. declared discharge detracts from the majesty and soveraignty of God for it ascribes to him but the office of a notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or supream Magistrate Rep. If this Argument be cast into forme it runs thus He that forgives sin by a declared Act is but a notary or subordinate Minister for their work it is to declare and publish the sentence
the words of Mark arguing manifestly from the right and authority which he had received to the lawful exercise of it in making and ordering to be published that Law or Act of Pardon whereof he doth then and there appoint his disciples to be Ambassadours I confesse I cannot imagine what can here be said unlesse it be one of these two things Either 1. That remission of sin is not contained in that salvation which is here promised to them that believe But this me thinks should be too harsh for any Christians eares to endure seeing it must contain all that good which is opposed to condemnation and therefore primarily remission of sins which is also expresly mentioned by the other Evangelists Luke 24. 47. John 20. 23. and by the Apostles in the execution of this their commission as a prime part of that salvation which they preached in the Name of Christ Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19 c. Or 2. That those words He that believes shall be saved are a meer description of the persons that shall be saved which I think is the sense that Mr. Eyre somewhere doth put upon them but this to me is more intolerable then the former partly for the reasons mentioned before chap. 5. and to be mentioned hereafter partly because according to such an interpretation the words will be no more then a simple affirmation or relation of what shall come to passe whereas by their dependance upon the foregoing All power is given to me in heaven and in earth it is manifest that they are an authoritative Sanction of the Lord Christ's an act of that jurisdiction and legislative power which he hath received from the Father and so the standing rule of remission of sins 2. If it be by the Promise of the Gospel He that believes shall not perish §. 19. but shall have everlasting life If I say it be by this Promise that God gives sinners a right to impunity and eternal life then by this Promise he justifies them But by the foresaid promise doth God give sinners a right to impunity and eternal life Ergo. The Proposition I passe as manifest by its own light The Assumption is delivered in several Scriptures Thus Paul Gal. 3. 18. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by Promise Ergo it is by Promise also that a right to life is given to all that have it This Promise is either particular or general The former it is not for God doth not now make any particular Promises to particular men such as was his Promise to believing Abraham Ergo it must be the general Promise wherein the same blessings as were given to Abraham are proposed to all men to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and by the same Promise given them when they believe which Promise is that before mentioned of life and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ the Apostle himself being Interpreter ver 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe The same doth he assert at large Rom. 4. 13 14 16 23 24. 3. The Lord Jesus sayes expressely John 12. 48. That the §. 20. Word which he spake shall judge unbelievers at the last day If a judgment of condemnation be ascribed to the Word in reference to unbelievers how can it be denied a judgement of Justification in reference to believers Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judiciâ— potestas defertur Conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit saith Calvin upon the place Yea the Lord ascribes to the same Word a judgement of Justification ver 50. And I know that his Commandment is life everlasting that is the cause of it as Moses also speaks Deut. 32. 47. i See also Deuâ— â—â— v 15 â—â— It is your life though God be the principal cause and the Word but the k Vid. Synops pâ—r theol disp â—3 §. 10 Down of Jâ—stif c. â— â— 5. â—libi passim instrumental and therefore the power which it hath of judgement it hath from hence that it is the Word of God ver 49. For I have not spoken of my selfe but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say as the instrumental cause works not but in the vertue of the principal To this plain testimony let me adde an Argument as plainly deduced from it If judgement shall passe at the last day according to the Word then the Word is that Law which is the rule of judgement and by consequence to one is given by the Word a right to life and another is obliged to condemnation by the same Word But the antecedent is most true Ergo so is the consequent It is the work of judgement to give unto eâ—ery one according to what is due to him by Law if then a judgement of Justification passe upon any some Law of grace must be supposed according to which it becomes due for such a gracious sentence to passe upon him 4. And this is that which the Apostle James saith chap. 4. 12. §. 21. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy Beza observes that in foure ancient Greek Copies l As also in the Kings MS. See Dâ— Hammond Annot. in loc as also in the Syriack and the Latine Interpreter the word Judge is extant There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and destroy that is to whom pertaines the soveraign right and power of saving and destroying But whether the word be expressed or no it is surely implied for the Apostles scope is to disswade us from judging one another ver 11. because there is one Lawgiver to whom the power of judgment and so of absolving and condemning of saving and destroying doth appertain Now he that saves as a Lawgiver saves by absolution and he that absolves as a Lawgiver absolves by Law Ergo God absolves men that is pardons and justifies them by Law And when he shall judge all men at the last day his judgement whether of salvation or destruction shall proceed according to Law 5. Adde to this that the Apostle commends the excellency and glory §. 22. of the Gospel that God doth thereby justifie 2 Cor 3. 9. For if the ministration of condemnation he glory much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glory The ministration of condemnation is that which ver 7. he calls the ministration of death written and engraven in stones His scope is to shew the excellency of that Gospel which himself and other Apostles did preach and publish to the world above the ministration of the Law committed to Moses As then the ministration of death and condemnation was the ministration of that Law which did condemn unto death the effect being put for the cause so the
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
believer as much subject to condemnation of conscience as the unbeliever Upon the second branch of the Argument there is nothing I shall §. 20. need reply to saving only that passage of Mr. Eyres That Christs merits will not save those whom God doth condemne To which I say that though none other can justifie those whom God condemnes yet God himself may and doth justifie those whom he had before condemned or else no sonne of Adam ever was or shall be justified Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification of life A third Argument proving that the condemnation mentioned â— 21. John 3. 18. was not to be meant of condemnation in conscience only was because it is called the wrath which shall abide on unbelievers ver 36. Mr. Eyre answers Therefore we say no elect unbeliever is condemned of God because the wrath of God doth not abide upon him Rep. It is yielded then that the condemnation about which we dispute is not meerly condemnation in conscience which is as much as I ever sought from the place and that Mr. Eyre knows well enough 2. We have shewed before that the wrath of God is upon every one that is an unbeliever at present though it do not abide upon any but final unbelievers Lastly thus I argued The condemnation here spoken of is opposed §. 22. to salvation v. 17. Ergo it is more then condemnation in conscience Mr. Eyre answers That the condemnation opposed to salvation is damnation and then by Mr. Eyres Argument the Elect because they are sometimes unbelievers must all be damned Rep. Sure Mr. Eyre believes not our English Proverb As good never a whit as never the better Salvation is sometimes taken strictly for an executive deliverance from wrath Rom. 5. 9. And so none are saved in this life Sometimes more largely and so it containes both that compleat salvation and the beginnings of it in this life viz. that right which is given us to it in our Justification Luke 19. 9. Rom. 1. 16 17. and 10. 9 10. He that beleeveth not is under condemnation as it is opposed to salvation in the latter sense The second answer is replied to already CHAP. VIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres twelfth Chapter My third fourth and fifth Argument for the Antecedent of faith to Justification vindicated SECT I. A Third Argument by which I proved Justification to §. 1. be consequent to faith was taken from the several similitudes by which Justification by faith is illustrated I instanced particularly in two The first was that of the brazen Serpent John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the wildernesse supply that whosoever looked on him might recover of the sting of the fiery Serpent See the story it selfe Numb 21. 8 9. so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have everlasting life And John 6. 40. It is the Will of God that whosoever seeth and believeth the Sonne should be justified Mr. Eyre doth utterly deny that it was the intent of the Holy Ghost to shew by these comparisons in what order or method we are justified in the sight of God Wherein he fights not only against me but against a Comparamus fidem cum intuitu serpentis aen i. Intuitus ille vim medicam in se non habuit sed ut instrumentum conditio est à Deo ad sanâ—tatem impetrâ—ndam ordinata Anton. Wallaeus oper Tom. 1. p. 423. all men that I can read upon the place and against common sense which upon the reading of the words cannot but apprehend the order and method of our spiritual healing represented by that bodily cure wrought upon those that looked up to the brazen Serpent But it may be he intends to deny Justification to be included in the Promise of not perishing but having eternal life Let us try it His second answer therefore is The stinging of the fiery Serpents did plainly shadow forth the effects of the Law in conscience Now as the Israelites when they were stung by those fiery Serpents found no ease till they looked up unto the brazen Serpent so the soule that is smitten and wounded by the Ministry of the Law will never finde rest till it look unto him in whose wounds and stripes is the healing of sinners Rep. The effects of the Law in conscience might very well be shadowed §. 2. forth by the stinging of the fiery Serpents as part of that punishment which is due to sinners but that it should represent no more is spoken gratis Sin stings because it kills the person as well as because it disquiets the conscience 1 Cor. 15. 55 56. and a fiery sting it is because it makes the sinner obnoxious to the displeasure of God who is a consuming fire and whose wrath burnes to the very bottome of hell not in the conscience only but upon the whole person unlesse it be prevented by faith and repentance 2. Observe also Reader how Mr. Eyre is constrained to mince the matter that he may make his Interpretation the more current The Israelites saith he being stung of the fiery Serpents could find no ease till they looked up to the brazen Serpent As if their wound had been only painful but not mortal And as if they had looked up to the brazen Serpent not for life but only for ease whereas they were all mortally stung many died actually all had received their deaths wound death was begun upon them all and would unavoidably have grown on to the last and utmost degree if it had not been prevented by the brazen Serpent To teach us though Mr. Eyre will not learn it that every unbeliever is in a state of death and condemnation nor can escape the last and sorest part of this death but by looking up to Jesus Christ 3. The reddition of the comparison is this in our Lords words So must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life which according to Mr. Eyres sense is this That whosoever beleeveth on him should not be disquieted in conscience but should have rest and ease in his Spirit This indeed for the most part doth in some measure follow upon our Justification as no doubt but the Israelites recovered life and ease together But to be delivered from perishing and to have everlasting life in right or possession is surely more then to have ease from present anguish of spirit Should I take this liberty of interpreting Scripture Mr. Eyre might justly have been angry with my forehead In the third place Mr. Eyre tells his Reader that this very comparison §. 3. makes against me I had need look to that But how doth it make against me As saith he the Israelites were alive when they looked upon the
brazen Serpent else they could not have seen it so they that look upon Jesus Christ i e. beleeve in him are spiritually alive or else they could not put forth such a vital act Rep. But wherein doth this make against me The most that follows from hence is either that the habit of faith is before the act as the faculty of sight before the operation of it which is no part of the Question between Mr. Eyre and me or that a man is quickened internally by faith before he is quickened morally by Justification and pardon even as they put forth the vital act of seeing before they received that healing which prevented their approaching death which is the very thing I am proving 2. But in every similitude there is some dissimilitude and if Mr. Eyre will instance in things that do not come into the comparison he may as well inferre that faith is an act of natural power because their looking to the brazen Serpent which represented faith was so I say therefore that they that were stung with the fiery Serpents though they were not dead as to the utmost and last act of death which consists in the separation of the soule from the body yet they were dead in effect and as much as the nature of the type and the scope of the comparison requires as having received their deaths wound which would soon have prevailed over the remainders of their life if it had not been prevented by looking up to the brazen Serpent And therefore of him that looked on the Serpent of brasse 't is said that he lived Numb 21. 9. That is saith Mr. Eyre he had ease from his anguish And §. 4. so by looking up to Christ by faith we finde ease and rest to our wearied soules A man is said to live when he lives comfortably and happily Rep. Which is neither true in the Proposition nor Reddition of the comparison Not in the first for in the type the opposition is not between ease and paine but between life and death Numb 21. 6. The fiery Serpents bit the people and much people of Israel died and ver 9. It came to passe that if a Serpent had bitten any man when he beheld the Serpent of brasse he lived as Hezekiah is said to live Isa 38. 21. when he recovered of a mortal disease not only from the pain and anguish of it but principally from the mortality of it Nor in the second for though life in Scripture may sometimes signifie a happy prosperous and comfortable life yet in our Saviours use of it it hath not that sense precisely though that may very well be included consequently partly because the life obtained by looking up to Christ is opposed not to pain and sickness precisely but to the death and destruction of the whole person John 3. 15. The Sonne of man must be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have everlasting life partly because the same life is called salvation ver 17. God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him should be saved Now though a man may be said to live when he lives comfortably yet he is never said to be saved in Scripture precisely because he lives comfortably When Paul sayes Now we live if ye stand fast 1 Thes 3. 8. I think he is to be understood of a joyful comfortable life But it had been very uncouth to expresse the same life thus Now we are saved if ye stand fast But Mr. Eyre hath a sad quarrel against me for reading that §. 5. text John 6. 40. thus It is the Will of God that he that seeth and beleeveth the Sonne shall be justified whereas the words are That whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life Herein he saith I have corrupted and falsified the text Rep. What you please Sir provided you take in all manner of Commentators as well as my selfe for I know no man but you that excludes Justification from being there contained in eternal life As when the Law sayes Do this and thou shalt live the life promised includes Justification primarily so when it is said He that believes shall have eternal life life includes Justification in like manner And though there be many more blessings included then that single one of Justification yet that only being to my purpose I thought I might mention it only without being guilty o◠corrupting or falsifying the text I had thought also the believer may be said to have eternal life in right as well as in possession as the Lord speaks a little below ver 47. He that believeth on me hath everlasting life And to have right to life or life in right is to be justified and therefore is our Justification called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. And grace reignes through reghteousnesse unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord ver 21. SECT II. THe next comparison I made use of for illustration and proof §. 6. of this matter was out of John 6. 51 52 53 54. where faith is compared to eating and Justification to the nourishment we receive by our meat As then we are not first nourished and then eat the meat that nourisheth us but we eat our meat that we may be nourished by it so neither are we first justified and then beleeve on Christ that hath justified us but we beleeve in Christ that we may be justified Mr. Eyre answers That this is a mistake like the former for it is Christ himself who throughout that Chapter is compared to bread and food whom by faith we receive for our refreshment consolation and spiritual nourishment Rep. As if Justification were none of that nourishment which we receive by faith because Christ himself is the meat on whom we feed This answer is a plain yielding of the Argument unlesse Mr. Eyre intend that it is only comfort and refreshment and not Justification and pardon which is the nourishment we receive by feeding on Christ which if he doth intend we oppose from the text 1. That Christ invites us to eat of his flesh that we may live not simply that we may be refreshed and comforted it s in vain to talk of refreshing and comforting him that is dead ver 33. The bread of God giveth life to the world the very substance and being of life not only the well-being which consists in refreshment and consolation And though life may now and then though very rarely signifie precisely a comfortable life yet here surely it signifies more as being opposed to eternal death under which the world is supposed to be till Christ give them life ver 50. to be I mean in respect of guilt and that very life in the losse of which consists the whole misery of unbelievers ver 53. Except you eat the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his blood you have no life in you 2. And that Justification or
may be justified faith goes before Justification here as works before it there And this was plainly enough expressed in the Argument to any one but Mr. Eyre As to all the Arguments he hath against it they are such grosse non-sequitur's that I know not whether it will be worth while to answer them yet out of civility I will take some notice of them First saith Mr. Eyre works were meritorious of eternal life §. 8. faith is not Rep. Very true though the former part about the meritoriousnesse of works Mr. Eyre himself contradicts in terminis page 190. but that 's common and therefore we compare not faith and works in point of worth and value but only in point of place and order or we compare them in the general nature of a condition wherein they agree not in the special nature or in what is accessory to either wherein they differ as much as buying with money Rom. 4. 4. and buying without money Isa 55. 1. If a commodity may be had for taking or buying he that takes it hath as sure a title as he that buyes it yet taking is not buying A genere ad speciem non valet Argumentum affirmativè Mr. Eyre 2. Works in the first Covenant are the matter of our §. 9. Justification faith is not Answ This is all one with the former If it were not it would only shew another difference between faith and works notwithstanding their agreement in point of place and order and in the geneneral nature of a condition in their respective Covenants Works were such a condition as that withal they were that very righteousnesse for which a person was justified but faith is the condition of our being justified by the righteousnesse of a Mediatour Mr. Eyre 3. If faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as works in the first then must God account saith to be perfect righteousnesse which is contrary to his truth and justice Ans I deny the consequence What manner of Readers did Mr. Eyre promise himself when he puts down such sayings as these without one word or pretence of proof that which made works man's perfect righteousnesse was not the place and order which they had by the Covenant to his Justification but their own essential natural perfection as being a punctual and exact conformity to the rule of his Creation the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that rule of Divinity which by Creation was implanted in the frame of mans nature That it was the condition of his Justification was ex accidenti by vertue of the Covenant promising a reward of life upon the doing of such works May not therefore faith have the same place and order that is be in like manner the condition of the Justification of a sinner because it is not mans natural perfect righteousnesse Titius will let Sempronius have a farme if he will give him to the worth of it He lets Maeveus have another if he will ask him for it Here asking is the condition there the payment of the full price both have the same place and order to the obtaining of the farme yet surely begging is not the payment of the full price Mr. Eyre 4. Then is the second Covenant a Covenant of works §. 10. seeing faith is a work of ours Answ 1. We have already shewed at large that the grace or act of faith is perpetually opposed to works in Scripture-language 2. However this Argument is inconsequent for it will by no means follow that if faith have the same place and order in the New Covenant as works in the old then the New Covenant is a Covenant of works Suppose God had made the world a promise of pardon upon the condition of the existence of some contingent event v. g. That if Paul be converted within seven years after Christs Ascension all the world shall be justified Pauls conversion in this case would have the very same place and order to the Justification of the world as workes had in the old Covenant though it be not a condition of the same nature and quality yet surely this latter promise could not therefore be proved to be a Covenant of workes M. Eyre 5. This assertion makes faith to be not of grace because not from the Covenant of grace seeing the Covenant it self depends on it Ans 1. This assertion supposeth that nothing can be of grace which is not by the Covenant of grace Was not the Covenant it self of grace 2. Of the dependance of faith upon the Covenant of the Covenant upon faith we dispute purposely below Here we speak only of one blessing of the Covenant namely justification And as soon as ever Mr. Eyre hath proved that faith cannot be given us of grace if it be the condition of justification I will write a book of retractations as long as Augustines if I live to it In the mean time he deals not like a disputant to charge such a consequence upon us and never go about to prove it And whereas he suggests to his reader that my proposition is contrary to all Protestants 't is a vaine and empty flourish to speak the best of it He that hath any acquaintance in their writings cannot but know it to be so Of all Protestants Mr. Eyre quotes two in his margine Calvin and Pemble of which the former in that very h Instit l. 3 c. â— sect 2. place which Mr. Eyre refers to speaks as plainly to the overthrow of what he is brought to prove as can be Nam quum dicit Apostolus c. For when the Apostle saies with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation he shews that it is not enough if a man beleeve implicitly what he understands nâ—t nor makes any search into sed explicitam requirit divinae bâ—nitatis agnitionem in quâ consistit nostra justitia but he requires an explicit acknâ—wlâ—â—gement of the divine goodnesse in which consists our righteousnessâ— This is somewhat more then is any where said in my Sermon Pâ—mblâ— also is as expresly against him as I think is possible and that very frequently I shall transcribe but i Of justâ—â— sect 4. c. 1. p 1. 7 â— one place of multitudes From hence saith he we conclude firmly that the difference between the Law and the Gospel assigned by our Divines is most certaine and agreeable to Scriptures viz. That the Law gives life unto the just upon condition of perfect obedience in all things the Gospel gives life unto sâ—nners upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus Mr. Eyrâ— the is out or Mr. Pemble when the one sayes this is the judgement of our Divines and the other sayes it treads Antipodes to the current of all our Protestant writers SECT IV. THe proposition namely that faith hath the same place and order §. 10. to justification in the covenant of grace as workes in the covenant of workes was
