Reprobatio neque damnationis neque peccati quod incretur damnationem est propriè causa sed antecedens tantum Ames Medul c. 25. s 40. 1 John 3.4 Rom. 5.13 of this act And they that were not could not have any sin imputed yea it chargeth God with untruth and with unjustice to impute sin before committed for the very formality of a sin consisteth in the privation of that rectitude the Law requireth or in the transgression of the Law Now where there is no Law there is no transgression therefore the Apostle proveth That before the Law was promulged there was some Law given and transgressed by which sin entered into the world and death by sin which was that * Not the Moral Law existing in the mind of God before it was declared as Master Eyre seemes to intimate in the same place positive Law forbidding Adam and in him us to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil and had there been no Law there had been no trangression but now from eternity there was no Law given nor any person to whom it should be given and therefore from eternity there was no transgression and therefore to make God impute that which was not is to ascribe unto God a fallible judgement and to make God to esteem them sinners before they were men yea and in justice too will it charge upon God to make him impute sin to them which they â—â—ver committed and for this to hate them and passe them by and not Elect them Here is a complication of errours in this passage God doth not esteem any person a sinner till by 〈◊〉 act that he is guilty of his Law be violated nor adjudge any man to punishment nor execute or inflict any punishment untill sin be committed So that Gods imputation of sin followeth that act of sin and doth not precede it and is a transient not an immanent act And a little after he contradicteth himself A man is not a sinner before he do commit sin either by himself or representative which necessarily supposeth a Law for sin is the transgression of the Law Why then it necessarily followes no man was a sinner from eternity and so God did not impute it but let it go for one of his Paradoxes the Law and sin had a coeternall existence in the minde of God together with his own eternall Essence Eighteenthly When we urge Mr. Eyre with those Scriptures He that believeth not is condemned already and the wrath of God abideth on him and that the Elect are children of wrath as well as others and tell him a man cannot be a child of wrath and a justified person at the same time then the argument will not hold and is invalid as you may see in his slight Answers to Mr. Woodbridges Arguments from these Scriptures Pag. 110 111 112. compared with pag. 138. pag. 110 111 112. and yet when he cometh to prove that we are justified immediately from the time of Christs death he can use the same Argument and then it is a divine Oracle his words are these p. 138. It was the will of God saith he that his death should be available for their immediate reconciliation for they could not be children of Christ and children of Wrath at the same time and because this deserves a more full examination and it was an Argument used by my against Mr. Eyre in our conference I will reserve what I have to say further to it to another place Ninteenthly He saith That the Elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after believing then they had before Unhappy man Mr. Eyre pag. 122. that he should be the father of so many foule errours what had the Elect Corinthians when they were Idolaters Fornicators Adulterers effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankinde had they then as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as after What will this man make the Kingdome of Heaven to be that admits of such Sodomites and Whoremongers to be the actuall heires of it If they had a right to the Kingdome of Heaven they were a blessed people Oh blessed Sodomites Oh blessed Whoremongers if this Doctrine be true here was all the unhappinesse of these Sodomitical Saints they knew not their happinesse before they had as much right to salvation as before only they had more knowledge of it after believing but if they had as much right why doth the Apostle say as such they could not inherit the Kingdome of God Be not deceived no such shall inherit the Kingdome of God why then what a wrong is this to them when they have a right to the Kingdome of God Do any persons more deserve the same stile of the Gnosticks of old to be called the dirty Sect then such panders for the flesh as these But I hope such as fear the Lord will take the Apostles caveat and not be seduced by such filthy dreamers to believe that when they lie in Dalilahs lap they are as dear to God and have at much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as when they lie in Abrahams bosome Twentith He saith in pag. 129. That the best actions of the unregenerate are impure and sinful which though they are all pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ yet they are not acceptable to God but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight But are their persons acceptable and justified so as to have as much right as ever they shall have to the Kingdome of God And are their best actions such as are their praying hearing for the matter good and duties commanded and are all the sins pardoned which make them only evil in Gods sight and yet are they abominable and loathsome in his sight who will believe you can the want of faith which is by you pardoned hinder the acceptance of their works and not the acceptance of their persons Nay what do you affirme of the actions of the Regenerate more then may be said of the actions of the Elect unregenerate if they be justified persons as you say they are for the best works of unregenerat justified Infidels as you will have it are as you say of the regenerate pleasing to God not only comparatively because better then the works of Reprobates or then the sins of unregenerate persons but absolutely 1. Abstractly as you affirme of the others and in themselves for they are such things as are lawful and commanded and if they faile in the manner of doing it in faith hope and love this is but a faile in the manner and Gradus non variat speciem and the Regenerate Elect faile in the measure of faith hope and love neither in them doth their faith hope or love merit the acceptance of their duties And 2. Concretely as they are acted by justified persons and so passe through the hands of pardoned persons and the sins are washed away in Christs blood this want of faith hope and love is pardoned I
