Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	apostle_n	sin_n	transgression_n	5,988	5	10.4357	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A97227	Vnbeleevers no subjects of iustification, nor of mystical vnion to Christ, being the sum of a sermon preached at New Sarum, with a vindication of it from the objections, and calumniations cast upon it by Mr. William Eyre, in his Vindiciæ justificationis. Together with animadversions upon the said book, and a refutation of that anti-sidian, and anti-evangelical errour asserted therein: viz. the justification of infidels, or the justification of a sinner before, and without faith. Wherein also the conditional necessity, and instrumentality of faith unto justification, together with the consistency of it, with the freness of Gods grace, is explained, confirmed, and vindicated from the exceptions of the said Mr. Eyre, his arguments answertd [sic], his authorities examined, and brought in against himself. By T. Warren minister of the Gospel at Houghton in Hampshire.	Warren, Thomas, 1616 or 17-1694.	1654 (1654)	Wing W980; Thomason E733_10; ESTC R206901	226,180	282

Reprobatio neque damnationis neque peccati quod incretur damnationem est propriè causa sed antecedens tantum Ames Medul c. 25. s 40. 1 John 3.4 Rom. 5.13 of this act And they that were not could not have any sin imputed yea it chargeth God with untruth and with unjustice to impute sin before committed for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth or in the transgression of the Law Now where there is no Law there is no transgression therefore the Apostle proveth That before the Law was promulged there was some Law given and transgressed by which sin entered into the world and death by sin which was that * Not the Moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared as Master Eyre seemes to intimate in the same place positive Law forbidding Adam and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and had there been no Law there had been no trangression but now from eternity there was no Law given nor any person to whom it should be given and therefore from eternity there was no transgression and therefore to make God impute that which was not is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men yea and in justice too will it charge upon God to make him impute sin to them which they ●●ver committed and for this to hate them and passe them by and not Elect them Here is a complication of errours in this passage God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by 〈◊〉 act that he is guilty of his Law be violated nor adjudge any man to punishment nor execute or inflict any punishment untill sin be committed So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin and doth not precede it and is a transient not an immanent act And a little after he contradicteth himself A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or representative which necessarily supposeth a Law for sin is the transgression of the Law Why then it necessarily followes no man was a sinner from eternity and so God did not impute it but let it go for one of his Paradoxes the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God together with his own eternall Essence Eighteenthly When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him and that the Elect are children of wrath as well as others and tell him a man cannot be a child of wrath and a justified person at the same time then the argument will not hold and is invalid as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures Pag. 110 111 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110 111 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified immediately from the time of Christs death he can use the same Argument and then it is a divine Oracle his words are these p. 138. It was the will of God saith he that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be children of Christ and children of Wrath at the same time and because this deserves a more full examination and it was an Argument used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference I will reserve what I have to say further to it to another place Ninteenthly He saith That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing then they had before Unhappy man Mr. Eyre pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters Fornicators Adulterers effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankinde had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as after What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be that admits of such Sodomites and Whoremongers to be the actuall heires of it If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven they were a blessed people Oh blessed Sodomites Oh blessed Whoremongers if this Doctrine be true here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints they knew not their happinesse before they had as much right to salvation as before only they had more knowledge of it after believing but if they had as much right why doth the Apostle say as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God why then what a wrong is this to them when they have a right to the Kingdome of God Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old to be called the dirty Sect then such panders for the flesh as these But I hope such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap they are as dear to God and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as when they lie in Abrahams bosome Twentith He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the unregenerate are impure and sinful which though they are all pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight But are their persons acceptable and justified so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God And are their best actions such as are their praying hearing for the matter good and duties commanded and are all the sins pardoned which make them only evil in Gods sight and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight who will believe you can the want of faith which is by you pardoned hinder the acceptance of their works and not the acceptance of their persons Nay what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate if they be justified persons as you say they are for the best works of unregenerat justified Infidels as you will have it are as you say of the regenerate pleasing to God not only comparatively because better then the works of Reprobates or then the sins of unregenerate persons but absolutely 1. Abstractly as you affirme of the others and in themselves for they are such things as are lawful and commanded and if they faile in the manner of doing it in faith hope and love this is but a faile in the manner and Gradus non variat speciem and the Regenerate Elect faile in the measure of faith hope and love neither in them doth their faith hope or love merit the acceptance of their duties And 2. Concretely as they are acted by justified persons and so passe through the hands of pardoned persons and the sins are washed away in Christs blood this want of faith hope and love is pardoned I