proved in my Sermon in these words If the tenour of the first Covenant do this and live by the consent of all people and Nations Jews and Gentiles will undeniably evince that works were necessary Antecedents of justification in that covenant why then should not Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved which is the tenour of the New Covenant Rom. 10. 6 9. plead as strongly for the like necessity of the Antecedency of faith to justification in this Covenant Mr. Eyre answers That Beleeve and thou shalt be saved is not the tenor of the new Covenant for 1. It 's no where called so 2. In Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. The new Covenant runs quite in another straine That Text Rom. 10. 6 9. is not the tenour of the new Covenant for that requires confession as well as faith The Apostle there describes the persons that shall be saved they are such as do beleeve and professe the truth His scope is to resolve that question how a man may know that he shall be saved c. Rep. The stresse of the Argument lies not at all on this that Beleeve and thou shalt be saved is the tenor of the new Covenant as Mr. Eyre supposeth I think that he may the more colourably wave an answer If I had left out the word Covenant in the Argument and proofe of it yet had the Argument been the same as to its principall intent Do this and live by the consent of all the world proves undeniably that works were to go before justification according to the purport of that saying Ergo Beleeve and thou shalt be saved will as necessarily inferre that faith is to go before justification though we do not at all dispute whether that were the tenor of the Covenant of workes or this of the Covenant of grace Now judge Reader what weight there is in Mr. Eyre's answer The tenor of the new Covenant saith he is not Beleeve and thâ—u shalt be saved Suppose it yet is it that which the Apostles preached v. 8. and one would think should be as plaine to prove the antecedency of faith as the other of workes to justiâ—â—cation 2. And that this is the tenor of the Covenant of grace appears 1. That which the Apostle calleth the righteousnesse which is of the Law v. 5. is the tenor of the Covenant of workes Ergâ— that which he calls the righteousnesse which is of faith v. 6. is the tenor of the Covenant of grace and that is this If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved v. 9. 2. The doctrine whereof the Apostles were the special Ministers is the tenor of the new Covenant 2 Cor. 3. 6. But Bâ—leeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the doctrine whereof the Apostles were special Ministers c. Rom. 10. 8 9. The word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt believe and confesse c. This it seems is the summe of what the Apostles preached and that according to the commission and call they had received from God v. 14. And that faith and repentance and salvation thereupon was the summe of the Apostles Ministry appears also from other Texts of Scripture Act. 20. 21. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. c. 3. The Gospel and the Covenant of grace is all one But this is the summe of the Gospel Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved 4. Beleeve and thou shalt be saved are words that have the forme of a Covenant Ergo they are either the Covenant of the Law or of grace or some third Covenant Not the Covenant of the Law for the Apostle expresly opposeth them against that Covenant Rom. 10. 5 6. a third Covenant they cannot be Ergo they are the Covenant of grace Let us now see upon what grounds Mr. Eyre denies these words §. 11. to be the tenor of the new Covenant 1. Saith he they are no where called so Ans Nor doth the name of the Covenant of workes appeare in Scripture nor of the Covenant of grace neither is it therefore a sufficient ground to deny that do this and live is the tenor of the Covenant of workes 2. If it be not called by the name of the Covenant yet is it called by names of equipollent signification as when it is called the Gospel the word of faith the righteousnesse of faith the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. the Law of righteousnesse 9. 31. the promise Heb. 4. 1. Gal. 3. 22. 3. But neither is the name wanting Gal. 3. 15 16 17. If it be but a mans Covenant no man disannulleth or addeth thereto Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made And the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Compare these expressions with v. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe And v. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith And v. 9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Hence the Argument is The promise of blessednesse through faith is the summe and substance of the new Covenant Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the promise of blessednesse through faith Ergo it is the summe and substance of the new Covenant or of the Covenant of grace These two tearms I use as of the same import to expresse that Covenant which is opposed to the Covenant of workes strictly so called The Minor is past denyall The Major stands upon this foundation That the same inheritance and blessing which was given by promise to beleeving Abraham which promise is called the Covenant is now proposed to all the world Gentiles as well as Jews to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and given to them when they believe As to Mr. Eyres second Argument that when the new Covenant is mentioned Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another straine I must desire thee Reader to have patiâ—nce till thou come to the particular debate of those Texts which thou shalt meet with below wherein thou shalt see it fully proved that there is nothing spoken in them but what doth confirme the truth of that which I here assert I referre thee thither purposely that I may forbeare tautologies But Mr. Eyre hath a speciall reason why this Covenant Rom. 10. §. 12. 6 9. cannot be the Covenant of grace because it requires confession as well as faith and so justification by the new Covenant would be justification by confession as well as by faith Rep. The Apostle answers this fully v. 10. With the heart man beleeveth unto
righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Hence it is manifest that faith and faith only is requisite to justification but confession also is required of them that are justified unto salvation according to what our Lord himself speaks whosoever shall confesse me before men him will I also confesse before my Father but whosoever shall deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father Matth. 10. 32 33. Luk. 12. 8. Indeed our compleat and final justification at the day of judgement is no small part of our salvation but the Apostle here distinguishing justification as a thing going before from salvation as a thing following after teacheth us to understand him of our initial justification or of the first right to the inheritance of life which by the promise is given a man as soone as he believes which yet is to be understood not as if confession were of as universal and absolute necessity to salvation as faith it self for if a man believe in the very last moment of his life when he hath neither opportunity nor ability of body to make confession he shall be saved notwithstanding but that it is k Vid. Amâ—s Cas Con. l. 4 c. 3. q. 2. necessary in its time and place but faith only absolutely universally and indispensably necessary as the Apostle also intimates in his proofe subjoyned v. 11. mentioning faith without confession whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed Even as our l Chaâ— pâ—nstrat de Baptis l. 5. c 9 §. 3. Spanhâ—â— dub evang part 3. dub 96. pag. 493 494. Protestants argue against the Papists that though it be said Mark 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet is not Baptisme hereby made as necessary to salvation as faith it self because it is not mentioned in the negative proposition presently added He that beleeveth not shall be damned Not he that is not baptized shall be damned Nor finally is confession required as by it self and in coordination with faith but as in subordination thereunto being indeed the natural effect thereof and that wherein the truth and life of faith doth exert it self To what is added that the Apostles scope is to answer that question §. 13. how a man may know that he shall be saved and that he doth describe the persons that shall be saved by two markes or characters faith and confession I reply we have been too often imposed upon by pretended scopes and Mr. Shepheard is falsly alledged as a witnesse that the Apostles scope is to answer the foresaid question for he saith it not but is purposely arguing in that very place which m Sound beleev p. 230. Mr. Eyre referres to out of this very Text that we are not justified before we beleeve Yet is it most true that a man may come by faith to know that he shall be saved and the ground of it is because faith is appointed of God to be medium fruitionis a means of obtaining salvation and therefore cannot be denied to be medium cognitionis a means by which a man may know that he shall be saved Even as the same Law which made workes the means of life do this and live if a man had kept it would have also bred the assurance and knowledge that he should have lived But 1. As it is not the knowledge of life simply but life it self which is promised in those words for it were too grosse to paraphrase them thus do this and thou shalt thereby know that thou shalt live so it is not simply the knowledge of justification and salvation but salvation it self which is promised in these beleeve and thou shalt be saved The righteousnesse which is of the Law sayes thus do this and live v. 5. But the righteousnesse which is of faith sayes this if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved v. 6 8 9. What can be more plaine 2. When it is said v. 10. with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the moutâ— confâ—ssion is made unto salvation must we read it thus with the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto the knowledge of salvation What will become of the Scriptures if men may interpret them after this rate 3. And here to see how it falls out Mr. Eyre is forced to contend that the Apostle mentioneth faith as that which evidenceth justification as a mark or character which way of evidencing he could by no means approve of when I urged it p. 77. § 3. and 4. of his book 4. If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved That these words propound §. 14. the condition or means of salvation and not only describe the persons that shall be saved we have proved n chap. â— sect 1. before by several Arguments And according to my promise there I shall adde something here that if it be possible Mr. Eyre may suspect the truth of that notion which he cannot defend but by turning the Scriptures into a nose of wax And 1. I say that if the foresaid words do only describe the persons that shall be saved then are they here used otherwise then the like words or manner of speech is used any where else in Scripture Mr. Eyre hath not yet produced us one place where such phrase of speech is a bare description of a person at least unlesse we will take his bare word that so it is meant And though it be hard to be peremptory in such a nicety and deny universally that there is any example in Scripture of such phrase of speech used in such a sense yet upon the most diligent and critical observation which I have made on purpose to discover it I can find none neither in the Old nor New-Testament and therefore shall deny it till Mr. Eyre not only say it but prove it For if the foresaid words If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved do only describe what manner of persons they are that shall be saved then do they not suspend salvation upon the act of beleeving but their meaning is this If thou be one of those who be or shall be believers thou shalt be saved Shew us the like in all the Scriptures And hence 2. It follows that these words do not present believers as such reduplicativè as the objects of salvation but only Specificativè the men that are believers but under some other respect and notion For example Peter gives a legacy to Simon the Tanner that lives in Joppa by the sea side The messenger that carries the legacy knows not the man but tells him if he be the Tanner of Joppa this legacy is his Which words do not indeed propound the condition but the description of the Legatee from his place and profession and the legacy is not given him in respect of either of these circumstances but immediately as the person whom these circumstances describe or it is not given the man Quatenus he
is a Tanner but it is given the Tanner Quatenus he is the man whom Peter meant in his will In like manner when it is said if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved if the meaning be this if thou be one of them that do or shall believe thou shalt be saved then salvation pertaines not to men as believers but to believers as men under some other notion and capacity And that must be either 1. As they are men simply or 2. As they are sinful men or finally which I suppose Mr. Eyre will say for to affirme either of the former were intolerably absurd as they are elect And so the issue will be this believers Quatenus they are elect Specificativè are the objects of salvation Now see Reader what this will come to at the long runne 1. Hereby is faith devested of all necessity and usefulnesse in order to salvation farther then it is a mark or sâ—gne as all other saving graces are of a man that shall be saved Even as the profession and place of the Tanner forementioned contributed nothing to his obtaining of Peters legacy it served only to describe the person to whom it was given And is this that precious faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. more precious then gold 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Christians riches Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtaines and inherits promises Heb. 11. 33. 6. 12. righteousnesse Heb. 11. 7. salvation Eph. 2. 8. and all good things whatsoever 2 Pet. 1. 3. so highly every where commended in Scripture and urged upon such tearms of necessity How can we be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse and salvation by faith if faith serve only to describe the person It may be this new divinity will shortly produce a new Rhetorick and that is no more then needs 2. If the elect had been described by their names parents time and place of their birth and habitation they might be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse salvation by these as well as by saith if there be no other necessity of faith to righteousnesse and salvation then as it is a description of the persons that shall be saved 3. And according to this glosse there can be no ground of exhorting beseeching and commanding sinners to believe on and accept of a Saviour no more then of exhorting or commanding them to be elected as we have demonstrated in the place before mentioned 4. Nor have the words according to the same glosse the forme and nature of a promise but of a meer conneâ—e Axi me affirming the consequent upon supposition of the Antecedent For if thou beleeve that is if thou be such a one as art or shalt be a believer is but a periphrasis of election unto faith for the down right meaning without circumlocutions is this If thou be one of those whom God from eternity purposed to make a believer thou shalt be saved And why not because of the Promise by which God hath obliged himself to give salvation upon their believing who before had no right to it that will infer a conditional Promise which Mr. Eyre abhors but because he that purposed the one purposed the other also and this he commanded to be declared and published to the world And I say in like manner If the Sun rise we shall have light upon the earth and if God make stones the children of Abraham they shall be able to speak But we know from the Scriptures that the inheritance of life and salvation is given by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 13 16 20. Heb. 6. 13 15. 5. And we know from the same Scriptures that righteousnesse and salvation is not given to believers quatenus they are elect but rather to the elect quatenus they are believers that is they are not only given to the men that are believers but given to them as they are believers It was Abrahams faith that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. and the Promise was to him and to his seed through faith ver 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve where we have distinctly set down the righteousnesse which justifies us The persons justified They that believe The means or condition of their Justification By faith of Jesus Christ The same distinction is accurately observed Gal. 3. 22. That the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve The Promise is that of salvation and blessednesse Compare ver 6. 9 18. Here then we have again the persons to whom the Promise is given namely believers the condition or meanes by faith To teach us that the Promise of life and salvation is not only given to men that are believers but given to them as believers Righteousnesse not only upon them that are faithful but righteousnesse by faith a Promise not only to them that do beleeve but a Promise by believing 6. If thou beleeve thâ—â— shâ—lt be saved or Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Life and salvation is here promised as the reward of faith a reward I mean not properly but metaphorically as the word is used in Scripture often not for a reward of debt but for a reward of grace Now I would ask why it is called a reward Mr. Eyre will tell me because it follows faith Be it so though I think there is much more in it But faith may be conâ—dered either as an act required of us or as the work of God in â—s Now I would know whether life and salvation be the reward of faith as it is our act or as it is Gods work If the former as most certain then Mr. Eyre must quit his beloved glosse for if salvation by the Promise be made consequent to faith as an act required of us and performed by us then faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to salvation by the same Promise and so salvation pertaines to us as believers formaliter and not only as to the men whose property and priviledge it is to be believers sooner or later If the second be said namely that salvation follows faith and so is the reward thereof as it is the work of God in us then God rewards himself he doth not reward us Even as if I should call Gods preserving the world the reward of his creating it or the destruction of the world the reward of his preserving it or his glorisying our bodies the reward of his raising them out of their graves or his calling us unto faith the reward of his predestinating us for each of these actions is consequent to the foregoing And yet I doubt not but if a man should talk after this rate he would be accounted to utter strange kinde of tropes 7. Mr. Eyre may do well to remember that he hath yet given me no similitude of Answer to the main Argument When the Law sayes Do this and live or If thou do this thou shalt live or He that doth these
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
ruv. var. Resol l. 1. c. 14. in continenti presently If he say this right is given them sub termino or in diem as if I give Titius ten pounds when he comes to the age of twenty one so God gives ungodly men a right to heaven but they cannot enjoy it till they beleeve yet even thus it must be acknowledged that they have more right when they beleeve then they had before as Titius hath more right to what I gave him at the age of twenty one then he had before for he had before but a remote right jus ad rem and at that age he hath an immediate right But neither will this which Mr. Eyre must stick to or to nothing salve the sore partly because the day when a wicked man shall repent and beleeve is in it self contingent and uncertain in its self I say because it is known to God but Gods knowledge alters not the nature of things he knows what events shall come to passe contingently and what necessarily Now dies incerta aequiparatur conditioni what is given upon an uncertain day is all one as if it were given upon condition according to the determination of the z I. Stipulatio ista §. inter certam ff de verb. oblig Civil Law as if I promise ten pounds to Titius upon the day of his marriage it is all one as if I promised it upon condition he marry and if God promise ungodly men to give them heaven when they beleeve it is all one as if he promise it on condition they beleeve which Mr. Eyre cannot away with Partly and principally which also is my second Argument for proof of the consequence because the right which is given a man to the Kingdome by Justification according to Scriptures is independent upon time so that if he die the very next moment that he is justified he shall and must be saved yea such an immediate and necessary dependance there is of the Kingdome upon Justification that nothing more is required to make a man morally and immediately capable of inheriting the Kingdome but that he be justified Rom. 8. 30. Whom he justified them he glorified See also Rom. 5. 9 10 17 18 21. Tit. 3. 7. and other texts before mentioned all importing such an immediate connexion between Justification and the inheritance that though no other change be made in a mans state yet being justified he shall be saved Ergo if the elect have right to heaven while they are ungodly they must be saved whether ever they be converted to the faith of Christ or no. No saith Mr. Eyre it will not follow because Christ hath §. 24. purchased faith and God hath purposed to give it as well as glory Rep. Both which I grant in thesi but if Mr. Eyre will take in the hypothesis too and tell us that God did purpose and Christ did purchase faith for a people that had right to heaven before I shall desire him to prove it for I am not like to beleeve it Yet I am out of doubt that God never purposed faith to any such person but to such as are aliens strangers and forreigners that they through faith might partake in the rights and liberties and immunities of his Kingdom Eph. 3. 5 6 9 11. For 2. Give me leave to ask To what end should God purpose to give faith if men have right to the Kingdom without it It must be purposed either as a means to the obtaining of righteousnesse and life and then I have what I would for then no man hath a right to heaven but by faith and if any man hath right without it the gift of faith as to them in order to that end is utterly needlesse and superfluous or it is purposed as part of the natural essential perfection of mans nature unto which he is restored by Christ and this I deny at least I am very doubtful of it and desire it may be proved a Vide 〈◊〉 in Sent l. 4 dist 14 ◠19. ad 3. There are some things which in themselves are perfections of mans nature as love to God and our neighbour and all the vertues pertaining to the first or second table that faith which Adam had in his innocency and the frame of righteousnesse in which he was created Other things are no vertues at all but upon supposition of sin and do alwayes imply imperfection as shame for sin brokennesse of heart repentance and faith in a Mediatour as it signifies an abnegation of our own righteousnesse and a dependance upon another for righteousnesse These of the latte◠sort are no part of the essential perfection of man yea they do essentially suppose imperfection for faith in a Mediatour is at an b Vide Aquin. 1. ◠ae q. 9◠art 3◠o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠end when we shall be perfected in glory 1 Pet. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 7. there being no farther use of it nor object for it for even Christ himself as it seem◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cease to be a Mediatour after he hath brought all his redeemed ones unto God 1 Cor. 15. 24 27 28. though the vertue and effects of his Mediatourship abide for ever Faith it selfe therefore being no part of our inheritance nor meanes of obtaining it upon Mr. Eyres supposal that it is no meanes of obtaining right to it it remaines that it is not necessary to any mans salvation and then what should hinder but that men may be saved without it 3. If this be the true reason why the elect in their ungodlinesse cannot inherit heaven though then they have right to it namely because they have not that as yet which God is purposed to give them before they go to heaven then their incapacity of heaven even while they live in all manner of wickednesse is not at all privative or positive but purely negative that is they are therefore uncapable of heaven not because the Law or sin or any thing they do deprives them of the possession of heaven but because God hath not done what his purpose is to do in all whom he intends to glorifie Wilt thou see Reader what are the issues of this Gospel 1. Hereby sin is made of a like necessity to the enjoyment of Heaven as faith for he that purposed to bring the elect to heaven purposed also that they should be sinners ipso permittente by his permission And so for example Adam and Eve while they were innocent had a right to heaven but they could not enjoy it till they had sinned because he that purposed to give them heaven purposed also to permit them first to sin 2. Yea so far was sin from being their hindrance that it was their furtherance rather for having sinned the more was over and past of those things which God had appointed should go before their salvation and so by their sin they became nearer heaven then they were before 3. And on the contrary the purpose of giving