for faith is the meanes to that end for having said that he that confesseh with his mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in his heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved He subjoynes this as a reason for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness that is he obtaines by faith such a righteousnesse by which he shall be saved John 20.31 These things are written that ye might believe and that believing ye might have i John 20.31 life through his Name where life is made an effect of believing k Gal. 2.16 Gal. 2.16 We have believed that we might be justified where justification is made the final cause of believing and so l Rom. 3.25 Rom. 3.25 Whom God hath set forth as a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sins where setting down all the causes of justification he doth not exclude faith for Subordinata inter se non pugnant 1. God is the efficient whom he hath set forth as a propitiation 2. Christs death is made the meritorious cause in his blood and faith the instrumental Now as the efficient excludes not the meritorious no more must the meritorious exclude the efficient for Bonum est ex integris causis The like may be proved from those places which affirme that a man is in the state of damnation till he do believe The 16th of Marke He that m Maâ—k 16. believeth shal be saved he that believeth not shal be damned Joh. 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already and ver 36. He that believeth not shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And as the Scripture ownes it for an anoynted truth so reason confirmes it with a high hand which I prove thus 1. As by the first Adam no man is guilty of eternall death but he that is a member of him by natural generation so Christ frees no man from condemnation justifieth and reconcileth no man till be a member of him by supernatural regeneration but this is not before faith John 1.12 To as many as n John 1.12 received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to as many as believed on his Name Which were borne not of blood nor of the will of the flesh but of God 2. If a man be justified from the time of Christs death antecedently not only to a mans faith but to a mans birth then a justified person is not borne a childe of wrath which contradicts that of the Apostle where he saith of himself and the converted Ephesians Than they were by o Eph. 2.3 nature the children of wrath as well as others 3. A sin is not remitted before it is committed But if we be justified from the time of Christs death sin is remitted before it is committed The Major is evident because it is not a sinne before committed and therefore seeing it is but potentially a sin and not formally it cannot be actually and formally remitted nor is it of any great moment that our sins were imputed to Christ before they were committed by us For 1. It will not easily be granted that our sins were imputed to Christ but only the punishment due to sin was said upon Christ but if it be granted the reason is not alike for Christ to whom our sin in the guilt of it was imputed was a person existing And 2. Sin imputed to Christ was not as the * Doctâ—r Câ—isp Ser. p. 108 109. Antinomians judge so transferred upon Christ as to constitute him guilty by an inherent guilt to whom sin and the guilt of sin are all one so that in their esteem Christ was the sinner as really as he that did commit it for this is impossible for Idem numero accidens non potest migrare à subjecto in subjectum and therefore this imputation was an extrinsecal denomination and Christ subjected himself to it without sin which he could not have done if sin and the guilt of it be inseparable and the same thing therefore it was only an external imputation of the guilt of it which rendred him obnoxious unto punishment and there was a necessity for this imputation for otherwise he could not have suffered as a surety but now we cannot be conceived sinners before we commit sin because sin in us is an inherent blot whereby we having broken the Law deserved punishment for our offence against God and this formally constitutes us sinners and that guilt or obligation to punishment that arises from it is a * Reatus est duplex culpae poenae sive reatusredundans in personam The first is inseparable the second separable from sin this was imputed to Christ not the first separable effect nor can we thus be counted sinners by God in justice till we be so actually by inherent guilt therefore as a medicine that hath a sufficient vertue to cure all leprosies yet it doth not cure till a man be actually leprous so the blood of Christ that hath a healing vertue doth not purge a man till he be defiled with sin 4. The whole efficacy of the merit of Christs death in respect of the imputation and application of it depends upon the will of God ordaining it and accepting of it for who dares take or apply the merit of Christ any other way or upon any other condition then he hath ordained to communicate it and to be accepted for men And Christ as Mediatour was the servant of God submitting