and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1● To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscience● but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateni●gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law

till they are able to plead their discharge Let us apply this to the Redemption wrought by Christ and let us see how great a friend he is to the Doctrine of Redemption If you take the wrath of God in the first sense for the will of God to punish according to the tenor of the law so they were not under wrath if you take it in the third sense for the execution of wrath they were never under it for how could they be under it when God never intended it what then did Christ redeem them from only the bare threatenings of the Law why so long as it was only a threatening and God intended not to execute it what need Christ have died according to him surely Christ hath delivered us from the execution of the wrath and there was a will in God to punish thei● sins as well as the sins of the Reprobate though he would punish their sins in Christ the sins of the Reprobates in their own persons and therfore Christ delivered us meritoriously from the reall effects of Gods wrath not the bare verbal threatenings of the Law I shall now shew what effects of Gods wrath an Elect person still lieth under till he be delivered through faith in Christ and will cast it into a distinct Argument thus 10. If the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath till their actual calling then were not they justified from eternity But the Elect lie under the effects of Gods wrath The consequence of the Major is evident because a man cannot lie under the eff●cts of wrath and yet be delivered from that wrath The Minor I prove thus by an enumeration of those effects according to the Scripture which are many 1. To be in a state of alienation from God so as to have none of their persons nor services accepted Thus God is * Psal 7.11 angry with the wicked every day yet so are the unregenerate though Elect they are under the power of sin And their prayers are rejected The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Prov. 15.8 And so are all the services of unregenerate men though Elect persons which Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth and they are truly called wicked persons because they are under the reigning power of sin 2. They are under the sentence of damnation at their birth for so saith the Apostle Rom. 3.19 Rom. 3.19 where he sheweth all persons in their natural estate are under the Law that is the damning power of it and become guilty before God there was a time that this was true but if they be justified from eternity then they never were under this damning power nor were guilty before God for if they were freed from eternity when were they guilty if there were any moment of time wherein they were not free then they were not justified from eternity 3. They are subject to the curse of the Law Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law therefore there was a time the Elect were under it and if under it they were not justified from eternity Acts 26.18 Heb. 2.14 Tit. 1.15 4. Yea they are under the power of Sathan but he was not from eternity that they should be under his power they are in bondage to death they have no outward enjoyment sanctified these and the like are sad effects of Gods wrath and how can they be justified where these effects remain and these all remain till faith Acts 13. 11. The Reprobates were not condemned from eternity therefore were not the Elect justified The consequence appeareth Jude 4. because contrariorum eadem est ratio by Election the Elect are ordained to life by reprobation men are ordained to condemnation these are contrarie and among contraries there is the same reason Now if the Elect be justified because of Gods decree then are the Reprobate condemned but the Reprobates are not condemned actually therefore neither are the Elect actually justified Now this assumption is evident for though Gods will be the cause of reprobation yet sin is the cause of the Reprobates condemnation but God cannot in justice condemne them for that which they never were yet guilty of it 's true God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done good or evil they had not then according to Scripture done evil and then God could not condemne them though he might passe them by and not Elect them which is negatively or privatively called hatred 12. If Gods decree to create the World was not Creation nor his will to call Calling nor to glorifie Glorification then his will to justifie was not Justification To this Mr. Eyre answereth There is not the same reason for Creating Calling Glorifying all which do import an inherent change in the person Created Called Glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being compleat in the minde of God To which I answer that his reason is of no force for to be the subject of a moral change doth as necessarily require the existence of the person as to be the subject of a physical and natural change for though the act may be perfect in Gods minde yet the person cannot be perfectly justified by that act because he hath not existence can he be pardoned and acquitted and declared just that is so farre from being an offender that he never yet was a man The act of Gods will is perfect concerning the sanctifying of a person before he have a being but he is not a subject capable because as yet he is not so God may will Justification but he cannot justifie deliver him from a state of damnation into a state of salvation till the person exist who may be the subject of this change CHAP. VI. Shewing that a man is not justified actually from the time of Christs death I Shall here first premise a few things that it may be known what we affirme and what we oppose First Then it is willingly granted that Christ in his death was a Mediator and surety and publick person and that what he did and suffered was intended for the benefit of the Elect. Secondly That Christ in his death made a full satisfaction to Divine justice for all the sins of the Elect so that the whole satisfaction is made and the price paid and quoad meritum the work is done and in this respect he hath made an end of sin because he hath fully satisfied for it so that there need no more sacrifice for sin Heb. 1.3 Dan. 9.24 but he hath purged our sins away meritoriously by his blood Thirdly God is thus far well-pleased with this satisfaction of Christ that in respect of Christ our surety God requires no more at his hands nor at the hands of those for whom he died by way of satisfaction it being the full value that his justice did require Fourthly By his death he obtained in the behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation in an Arminian sense as if our redemption were