faith is rather a hinderance then a furtherance of their happinesse for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodlinesse only that which hinders their enjoyment is that there is a purpose of giving faith which must be accomplished before they can inherit were it not for that purpose they might go to heaven presently and as they are 4. And that without all gain-saying of the Law which though it be a bug-beare even to the elect themselves to terrifie and affright the conscience while they live in sin and ungodlinesse yet hath no authority it seemes to debarre them from entrance into heaven no more then if it never had been violated And so if it might be supposed per pâ—ssibile vel impossibile that an unrighteous man might go to heaven yet were this no impeachment to the justice of Gods government but would argue at most some kind of mutability in God in not doing according to his purpose Whereas the Lord himself professeth that if he should give life to an impenitent sinner it were against his equity The waies of the Lord are equal Ezek. 18. throughout Fiftly If ungracious men have a right to heaven onely they cannot §. 25. possesse it till they have the evidence of faith either this evidence is of such necessity that if they have it not they shall lose that life to which they are adjudged or no. If not then whether they believe or no they shall be saved if so then there is no absolute justification before faith and justification must be conditional To this Mr. Eyre answers 1. By this Argument not only faith but all other works of sanctification and perseverance in them must be the conditions of our justification and then we may be said to be justified and saved by them but this is no good Argument No man is saved or glorified without works Ergo men are saved by works 2. This reason makes as much against absolute election before faith as against absolute justification 3. The answer is election and justification are absolute because they depend upon no antecedent condition not because they are without consequents that depend on them Rep. To the first we reply That if the question be concerning our first entrance into a state of justification we have already with the Apostle Rom. 10. 10. excluded works from being at all necessary thereunto But if the question be of our last and universal justification at the day of judgement which the Apostle there calls salvation Mr. Eyre knows we maintaine that perseverance in the faith to the end and in a Christian conversation is a necessary condition of salvation according to Scriptures Rev. 2. 17. and 22. 14. Colâ—s 1. 23. 2 John 8. Heb. 10. 26 36. and the places quoted by M. Eyre Prov. 28. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Matth. 24. 13. And the consent of c Ames Bellar. enervat tom 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de nâ—ces oper ad salut ad obj ex Rom. 8. 13. Mortific tio igitur est conditio aâ— vitam quis negat Gerhard de bonâ—â— operib c. 9. §. 55. 4. Zanchius Gry 〈…〉 Sohnius Piscator ibid. §. 45. Chamier 〈◊〉 de bon Oper. Neceâ—â— cap. â— sect 7. 11 15 17 20 〈◊〉 c. appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus non 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Davenant de 〈◊〉 Act cap. 〈◊〉 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestants But when he infers then we may be said to be saved by works I deny the consequence partly because of the ambiguity of the word works which in our use generally hath another sense then with the Apostles who oppose them not only to faith as we have largely proved before but sometimes also to sanctification Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghost partly because the works of saâ—ctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining but of not losing our right to the heavenly Kingdom As if Titius upon 〈◊〉 his intreaty give him a farme to be held by him jure feudi the non-performance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to forfeits his right neverthelesse his title is grounded in the Donors benevolence In like manner we are saved by grace through faith though if we do not by the spirit mortifie the deeds of the flesh we forfeit our life Rom. 8. 13. To the second I reply That there is no comparison between §. 26. election and justification as is at large above demonstrated Let us set Mr. Eyres parallel before us that the dissimilitude may the better appeare Thus then he argues Faith is of such necessity that they that have it not shall lose the life to which they are elected or not if not then whether the elect believe or no they shall be saved if it be then there is no absolute election before faith Here 1. The comparison is between an Act that giveth a right to life such is justification and an Act which giveth none such is election which indeed doth make the donation of right to be a thing future but is not it selfe the Act which giveth it as we have shewed before Now if a sinner have a right to the inheritance and yet it be necessary for him to believe that he may inherit then is his inheriting suspended upon believing that is faith is the condition of his inheriting and so the right he had to it before must needs be conditional more then this neither reason nor the civil Law requires to denominate a gift to be conditionall In election the case is otherwise which because it doth not transmit or conveigh any right but is only a preparation or preordination in the mind of God of those causes by which it shall be made to exist in time therefore may the purpose it self be absolute yea though it be of things which do not exist but upon condition Thus Dr. d In Coâ—vin dofens Armin. Cont. Tilen pag. 355. Twisse Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scil neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit nec damnatio c. and particularly of justification or pardon of sin he addes Remissionem peccatorum salutem omnes consentiunt nemini contingere nisi sub conditione fidei i. e. All agree that pardon of sin and salvation betides none but upon condition of faith God may absolutely will or purpose to give a right to life upon condition of faith but he cannot absolutely give a right to life and yet afterwards require us to believe under a penalty of forfeiting or losing that life for then the gift is not absolute but conditional 2. The word necessary must be distinguished for it may be understood either in reference to God and so whatsoever he purposeth is necessary because his purposes being immutable and his power irresistable it must needs be that whatsoever he purposeth
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
not the dative case of the object with whom God is well pleased but of the means or cause through which God is well pleased with others namely with sinners Whereas the same particles construed with the same verbe are elsewhere perpetually a note of the object 1 Cor. 10. 5. 2 Cor. 12. 10. 2 Thes 2. 12. Heb. 10. 38. suitable to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which they answer The Authors whom Mr. Eyre musters up to face me have no quarrel with me at all They do amplifie Gods well-pleasednesse with §. 3. Christ from the effect which follows upon it namely his well-pleasednesse with sinners But do any of them deny that the words may be understood precisely of Gods acceptance and approbation of what Christ hath done in order to the salvation of sinners Let us see the reasons which Mr. Eyre hath against it 1. Saith he the words are a solemne declaration of Christs investiture in the office of a mediatour Answ What then do they therefore prove that the effects of his mediatourship and particularly this of Gods being well-pleased with sinners were then presently communicated and applyed to sinners may it not suffice that they testifie Gods singular approbation of Christ to be a Mediatour and of all his mediatory performances though they do not produce their effects upon many sinners till many ages after But saith he the words were spoken â—â—r their sakes whom Christ represented as Joh. 12. 30. Answ But the consequence is still abortive Because the words were spoken for their sakes must they therefore needs signifie that God was actually well-pleased with them even while they continue strangers and enemies against God might they not be spoken for their sakes though they intend no more then to describe that person in whom God is well pleased and to direct sinners to him that through faith in him God may also be well pleased with them as those words Jâ—h 12. 30. were spoken for the sake of sinners that upon that testimony which was there given unto Christ they might believe 2. The second reason is a plaine negatâ—r that the Text quoted by me Eph. 5. 2. makes for my purpose When it is framed into some similitude of an Argument it shall have an answer 3. The third is Because no reasâ—n can be given why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ seeing God was never displeased with him Answ 1. We have given three reasons already from the Text. There is no other person mentioned in the Text as the object of Gods well-pleasednesse and if there were no more that is enough 2. God was never displeased with Christ qâ—oad affectum but he was displeased with him Oeconomically quoad effectum for Christ bare his Fathers displeasure 3. But if God had never been displeased with him what consequence is this God was never displeased with Christ nor had Christ any suspicion of it Ergâ— it was needlesse that God should declare himselfe to be well pleased with him There was ground enough of such a declaration if it were for no other end but only to manifest how infinitely acceptable the sacrifice of Christ was unto God above all the sacrifices under the Law and that he was displeased with them in comparison of this In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure then said I lo I come c. Heb. 10. 6 7 8 9. The fourth and last reason is this The well-pleasednesse of God is to be extended to them for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice Ergo to sinners Answ The Antecedent if it be meant of the extent of the words which we are debating begs the question SECT II. MY second answer was that if Gods well-pleasednesse spoken of in the Text be extended also unto men yet will the words §. 4. prove no more then that it is through Christ that God is well pleased with men whensoever it be that he is well pleased This plaine answer Mr. Eyre will have to be thus glossed namely that my sense of the words 〈◊〉 well 〈◊〉 is as much as I will be well pleased when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part and then very seâ—â—ously desires his Reader to observe how bold I make with the holy Ghost in that when God saies He is well pleased I say no he is not now but he will be hereafter But 1. Mr. Eyre makes more bold with me then he ought for neither did I say nor mean that the words I â—m well plâ—ased should be thus sensed I will â—e well pleased but interp et the words as spoken indeâ—initly in respect of time that it iâ— through Christ that God is well pleased whensoever it be that he is well pleased As if I should say God is well pleased with obedience or with praise do not necessarily sâ—ppose that there are then any putting forth the act of obedience or praise with which God is then actually well pleased for what if all the men in the world were a sleep at once as 't is like they were some times in Noâ—hâ— Ark but that these acts are pleasing to God whensoever they are put forth 2. And if I had given this sense of the words putting the present tense for the future yet doth not Mr. Eyre make a bold with the holy Ghost as I when towards the latter end of his very next paragraph he acknowledges such an Heterosis of Tenses to be very frequent in Scripture Yea hath he not already made bolder not only here in adding the words with sinners to the Text but in rendring the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the pretertense in Joh. 3. 18. as signifying not only one that now beleeves not but one that shall never beleeve pag. 110. § 3. Nor did I mention faith or any other condition upon which God is well pleased with sinners not that I disowne it but because it is impertinent to my present businesse for we are not now disputing when or upon what tearms God is well pleased with sinners but whether he be well pleased with them immediately upon the death of Christ For justifying of my interpretation I shewed from Scripture that §. 5. verbes of the present tense have sometimes the signification of the future sometimes are barely notes of affirmation without reference to any determinate time of which we shall set downe examples presently But by the way Mr. Eyre to humble me tells me that every schoole-boy knows that Aorists have the signification of the preterperfect tense not of the future Ans Which if it be true the boyes know more then their Masters for it is a rule in a Vide Dom. Busb Gram. Graec. pag. 35. Pfocen de ling. grae N. T. pur pag. 12 13 14 15 16. Dr. Hammond Annot. in Mat. 23. 35. g. Auth r. Excerpt ad sinem clement Alexand ex pantaeno ubi etiam statuit verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
it 3. In the mean time I must confesse to Mr. Eyre I do not understand what he means to tell us of a wall of partition raised between God and the elect What are they justified and all their sins pardoned and that from eternity and yet is there a wall of partition between God and them Is pardoned sinne able to separate between the soul and God Woe to poore sinners if this be true But let us see his Scriptures for one Text of Scripture is of more §. 12. consequence to me then a hundred such Arguments they are these Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 13 14. Colâ—ss 1. 20 21. and 2. 13 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rep. To Ephes 1. 6 7. we have answered before and have shewed from the very letter of the Text that it doth not only not exclude faith from being necessary to Gods acceptance of us but also doth necessarily include it Eph. 2. 13 14. speaks not of a partition wall between God and sinners but between Jews and Gentiles The words are these But now in Christ Jesus yea who sometimes were afarre of are made nigh by the blood of Christ for he is our peace who hath made both one and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us Indeed in ver 16. there is mention made of reconciliation unto God but such as throws down the wall and bulwarks which Mr. Eyre would build upon it And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Crosse having slain the enmity thereby Can any thing be more plain then that Jewes and Gentiles are first made one body by faith before they are actually reconciled to God by the vertue of the Crosse of Christ Therefore holy Bayne observes well upon the place That we must get fellowship with Christ we must be incorporated with him and with believers before we can be reconciled with him And surely this incorporation is by faith ver 13. 17 20. chap. 3. 6 12. and 4. 4. John 10. 16. The same I say to Col. 1. 20 21. And having made peace or making §. 13. peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through the blood of his Crosse by him to reconcile all things to himselfe by him I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your minde by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death c. Doth not the Apostle speak as plainly as it is possible for mans tongue to utter it that by the body and death of Christ these Colossians were reconciled now which particle now is expressely opposed to the time wherein they were alienated and enemies in their mindes by wicked works I shall here transcribe something of a reverend and renowned d â—p Davenant on the place Doctour of our own because his words are so cleer and full Ex hoc loco colligimus c. Out of this place we gather that there is a double reconciliation considered in Scripture the one general finished in the sacrifice on the Crosse of which the Apostle spake in the verse foregoing It pleased the Father by the blood of the Crosse to reconcile all things to himselfe and John chap. 1. 29. Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world This I call general because it is considered according to the value of the sacrifice which is not only general but infinite and according to the manner of proposing it in the preaching of the Gospel which is also indefinite and general But besides this reconciliation in the Crosse and generally Applicable unto all the Scripture shews us also a particular and applied reconciliation in the hearts and consciences of particular men namely when that sacrifice of Christ which hath in it an universal power of reconciling all men is actually applied to the reconciliation of this or that man Of this speaks the Apostle when he says Now hath he reconciled you 2ly we are taught when and how men are made partakers of this particular reconciliation namely by the faith of the Gospel As Rom. 3. 22. Thus farre Davenant If then Mr. Eyre will urge this place aright it overthrows the thing which he would prove by What consequence is this The Scriptures â—ear witnesse that they that believed were reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne Ergo They were reconciled while they were in unbelief The next place is Col. 2. 13 14. And you being dead in your sinnes §. 14. and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses If Mr. Eyre will argue from this verse his inference must be this Ergâ— all their trespasses were forgiven them immediately upon the death of Christ But the Adverbs of time though they be not here expressed yet are they necessarily implied as appears plainly from the parallel place Eph. 2. 1 2 3. where their death in sin is expresly limited to the time past namely the time of their unbelief in opposition to the time present namely the time of their Conversion which words if we borrow from thence and put them here the Apostles sense is plainly this you were in times past dead in sins but now since you have believed are quickened that is to say have your sins pardoned which to be his meaning is undeniable from ver 12. the verse next foregoing where he tells them that they were risen with Christ in Baptisme through the faith of the operation of God And then presently addes as another excellency and priviledge of the same faith if at least the priviledge be not the same in other words that they were quickened together with Christ through the pardon of their sins where as their being raised with Christ in Bapptisme doth by no means note simultatem temporis that they were baptized at the same time as Christ was raised but similitudinem qualitatis that by faith and baptisme they were conformed spiritually unto the image of Christ in his Resurrection See Rom. 6. 4 5 6. so neither doth their being quickened with Christ in the forgivenesse of their trespasses signifie that their sins were then forgiven when he was quickened much lesse immediately upon his death which Mr. Eyre should and would prove but our conformity to him in our deliverance from death moral as he was raised from death natural But it may be 't is the next verse which Mr. Eyre thinks more for his purpose ver 14. Blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us which was contrary to us and took it out of the way nailing it to his Crosse The words as I conceive with our Expositors are to be understood of the abrogation of the ceremonial Law by which the Jewes were separated from the Gentiles and the Gentiles from that accesse unto God which the Jewes had And this indeed was a necessary and faire preparation to the reconciling of the
which will be hard to do Doth not our Glorification depend inseparably upon our Predestination yet not immediately And when afterwards Mr. Pemble is quoted with great ostentation to justifie that God is well pleased with the persons of the elect unregenerate but not with their unregeneracy it may be of some authority with men that cannot reade English Mr. Eyre sets down his words at large and what saith he why that God loves the persons of the elect but not their vices as Parents love their childrens persons even while they chastise them for their vices But is God therefore well pleased with the elect because he loves them that is hath purposes of doing them good or because Parents love their children and would do them all the good they can are they therefore well pleased with them even while they are correcting them for their vices let themselves judge We have shewed before that well-pleasednesse imports an approbation of a person and supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities And as for the inference which I made upon Mr. Eyres distinction between unregenerate men and their unregeneracy it was grounded upon presumption that the said distinction intended to shew the difference between Gods well-pleasednesse with the Elect before and after their Conversion otherwise I undertake not its defence In the next place Mr. Eyre addes something to clear up the difference §. 17 between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons As 1. That the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful which though they are pardoned unto all the elect yet are they not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight Answ The best actions of unregenerate men are materially good as Prayer hearing of the Word Almesdeeds c. It is the want of a good principle and a good end which makes them unacceptable unto God 2 Chron. 25. 2. If the sinfulnesse of them be pardoned they must needs be acceptable as we observed before 2. Saith he The best works of good men are acceptable and pleasing unto God 1. Abstractly and in themselves thus faith hope love are pleasing to God 2. Concretely as they are acted by us and so they are acceptable to God as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ Answ 1. Abstracta dicunt essentias faith hope and love in their abstract nature are not considered as our actions but as vertues and in themselves good therefore that part of the answer is impertinent might we suppose that these vertues might be found in persons not elect their own goodnesse would commend them to God as much as when they are in persons elect 2. For a work to be washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ is to have the sinfulnesse thereof for his sake pardoned which because it is done to the elect as much in their unregeneracy as after the good works they do when regenerate can be no more acceptable then before SECT IV. OF all the places in Scripture which speak of our reconciliation unto God by the death of Christ I know none that seem to §. 18. make it an immediate effect of his death but that in Rom. 5. 10. and therefore I opposed that to my selfe and answered it in my Sermon And that the truth of my answer and the impertinency of all that Mr. Eyre sayes against it may the better appear I shall transcribe the text at large ver 8. But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us ver 9. much more then being nâ—w justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him ver 10. for if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life ver 11. And not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement The main objection is out of ver 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne The answer which I gave to it in short was this That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled which that it is the Apostles meaning we shall prove by and by in the mean time let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it His exceptions are six 1. Saith he It offers a manifest violence to the text To say That we were reconciled is as much as we shall be reconciled Answ And it is a manifest violence to my words to say that I so interpret it I say we were reconciled quoad meritum immediately in the death of Christ that is his death purchased reconciliation for us and therefore through that death it is that we are reconciled actually and effectivè whensoever it be The second exception is the old irrational notion That if reconciliation depend upon conditions to be performed by us then we are the causes of our own reconciliation Where not only the consequence is false as we have largely shewed above but the antecedent also impertinent I am not now disputing whether reconciliation follow faith but whether it exist immediately upon the death of Christ The third This reconciliation was made when we were enemies Ergo before our believing Answ Yet will it not follow that it was made immediately in the death of Christ which is the thing Mr. Eyre should prove If we be not reconciled before we are born it is sufficient to prove that we were not reconciled in the death of Christ immediately whether faith be supposed to be necessary or no. 2. The word reconciled is used twice in ver 10. If they both relate to one and the same reconciliation of which I doubt as I shall shew farther by and by yet I readily grant that it was made in the death of Christ Were not my words plain enough before That we are said to be reconciled unto God in the death of his Sonne inasmuch as Christs death was the price of our reconciliation The cause was then in being though the effect do not follow till some time after The fourth If the meaning were no more but this That it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled be it when it will be that we are reconciled then this clause when we were enemies would be superfluous Answ The emphasis of those words is plain God reconciles his enemies to himself whensoever it be that he reconciles them and Christ purchased reconciliation for enemies not for friends See Câ—l 1. 21. The fifth God was in Christ not imputing our sins to us 2 Cor. 5. 19. Answ That doth not prove but that I rightly interpret the Apostle here 2. In 2 Cor. 5. 19. reconciling and non-imputing are all one the latter interprets the former God did act towards the reconciliation of sinners and
the non-imputation of their sin in the death of Christ but they were not therefore presently reconciled and their sin non-imputed as we have shewed from the text before God laid the foundation of a future reconciliation in the death of Christ The sixth That what I grant yields the question viz. The immediate reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ For if Christ by the shedding of his blood paid the total and full price for our deliverance from the curse of the Law then were we actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtour is free in Law Answ I deny the consequent and the proof of it Christ purchased our Glorification must we therefore needs be glorified as soon as he was dead that is to say many hundreds of years before we are borne And if he purchased one benefit to follow not till many yeares after the price was paid might he not also purchase another and particularly our deliverance from the curse of the Law to follow after a like distance of time 2 The reason or proof is most impertinent Christ cannot purchase our deliverance from the curse unlesse the said deliverance follow presently and immediatly because the debt being paid the debtour is presently discharged As if I should say the payment of the debt doth presently discharge the debtour Ergo men cannot purchase reversions 3. The payment of the debtour doth presently discharge him but if it be not the debtour himself which makes the payment but some other he is not discharged ipso facto as we shall shew anon And now Reader I shall acquaint thee with the Reasons why §. 19. I interpret those words Rom. 5. 10. We were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne not of our actual and compleat reconciliation but of that which is purchased and so the meaning of the words we were reconciled will be this that our reconciliation was then purchased yea and also perfect ex parte causae on Christs part so that nothing can now hinder our actual personal and perfect reconciliation with God but our own refusing to be reconciled God having constituted a most sufficient cause of our reconciliation in the death of Christ 1. From ver 8. and 9. While we were yet sinners Christ died for us much more then being justified now by his blood c. What in ver 9. is called Justification that in ver 10. is called reconciliation and for Christ to die for us while we were sinners ver 8. is all one with what is said ver 10. When we were enemies we were reconciled by his death But the time of their Justification is expressely separated from the time of Christs death for them by the particle now While we were yet sinners Christ died for us but we are justified now which particle now though it have several senses in Scripture as we shall shew by and by yet here being put after the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and separated from the Conjunction ◠by the interposition of two entire words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and expressely opposed to the time past when we were yet sinners must therefore needs be an adverbe of time And the time it notes is their present time of Conversion and believing opposed unto that whole time wherein they were yet sinners And so the whole sentence runs thus most pertinently to the Apostles scope If while we were yet sinners under the power and condemnation of sin Christ died for us much more then being justified now that we are believers by his blood c. Accordingly if the particle now be borrowed from ver 9. and repeated in ver 10. the whole sense of the verse will be this If while we were enemies we were reconciled sc causaliter quantum ad meritum unto God in the death of his Sonne much more being now viz. since we are believers reconciled quoad effectum we shall be saved by his life and so the first reconciled signifies that which is ex parte Christi and the second that which is ex parte nostri the former reconciliation in the cause the latter in the effect Just as this same Apostle distinguisheth the same word 2 Cor. 5. 19 20. God was in Christ reconciling Be ye reconciled And surely faith must be supposed to the reconciled in the second part of the verse or it is of no use at all to salvation for the Apostles discourse supposeth that there is a necessary and immediate connexion between reconciliation and salvation so that he that is reconciled is immediately capable of being saved Much more being reconciled we shall be saved But no unbeliever is immediately capable of being saved though Christ have died for him for he must believe first as Mr. Eyre himself will grant If it be said that faith it selfe is part of our salvation the Objector must suppose that the Apostle speaks of himselfe and the Romanes as of unbelievers to this sense much more being reconciled we shall have faith given us which is unreasonable to suppose 2. And that our being reconciled in the death of Christ is to be understood §. 20. in reference to the sufficiency of what Christ hath done in order to our reconciliation appears farther from the comparison of contraries by which the Apostle illustrates this whole doctrine from v. 12. to the end of the chapter Look then as by vertue of Adams disobedience death passed upon all mankinde as soon as they are the children of Adam so by the obedience of Christ is reconciliation obtained by which all that are borne of Christ by faith are reconciled unto God Now if a man should say All men are dead in Adam as in ver 15. though he speak of the effect as wrought yet he must be understood as intending no more then that the cause of all mens death was in being as soon as Adam sinned for surely men cannot be dead before they are borne or have a being so when it is said men are reconciled in the death of Christ the word reconciled must be understood in like manner as noting the vertue of the cause not the effect as already produced I know Mr. Eyre thinks that all men were actually quoad effectum condemned in Adam But I would he would make this probable yea or conceivable for I confesse my dull head cannot apprehend it though I do easily conceive how we may be said to be condemned in him causally for the common sin of our nature namely that the causes of our condemnation were then in being which do certainly produce the effect of condemnation upon us as soon as we exist But condemnation is a real transient act Ergo it supposeth its object really existing but it is unconceivable how men should really exist five or six thousand yeares before they are borne Seeing then our reconciliation in the death of Christ by the Apostles own Explication is