his will to Gods will in it and Christ was constituted as a Head and Mediatour out of meer grace and favour and his will was to be in every respect conformable to the will of God Now then seeing it was not intended by God nor accepted of God to procure immediate reconciliation and remission of sinnes for any before repentance and implantation into Christ by faith so neither was it the intendment of Christ and so no wrong is done to Christ though the benefit of his death be suspended untill actuall faith especially considering that for Christs sake grace shall be given effectually to draw them to faith for whom Christ died therefore none are justified actually till faith I might here adde that the Law being relaxed to put in the name of a surety whose payment was refusable hereupon the solution being not in this respect the same in obligation for dum alius solvit aliud solvitur and so being not solutio ejusdem but tantidem the discharge doth not immediately follow especially seeing it was neither the will of God nor of Christ that an immediate discharge should be given which appeares by Scripture strongly by a negative argument thus There is no Scripture can be produced from whence without manifest injury to the Holy Ghost this can be drawn by any tolerable consequence that by vertue of Christs death all the Elect are ipso facto invested with Christs righteousnesse and are actually
required as he sheweth for * Lex non requirebat ut Deus moreretur neque ut sine peccato proprio quis moreretur neque requirebat mortâ—m talem tantae efficaciae quae esset ut non mortem abolereâ— solùm sed etiam vitam introduceret eà mque illâ quam Adamus terresti perdedirat multis nominibus praecellentiorem the Law did not require that God should die nor that any should die that had not sinned nor such a death of such efficacy as not only to abolish death but to bring in life and that by many degrees more excellent then that which Adam had lost so then Christ hath fully satisfied the justice of God for the sins of the Elect so as that God neither will nor can in justice require any thing more at the hand of the surety nor of the sinner for whom he died by way of satisfaction Sixthly It will not be denied that God may be said to be reconciled in some sense by the death of Christ as a meritorious cause by death removing the cause of enmity and meriting the favour of God for us for although God loved us from eternity yet this was amor ordinativus not collativus God did bear them good will in time to make them heires of grace and gloâ—y by Jesus Christ Bâ—ll on the Covenant of Grace p. 292. and this excludes not but includes the necessity of Christs satisfaction but such as God did Elect he did not love them as already made heires of Grace by the influence of his love For the full understanding of this you must know that although God dâ—d so love the Elect as to fore-ordaine them unto eternal salvation yet it was never the will of God that his Elect should for no space of time be children of wrath that is subject unto death and eternall damnation for their sins but he did decree to permit them to fall in Adam and to be equally guilty of and liable to eternal death with others for which cause the Apostle calls them children of wrath as well as others Man being created after Gods own Image free from sin before the fall was intimately conjoyned to God God loving and delighting in man and man loving and delighting in his God but man lapsed by voluntary Apostasie from God there is an avulsion of the creature from God and an aversion of God from the creature and by this sin the Covenant of friendship between God and man is dissolved so that God who loved man created by him as his childe and from eternity willing him good for I speak only of the Elect in justice cannot but hate him now as corrupted by sin as a rebell against him not by any change of affection but of his outward dispensation and having included him under guilt as a son of Adam he is equally involved in the wrath due to that sin which God hath threatened with eternal death and resolved by an immutable decree never to pardon it to any without a satisfaction to his offended justice for the breach of his Law that the truth of his threatning may be fulfilled and the authority of his Law preserved and the evil of sin discovered and Gods exceeding love and mercy in a way mixt with mercy and justice may be manifested in the salvation of his Elect So that although there be a new relation in the Elect upon their fall in Adam unto God yet the change is in the creature and not in God for as the Schoolmen well observe these relations which are attributed unto God in time as a Creatour Father or Lord put not any new thing in God but there is an extrinsecal denomination added to him so that when the world is created God who was not a Creatour before is now a Creatour thus when sin took hold of the Elect he that once was a childe of love is now a childe of wrath not by any new accident in God but by a new effect in the creature so that in this estate God cannot bestow upon him the good intended in election For the better understanding of this that of Aquinas is of great use God may velle mutationem where he cannot mutare voluntatem God may will a change though he doth not change his will Thus in Adam while he continued a man after Gods Image free from sin God willed him to be the object of his love and delight and when he was fallen to be the subject of his displeasure and anger in the effects of it being liable unto his wrath and eternall death yet is not here a change in God but in Adam Thus God with the same will decreed from eternity to make such a one a vessel of mercy and yet to permit him to sin and fall in Adam and so to remaine a childe of wrath deserving condemnation wherein God cannot actually save him