yet if it be acknowledged a transient act Mr. Eyre p. 65. would it make a change in him it would adde a relative respect and an extrinsecall denomination and so in making it an immanent act there must be a new relation of the person justified to God but he addeth it maketh a great change if you take it for the delivery of the sinner from the curse of the Law Surely he that is not is not capable of an actual change which you must hold or your justification is not compleat because the deliverance is not a present deliverance Secondiy Let us come to his passive Justification If Justification saith he be taken as most commonly it is for the thing willed by this immanent act of his to wit our discharge from the Law and deliverance from punishment so it hath for its adequate cause and principle the death and satisfaction of Christ And thus by his death he obtained in behalf of the Elect not a remote possible conditional reconciliation but an actual and immediate reconciliation Where he ascribeth a meritoriousnesse to the death of Christ in respect of the deliverance but not in respect of any act of Gods deliverance as if we could be just●fied and none to justifie for in the same place he denieth Christs death to be the cause of Gods will not to punish and that justly and yet he will not acknowledge another act as we do a transient act of God whereof Christs death is the cause and yet some act he must finde out or we cannot be justified Now his opinion from hence is this That Christ at his death standing as a common person and representing all the Elect who were mystically united to him he by his death gave full satisfaction to divine justice by which they satisfied in him and in his Resurrection receiving a publick discharge for himself and them and they are now actually and formally reconciled and in favour with God even while they remaine unregenerate persons Wherein in two things he differs from us and departs from the truth 1. In holding a mystical union between Christ and the Elect before faith 2. In that he saith that from the time of Christs death all the Elect are actually reconconciled both these I have already disproved in the Vindication of my Sermon but shall adde some arguments in its place against the latter Thirdly When it 's said we are justified by faith he taketh it altogether objectively He saith Faith is taken objectively for Christ and his righteousnesse justifieth in the sight of God if taken for the act it only evidenceth justification page 76. as if by faith were meant Christ excluding faith from any hand in Justification which if it were the Apostles meaning he might have put in the Name Christ and left out Faith and his meaning had been more plaine which in this weighty controversie of Justification though the Trope be more elegant had been more needful And in many places where he speaketh of Justification he expressely setteth down Christ as the object of our faith and yet addeth faith as that grace by which this object is apprehended Let us take that place in Gal. 2.15 16. We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the wo ks of the Law Here the Apostles Scope is to shew that the believing Jewes into which number he puts himself and Peter and Barnabas seeing that they could not be justified by the Law did for this end that they might be justified believe on Christ that they might be justified by the faith of Christ where he makes Christ and his righteousnesse the object of faith and the matter of their Justification and he expresseth how Christs become theirs by faith and it were a senselesse interpretation to take Faith for Christ and not for the Grace of Faith as if the meaning should be that they were justified by the Christ of Christ where he must exclude Christ or Faith for one is redundant nor doth the Apostle mean this of a declarative Justification for then there is no reason nor tru●h in it for to say that the workes of the Law may not evidence our Justification these being as able to declare it as faith as it is said Little children let no man deceive y u he that doth righteousnesse 1 John 3.7 is righteous that is is declared thereby to be righteous Besides to make Paul to say that they believed that they might be justified that is that they may know by believing that they had been justified before had been to make the Apostle reason at a very low ebbe as if the doing a thing for a certaine end were a certain means to assure that the end hath been obtained already Besides it destroyes the Scope of the Apostles Argument in reproving Peter for his dissimulation building up that in his Practice which in his Doctrine he did destroy the Jewes thought the observation of the Law necessary to salvation and hence made conscience of keeping company with Gentiles and eating things forbidden by the Law but Peter and the rest of the Apostles knew that a man is not justified by the works of the Law and therefore did renounce hopes of salvation by that and believe in Christ for Justification and this he taught And when he came to Antioch before certain Jewes came down from James he used his Christian liberty and did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come down he withdrew himself he separates from the Gentiles by which practice he did as it were teach a neccessity of keeping the Law as necessary to salvation Now Paul blames his practice that when he knew a man is not justified by the Law but by faith in Christ he did yet in practice hold up the necessity of the observation of the Law so that the Apostle is not speaking how a man may know his salvation but how salvation is obtained So the Apostle speaking of the righteousnesse by which we must be justified in Rom 3.11 saith Rom. 3.11 it is a righteousnesse witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even a righteousnesse that is of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ where by Faith is necess●rily understood the grace of Faith and not Christ who is expressely set down in the next words where the scope of the place is to shew by what we must be justified and he saith not by the works of the Law but by the faith of Christ if Christ without Faith justifie why doth the Apostle mention Faith for he is not speaking here what doth evidence our Justification but by what we are justified I shall passe to the fourth particular in Mr. Eyre he saith Mr. Eyre p. 3. That in the New Covenant there is