of the same kinde with our condemnation in Adam it is manifest it must be understood of reconciliation in the cause not in the effect Nor let it trouble the Reader that the Apostle speaks as if the effect §. 21. were wrought we were reconciled for nothing more common in Scripture then to speak of the effect as wrought when provision is made of a sufficient cause by which it shall or may be wrought Ezek. 24. 13. I have purged thee and thou wast not purged that is there was nothing wanting on Gods part that might conduce to her purging though the effect did not follow Col. 1. 23. the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven not that every person and Nation had then heard the Gospel for they have not yet heard it but that by Gods permission and commandment they might hear it Christ hath abolished death 2 Tim. 1. 10. namely he is the authour and cause of its abolition or he hath abolished it quoad meritum for death is not destroyed de facto quoad effectum till the Resurrection 1 Cor. 15. 26 54. so in verbs of active signification Heb. 4. 12. The Word of God is powerful piercing to the dividing asunder c. Psal 19. 7 8. converting making wise rejoycing the heart enlightening the eyes all which do not so much signifie the act as the vertue and sufficiency of the cause In like manner when Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world 1 John 2. 2. it is to be understood of the vertue and sufficiency of his blood to take away sin not of a propitiation then presently wrought and effected for there is none such before faith if the Apostle may be beleeved Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Multitudes of like instances are obvious A third Argument is that mentioned in my Sermon out of v. 11. §. 22. By whom we have now also received the atonement which in plainer termes is this That now that is since we are believers we are actually reconciled unto God Mr. Eyre answers 1. That I might as well argue that because the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 15. 20. Now is Christ risen Ergo he was not risen before he wrote that Epistle Or from Eph. 2. 2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief Ergo he did not work in them before Rep. Doth Mr. Eyre then think that the particle now in this place is to be taken in the same sense as in those if he doth his next answer is a nullity if he doth not he might have spared this The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now hath several uses sometimes it is a meer supplement or redundancy Psal 39. 7. sometimes a note of transition as when it is said Now it came to passe sometimes of a continued act as Eph. 2. 2. Heb. 9. 24. sometimes of a supposition Rom. 8. 1. 1 Cor. 7. 14. sometimes of opposition or of assumption 1 Cor. 15. 20. Heb. 11. 16. but most commonly and naturally of time and particularly of the time of mens being converted Rom. 6. 19 21 22. and 1â— 30. Gal. 2. 20. and 4. 9. and elsewhere often so is it taken here as being distinguished from the time of the death of Christ ver 10. and superadding some other benefit then what was effected immediately in his death namely the receiving of reconciliation neither of which are to be found in either of the places mentioned by Mr. Eyre nor will any of the other sense of the word comport with this place His second answer therefore is We cannot receive or apply reconciliation to our selves but by faith yet it follows not that God did not account it to us before Rep. The accounting of reconciliation to us is an expression I never heard before 2. Justification and reconciliation are here used to signifie the same thing Ergo to receive the atonement is all one with the receiving of Justification or pardon of sin as Acts 26. 18. and 10. 43. which we have shewed before cannot be meant of our knowing our sins to be pardoned SECT V. FOr farther Explication of the difference between our reconciliation §. 23. in the death of Christ and after our believing I observed out of Grotius a distinction of three periods of the Will of God 1. As it may be conceived immediately after sin committed before the consideration of the death of Christ And now is the Lord at enmity with the sinner though not averse from all ways and meanes by which he may returne to friendship with him again 2. As it may be conceived after the death of Christ and now is the Lord not only appeasable but doth also promise that he will be reconciled with sinners upon such â—â—â—mes as himself shall propose 3. As. the same Will of God may be considered after an intercession on Christs part and faith on the sinners part and now is God actually reconciled and in friendship with the sinner Against any of these particulars Mr. Eyre excepts nothing but exclaims against the whole as extreamly grosse and why forsooth because it makes God changeable But as grosse as it is not our Protestants only but the Scriptures also own every syllable of it nor will the satisfaction of Christ stand without it God was in friendship with Adam while he continued righteous and without sin I conceive it is next to an impossibility that the righteous Lord should be at enmity with a righteous man who neither is a sinner nor in the room of a sinner After Adam had sinned was not God at enmity with him Yes surely unlesse Christ be dead in vaine by his death we were reconciled while we were enemies After the death of Christ God is reconciled unto sinners Lo here God is a friend an enemy and reconciled again and is this such monstrous Divinity with Mr. Eyre But for the Readers farther information I shall endeavour to shew how God may be first a friend then an enemy then reconciled without any variablenesse or shadow of changing in himselfe and then shall adde a word or two more concerning our reconciliation in the death of Christ and so return to Mr. Eyre Reconciliation is the redintegration or renewing of friendship §. 24. g Vide Arist ad Nichom 8. 2 7. and friendship is either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those who may be equally serviceable one unto another in any office of love and friendly communication of good in a way of arithmetical proportion or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between those that are of unequal condition the one excelling the other in dignity or age or power between whom there cannot therefore be any reciprocal communication of good but in a way of geometrical proportion he that is of low degree and meaner rank imparting love and honour and observance to him that is of high
hence follow that sinners were reconciled immediately in the death of Christ without the intervention of a Covenant that is without the ministry of reconciliation Yea rather the just contrary follows for making of peace in Christs death is here made the means and cause of a future reconciliation that follows when even when by the Gospel sinners are converted unto God As is evident in the example of these Colossians v. 21. And you that were sometimes alienated and enemies by wicked works yet now hath he reconciled As also by that place altogether parallel to this Eph. 2. 15 16 17. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the Law of commandments so making peace And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the crosse and came and preached peace unto you c. Here we see 1. What is meant by making of peace viz. A plucking up the bounds and throwing down the wall that separated the Gentiles from the Jews and by consequence from God or an obtaining of a Covenant of peace that might reach even unto the Gentiles who before wâ—re afar off and strangers from the Covenants of promise v. 12 13. that they also might be fellow heires and of the same body and partakers of the promise in Christ by the Gospel chap. 3. 6. 2. Here is the end of this peace made by the crosse viz. That both Jews and Gentiles in one body might be reconciled to God that is through the same faith in the same Lord Jesus Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but all are one in him through the same saith Gal. 3. 28. and 5. 6. 3. The means by which they came to be of the same body namely by the preaching of peace v. 17. Can any thing be spoken more fully against the immediate reconciliation of sinners in the death of Christ or for proofe that Christ obtained that Covenant of peace through the preaching of which the Gentiles were converted and so reconciled unto God Gal. 3. 13. saith that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law that is paid the price of our redemption or obtained eternal redemption for us as Heb. 9. 12. but doth it say that we are delivered without a Covenant made in the same blood and death of Christ nay the Apostle supposeth the just contrary namely that blessednesse whereof sure our reconciliation with God is no small part is given to us by Covenant v. 11 14 15 16. Even that which he calls the promise by faith in Jesus Christ v. 22. The last text is that mentioned in my sermon Matth. 26. 28. Christ saith Mr. Eyre doth not say that he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise but for the remission of the sins of many Ans But he sayes his blood was the blood of the New-Testament which was shed for the remission of sins Of which former words Mr. Eyre is content to take no notice But out of doubt they teach us this or they teach us nothing that by the blood of Christ was the Covenant of remission obtained and sealed or that Covenant by which sin is pardoned to them that beleeve for the blood of Christ pardons not sin immediately but unto them onely that drink it by faith Joh. 6. 53 54 55 56 57. Hence the Apostate from the faith is said to count the blood of the Covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing Heb. 10. 29. SECT VII HAving thus shewed from the Scriptures that sinners are not immediately §. 31. reconciled in the death of Christ I proceeded farther to shew the grounds of it and they are two partly because the death of Christ was noâ— â—olâ—â—â—ejujdem but tantidem not the payment of that which was in the obligation but of the equivalent and therefore doth not deliver us ipso facto partly the agreement betwixt the Father and the Son of which more by and by Mr. Eyre answers to the former Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem or â—antidem as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt so the discharge thereby procured must needs be immediate for that a debt should be paid and satisfied and yet justly chargeable implies a contradiction Rep. Yea Then the Lawyers abuse both themselves and us for there is scarcely a determination more common in the Law then o L. mutuum §. 2. ff de reb cred l. cum â— de sol l. Debitor ff de sol ubi pro debitorem legendum creditorem l. si â—c §. 3. ff de re juâ— that a debtor is not discharged ipso facto upon the payment of any other thing then of that same which is in the obligation Titius is bound to pay Sempronius a hundred pounds in current mony of England when the day of payment is come he brings the full value in corne or he is bound to pay silver and he brings gold is he hereby discharged No. But if he bring the very same thing which he was bound to he is discharged ipso facto Now if when he brings gold instead of silver or corne instead of mony some act of the creditour is requisite to admit the payment of one instead of the other that so the debtor may be freed then is it also in the creditors power especially the debtor also consenting to propose upon what tearms he will that the debtor shall be freed either presently or after some time either upon condition or without which is all I seek for at present the consequence of this we shall see by and by In the mean time Mr. Eyre will have me prove that the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem A service which I little expected to be put upon by an English Divine p Vide librum â—vi mei reverendissimi Robertâ—â— arkeri de descensu l. 3. §. 57 58. p g. 108 109 The Assemb larg Catech. oâ— justi q. 2. 1. All our Divines acknowledge that Christ made a true proper satisfaction unto God for our sins q L. â—â—tisfact ff de solut Ergo his death was not solutio ejusdem the payment of the very same which was in the obligation but of the equivalent onely 2. Mr. Eyre himself but just before did intimate some kind of acknowledgement that the death of Christ was a payment of it self refusable Ergo it was not solutio ejusdem r L. quod in di em ff de sol l. quod quis 49. ff â—â— Action l. Accept 19. c. de usur for no creature can refuse to admit of that 3. It was not Christs death but ours that was in the obligation for the Law requires that he that sins dye and no man else If he that sinneth not dye that death cannot be the same which was in the obligation s Ut in contractu ersenali de facto Ulpian in l. inter â— rtif 31. ff de sol In corporal punishments which
if they be both in the very same bond and obligation hath some thing of truth in it though then also the surety hath the same action against the debtour which the creditor had before otherwise it is most notoriously false and the contrary determined frequently in the y I. in summa l. Si poenae D. de condict in deb l Si quid possessor ff de Pet. Haered l. Papin ff Maâ—d civil Law If the payment of the surety do presently discharge the debtour it is because he agrees with the creditour that the payment which he makes shall be accepted for the present and immediate discharge of the debtour which is the second thing I beganne to mention before and shall now farther explaine The death of Christ being not the very same which was in the obligation therefore that it may be effectual for our deliverance there is a double act required on Gods part to whom this payment is made the one is to admit or give way that satisfaction be made the other factam ratam habere to accept it when made and consequently to discharge and free the debtour for Christs satisfaction was admitted that our obligation might he destroyed by the intervening act of God the supream Governour of mankind Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation that he may be the justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus Moreover Christ being not a sinner but a surety and his payment not the payment of the principal debtour but of a surety therefore it is in his power to agree whether his payment shall be accepted and be effectual for the discharge of the sinner presently or for some time to come absolutely or upon condition Whence by the way appears what little strength there is in Mr. Eyres second exception viz. That Christs payment is lesse efficacious then if we had paid our selves if we be not thereby discharged presently because Christs satisfaction produceth its effects according to the agreement between his Father and himself and no otherwise and the virtue of it is to be measured by the greatnesse of the effect which could not be wrought by any meer created cause whether it produce it sooner or later upon condition or without Wherefore if we prove that the Father and Son agreed that none §. 35. should have actual discharge by the death of Christ till they do beleeve we carry the cause by Mr Eyres owne judgement Yet in yielding thus much he hath not a little prejudiced the authority of his own determinations so I call them because he lays them downe so peremptorily and axiomatically as if they needed no proofe How often doth he tell us before and after this concession that our discharge in the death of Christ must needs be present and immediate as pag. 68. § 7. Our discharge from the Law was â— not to be sub termino or in diem but present and immediate And in this chapter § 13. The death of Christ as it is a satisfaction or payment so the discharge thereby procured must needs be present and immediate As if it were a contradiction in the nature of the thing that we should not presently be discharged if Christ hath made satisfaction And yet here yeelds that by a contract or agreement between the Father and the Sonne the discharge obtained in Christs satisfaction may be suspended It is therefore a thing possible that Christ may have satisfied and yet we the elect I mean not be presently discharged And what then means the must needs were it a thing denyed it were easie to give innumerable instances of satisfaction made when yet the person for whom it is made is not presently freed but because it is not denied I hasten to the service which Mr. Eyre challengeth me to performe with a promise that if it be performed he will yeeld the cause and that is to shew that it was the will of the Father and of the Sonne that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ till they do beleeve For proofe of this I quoted the words of the Lord Jesus wherein §. 36. he gives us an account both of his own and his Fathers will in this matter Joh. 6. 40. This is the will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Sonne and beleeveth on him may have everlasting life To which Mr. Eyre answers This Text and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit thâ—y that beleeve Rep. An answer which lets me see something of what the wit of man can do in darkening plaine testimonies whose sense is obvious at first view even to vulgar capacities This is not the first time we have met with this answer in Mr. Eyre and it hath been already convicted and cast by more then a jury of Arguments in â—hap 5. 8. two places and therefore here I shall speak but briefly to it 1. Iâ— this and the like Texts do only shew â—â—o are the persons that have the enjoyment of Christs benefits namely beleevers then either they shew that beleevers as such in seâ—s◠〈◊〉 are the subjects of that life which is here promised and then I have what I would have for if men as beleevers are the subjects of this life then the prooâ—â—s full that they do not begin to partake in this life before they are beleevers much lesse before they are borne and least of all at the time of the death of Christ nor was it the will of the Father or of the Sonne that they should so do Or the meaning is that the persons who enjoy this life are such whose property and priviledge it is to be beleevers some time or other sooner or later though they may not be beleevers when they first begin to partake therein and so they are described à câ—nsâ—quenti from their faith as a consequent of their first partaking in this life And if so I shall return Mr. Eyre his offer namely that if he will shew me but one place of Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation wherein persons that shall enjoy a benefit are described from the consequent of that benefit with a distributive particle preposed such as is the particle whosoever in the present Text and I will yeeld him the cause at lest so farre forth as it is concerned in these Texts But if Mr. Eyre cannot give one instance of the like phrase of speech in all the Bible as I know he cannot then let him take heed least he become guilty of that which he doth elsewhere groundlesly charge upon me I meane of attempting to suborne the spirit to serve his own turne And what I speak of the description of a person in order to his receiving of a benefit is true also in respect of any evil threatned How many hundreds of times are such sentences in Scripture As for example Matth. 5. 22. Whosoever is
angry with his brother without a cause Whosoever shall say unto his brâ—ther Racha Whosoever shall say thou foole shall be in dangâ—r of such and such punishments Can these or the like expressions any where else be onely the descriptions of persons that shall be punished and that from the consequent of their punishment as already begun 2. The Lord by comparing faith to seeing seems to allude to Israels §. 37. looking up to the brazen serpent for healing Numb 21. As he also doth almost in the same words altogether in the same sense Joh. 3. 14 15. As 〈◊〉 lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish c. Now I would know when it is said Numb 21. 8. Every one or whosoever looketh upon it sâ— the Serpent do the words onely describe the persons that should be healed from their property oâ— looking up or do they also proâ—â—â—â— the Act upon which their healing was suspended If the latter 〈◊〉 those words Whosoever seâ—â— and beleeveth the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life must be understood in the same sense If the former thâ—n the Israelites might also have been healed before they looked up to the serpent for to denominate them lookers it is sufficient that they looked up at any time whether before or after they â—â—re healed But I will not do one work twice enough hath been spoken already against this notion unlesse it had some better authority then meerly mans invention The next place I mentioned was â—â—l 5. 2 4. without faith Christ §. 38. shall profit us nâ—thing 〈◊〉 it was not the will of God nor of Christ that any man should be justified by the death of Christ till he doth beleeve But sâ—ith Mr. Eyre this place is pâ—lpâ—â—ly abâ—â—eâ— Thâ— Apostle doth nâ—t 〈◊〉 withoâ—t faith Christ shall profit â—s nothing but if we 〈◊〉 any thing 〈◊〉 Christ as necessary to attaine salvation we are not beleâ—vers our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing Rep. Where doth the Apostle say these words If M. Eyre give us onely the sense of them we shall shew presently that what I say is included as part of the sense But I will never beleeve while I live that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expressed the Apostles sense As if the Apostle spake against joyning of any thing with Christ as necessary to attaine salvation unlesse by joyning with Christ he mean in an equal degree of causality or as sharing in that kind of causality which Christ put forth for our salvation For out of doubt Faith and Repentance are necessary to be joyned with Christ that we may be saved 2. But to discover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abused me in charging me with an abuse of the Text let us transcribe the words v. 2 3 4 5 6. If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Christ is become of no effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law you are fallen from grace For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by Love 1. I do here observe the Apostles Argument by which he proves that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing Thus it runs He that is bound to keep the whole Law for justification to him is Christ of no effect for justification He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law for justification v. 3. Ergo Christ is of no effect to him or as the Apostle varies the words v. 4. Ergo he is fallen from grace whosoever he be that expects to be justified by the Law In opposition to this he declares in his own and other Christians example the only way how Christ may become profitable and of effect to us for justification and that is by faith without legal performances v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith And have I yet abused the Text because I say it hath this sense that without faith Christ shall profit us nothing yea 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle proceeds upon this ground that legal observances make Christ of none effect to us because they overthrow faith For he that will be justified by the Law must keep the whole Law and that destroys faith as he had also often and plainly told them before chap. 3. 12. 10 11 17 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apostle attributes that to faith which he denyes â—o other works v. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love I assuâ—â— But the thing denied to other works is that they are able to justifieâ— yea rather that they make it impossible for us to be justified because they make Christ to become of none effect to us v. â— 4. Ergo the thing ascribed to faith is that by it we are justified and through it doth Christ become profitable and grace of effect to our Justification Ergo without it Christ profits us nothing as to that end and purpose Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himself immediately in his Comment upon that v. 6. When he sayes that the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the exercises of divine worship in which Christians should be conversant But out of doubt his meaning was to shew how Christ and grace become effectual to our Justification if he do here ascribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works which is Mr. Eyres own grant and the Apostles unquestionable intent for the words as appears by the particle for in the beginning of the verse are the reason why through faith he expected Justification and not in the way of circumcision ver 5. to wit because circumcision availeth nothing no nor uncircumcision neither but faith which worketh by love which reason of his faith he had also given before chapt 2. 16. As to those two truly godly learned Authours Calvin and Perkins whom Mr. Eyre alledgeth as abetting what he saith concerning the Apostles intent if the cause were to be carried by number of voices we could quickly dispatch it But neither do either of these gratifie Mr. Eyre a whit Calvins words are these Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet Paulus nequaquam disputat an charitas ad justificandum cooperetur fidei sed tantùm indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia i. e. As to the present place Paul doth by no meanes dispute whether love do cooperate with faith unto Justification but only intimates what are now the true exercises of the faithful Is this all one as if he had said faith availes us nothing in order