considering his decree without a satisfaction by Christ applied by faith Here is a change and a very great one in man but not in God a new relation yet no new immanent act in God Thus we may understand that of venerable Beda in the 5. Beda in Rom. 5. ad Rom. Deus miro modo quando nos oderat diligebat odit in unoquoque nostrûm quod feceramus amavit quod fecerat When God did hate us he wonderfully loved us he hated that in all of us that we had done he loved what he had made that is as the Schoolmen say Dilexit humanum genus quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit odit quantum ad culpam quam homines contraxerunt He loved mankinde in respect to the nature he had made or as his creature and hated him as a sinner But now through the satisfaction of Christ God is so farre reconciled that the cause of enmity is removed although it was agreed upon between the Father and Christ as I shall shew without any wrong to Christs satisfaction that the benefit shall not be enjoyed till faith yet the cause of enmity is causally taken away by the death of Christ as Aquinas speaks well in this case Aquin. p. 3 qu. 49. Artic. 4. Non dicimur reconciliati quasi Deus de novo nos amare inciperet nam aeterno amore nos dilexit sed quia per hanc reconciliationem sublata est omnis odi causa tum per ablationem peccati tum per recompensationem acceptabilioris boni Aug. in Joh. Tract 110. And before him Augustine Quòd reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Christi non sic audiatur non sic accipiatur quasi ideò nos reconciliaverit illi Filius ut jam amare inceperit quos oderat sed jam nos Deo diligenti reconciliati sumus cum quo propter peccatum inimicitias habebamus Lombard l. 3. distin 19 pag. 596. Lombard also gives in his suffrage in the like manner Reconciliati sumus Deo ut dit Apostolus quod non sic intelligendum est quasi nos ei
and redundancy of merit yet was it not altogether the same in the Obligation For first the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person or substitution of one for another and therefore God by an act of Sovereignty did dispense though not with the substance of the Laws demands for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfaction and considering his decree he could not do it but with the manner of execution which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation so then God relaxed his Law to put in the name of a surety therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the payment of the same debt for Dum alius solvit necessariò aliud solvitur and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment that another persons sufferings may be valid to procure a discharge to the guilty person and that the satisfaction was made by another and not by the party to whom remission is granted no Protestant will deny 2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all accidents 1. In respect of place he did not locally discend into the place of the damned Nor 2. In respect of time and duration his sufferings had an end though they were infinite intensivè yet not extensivè in respect of duration nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image nor was he deprived of any measure of grace nor was he really but as to present sense and feeling forsaken nor did he lose his right to the creatures nor did his body see corruption all which are effects of mans sin and penal effects of it as I apprehend Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse were of the same kinde and by the dignity of his person raised to a more then equipollency with ours so as to merit for us eternal life Quid enim Majestas tanta par ipsi Patri poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Regin Cyrillus Alexandrinus and it conduced to a compensation in those sufferings which were unworthy the dignity of his person 3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment yet not altogether with the same obligation for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary not arising from the guilt of inherent sin but by way of vadimony and sucâ—ption our guilt or obligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputation of sin ours from a desert of sin called reatus culpae which guilt is inseparable from sinne which draweth reatus poetus along with it Christ was reatus poenae not culpae 4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation not only for our breach of the Law but for our non-suffering and therefore is not altogether the same The second thing to be cleared is this that it being not the same therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong for it is mercy in God to accept it the Law requires his personal sufferings and there is no promise made to any that they shall have benefit by Christs death but only to Believers And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason for such a payment is refusable which is not altogether the same and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infliction of the punishment belongeth it cannot procure a discharge to the guilty person for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering and the Law threatneth the offender and the surety is not the offender and none but he that had power to make the Law can dispense with any thing in the Law therefore that the Law may be dispensed with in respect of the manner of execution by transferring the punishment upon another and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender as if he had in person suffered this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver receding from his own right and therefore might constitute and ordain how and in what manner it shall be accepted and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us to free us from our personal sufferings and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing 3dly That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction and of God in admitting of this satisfaction that it should not procure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion but when man is turned unto God by faith seeking and humbly intreating for pardon Now to manifest this we must premise 1. That it was an act of special grace not only to us but to Christ himself that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us by vertue of whose mediation and sufferings we should be forgiven and made heirs of eternall life Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity in respect of his Godhead is equall with the Father and so not subject to any preordination or predestination as an act of grace but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Mediatorship is a servant of God and so subject to Predestination and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office is as much seen as in our Election unto life for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ Heb. 5 5. when he was put into the Priestly Office to make atonement for us 2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction it was an act of free grace to us and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God Isa 42.1 John 10.18 and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work at his commandment he laid down his life and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular persons and denied to others therefore Christ saith Power is given him over all flesh John 17.2 to give eternal life but it is with restriction only to as many as the Father had given him Now the sufferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limited by the will of God to the Elect only and Christ submitteth to it why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith in that order that he hath appointed 3. It is an act of grace
in a natural and necessary way Mr. Burg. of Justific p. 180 186. but the issues of Christs death do come in a supernatural way This I acknowledge for truth let us see what Mr. Eyre answereth to it Mr. Eyre p. 7. Mr. Eyre saith This reason is of no validity to him for the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should be imputed to none till they are actually propagated And the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as they do from Adam So that the issues of Adams sin may be said to descend to his posterity in a supernaturall way i. e. by vertue of Gods Covenant which was made with him as a common person in behalf of all his posterity and in the same manner do the issues of Christs obedience descend unto Gods Elect by vertue of that Covenant which was made with Christ as a common person in their behalf and therefore unlesse they can shew a proviso or restriction in the second Covenant more then in the first why life should not flâ—w as immediately to the Elect from Christs obedience as death did from Adams disobedience the Arguments will stand in fore But this answer is of far lesse validity and implies much unsoundnesse as I shall evidently demonstrate for the right understanding of this we must inquire what is meant by the issues of Adams disobedience 2. Whether this become ours by imputation propagation or by both First then I suppose Mr. Eyre must mean that single act of disobedience which was Adams sin and is made ours with the effects of it Now if you look upon that barely as a simple act it was more Gods then his act in respect of the substance of the action for In him we live and move and have our being and did not he uphold us and concurre with us by his natural concourse we could put forth no action and thus farre in genere entis it was good but if you look upon the sinfulnesse of that act as it was a transgression of the Law of God forbidding him to eat so it was evil in generis moris and from Adam as from the principal cause by the abuse of his free will and a double effect or guilt attended this offence 1. Reatus culpae the inward guilt of sin or desert of damnation which is an inseparable adjunct and consequent of sinne 2. There is Reatus redundans in personam or reatus poenae which is a guilt of punishment obliging rhe sinner to eternall wrath which is separable from it This is a consequent of sin by vertue of Gods Law adjudging punishment unto sin in which repsect as it is from God as a punishment of sin it is good and God may separate this from sin Now Adam when he committed this sin did sustaine a double person 1. His own 2. The person of all his posterity whom he did as a common person represent hence his sin had a double respect 1. To himself and so his sin was his personal and actual transgression and so it was peccatum originans properly and not peccatum originale it was the first well-spring and head or fountain of sin and of all the effects of it not properly that which we call original sin which is the hereditary corruption of our nature 2. It had respect unto his whole posterity which were in his loynes Heb. 7.8 9. whereby all sinned in him as Levi paid tithes in Abraham and so it was the sin of the whole nature of mankinde actually by generation to be derived upon every person descending from him by naturall and ordinary generation in which respect Adams sin was after a sort voluntary to the whole nature of mankinde considered in Adam Now the question is whether this sin of Adam for if we enquire of originall sin it is without all controversie derived to us by generation and natural propagation the question is whether this sin together with the demerit of it deserving and obliging Adam and all his posterity unto death in whom they all sinned whether this be ours by imputation or by propagation To which I answer that it is not only ours by imputation and by vertue of Gods Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of