grace of God to wit Faith whose scope and object is God the Father by the intervention of the propitiation of Jesus Christ A second Scripture is Gal. 2.16 We knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law where Mr. Eyre's glosse to evade the force of this Scripture is that the phrase that we may be is as much as that we may be manifested and declared and know that we are justified To this I answer that the Apostle is not speaking here of a declarative Justification but of a Justification real before God therefore when he speaketh of not being justified by the Law he meaneth not a declarative Justification and therefore when he speaks of Justification by faith he means not a declarative Justification for then the opposition is not ad idem for look in what sense he taketh it in the first member of the opposition it must be taken in the same sense in the latter member but it is nor meant of a declarative Justification in the first therefore neither in the latter For that neither was the question between the Apostle and the Justiciaries nor could the Apostle say with truth that works do not evidence Justification As for Justification in foro conscientiae it is not Justification properly but the knowledge and assurance of it Justification is to be considered as an action of God for it is God that justifieth The Apostle giveth an account why he and the believing Jewes did believe in Christ for Justification because they knew that they could not be justified by the Law Now there is no way but by the Law or by faith in Christ therefore they did beleeve in Christ where Justification by the faith of Christ is made the finall cause of their believing Now if they did therefore beleeve that they might be justified how can that that was the end of their beleeving evidence that they were just●fied already before they did believe and here let the Reader observe that both the act and object is expressed and if as Mr. Eyre ordinarily understands the object by the act why are both expressed Therefore the grace of Faith relatively considered as apprehending Christs righteousnesse is that by which we are justified The third Scripture being Rom. 8.30 I have already vindicated in my tenth Argument against eternall Justification A fourth place which he hath abused is Rom. 4 22. where it is said that it shall be imputed to us if we beleeve that is faith in Christ shall be imputed to us for righteousnesse as it was to Abraham for there is but one way whereby both he and we are justified Mr. Eyre's answer is That this particle if is not conditional but declarative and so he taketh the meaning to be this Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve where observe that he wrongeth the scope of the Apostle which is to encourage us to beleeve as did Abraham from the good effect of it for hereby righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve he speaketh of a future mercy to be obtained and Mr. Eyre telleth us of an assurance that we shall have that it was done already where he changeth the time past for the time present and so overthroweth the Apostles scope and putteth a declarative sense upon the words for a conditional This is not to interpret Scripture but to suborn the Spirit to serve his own turne And hence I argue against him If the imputation of righteousnesse be a thing that is not already but shall be imputed if they beleeve then the particle if is not declarative but conditional But the imputation of righteousness is not a thing then done but was to be done Therefore And for this the words are plaine it shall be imputed if we believe A fifth Scripture is Acts 10.43 To him give all the Prophets witnesse that through his Name whosoever believe shall receive the remission of sins He saith it is not said by believing we obtain remission of sins and a little after we obtain remission by Christ but we receive it by faith I answer There is an ambiguity in the word obtain if by it he understand we do not merit purchase forgivenesse we grant it for whoever made the instrumental the meritorious cause of forgivenesse of sins but if by it he understand a receiving the remission of our sins through Christ which then and never till then was received we say thus forgivenesse is obtained by faith as a cause to apply Christs righteousnesse for Justification nor is this receiving a receiving of the knowledge of remission as a thing before done and the knowledge of it only now obtained by faith for it is said that by faith we receive remission not the knowledge of remission all the Prophets testifie this we receive remission not the sense of the remission of sinnes Therefore Mr. Eyre's interpretation is contrary to all the Prophets witnesse Besides were we justified from eternity as Mr. Eyre wil have it when by Gods eternal act this remission was given it had been an injury to God Besides an improper speech to say All that beleeve shall receive remission They should have said ye were remitted before if ye beleeve ye shall know it The six●h Scripture is Acts 13.39 By him all that believe shall be justified from all things from which they could not c. He saith that this sheweth the excellency of the Gospel above the Law and that here is nothing at all of the time of Justification though he affirme that he that believeth is justified yet it followeth not the Elect are not justified before faith much lesse that a man is justified by the gracious act or habit of faith I answer let it be granted he commend the Gospel-sacrifice for sin above the sacrifices of the Law yet he saith that by obtaining the Law they could not be justified and what they could not have by the Law or any sacrifice therein offeted that may be obtained by Christ through faith where if his purpose were to exclude faith from Justification he might have said only by him we are justified from all this from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses but he describeth the persons and the condition expressely and if Believers only are justified then unbelievers are not and faith is necessary Therefore though we be not justified by it as the matter of our righteousnesse yet as the instrument to apply it and the Apostles limiting this to Believers were vaine if unbelievers also were the subjects of it A seventh Scripture to which he hath done violence is 2 Cor. 5.21 where Christ is said to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him where this is made the finall cause why