to our Justification before God the contrary to which he had spoke but just before upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis Respondet in Christo nihil valere ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse c. Perkins his words are these in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words Faith worketh by love Paul saith he doth not shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love viz. not that it justifieth as working by love though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified to work by love But he was far from thinking that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God It is his own observation upon this very verse not far before The second Conclusion Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdome of Christ By it first our persons and then our actions please God and without it nothing pleaseth God And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to disputes for Justification by faith without works against the Papists The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40. the Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse which God hath given us in Jesus Christ ver 11. Ergo he that hath not the Son hath no benefit by him But he that believeth not hath not the Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifest 1. From the Apostles own interpretation for having spoke in general He that hath the Son hath life he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God that you may know that you have eternal life 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase throughout all these Epistles as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely in his Epistle 2 ep v. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HATH NOT GOD But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne Compare 1 ep 2. 24. 2. If we are said in Scripture any where to have the Son in any other sense then by believing or as excluding believing why have we no intelligence of it Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence partly in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith partly in not attempting to justifie it from the phrase of Scripture as an argument that himself is conscious that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures Briefly the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation He that hath the Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ But the antecedent is proved true from the text Ergo the consequent is true To these texts mentioned in my Sermon and now vindicated let §. 41. me adde one or two more If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood then was it not the Will of God that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ till he did beleeve But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ then is not Christ a propitiation z Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. Paraeus in loc through faith but without it Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cause of our remission but because God hath so constituted that our remission shall not follow and so our sins not be propitiated quoad â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking the work of Redemption is set down at large Isa 53. throughout particularly ver 10. 11 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned as the fruit and effect of Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him where knowledge as elsewhere in Scripture often signifies faith And what shall I say more we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures that God requires commands and exhorts all men to beleeve that they may be justified by the blood of Christ And what stronger evidence can we need then this that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
his dealing with other Infants who are the children of his servants and of such as believe on him after the example of Abraham Their father Abrahams faith was the condition of their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt Deut. 10. 15. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them and he chose their seed after them And because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto your fathers hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen chap. 7 8. Neverthelesse after they had been farther instructed in and known the Will of God he required of them that they should feare him and walk in all his wayes and love him and serve him with all their heart and soule Deut 10. 12 16. Otherwise they were liable to a returne to the same or a worse bondage then that out of which they had been redeemed chap. 28. 65 68. And it is also observable that the Infants in Israel continued their right to the promised land while their Parents were cut off for rebellion Numb 14 30 31. As to the second exception That we may as well assert works §. 19. of supererogation as that one is justified by anothers faith I had thought Mr. Eyre had better understood what works of supererogation are then to trouble us with such an impertinency But to the two texts of Scripture in the margine to which he refers us Ezek. 18. 20. and Hab. 2. 4. to prove that a mans faith or righteousnesse is available only to his own salvation they are both to be understood pro subject â materiâ He that is furnished with meanes and abilities for the exercise of a faith of his owne or for performing works of righteousnesse cannot expect salvation by the faith or righteousnesse of his Parents while himself lives in unbelief and unrighteousnesse The eighth Argument is the old postulatum that faith cannot be §. 20. the condition of our reconciliation but it will then needs share with Christ in the glory of this effect which we have shewed already at large to be contrary to the judgment of Scriptures Reason Lawyers Divines I may adde of all sorts of persons All men will acknowledge that the freest Promise imaginable becomes not obligatory but upon supposition of acceptance by him to whom the Promise is made e Vide D Marta Neapol Digest Noviss Tom 3. Tit. Donatarius and the freest donation becomes invalid if he to whom it is given will have none of it And faith being no more then an acceptance of Christ John 1. 12. Rev. 22. 17. one would think it might be made the condition of the gift of righteousnesse and life without danger of sharing in the glory of Christ More of the unreasonablenesse of Mr. Eyres crude assertion though it be more then needs and more then once I intended the Reader shall finde below in answer to Mr. Eyres nineteenth chapter Enter the ninth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 21. his people should have strong consolation and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their peace and reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves for it is impossible that any soul should enjoy a firme and setled peace whose confidence towards God is grounded upon conditional Promises and says the Apostle our salvation is by grace to the end that the Promise may be sure to all the seed Rom. 4. 16. Answ We expect other manner of proof of the consequence then what is here presented us It is most true that Gods Will is that his people should have strong consolation not without faith but through faith as is most expresse in that very place which Mr. Eyre quotes Heb. 6. 18. That we might have a strong consâ—lation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us Also the Apostle John 1 Ep. 1. 4. gives the reason of his writing the doctrine of the Gospel namely that through the faith thereof our joy may be full But it is the wildest reasoning that ever I met with to inferre that if the gift of peace and reconciliation be suspended upon believing then he that believes cannot have strong consolation just as if I should inferre because the Lord sayes John 16. 24. Ask and ye shall receive that your joy may be full Ergo He that asketh can never attain to fulnesse of joy The strength of our joy and consolation depends upon the immutability and faithfulnesse of the Promise which we beleeve and by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve by so much the more do we partake in the comfort of the Promise But that is above all that Mr. Eyre should quote Rom. 4. 16. to prove that if our salvation depended never so little upon our works we could not be sure thereof Amongst which works he includes faith absurdly enough but suitable to his dealing with the Authours whom he quotes here and elsewhere applying to faith what they speak against works when the very words of the text are expresly and purposely against the inference which he makes from them Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed Since man was borne upon the earth was it ever thought possible that these words should yield this inference Ergo if salvation depend on faith we can never be sure of it Though neither doth the text speak of the certainty of the subject or of our being sure of salvation but of the certainty of the object or of salvation's being sure to us Let us hear the tenth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 22. the death of Christ should be available for the reconciliation of the elect whiles they live in this world then it was his Will that it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation without the intervention of those conditions supposed to be required of them The reason is because they cannot perform all the conditions required of them till their last breath this being one that they must persevere to the end Answ This Argument with many of the rest if it prove that sinners are reconciled without any condition performed on their part yet it doth not prove what it should do that they are reconciled immediately in the death of Christ or before they beleeve If we contended for no more then that faith were antecedent to Justification not the condition thereof this Argument would not hurt us and therefore is not like to be very serviceable to Mr. Eyre 2. Nor doth it so much as pretend to disprove Justification upon any condition as suppose upon the first act of faith and therefore is yet farther impertinent 3. But that which it would disprove if it had strength enough is the conditionality of final perseverance unto Justification But neither do we make final perseverance the condition
I thus proposed If we are justified in Christ then we are justified before we beleeve But we are justified in Christ Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument the summe is Christ was justified in his resurrection as a common person Ergo the elect were then justified in him My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct The summe is if justification be taken properly I deny that we were justified in Christ if improperly I deny that it will follow that we were justified before faith because we were justified in Christs resurrection no more then it will follow that because we are said to be risen with Christ Ergo men are risen from the dead before they are borne or dead or while they are lying in their graves But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it First then I say we may conceive of a threefold justification 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ who himself was justified in his own resurrection and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to beleevers by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time c. What says Mr. Eyre to this 1. He infers in general that then by my own confession justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered chapt 1. § 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God as purchased by Christ as exemplified in his glorification I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification tells his Reader before hand that That were a poore put off because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of justification simply there is no man but understands it of actual justification Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book at least some parts of it that it had cost him but little paines for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation and in the close of my answer oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called and this I may not be allowed to do because of Analogum per se positum c. Nextly He speaks something on each member of the distinction §. 2. and says 1. That which I called justification purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification Ans Thou hast then thy choise Reader whether thou wilt beleeve the Apostle or M. Eyre The Text quoted Gal. 3. 8. says thus The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The justification here spoken of is surely justification simply so called because it is put by it self without any Term of restraint or diminution and M. Eyres rule is Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato And this justification according to the Apostle was a thing foreseen a thing that God would do a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham all which notwithstanding M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification But of this we have spoken already as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction The great exception is against the third branch wherein I say that §. 3. Christ in his resurrection being himself justified became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it 1. Saith M. Eyre there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justiâ—â—cation Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person in which he so much delights attributed to Christ 2. If concerning that which is equivalent surely the Term of an exemplary cause is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ from the beginning to the end of our faith Rom. 8. 29 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image therein was he an exemplary cause for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it as its image and exist by virtue of it which I desire the Reader to observe because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause as if there were no difference between them If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours And whereas M. Eyre says that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary but a meritorious cause it is not universally true For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christs as Mediatour and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing He proceeds thus It was needlesse Christ should be a patern §. 4. of our justification for this patern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not to God because he needs no patern to direct him Rep. The disjunction is imperfect for it was needful for the glory of Christ as the Apostle expresly witnesseth Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did prâ—dâ—stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first born among many brethren It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead and a person so farre advanced above all others that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him and in being fashioned according to his image 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives or the influence which it hath upon our justification And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us because we do not justifie our selves
common person is the act of them whom he represents But Christs satisfaction merits redemption and perfect obedience are not our act so as that we can be said to have satisfied merited redeemed our selves perfectly obeyed the Law and borne the curse thereof things for ever impossible for sinners to do Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6. Ergo they are not representable as doing of them Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth But the Scripture is expresse that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ that all are justified Romanes 5. 17 18. The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration §. 12. and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection then in his death Nevertheless neither in that do I approve the tearme unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned for the reason already given And to what Mr. Eyre addes of Parents being examples to their children he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example but the exemplary cause of our Justification Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners but they are not exemplary causes thereof This for the fallacie 2. Saith Mr. Eyre it is impertinent because Christs discharge §. 13. may be ours though we did not choose him but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head Surety and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam and yet his sin was imputed to us Answ 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause then to expresse that preheminence which Christ hath as in all things else so in his Justification which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing as that it supposeth the just contrary for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own as his whom he represents As what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings and what is done to him as such is more properly done to the King then to him In like manner if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us then are we properly the first risers from the dead and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head Surety and common Person of the Elect is a contradiction if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense for one that represents others in what he doth and in what is done to him Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect so the Scriptures call him and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us But the common Person described as such is neither Head nor Surety because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly none other do the like and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them the case is the same in what he receives or in what is done to him as Head and Surety 3. Concerning Adam I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him we have already largely opened His sin is indeed imputed unto us not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it for that is in it selfe an errour of falshood and besides is contrary to the Apostle who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression neither in individuo nor in specie Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural he being the common Parent who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communicated to his children if himself continued obedient otherwise to lose it both to himself and us That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument §. 14. is inferring our Justification before saith from our Justification in some sense in the Resurrection of Christ I said we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justification is past before we beleeve because we are in some sense justified in Christ We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer Ergo we are sanctified before faith In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose the summe of them is Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt c. Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand and Justification on the other is plain and obvious but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing that we were justified in Christ as a common person Now if our rising in Christ as a common person will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith because we were justified in Christ as a common person and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection â—t must be upon some other account then because we were justified in him as a common person 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny not publickly for feare of the people that we are risen in Christ as a common person Christ saith he fully merited our Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ a strange and unheard of interpretation that we should be said to be raised with Christ because he in his death merited our Resurrection which might have been true though himself had never been raised but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising a phrase not used in Scripture but admitted by me as agreeable or not contrary thereunto not for our Justification in him as a common person but for his merit or purchase of our Justification Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too though very privately and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words It is saith he no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Râ—surrection though we are not risen as to say he hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for to say a debt is discharged and yet justly chargeable is a contradiction Purchased why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection were really and formally the discharge of sinners and not whether he purchased
in its formal notion includes not the non-imputation of sin or that non-imputation of sin which includes not essentially the imputation of righteousnesse He hath told us long since that both these are immanent and eternal acts of God and as such the death of Christ procures neither the effects of both are one and the same and it is therefore impossible to distinguish them in reference to their effects It is to me a mystery beyond comprehension how that imputation which constitutes a sinner righteous should yet include nothing of the non-imputation of sin or how sin can be non-imputed to a sinner and yet he abide unrighteous unlesse some other act concur to make him righteous His third answer is The non-imputation of sin to us antecedes §. 17. the imputation of righteousnesse to us in order of nature only not of time Rep. That is the righteousnesse of Christ avails nothing to the non-imputing of sin to us The very naming of these hideous doctrines is a sufficient confutation of them Should I have delivered such things the names of all the most loathsome hereticks that ever were would have been accounted too soft to have been thrown at my head Yet Mr. Eyre hath not done objectâ—ng against himself but in the §. 18. end of this third answer brings in some body objecting thus We were not then I suppose he means when Christ died Ergo righteousnesse could not then be imputed to us His answer is They might as well object our sins were not then Erge they could not be imputed unto Christ in the businesse of Justification God calleth things that are not as if they were Rom. 4. 17. Rep. 1. I deny the parity of reason between the one and the other Sin can neither be punished nor pardoned before it be committed in â—r to the person that sinâ—eth Neverthelesse he that hath the absolute dominion of his own life as Christ had may as a Surety suffer all that punishment which by the Law can at any time grow due to sin for even amongst men p L. Sâ—ipulaâ—â—s sum L. potest ss de fide juss §. side â—â—ss instit de fide-juss 〈◊〉 accipi potest in â—uturam obligationem Sureties are admitted upon future obligations If as soon as death by the Law was made the punishment of sin before men had broken the Law the Lord Jesus had given up himself to death that in case we should sin his death should have had the same effect as now it hath in this case our sin though then but possible had been imputed unto him for he had borne the penalty due to it and threatened against it but his righteousnesse had not been imputed to us upon the same supposition that we had not sinned In like manner though the sins of the elect were not in being I mean of all the Elect borne since his death when Christ died yet the full penalty which could at any time grow due to them was then in being and determined by the Law which punishment also in summe and substance he might and did undergo that when we should sin we might yet be washed in his blood from all our sins The future sins of the Elect Christ might make so farre present in himself as to endure all the penalty which they could at any time deserve it being not our desert of punishment which obligeth him to suffer it but his own voluntary submission to it which makes punishment due to him as our Surety before it become due to us as actual sinners But pardon of sin being essentially the destruction of that very obligation which the sinner hath contracted upon himselfe doth therefore essentially suppose the sinner and his sin in being though another may suffer for him yet another cannot be pardoned for him pardon of sin being a personal priviledge that is such as rests in the person of the sinner or nowhere 2. And that God in the matter of Justification calleth things that are not as though they were is no part of the Apostles meaning Rom. 4. 17. but to shew the ground of Abrahams stedfast believing on God for the obtaining of a blessing to sense and reason impossible namely that he should become the father of many nations his own body and Sarahs wombe being dead v. 19. The reason hereof was because God is he that raiseth the dead and is able to give being to things out of nothing for he calleth things that are not as if they were therefore Abraham against hope believed in hope v. 18. This is that faith through which he and all his children in the same faith obtain righteousnesse Having thus at large demonstrated the weaknesse of the argument §. 19. from our Justification in Christ as a common person to prove our Justification before faith I left this censure upon it they are credulous soules that will be drawn by such decayes as these into schisme and faction to the hardening and discomforting of more hearts in one houre then the opinion it self should it obtain will do good to while the world stands which censure is of such ill resentment with Mr. Eyre that he hath used no lesse then two leaves of paper to wipe off the dirt untruth slander and what he pleaseth cast upon himself and his Church thereby As to the Argument his own deserting it in plain ground is evidence enough that it is too weak to bear the weight which is laid upon it and if men will embrace opinions which have no stronger foundations is not their own credulity in fault The charge of schisme and faction was not intended against him or any of his charge in particular I little know whether all under his charge be of his opinion or whether all of his opinion in the place he lives in be under his charge but in general against all who without better ground then the foresaid Argument will afford them shall by jealousies separations envyings backbitings rash censurings c. violate the rules of Christian love and peace whereof if neither Mr. Eyre nor any of his charge are guilty yet some others of his judgement in this point are and that so foully that he would loath to undertake their defence if he will be true to the Profession which here he makes of himself CHAP. XII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Sixteenth Chapter concerning our being in Covenant with God before believing SECT I. THe third and last Argument for proving our Justification §. 1. to be before faith I thus proposed and as I thought according to Mr. Eyres minde If we are in Covenant before we believe then we are justified before we believe But we are in Covenant before we beleeve Ergo This Argument Mr. Eyre disclaims as being none of his at least as not being proposed in that forme in which he dressed it and hereupon expatiates in two leaves of paper upon the discourse which passed between himself and me shewing the orderly progresse in which his
arguments advanced with my answers then given to them to which I do not intend to digresse so far as to reply 1. Because the Basis and foundation of his whole Argument as he hath now proposed in print is laid in this that we were justified in Christs Justification and therefore as to the summe is answered already 2. Because there is no proof of any particular branch of the Argument but is proposed again before he hath done and therefore must be answered hereafter 3. Because though I have altogether forgotten the order of his arguments and of my own answers yet I very well remember that as I understood his argument in no other sense then as it is set down in my Sermon printed so many things I spake by way of answer whereof his relation takes no notice but I must desire him to take more notice of before he and I part My answer then to the foresaid argument was double 1. That upon supposition that we were in Covenant before we beleeve yet would it not follow that we were justified before we believe because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another To this Mr. Eyre replies in the second paragraph of this his sixteenth chapter and says That though a man be not sanctified and glorified before faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. one of the elect he is certainly justified For 1. God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect which is real Justification Rep. To this Reader thou must expect no other answer from me then what I have at large given already 2. Saith he Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ for Justification goes before Sanctification and faith is a part of Sanctification Rep. I acknowledge that our English Divines whom I confesse in matters of this nature I preferre before any other are wont to place Sanctification in order after Justification which also is so plain from Scripture that it cannot be denied But Mr. Eyre also knows that they are wont to distinguish faith and sanctification as two things as the Scriptures also do 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 15. 9. and 16. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 13 14 15 16. though I do not finde that they do all expresse this difference in the same manner Should I interpose my own opinion it may be I should finde little thank for my labour and therefore I shall say no more then what others have said before me 1. It being plain that faith and holinesse are tâ—o things in the use of Scripture Mr. Eyre should have proved and not laid it down so rawly without any distinction that faith is a part of sanctification I deny it provided I may be tried by Scripture-language 2. As faith is in the understanding a perswasion of the truth of the Gospel and the Promises of life and glory contained therein so is it wont to be distinguished from sanctification 2 Thes 2 13. is not so much a part of it as a cause for by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve and see the glory of the Promises by so much the more are we changed into the image of Gods holinesse 2 Pet. 1. 3 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. and 7. 1. 3. As faith is in the will an acceptance of Christ that by him we may be brought unto God it hath much the same difference for as God hath made Christ to us sanctification 1 Cor. 1. 30. so doth faith receive him and in that respect is not properly any part of our sanctification but the turning of the soul to Christ as unto a most sufficient principle and authour thereof Acts 26. 18. and so much for the exceptions against my first answer My second answer was a flat denial of the Assumption viz. that we are in Covenant with God before we beleeve if the phrase of §. 2. being in Covenant be understood properly for such an interest in the Covenant as gives a man right and title to the blessings of the Covenant Mr. Eyres proof is this Some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which works faith is given us before we beleeve My answer to this was large and distinct though Mr. Eyre reproach it sufficiently with a designe of darkening the truth and blinding the Reader but that 's no matter I shewed 1. That the word Give had a double sense in Scripture 1. When no receiving follows and so it signifies no more then the Will of God constituting and appointing Acts 4. 12. Eph. 1. 22. and 4. 11. 2. Sometimes it includes a receiving and possession of the thing given Thus the Spirit is given when we receive him and are as it were possest of him and he dwells in us In this sense is the Spirit never said to be given in Scripture but unto them that do beleeve Luke 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 3. 16 17. with Rom. 8. 10. 11. 2 I shewed also that the Spirit may be said to be given three ways essentially personally or in regard to some peculiar operations which he worketh in us Now there being no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in an hypocrite which hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God therefore the Spirit is neither given nor received before faith be wrought but is given and received together with faith and not before This is the summe the further explication the Reader may see in my Sermon at leisure Mr. Eyre thus expounds the giving of the Spirit That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel to work faith in all those that are ordained to life Rep. Then see Reader what a proof we have that the Spirit is given us before faith Mr. Eyre should prove that we have some benefits of the Covenant before faith viz. the Spirit when he explains it he tells us the Spirit is given before faith not in that sense in which the word give or given includes our receiving but as it signifies the sending or constituting of the Spirit to be by way of specialty the efficient cause or worker of faith Mr. Eyre doth not so much as open his mouth against what I said before that the Spirit is said to be given to us in reference to some peculiar work of his upon or in us which work is faith Here when he should shew how he is given us before faith he says he is sent to work faith in which sense the Spirit may be said to be given in the first sense mentioned of that word but not given to us so as that we can be therefore said to receive him eo ipso because he is sent to work faith and therefore this is but a deserting of the Argument in hand nor are we yet proved to have received any benefit of the
Covenant I mean any saving benefit before faith Therefore Mr. Eyre answers secondly That though the Spirit be not given us one atome of time before faith yet it is enough §. 3. that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that faith is not before the Spirit Rep. Neither for if the Spirit be not said to be given to us but in reference to his working of faith in us then faith is wrought in nature before the Spirit can be said to be given to us as if the Sunne be said to dwell or be in my house because it enlightens my house then in order of nature my house is first enlightened before the Sun can be said to be or dwell in it There is but one thing more in this Chapter that needs answer and that is this I had said the Spirit is not given us but in reference to some peculiar operation of his working faith in us and added for illustration that as a man doth first build himself an house and then dwell in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organize and prepare the soul to be a house unto himself and then dwells in it Mr. Eyre answers But is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of faith Rep. If these interrogations have the force of an affirmation Mr. Eyre should have proved them and not barely asserted them I have answered sufficiently already There is no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in a hypocrite who hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God Ergo there can be no work of the Spirit before faith it self in reference unto which the Spirit can be said to be given to us Preparative works do not difference a beleever from an hypocrite and therefore in themselves are no fruit or benefit of the Covenant So much â—o thâ— sixteenth Chapter CHAP. XIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Seventeenth Chapter Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us SECT I. HAving thus shewed that we receive not the Spirit before we beleeve §. 1. it remains that we enquire whether faith it self be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyres purpose to shew that we are in Covenant before we beleeve as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we beleeve For answer therefore to the question understand Reader that it may have a double sense 1. Whether the Covenant of grace that is the Gospel have any efficiency in converting the * â—id Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful of siâ— page 337 Mr. bâ—lk 〈…〉 oâ— the Covenâ—â—â— pâ—â—t 4. page 318. soul and working it to beleeve and in this sense I readily grant that faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant Or 2. Whether God have engaged himself by Covenant to any sinner in the world to give him faith so that if God should not give him faith he were unfaithful and a breaker of his own Covenant In this sense is the question to be understood and my answer to it was a Faith is not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ God hath promised Christ that sinners shall beleeve on him Isa 53. 10. and 55. 4 5. Psal 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Psal 89. 25 26. c. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is given to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant made with them the sense of which we have already explained that the Elect are supposed to be in Covenant with God before they beleeve and so God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith I deny it See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it First a similitude at the end of his first section If one promise §. 2. another that in case he shall bear so many stripes or perform any other condition he will then take care of and provide for his children doth not this promise made with the father most properly belong to his children The case is the same between Christ and us He performed the condition and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant Answ Whether the case be the same between Christ and us is the proper debate of the next Argument in the mean time this comparison is not to our case because the Promâ—se made to Christ that Jews and Gentiles shal come into him by faith is a promise that he shall have children spiritual that he shall have a numerous seed even like the stars of heaven for multitude But as the promise made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he should have was no promise to them that they should becom children which were promise to nothing that it should become something so the promise to Christ that many Nations shall come unto him and becom children to him in a spiritual sense is no promise to them nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers but unto him and in gratiam sui for his own honour and glory Much lesse doth such a promise hinder that that faith by which they become children unto Christ may not be enjoyned them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Christ and blessednesse by him The serond and great Argument is this If there be but one Covenant §. 3. of grace which is made both with Christ and us then faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us Ergo Hence a little before I am bid to shew that there are two distinct Covenants of grace one made with Christ and the other with us or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect then that which is made with Christ c. Answ Before we can give a distinct answer to this we must first enquire how we may conceive of the forme and tenour of the Covenant of grace The tenour of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible Do this and live But it seems there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all though some men are the intended objects of the blessings therein contained but only with Christ with whom we are to conceive the father striking a Covenant to this sense If thou wilt make or do thou make satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and I will give them grace and glory where the condition is Christs death or rather his satisfaction for his death if it had not been satisfactory had availed nothing and the promise is that the Elect shall have grace and glory This being explained I do utterly deny that there is but one Covenant of
the consequence because though Christ merited nothing for himself it being unworthy to rank him amongst such mercinary servants to whom nothing is due but for their labour in which sense are our Divines to be understood when they deny him to have merited for himself yet what he did and suffered was necessary for himself at least as a condition without which he had not obtained that advancement which now he hath viz. power of sending the Spirit Act. 2. 33. dominion over Angels in short all power both in heaven and earth as our Divines do liberally grant Which promises are not made to us but to Christ though instrictnesse of propriety he did not merit them And therefore though I do not find that he is called his own mediatour yet he was his own way unto the father Joh. 14. 4 6. forasmuch as not without the rending of his flesh and the shedding of his own blood he entred into the holy place Heb. 9. 11 12. Mr. Eyre proves his consequence in these words Christ is the mediatour of the new covenant Heb. 12. 24. Faith is bestowed upon us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Now Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not of a covenant made singly and particularly with himself for a man is not properly a Mediatour for himself Answ Which words if they had stood by themselves as an argument directly proving the maine question viz. that faith is given us by virtue of the covenant made with us they had been of more strength then all that Mr. Eyre hath said for it besides But as they now stand for a proof of the foresaid consequence I cannot imagine into what forme to cast them though I have toyled my self about it more then enough Therefore leaving it to Mr. Eyre to shew how they prove his consequence let us consider them as an argument by themselves the forme whereof is this What is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour is given us by that covenant which is made with us the reason is because Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not with himself But faith is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Ergâ— I cannot guesse what strength the argument looseth in this forme if it loose any Mr. Eyre must thank himself for speaking no plainer my answer to it is this faith may be said to be given by virtue of the covenant in a double respect 1. Operatione â—fficacia foederis by the operation and efficiency of the covenant working faith in the soul by the power of the Spirit accompanying it In this sense I deny the proposition because what is given us by the efficiency of the covenant doth not suppose us to be in covenant before our receiving it forasmuch as the working of faith it self by which we are brought into covenant is the effect of the covenant or 2. Ex obligatione faederis and so that is given by virtue of the covenant which we by the covenant have a right to receive and God by the same covenant hath obliged himself to us to bestow upon us In this sense which onely is proper to our Argument I deny the assumption because there is no covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour which gives any man a right to the receiving of faith or makes it due to him that faith be given him as I shall farther shew by and by when I come to examine Mr. Eyres answer to my explication of Heb. 8. 10. And that faith is given us by the righteousnesse and merits of Christ will never prove that therefore it is given us as unto a people in covenant with God What may not Christ merit faith that thereby we might be estated in the covenant though I will also tell Mr. Eyre that the three places he mentions viz. 2 Pet. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 3. Rom. 8. 32. to prove that we obtaine faith by the merits of Christ would never convince me if I were contrary minded The third argument proceeds thus If faith be given us by virtue §. 9 of that covenant whereby justification sanctification perseverance and glory are bestowed upon us then faith is given us by virtue of that covenant which is made with us But the first is true Ergo so is the last In the same covenant wherein God promiseth to cleanse us from our filthinesse to cause to walk in his ways c. he promiseth to circumcise our hearts to make us beleeve c. Ezek. 36. 25. c. Jer. 31. 34. Answ I deny the assumption if understood according to the foregoing distinction of what is given by a covenant obligation Till I see better proofe then any I meet with in Mr. Eyres book which I beleeve I never shall it will never enter into my heart that God is as much bound to give faith to sinners and rebells as he is to give righteousnesse and salvation to beleevers As for the proofe out of Ezek. 36. and Jer. 31. I deny that God doth give righteousnesse or glory by virtue that is by the obligation of the covenant there mentioned The reason which shall be farther explained by and by is because those texts do not expresse the forme and tenor of the covenant of grace but onely the matter and particulars wherein God would make the said covenant as administred in the days of Christ to excell it self in its administration before his coming As for example that it shall have greater efficacy in giving ability to fulfill it and to conferre more excellent spirituall and eternal blessings to them that do fulfill it But he that declares that his purpose is to establish and enact such a covenant by and according to which such excellent blessings shall be given doth not by such a declaration oblige himself to give them it is the covenant it self enacted and established which enduceth the obligation Wherefore the texts mentioned do indeed declare that the effects of the new Covenant that is of the Covenant in its new administration shall be farre more excellent then of the old but they do by no means declare that the said Covenant shall produce these effects in one and the same way or manner It produceth faith by its reall efficacy as I may so call it for it is the new Covenant which administreth that Spirit by which faith is wrought and having thus brought souls within the bond and made them to take hold of it self it produceth justification perseverance and salvation by its legall efficacy inasmuch as it makes these and all other blessings due to them that beleeve The fourth argument succeeds Faith is given by virtue §. 10. of that Covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed Ergo it is given by virtue of the Covenant made with us Answ I deny the antecedent The reason is because the seed of Abraham according to Scripture are they that do beleeve Rom. 4. 11 16.
That I may as well say that the bond and condition of the covenant on our part is expressed in that clause I will be their God which one would have the condition of the covenant on our part who that one is I do not know but I know one who may stand in steed of many hundreds d Thes 4. pag. 109. ex Gen. 17. 1. Hos 2. 16. 23. Dr. John Reynâ—lds who was accounted the ornament and wonder of his age for piety and learning that doth so expound those words and that from one who is above all even God himself who doth plainly so sense the words in some places Dâ—â—t 26. 17 18. Zech. 13. 9. Neverthelesse I did wave this interpretation in this place and interpret both clauses I will be their God and they shall be my people as expressing one and the same thing in reference to two tearmes as when it is said I wiâ—l be their father and they shall be my children because whatsoever is essentiall to the taking of the Lord for our God I conceive to be included in the words foregoing I will write my Laws in their hearts c. Whereas I said that faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant §. 20. already made but as the means by which we are brought into Covenant this Mr. Eyre invades by many arguments â— saith he the same words cannot be formally both a precept and a promise This is answered already The words are a promise but they suppose a precept what Is it such a strangâ— thing in Scripture that that should be promised which is our duty to do Ezek. 26 27. God promiseth to cause us to walk in his statutes Is it therefore no duty of ours to walk in his statutes In the same chapter v. 26. he promiseth to give a new heart and a new Spirit yet are we elsewhere commanded to make as a new heart and a new Spirit Ezek. 18. 31 God hath promised to circumcise our hearts to love him Deut. 30. 6. Yet is it our duty to circumcise our hearts Jer. 4. 4. And may not then faith be promised and that as the condition or meanes by which we are brought into Covenant Mr. Eyre 2. If the promise of faith be a part of the new Covenant then faith it self is an effect of the Covenant or a benefit given by virtue of it But the promise of faith is part of the new Covenant Ergo. Rep. I deny the Assumption The new Covenant worketh or begetteth faith but it doth not promise it Note therefore Reader that there is a great difference between what is promised concerning the new Covenant and what the new Covenant promiseth Concerning the new Covenant it was promised that it should be effectual to quicken the soul and cause it to beleeve but it self doth not promise to make us beleeve If it did forasmuch as that can be no other then an absolute promise then God doth promise in the Old-Testament namely Jer. 31. 31. that he will promise faith in the New But a promise to promise and that to the very same persons concerning the same benefit is so contrary to reason and runs such an infinite course of promising without beginning or ending that it may not be admitted But how doth Mr. Eyre prove his Assumption Thus. All the promises of God do belong either to the Covenaut of works or to the Covenant of grace The promise of faith is no part of the Covenant of works Ergo of the Covenant of grace Rep. I deny the proposition The promise of the Covenant of grace it self Of which Covenant is it a part of the Covenant of works or of the Covenant of grace not of the former for that promiseth no good to sinners Not of the latter for the Covenant it self is the thing promised If then the Covenant it self may be promised and yet that promise be no part of the Covenant may it not also be promised to be in such a manner or degree more or lesse efficacious and perfect and yet that promise in like manner be no part of the said Covenant Hence we answer the third argument If the promise of faith be an effect of Christs death then it is an effect of the Covenant already made for all the effects of his death are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death Rep. I deny the consequence with the proof of it Not to question againe whether Christ merited the Covenant M. Eyre here acknowledgeth that he confirmed it in his death But that which confirmes the Covenant is no part of the Covenant for the whole Covenant is the thing confirmed Ergo all the effects of Christs death are not the effects of the Covenant which God hath made with us Yea and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations Gentiles as well as Jews that they thereby might be brought into Covenant is an effect of the death of Christ Eph. 2. 16 17. Colos 1. 20. But affording the means by which men may be brought into covenant is not an effect of the covenant In like manner the promise of a better covenant which God would make in the dayes of Christ a covenant more able and successefull in all respects may be very well yeelded to â—â— the effect of the death of Christ but it will by no means follâ—â— that therefore that promise is also an effect of the Covenant promised 4ly Thus he speaks The Scripture no where affirmes that faith is promised as a means to bring us into covenant or to invest us with a right and title thereunto Rep. Nor doth it any where say that it is promised as a part of the Covenant already made with us But it sayes that in sense which Mr. Eyre denyes and that in this very place supposing which Mr. Eyre hath not hitherto denyed that faith is included in those words I will put my laws into their minds c. For in these words as we are forced often to note is declared the successe of the new covenant above the old that it should enable men to beleeve that God may be their God and they his people But if it were not promised in this place yet the constant voyce of the Gospel is beleeve and thou shalt be saved Which words shew that faith is the means by which we obtaine the blessings of the Covenant What saith Mr. Eyre against it Nothing but this we may as well make Baptisme Sanctification Perseverance c. to which the promise of salvation is sometimes annexed means to bring us into Covenant Rep. Alas how frigidly where is the Scripture that saith Be baptized and thou shalt be saved or where doth it say to men that are strangers from the covenant persevere and you shall be saved Indeed they that have already received Christ are wont to be exhorted to holinesse and perseverance in the faith that they may not lose or forfeit their right Rev. 22. 14. and 21. 7. 2 John 8.
into covenant If the assumption be denyed we confirme it diversly 1. From the plaine scope of some places as Ezek. 37. 23. I will cleanse them So shall they be my people and I will be their God and chap. 14. 11. That they may be no more polluted with all their transgressions but that they may be my people and I may be their God Even as he is often said to have brought them out of Egypt which signifies spiritually the bringing of sinners out of the darknesse and slavory of a sinful condition into the way of life Jude v. 5. that he might be their God Lev. 11. 45. and 26. 45. and 25. 38. and 22. 33. Numb 15. 41. 2 Faith is promised for this end that we thereby might obtaine that which was promised to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt though they obtained it not because they continued not in Gods covenant Ergo it is promised as a means for this end that God may be our God and we his people The reason of the consequence is because this was that which the Lord said to Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt obey my voice so will I be your God and ye shall be my people Jer. 7. 23. and 11. 4. The antecedent is written with a Sun beam in the place under debate Jer. 31. 31. c. Where the writing of Gods Laws in our mind which in some other of the places mentioned is called the putting of a new Spirit within us and a causing us to walk in his statutes is most apparently promised as a means of obtaining that good which Israel by the covenant made with them in the day when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt did not obtaine for herein lay the imperfection and faultinesse of that covenant that they brake it and consequently that the Lord regarded them not In opposition to both which it is that God promiseth to write his Laws in their minds and so to be their God other things we referre till by and by It is therefore a truth beyond contradiction that the giving of the first grace is promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means §. 4. and qualification on mans part for his entrance into covenant Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it and first in generall from § 4. downward First he excepts against the fitnesse of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternall love or of Christ himself Answ But the question is onely understood of the grace of God in us which is more frequently called by the name of grace then either of the other two Jam. 4. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 12. 28. and 13. 9. c. The first of which is faith or our conversion unto God But even in this sense saith Mr. Eyre inherent sanctification is unduly put in the first place which is a consequent both of justification and adoption Gal. 4. 5 6. though it be promised in Jeremy before remission of sins yet in other places it is put after it as Ezek. 36. 25. 26. Jer. 32. 38 39. Answ The former part is true of sanctification strictly and most properly taken for the habits of the life of holinesse opposed to the body of sin in us But in this sense I deny faith to be any part of sanctification and if Mr. Eyre doth thus interpret the promise of writing Gods Laws in our heart c. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised but onely a greater measure of grace to them that beleeve which will much advantage his cause But if sanctification be taken largely for any gracious workings of God upon the soul so as it includes faith it self then do I deny that it is any where in Scripture put after remission of sins The two places mentioned for of Gal. 4. 5 6. we speak below say nothing so Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle cleane water upon you and you shall be cleane from all your filthinesse and from all your Idâ—ls will I cleanse you Mr. Eyre takes it for granted that this is meant of pardon of sin and I acknowledge that sprinkling or washing with water doth sometimes also include that 1 Cor. 6. 11. But sometimes also it signifies our regeneration or conversion unto God Tit. 3. 5. and so do I understand it in this place for a through conversion of them from dumb Idols to the true and living God the former of which is more peculiarly intended v. 25. and the latter v. 26. my reason is because the cleansing of them from their Idols is expressely opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they dâ—file themselves any more with Idols But I will cleanse them and that for this end that he might be their God Which by Mr. Eyres own acknowledgment includes remission of sin and therefore the said remission is not meant by cleansing them from their Idols otherwise the sense were this I will pardon their sin and so I will pardon their sin The second Text is Jer. 32. 38 39. They shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may feare me for ever for the good of them and of their children after them to which I adde the next verse v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turne away from them to do them good c. Here indeed it cannot be denyed but that Gods giving a heart to feare him is mentioned after the promise of forgivenesse of sin included amongst other things in the words foregoing I will be their God But though it be mentioned after yet is it apparently mentioned as the means to this end that God may be our God I will give them a heart to fear me for the good of them and of their children The fear of God is promised for this end that he may do us good or as v. 40. that he may never turne away from us to do us good Ergo it is promised for this end that he may be our God because as we have shewed before for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good Wherefore this verse followes the former in place or writing not in dependance declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God namely by putting his feare into our hearts and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it by overthrowing it Secondly He utterly denyes that the giving of a new heart is §. 5. promised as a means on mans part for his entrance into covenant For 1. The Scripture no where affirmes it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recitall of the covenant c. Answ Whether it be
affirmed in Scripture or no I am content to referre to the judgment of any Reader that hath but understanding enough to see that two and two make foure But we do not conclude it from hence that the promise of a new heart is first mentioned but that the promise of Gods being our God is last mentioned unlesse it be in the place last debated And that as the happy issue and upshot of Gods giving a new heart and because it is first mentioned as to be given which elsewhere is required and commanded us for this end that God may be our God and we his people And what is required of us for such an end that if God promise to make us do is promised as a means to the same end Mr. Eyres 2. The promise of a new heart includes not only the first act of faith and repentance but the continuance and encrease of these gifts Ergo all the promises of Sanctification are either no part of the covenant or the same promise is both a means to bring us into covenant and also a part of it Answ This Argument if it may so be called 〈◊〉 in forme If the promise of a new heart include not only the first act of faith and repentance but the continuance and increase of these gifts then the new heart is not promised as a means of our entrance into Covenant with God If this be not the scope of the Argument it doth not touch the question if it be I deny the consequence The being or first act of faith and repentance is promised as the means by which we enter into covenant the continuance of these as the means by which we continue in covenant which continuance neverthelesse is part of the Covenant made with them that believe for unto him that hath shall be given and he shall have more abundantly Mr. Eyre 3. The promises of sanctification have the same ground viz. The merit of Christ the same end viz. Gods glory Faith and repentance are not promised only subserviently for our benefit but for Gods glory Tit. 2. 14. 1 Thess 4. 3. The same manner in which they are promised he doth nor say I will write my Lawes in their hearts that I may pardon their sins but I will write my Lawes c. and their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more Ergo they are parts of the Covenant Answ If all this were granted yet I cannot see how this Argument concludes God promiseth to make a New Covenant thâ—s promise hath the same ground and end c. with the covenant it self Ergo the promise of making the New Covenant is part of the New Covenant Will Mr. Eyre allow of this 2. The maine thing also is left out in the enumeration The promise of faith is an act of Gods Dominion and Liberty at least as to us Rom. 9. 18. But the promise of righteousnesse and salvation is the act of God as a mercifull Governour Judge and Rewarder of his people 2 Tim. 4. 8. Jam. 4. 12. Who by these promises envites encourageth and drawes men to beleive 3. As to the particulars mentioned the first of them hath been answered often The second affords a canvase worthy of a deeper head then mine viz. whether repentance for example have any other preciousnesse excellency or beneâ—it in it then as it is a means appointed of God by which we obtaine precious and excellent promises The question is the same concerning faith in Christ as it is an affiance placed in him for life and salvation Neither of these were any part of that soul-perfection in which man was at first created neither any part of that Image of God unto which we are by Christ restored Eph. 4 24. Neither any part of our happinesse though the way thereto For they shall both cease in heaven Neither proposed to us in the Gospel ut propter se appetibile sed propter aliud Indeed it is good to repent and now of absolute necessity to salvation but it were better if it were possible to do nothing for which a man need to repent If then the whole benefit of these acts lay in the use to which God hath ordained them and in the promises which are made to them then it will be apparent that God hath not promised them any otherwise then as meanes of obtaining the blâ—ssings of his Covenant But I will not be peremptory 4. To the last indeed it is not said that God doth write his Lawes in our hearts that he may pardon our sins and good reason why Because the scope of the place is only to declare what shall be the effects of the Covenant not the manner in which it doth produce them Neverthelesse that the pardon of sin is one end of Gods writing his Lawes in our minde is apparent 1. Because as we have shewed already God is said in Scripture to write his Lawes in our mindes or to give us a new heart that he may be our God which promise as we have proved and Mr. Eyre confesseth includes the pardon of sin 2. From the contrary effects on them that are without Mark 4. 12. That they may not perceive nor understand lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them 3. God expecteth repentance that he may forgive sinnes Jeremiah 36. 3. and 26. 2 3. Ergo he promiseth it as a meanes to the same end His third and last general Argument is It sounds harshly that God promiseth faith as a means on our part to bring us into Covenant For if he promise to bestow it it cannot properly be called a meanes on our part Answ Sounds are to be judged by every mans â—are If God sometimes require us to walk in his statutes that we may be blessed and elsewhere promise to cause us to walk in his statutes to say that this is a promise of enabling us to do that which he hath appointed to be the meanes of our blessednesse sounds never a whit harsh in my eare no more then to say that the promise of giving speech to Moses Isaiah or Jerâ—my was a promise of enabling them to performe the meanes which they were to use for the discharge of their office or the promise of strength to Abraham and Sarah to become the parents of a child was the promise of the means which they were to use for that end And now I perceive I have prevented my self in what I should have replyed to Mr. Eyres answers to particular places there being nothing said to any of them but what is here already replyed too He concludes with a distinction of that promise I will be their God and which saith he may be taken either 1. More generally as comprehending all good things whatsoever and so faith is included in it Or 2. More restrictively as noting one particular beneâ—it and priviledge distinct from the rest c. Where the first member is to large and the second to narrow I
have diligently perused I think all the places in Scripture where those words are found and cannot discerne where they are either taken more largely then to signifie the communication of that good which is part of our felicity as distingushed from those acts of the soul by which we tend and move towards it Nor yet so strictly as to note some one only priviledge and benefit And for Mr. Eyre to obtrude a distinction upon us of words which cannot be distinguished but according to their use in Scripture and yet never go about to enform us where the Scriptures afford the least protection to it is no better then to begge the question For vindicating my Interpretation of the Covenant as described Heb. 8. I had also quoted at large Heb. 10. 14 15 16 17. After he had said before This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my Lawes into their hearts and in their mindes will I write them adde here then he saith or then it followes and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more Mr. Eyre will have them read thus After he had said before This is the Covenant which I will make with them after those dayes then the Lord saith I will put my Lawes into their hearts c. This is the place which first established me in the right understanding of the Covenant as I have described it The only question between Mr. Eyre and me here is whether those words saith the Lord ver 16. be the words of the Apostle or the words of Jeremy cyted by him I am for the latter 1. Because those words are in that place of Jeremy 2. Because this Apostle rehearseth the same words as the words of Jeremy Heb 8. 8 10. If Mr. Eyre can shew better evidence for his interpretation he should have done it CHAP. XV. An answer to Mr. Eyres nineteenth Chapter wherein he endeavours to prove that in the New Covenant there are no conditions required of us to invest us with a right and title to the blessings of it SECT I. MOst of my work in answer to the things contained §. 1 in this Chapter is already performed there being little throughout but what hath had its tryal in the foregoing Discourse Mr. Eyre before he comes to Argument premiseth two things he might have said three 1. What he meanes by the New Covenant 2. What by a condition Upon the former I shall animadvert nothing having so largely already confuted it This only I observe that he calls the New Covenant an engagement and that by word or promise and distributes the Covenants of God into that of works made with Adam and that of grace made not with men but with Christ and yet not farre before placed the very essence of the Covenant in Gods eternal purpose of doing good to the Elect. To what he speaks concerning a condition I have nothing to adde more then what hath been spoken already His definitions out of Dr. Câ—well Câ—okâ— c. I consent to if by casus incertus he mean no more then that which is in it self and in its own nature contingent 3. He enformes us that some by a condition mean no more then barely an antecedent But that is an improper use of it we take it in its most proper Law-sense Come we then to the arguments they begin § 6 The first is this In §. 2. all those places wherein the nature or tenour of the â—ew Covenant is declared there is not any menâ—ion at all of the least condition Jer. 31. 33. Ezek. 36. 25 c. Hos 2. 18 19 20. Answ This is answered already In these and the like places not the forme and tenour but the quality vertue and effects of the Covenant are described 2. And so described as that a condition is plainly supposed because one effect of the Covenant is to give strength to fulfill it 3. The tenour of the Covenant is elsewhere described as manifestly conditional for the word of faith which the Apostles preached is the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3. 6. But the tenour of the word of faith which the Apostles preached is this If thou believe thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 8 9. Again the promise by faith of Jesus Christ is conditional The New Covenant is a promise by faith of Jesus Christ Gal. 3. 22. The second Argument is this All those Covenants which God §. 3. made to prefigure this Covenant were free and absolute without any condition Ergo the Covenant it self is much more so The Antecedent Mr. Eyre proves in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. with Noah Gen. 9. 11. with Phinehas Num. 25. with David 1 Samuel 13. 13 14. Isaiah 54. 3. Psalme 89. 20. Answ A Covenant may be called absolute either antecedently when in its essentiall constitution it hath no condition neither required nor supposed expressed nor understood Or consequently when it becomes absolute upon the performance of the condition In this latter sense I yield the Covenants mentioned to have been absolute In the former I deny it because the faith of the parties with whom those Covenants were made was supposed and in being before those promises were given them and that as the ground and reason though not the cause of their being given them This doth the Scripture testifie of every one of them of Noah Gen. 6. 18. with 7. 1. But with thee will I establish my Covenant for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation Whence he is said to be heire of the righteousnesse which is by faith Heb. 11. 7. Of Abraham Nehem. 9. 8. Thou foundest his heart faithfull before thee and madest a Covenant with him See also Rom. 4. 13 21 22. Of Phineahs Numb 25. 11 12 13. Wherefore say behold I give unto him my Covenant of peace Because he was zealous for hie God Of David Acts 13. 22 23 32 33. compared and therefore he amongst others is said by faish to have obtained promises Heb. 11. 32 33. Indeed faith was not in these Covenants proposed to them as the condition which they were to performe it needed not they being believers before but when God promiseth the same blessings in substance to a sinful world as he had before done to them it is expresly upon condition of the same faith Romans 4. 12 16 23 24. Galatians 3. 7 9 14. c. Thirdly thus he argues If there were any condition required §. 4. in the New Covenant to entitle us to the blessings of it it would not be a Covenant of pure grace To give a thing freely and conditionally are contradictories works and conditions which men performe are their money Isa 55. 1 2. Answ This is the Argument of the Quorum without which nothing can be done Many things we have already spoken from Scripture Reason Divines and Lawyers to evince the falshood of it something more I will here adde according to my
There can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was viz. to abstaine from the fruit of one tree Rep. 1. Our Divines are not wont to place the whole of the condition required of Adam in that one precept of not eating the forbidden fruit any otherwise then symbolically for as that tree had the nature of a Sacrament and the not eating of it a visible profession of vniversall subjection unto God so the eating of it was a visible and universal renouncing of his authority and of that obedience which Adam owed him 2. The objectors who they are I know not have I presume this sense 1. That if we compare the nature of the acts it is farre easier to beleeve then to keep the law and this is certaine for de facto multitudes beleeve who never kept the Law perfectly 2. That it is an easier way of salvation to be saved onely by committing our selves to Christ in his way that he may save us then to have the whole care and burthen of so great a work upon our selves this also is true because in this way our salvation is sure in the other it was uncertaine even when man was righteous as the event proves sadly and unto sinners impossible 3. That the commands of Christ are nothing so grievous to be borne as those given to the Church before his coming this also is undoubted Act. 15. 10. 4. That faith in exercitio or to beleeve is farre easier to us through the strength of God enabling us then it was to Adam to keep himself in that state of righteousnesse in which he was made for it is God which enables us to performe those acts which himself hath made the conditions of our interest in his covenant So will Mr. Eyre say Adams ability to keep the Law was given him of God True But 1. Not of grace but ut naturae debita as we maintaine against the Papists as due to his nature out of that common goodnesse which furnished every creature in its kind with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created which if they had wanted the work of God had been imperfect and unlike himself but the creature had been in no fault 2. The use and improvement of those abilities was left to Adams free will supposing that common concourse of divine providence without which no creature can move in its kind toward its own end But to quicken us when we were dead and restore lost abilities yea to vegetate and maintaine them against contrary principles and inclinations from within and oppositions from without is such special grace as Adam in that state received not Some other reasons Mr. Eyre adjoyns but he tells the Reader that he hath mentioned them before more then once or twice and I also have answered them before and therefore shall referre the Reâ—der thither and so passe on to his twentieth chapter CHAP. XVI A reply to Mr. Eyrs twentieth chapter containing the solution of his Arguments tending to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve SECT I. FRom the Apostles description of the New Covenant §. 1. Heb. 8. I retorted this argument upon Mr. Eyre If God be not the God of any nor they his people before they beleeve then none are in Covenant with God before they beleeve But God is not the God of any before they beleeve Ergo. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes against the assumption largely and advanceth many arguments to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve Let us take them in their order First If God be their God whom he doth peculiarly love §. 2. and whom he hath chosen then is he a God to some before they beleeve But God is their God whom he hath chosen Answ If by choosing be meant from eternity of which the Apostle speaks Eph. 1. 4. I deny the Minor God is never said in Scripture to be the God of any in reference to his eternal election of them that being no more then a purpose of making them his people and of becoming a God to them God is not the God of them that are not Matth. 22. 32. Let us see the proofes God was the God of Israel now he became their God by setting his love upon them and chusing them and by separating them from other people Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Lev. 20. 24 25. Answ 1. I deny that either the chusing of them Deut. 7. or the separating of them Lev. 20. are to be understood of eternal election of which neverthelesse Mr. Eyre pretends to be understood in his Major by quoting for proof Eph. 1. 4. otherwise I would have denyed the Major for even in vocation which also is sometimes in Scripture called choosing as we have shewed elsewhere God separates men to himself from the rest of mankind yet will it by no means follow that therefore he is the God of some that believe not for vocation is the giving of faith As to the texts before us it is manifest that the chusing spoken of Deut. 7. is a temporall act for the cause of it is set down ver 8. Because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto their Fathers expressed more plainely chap. 4. 37. Because he loved their Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them So also chap. 10. 15. 2. Much lesse is it said that this love or chusing them was the thing in respect of which he is said to be their God and they his people but the contrary is implyed verse 6. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself above all people c. Where the making of them to be his people which also includes the correlate of becoming their God is mentioned as the end and effect of his chusing them which effect when it is wrought is easie to learne from Exod. 19. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people Again saith Mr. Eyre the Lord Ezek. 16 8. declares concerning spiritual Israel that they became his whilest they were in their blood that he sware unto them and entred into Covenant with them which swearing as it referres to spiritual Israel must be understood of the oath which he made to Christ concerning the blessing of his seed Answ Nothing but uncertainties 1. It is not faire in a dispute to ground a conclusion upon Types unlesse we have firme demonstrations of the Antitype Mr. Eyre should therefore prove that the words there spoken are not peculiar to Israel in the letter 2. That the spiritual Israel typified are the Elect as such and not believers as such 3. That the Israel there spoken of were his before he entred into Covenant with them The text is expresse against it I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine
to his service as the Levites were Numb 3. 12. and the first borne Exod. 13. 2 12. or the like these in a generall sense are his So the Lord thy God a phrase which God often useth when he speaks to Israel mostly signifies the God whom they professed and externally worshipped or at least whom they ought to have worshipped as is to be seen in places without number Therefore it is not every sense in which we are called his or he ours which will conclude him to be our God in the covenant sense Jer 7. 23. compared with Jer. 31. 33. where it is plainly a promise of spiritual eternal universal and perfect blessednesse though gradually accomplished Accordingly neither did I use any of the foresaid texts or phrases though I might have used many with great advantage to prove either that I will be thy God c. contained all the blessings of the covenant on Gods part or that it is a promise made to them that beleeve and are converted but those plaine texts where these words are set down syllabically as the matter and summe of the Covenant nor can Mr. Eyre gaine any thing by the use of them till he hath better reconciled the Scriptures to his cause As to the following observation which I had from some learned Jewish and Christian writers viz. That God is never said to be our § 10. God in reference to his giving the first grace but onely in reference to the blessings which he promiseth to them that have faith My memory did a little faile me in the words but not at all in their sense If Mr. Eyre must needs know my authors they are b Upon Gen. 28. 13. R. Solomon Jarchi who saies that God is not in Scripture said to be the God of any whiles they are alive endeavouring to prove it out of Job 15. 15. c It is in Tanchum fol. 13. Col. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Nâ—n in venimus in Scriptura Deum nomen ejus junxisse hominibus justis â—um in vivis sunt ut scribe retur â—eus cujusâ—â—bet c. â— In Berachoth fol. 5. Col. 4 c. and assignes a peculiar reason why in that place of Gen. 28. 13. God saith he is the God of Isaack whilest Isaack was yet alive The same author doth there also repeat the words in Tanchuma though he do not quote the place where it is said The holy blessed God doth not joyne his name to the Saints while they are alive but when they are dead as it is said to the Saints which are on the earth c. and to the same purpose the Jerusalem d Targum though I know some of them and particularly More Nâ— voch part 3 cap. 51 Maimâ—â—des give a farre different reason of Gods calling himself the God of any one though with farre lesse probability As to the notion it self I seek no more from it then that God is called the God of a people or person in reference to the blessednesse and rewards which he gives to them especially that of a heavenly and eternal life And thus farre forth it is grounded on Scripture Rev. 21. 3 7. Otherwise I cannot conceive how our Lord concludes the resurrection from hence that he calls himself the God of Abraham the God of Isaack and the God of Jacob Matth. 22. 32. and the Apostle so expounds it Heb. 11. 16. He is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City which place firmlâ— shews that God is called their God in reference to the reward of a heavenly blessednesse specially which he gave them Mr. Eyre whether willingly or ignorantly himself best knows quite mistakes the Argument from the place as if it were no more but this God was the God of Abraham Isâ—ack and Jacoâ— who were beleevers Ergo he is not the God of any before they do beleeve No. The Argument is grounded in the Apostles interpretation of the phrase He is called their â—oâ— inasmuch as he hath prepared for them a City Neverthelessâ— â—f I had argued in his sense the Argument had been strong and undeâ—iable for their faith is mentioned as the reason upon wâ—â—ch God became a God unto them as appeares by the note of inference 〈◊〉 werâ—fâ—re Wherefore he is not ashamed to be called their God Hence the Argument is and let Master Fyre answer it if he can If Gods being the God of Abraham Isaack and Jacoh were a consequent of their faith then is it also a consequeâ—t of all other mens faith or he is not the God of any other before they beleeve the reason is because he is the God of all men in the same way Rom. 3. 29 30. But the first is cleare from the teâ—t Wherefore Ergo so is the last Mr. Eyres parallel if he will review it he will acknowledge to be rediculous and unworthy of an answer And as thus Gods being our God is clearly made a consequent of §. 11. faith so elsewhere our being his people is made a consequent of the same faith 1 Pet. 2. 10. In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God This saith Mr. Eyre is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the reall participation or interest in the blessings of it Rep. 1. If the words be spoken of Jews to whom this Epistle is written chap. 1. 1. they were externally the people of God before and in reference to them it must be therefore something more that is here promised then that they shall be externally the people of God 2. If of Gentiles whom the Apostle also includes in this promise Rom. 9. 25. their condition had been happy if the want of an externall covenant had been the worst and they had had right and interest in Christ and everlasting life by some Covenant internall But all gentiles equally in their gentile state are strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. that is have no right to any of those blessings which pertaine to the houshold and City of God v. 19. no more then Spaniards or any other forreigners have a right to any of the priviledges honours preferments of the City of London or an Indian in America hath right to inherit with the Son of an Englishman 3. To be externally in covenant is to be in covenant by visible profession and it is opposed to him that is in covenant internally by true faith this is the usual sense of that distinction used by the Apostle for substance when he distinguisheth between a Jew outwardly and a Jew inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29 if M. Eyre have here the same sense as he seemes to haâ—e or at least willing to have then when the Apostle sayes you are now a people and Mr. Eyre interprets him of a people onely visible and external either he supposeth that they had faith long before the time he speaks of or that
they were but hypocrites now both which are absurd If he use the distinction in any other sense I know neither Scripture nor reason to justifie it 4. What manner of people they now were and formerly had not been is set down v. 9. Yea are a choice generation a royall priesthood an holy nation a peculiar people c. all which they were internally if Mr. Eyres glosse be true even while they were a generation of Vipers base idolaters a prophane people defiled with all manner of abominations yea and multitudes many years before they are borne for this internall covenant is nothing else but Gods election or Christs purchase 5. These words in Peter are taken out of Hos 2. 23. which text Mr. Eyre urged but even now in that very sense which here he opposeth 6. The former part of the verse is an universal negative you are sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a people Ergo whatsoever God had done for them towards their salvation before their conversion was not sufficient to denominate them to be a people of God 7. Especially when it follows but now you are the people of God which being the accomplishment of that promise so frequent in Scripture they shall be my people containes more then a promise of that whereof a hypocrite or a hypocritical people is as capable as themselves CHAP. XVII A Reply to Mr. Eyres 21 Chapter being a vindication of the additionall Arguments proving the Covenant to be conditionall SECT I. AT the close of my Sermon I added foure brief Arguments proving that we are not in Covenant §. â— with God beâ—ore we beleeve The first was this Isa 55. 3. Come unto me that is beleeve on me Joh. 6. 35. and I will make an everlasting covenant with you Mr. Eyre answers 1. The particle vaâ— may be taken illatively thus come unto me For I will make an everlasting covenant with you Rep. 1. If this be the sense of the words yet at first sight 't is evident that the rationall particle for notes the following words to be a reason or motive to that act which is here called a coming unto God that is beleeving Ergo the words still suppose that we must beleeve before God make a covenant with us for his making the Covenant is proposed as the end of our coming Or 2. saith he If we take the words as they are rendred they are all one as if he had said I will performe or give you all other benefits promised in my everlasting Covenant Rep. This also yeelds the Argument for hereby it is acknowledged that faith is required as the means which we are to use for obtaining all other blessings of the covenant and a means for obtaining good things by anothers promise is formalissime a condition faith therefore is yeelded to be the condition of obtaining pardon of sin and all other blessings besides it self which is that Mr. Eyre hath hitherto disputed against What follows in this answer hath been spoken to largely already and to what purpose it is mentioned here againe I apprehend not My second Argument was this The voice of the Gospel which §. 2. is the covenant of grace is every where Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved in opposition to the covenant of works which saith do this and live Rom. 10 5. 6 9. This is the Covenant whereof Christ is mediatour Heb. 9. 15 that they that are called unto faith shall receive the promise of the eternall inheritance Mr. Eyre answers The Gospel properly and strictly taken consists neither in precepts nor promises of the New-Testament but in the declaration of these glad tidings that the promises which God made unto his people in the Old-Testament are now fulfilled Rep. This is indeed a prime part of the Gospel but no otherwise then as it tends to hold forth Christ Jesus as the onely and most sufficient cause or author of salvation to as many as will beleeve on him and therefore the whole doctrine of the Gospel is summarily comprehended in this that whosoever beleeves shall be saved Mark 1. 14 15. and 16. 15 16. Matth. 4. 17. 23. Heb. 4 1 2. Act. 20. 20 21 and a hundred other places If the Gospell have no precept how are men then professedly subject to it 2 Cor. 9. 13. Or what is it to obey or not obey the Gospel Rom. 10. 16. 2 Thes 1. 8 1 Pet 4. 17. But what is the direct answer to the Argument This. The command of beleeving with the promise of life to beleevers are parts of our ministry they are not the tenor of the Gospell or New Covenant Rep. 1. A strange answer our ministry is the ministry of the Gospell Ergo when we command men to beleeve with a promise of life we preach the Gospel Ergo such a command and promise are parts of the Gospel 2. Yea they are the summe of all we preach if we preach no more then the Apostles Rom. 10. 8 9. The word of faith which we preach and yet surely the Apostles were ministers of the New Covenant 2 Cor. 3. Then Mr. Eyre tells us againe that the tenor of the New Covenant is I will put my Laws into their hearts c. And I can but answer him againe that not the tenor but the matter of the effects of the New Covenant are there described Act. 5. 31. Christ is said to be exalted to give repentance and remission of sin to Israel Is not therefore repentance to be preached in his Name for the remission of sin or may we not say repent that your sins may be blotted out To Heb. 9. 15. He answers as to other texts formerly that it describes onely the persons that are saved but not the tearmes or means by which they do obtaine salvation Seest thou not Reader how faith is denyed to be so much as the meanes of salvation and no more ascribed to it then to eating drinking sleeping reasoning crying or the like which do all of them in some degree describe the quality and condition of the persons that shall be saved Though I confesse not from that which is proper and peculiar to them but that alters not the case But of these things more at large before Hitherto we have not one Scripture example of such phrase of speech serving onely for a description My third Argument is this The Covenant which is to be preacheed §. 3. to every man and every man called upon to fulfill the conditions of it namely faith that he may receive the blessings of it is not an absolute promise The Covenant of grace is to be preached to every man and every man called upon to fulfill the conditions of it that he may receive the blessings of it Ergo I have put it thus into forme because Mr. Eyre quarrels at the forme He yeelds That the Gospel or Covenant of grace ought to be preached to every creature Marke 16. 15. Matthew 28. 19. But denyes that
the absolutenesse of the New Covenant is any way inconsistent with this preaching Because to preach the Gospel is no more then 1. To publish that the Sonne of God is come to save men from their sinnes 2. To presse and exhort all men to beleeve on him 1. With the assent of their minds 2. With the embraces of the heart to trust rely and rowle themselves upon him for all the purchases of his death and in so doing confidently to expect the fruition of them Rep. Here are words enough but whether they tend I can scarcely see I must therefore crave leave of Master Eyre to be better satisfied in the following Quaeres 1. Whether there be any promise of life and salvation made to every man If there be nâ—t what covenant of grace it is which is preached to every man It is a strange Covenant which promiseth nothing the Covenant of grace consists essentially in this that it is the promise of the inheritance Gâ—l 3. 18. If there be whether that promise be absolute or conditionall If the former every man shall be saved if the latter the cause is yeelded If Master Eyre would put his assertions into the forme of promises we might understand him better If I tell a man then that Jesus Christ is come to save men from their sinnes do I promise him any thing or no If I do le ts know what it is for my part I professe I cannot imagine if not I would ask 2ly Whether we require men to trust and rely on Christ or whether saith be required as a means to enjoy the purchases of Christs death if we do we presse men to the performance of a condition for a means used by us to obtaine a benefit by anothers promise is a condition as we have often observed if not whether the soul do not beleeve it knows not why nor wherefore Paul gives a better reason of his faith Gal. 2. 16. We knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have beleeved But more of this by and by In the meane time I perceive the reason why we were told so carefully that the Gospel consists neither in precepts nor promises and that after so long a dispute that it is an absolute promise I said in the minor that every man is pressed to fulfill the conditions §. 4. of the Covenant that he may obtaine the blessings of it and so saies the Apostle Heb. 4 1. a promise is left us of entring into his rest let us feare lâ—st we fall short of it viz. by unbelief v. 2 3. No says Mr. Eyre The words are an exhortation to sincerity and perseverance in our Christian profession by a similitude taken from foolish racers c. Râ—p As who should say it is not faith but sincerity and perseverance which is the condition of the promise The promise mentioned is of such constitution as that our obtaining or not obtaining it is suspended upon our beleeving or not beleeving so that if we beleeve we obtaine it v. 3. if we beleeve not we loose it as the unbeleevers in Israel lost Canaan v. 2. and chap. 3. 19. If a racer lose the Crowne because he gives over before he comes to the goal then his running to the goal was the condition of his obtaining the Crowne if it be obtained by virtue of anothers promise The major I cleared by severall questions 1. Whether there be §. 5. an absolute promise made to every man that God will give him grace No saith Mr. Eyre yet the generall promises of the Covenant are a sufficient ground for our faith forasmuch as grace therein is promised indefinitely to sinners Rep. 1. The promise of giving faith can be no ground of the first act of faith because faith doth not receive it self But the covenant which is to be preached to every man is the promise of that good which faith receives for the covenant and the promise are all one in Scripture Gal. 3. 17 18 21. Ergo the absolute promise is not the Covenant I asked 2ly Whether it be sense to exhort men to take hold of Gods Covenant or to enter into Covenant with God if the Covenant be only an absolute promise on Gods part Mr. Eyre saies yes For to lay hold of the Covenant is to take up those gracious discoveries which God in his Covenant hath made of himself to sinners and to resolve not to be beaten off c. Rep. To take hold of the Covenant in Scripture language is to joyne our selves to the Lord which is done internally by faith Isa 56. 4 5 6. hereby do we obtaine the promises there mentioned for by faith we obtaine the promises Heb. 11. 33. and 6. 12. But our joyning our selves to the Lord were not to take hold of his Covenant it his Covenant did not require â—s to joyne our selves to him much lesse could we be said thereby more then by any other act to obtaine the promises of his Covenant if the said Covenant did not require this our joyning as a means for that end It is not onely presumption but naturally impossible for a soul to resolve not to be beaten off from God without a promise and a command to lay hold of it But neither can men by faith lay hold on that Covenant which it self promiseth to give the very first act of faith nor can they be commanded so to do As to the other phrase of entring into Covenant Mr. Eyre understands it of mens visible giving up themselves to be the Lords people But that giving up of a mans self to God is surely an act of the heart though a man may also with his mouth professe it and hereby we are admitted not into a Covenant of our own but into Gods Covenant Ergo his Covenant cannot be an absolute promise because we cannot by any act of our owne be admitted into that I asked farther whether if the Covenant be an absolute promise §. 6. men can be accused and damned for unbelief and rejecting the Gospel was it ever known that men should be counted worthy of death for not being the objects of an absolute promise Mr. Eyre answers The condemnation of Reprobates doth inevitably follow upon their not being included in that Covenant which God made with Christ Rep. That this is nothing to the purpose himself acknowledgeth in his next words Their exclusion from this Covenant is but an antecedent and not the cause of their destruction We seek therefore an answer That 's this formally the cause of their damnation is not their non-being the objects of Gods absolute promise but their disobedience to the command of God viz. of beleeving Rep. But doth the Covenant command them to beleeve If it doth it is not an absolute promise if it doth not their unbelief is no rejecting or violation of the Covenant in which yet the Apostle placeth the heynousnesse of the sin Heb. 10. 29. and therefore is not
the Apostle were not whether a man be justified simply by faith or works But whether a man were justified by faith by faith or works and the Apostles answer is to this effect That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith we are justified by faith and not by works He that hath nothing else to do may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen if he please If Mr. Eyre mean no more then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe as the latter words of his answer seem to import then is this second answer a meer tautologie as being the very same with the former SECT III. THe next Scripture alleged is Rom. 8. 30. Whâ—m he predestinated §. 7. them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified From whence it is manifest that as glory follows Justification so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the order of words in Scripture doth not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our consciences Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors that ever I met with or heard of ancient or moderne Papist or Protestant Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place to be principally to shew the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us And though I will not build my faith on humane authority yet neither do I account it â—ngenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis without pretending at least some reason for my singularity but to the matter I acknowledge that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact do frequently use a Hysteron prâ—teron reporting those things first which it may be were acted last or è câ—ntra as in 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. Also that in a copulate axiome where many things are attributed to one subject the order many times is not attended but the connexion only as if I should say of God as the Apostle doth of the Law that he is holy and just and good or the latter is exegetical of the former as in that of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath saved us and called us But 2. I do utterly deny that such manner of speech as is here used Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation where several Propositions are linked together the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter is any where else to be found but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare not only the connexion but specially the order of the things themselves h Vid. Vâ—ssâ—um instit orat lib. 5 cap. 8. And. Talâ—um Rhetor â—x P. R. cap. â—1 Examples hereof out of Poets Oratours Greek and Latine and Ecclesiastical Writers the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician Ovid. Mars videt hanc visámque cupit potitúrque cupitâ Cicero In urbe luxuries creatur ex luxuriâ— existat avaritia necesse est ex avaritiâ â—rumpat audscia c. But let the Scriptures determine it Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Affliction worketh patience and patience experience and experience hope and hope maketh not ashamed that is for the words are a Meiosis giveth boldnesse and joy which is the thing the Apostle is proving ver 3. so Rom. 10. 14 15. where the order is retrograde How can they call on him on whom they have not believed how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard how can they heare without a Preacher how can they preach unlesse they be sent The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically to shew the orderly dependance of things one upon another As in the former example of patience on affliction experience on patience hope on experience joy on hope And in the second example of invocation on faith faith on hearing hearing on preaching preach 〈…〉 3. In the present text the matter is yet more clear because Predestination §. 8. Vocation Justification and Glorification are all of them actions of one and the same efficient tending unto one and the same end and every second action cumulative to the former as the partitle also doth evidence Whom he predestinated them he also called whom he called them he also justified whom he justified them he also glorified And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts yet from the termination of each former act upon him he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom Them So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated of Justification a person called of glorification a person justified or else those particles are utterly superfluous and the whole sentence ridiculous 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge that in two of these Propositions not only connexion but order is observed namely in the first whom he predestinated them he called and the last whom he justified them he glorified Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these as the middlemost And if Arminians who acknowledge no absolute election before faith should deny the first and a Sadducee who confesseth no resurrection but what is past already should deny the last he could not vindicate the text against either but by the same Arguments which will convince himself of errour in denying the second 5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve when he §. 9. tells us he can see no inconvenience at all in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared in conscience whereas one would think it had been easie to see that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying the one is of contradicting himself the other of abusing the text 1. The Apostles scope here saith he is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us I wonder in which of them he breaks order In the first and last Proposition as was but now observed it will surely be granted that he keeps order punctually and when he saith in the second Proposition whom he called them he justified I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge that he hath hit the order as right as can be if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience as he speaks And why then doth he deny that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits belike though his scope were not to do it yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it quite besides his purpose and intention 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience for the Justification here spoken of is only and entirely Gods act no lesse then Predestination Vocation
pardon of sin is so far from being excluded as that indeed it is the principal blessing included in the life here promised is manifest from the Lords own words almost the very same with those used throughout this chapter in administration of his Supper This is my body which is broken for you as Paul hath it 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. Ergo remission of sins is that life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world 3. The life mentioned throughout the chapter containes all the blessings which Christ hath purchased for believers Ergo it containes Justification and pardon of sins or else Christ never purchased that for them If it be said that Christ purchased not the act of pardon but that consolation and refreshment which is the effect of it we have already shewed that neither is that act worthy the name of pardon which cannot of it self produce the effects of pardon nor was it needful that where pardon is so great a price should be paid for the effects of it What can hinder good things from us but sin and sin if it be pardoned can no more hinder then if it never had been committed that there would be no need for Christ to die to purchase any good things for us if he do not purchase the very act of pardon 4. The life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world is not life simply but salvation from perishing as appears by comparing ver 40. with John 3. 16 17. therefore surely containes more then a life of comfort and refreshment precisely as was before observed 5. And I leave it with Mr. Eyre to consider whether there be not some greater malignity against the grace of God and salvation by Christ in his opinion then in the doctrine of those whom he opposeth pretendedly as enemies to grace when for the maintaining of it he is forced to bear us in hand that God sent not Christ nor did Christ come to quicken a dead world but to give ease to a sick world or healing to a wounded world not to give life to them that were dead but comfort and refreshment to them that were alive or not to restore them unto life but to continue and perfect them in the life they had before Eph. 2. 5. You that were dead in sins hath he quickened namely by remission Col. 2. 13. If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5. 15. Ergo a lesser matter then the death of Christ woâ—ld have served turne for our Redemption if our death had been any thing lesse then a total privation of life and the flesh and blood of Christ which so often in the Chapter is said to give life to the world is Christ dying or Christ crucified SECT III. MY fourth general Argument proving faith to go before Justification §. 7. was this What place and order works had to Justification in the Covenant of works the same place and order faith hath to our Justification in the Covenant of grace But works were to go before Justification in the Covenant of works Ergo faith is to go before our Justification in the Covenant of grace Mr. Eyre declames most tragically against the Proposition as no lesse unsound then the worst point in Popery or Arminianisme Thus do wise mens passions sometimes out-run the Constable and so they may overtake their adversary care not how many innocent persons they over-run in the way This very Proposition which Mr. Eyre disclaims as a piece of Popery and Arminianism have I received from as worthy opposers of both as the world hath any Bellarmine arguing against Justification by faith only saith That it did not please God to give Justification upon the condition of faith alone b Bell enerv l. 5. c 4. p. 3â—3 in 12. Dr. Ames answers Vel maximè hoc placuit Deo It pleased him altogether and addes Apostolus eâ—iam Gal. 3. 11 12. clarè testatur sidem in Evangelio ita se habere ut fac hoc in lege which I cannot better English then in the words of my Proposition denied Thus c Com. iâ— Eph. p. 243. 244. Bayne Look as in the Covenant of the Law Do this and live no deed no life so in this Covenant of the Gospel wherein the Lord promiseth for Christ to pardon sin to justifie to accept to eternal life here it may be said No saith no portion in the Prâ—mises of God in the grace of God in Christ Jesus for look as plaisters unapplied so is Christ unbelieved Nay more hast thou not saith whiles thus thou art God will not justifie thee nor accept thee to life for to pronounce thee just that doest not beleeve on Christ were to pronounce the guilty innocent which is an abomination with God For hence it is that Gods mercy and justice kisse offering no violence to each other because God doth so of grace save us sinners in our selves that first he maketh through Christ applied righteous c. Thus d De recoâ—cil â—ar 1. l. 2 c. 1â— p 101. Wotton Fides igitur est conditio quidem talis conditio ad Justificationem per Christum in foedere gratâ—itâ— qualis â—rant opera ad Justificationem ex operibus legis The sense of which is altogether the same with Dr. Ames Thus Calvin e In Rom. 10. 8 there quoted Colligimus sicut lex opera exigit Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Thus f Of the Covenâ—nt part â— ch 6. p. 360. Mr. Bulkley almost verbatim though I did not know so much till a Minister that had read the book told me of it and were it worth the while to transcribe testimonies in so known a case I could confirme the same from the testimonies of Dr. Twisse Pemble Downham Ball Beza and I think all the Protestant Authours I have most of whose names are mentioned chap. 1. and that according to the constant language of the g Vid Gasp Laurent Conseâ—s Orthoâ— vâ—t Art 5. â— â— per â—â—â— Ancients And because I foresaw that an adversary might be ready to misrepresent me as if I had compared faith and works in every respect as the same for use and effect in their respective Covenants I therefore said not that they had the same place meerly in the two Covenants but the same place and order putting in the latter word purposely as an Explication of the former for preventing that very mistake which Mr. Eyre is here run into of which latter word notwithstanding Mr. Eyre takes no notice in all he sayes against me My meaning therefore in the Proposition is this That as by the Covenant of works it was required that men should fulfil the Law that they might be justified so by the Gospel it is required that men beleeve that they