all his posterity but it is partly ours by this imputation of God by vertue of the Covenant made with Adam for us and partly by propagation by vertue of that natural union between us and Adam That relation we stood in unto him being in him as the common root of all mankinde and without this union or relation God neither did nor could in justice impute this sin as farre as I yet can understand it being that which is the ground of Gods imputing that sin to us Hence Augustine in answer to the Pelagian argument That Nullâ ratione concedi potest August Tom. 7 de peccat merit remiss lib. 3. cap. 7. ut Deus qui propria peccata nobis remittit imputet aliena that is that it can by no reason be granted that God who forgiveth us our own sins should impute anothers to us Saith Deus quando parvulis imputat peccatum Adae non imputat peccatum omnino alienum sed suum ipsorum etiam peccatum quia etiam ipsi in Adamo peccaverunt Tunc enim Adamus totum humanum genus in se uno continebat Apud Zanch. Tom. 4. lib. 1. de peccat orig p. 45 Ideò in illo omnes homines quot quot ex ipso futuri erant per ipsius semen erant unus homo vita enim anima unius hominis tunc quicquid futurum erat in futurâ propagine continebat God when he imputeth to little ones the sinne of Adam doth not impute that which is altogether another mans but their owne sinne because they sinned in Adam for then Adam contained all mankinde in himself alone Therefore all men that were to descend from him by his seed were one man for then the life and soul of that one man contained whatsoever was to be in that future lineage And Zanchy to the fifth Argument of Pighius which was this Zanch. Tom. 4. liâ— de peccat orig pag. 53. Pugnat cum Dei non solùm clementiâ verùm etiam justitià quòd peccatum unius omnibus in universum hominibus imputet ad peccatum condemnationem That it cannot consist with the clemency and justice of God that the sin of one should universally be imputed to all unto sin condemnation To which he answereth Respondeo pugnare si peccatum merè alienum imputaret sed imputat illud quod ipsorum est hoc est totius naturae in ipso enim Adamo omneâ— peccaverunt That is It were inconsistent with his clemency and justice if he should impute that that is purely
Law in whole as the Arminians and in part as the Papists But we take faith for a condition in this sense for an Evangelicall qualification wrought in us by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified nor saved and shall not enjoy the benefits and blessings of the new Covenant as a cause of life not efficiently as works in the old Covenant but instrumentally by applying by Gods order and constitution Christ and his benefits to the Believer And thus the Scripture saith He that believeth shall be saved he that believeth not shall be damned and that the wrath of God abideth on him * There it was and there it shall rest till by faith it be removed works are required as conditions of those that shall be saved but faith is a condition of Justification And because this faith is freely given salvation is no lesse of free grace then if this condition were not required nor is it absurd that the same thing should be freely promised of God and yet required as a duty of us 't is we are bound to believe and repent and yet faith is Gods gift and Christ is exalted as a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance unto his people for remission of sins CHAP. V. Containing a brief description of M. Eyre's opinion shewing wherein he departeth from the Orthodox faith together with a brief Synopsis of the several errors unsound opinions and selfe-contradictions that he hath intangled himselfe in in the defending of his errour of eternall Justification HE is an unfit man to establish another in the truth who himself is l ke a Reed shaken with the winde inconstant to himself Vide Mr. Eyre pag 62. as well as disagreeing from the truth such in this Chapter shall the Reader finde Mr Eyre so farre as relates to his Book I trust in Christ to manifest and therefore let the judicious Reader observe and judge Now for his opinion as farre as I can gather from his Book I conceive it to be this First He saith that Justification in Scripture is taken variously pro volitione Divinâ pro re volità 1. For the will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people And 2. For the effect of Gods will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law that is Justification is taken by him actively for Gods eternal will not to punish and passively for the effect of that will as it is terminated upon the Elect or Believer And he saith that he looks upon Dr Twisse 's judgment as most accurate who placeth the very essence and quiddity of Justification in the will of God not to punish Wherein first let the Reader observe his departing from the received judgement of all Orthodox Divines except three or four in making Gods eternal will to be that wherein the Essence of Justification consists it is well known that unanimously they agree that Justification is not an immanent but a transient act done in time And the Scripture no where calleth Gods eternal will Justification and if the essence and quiddity of Justification consist in this it is marvell the Scripture should never call it so and so often as the Scripture speaks of Justification should speak of it in an improper sense passively taken as terminated upon us Besides the will of God not to punish is but terminus diminuens a decree or will not to punish in time Besides this is not the whole of Justification for it is a will not to punish according to the tenor of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace which requireth faith But I shall argue against this in a more proper place Now if we take it thus as Mr. Eyre will have it his opinion is this Justification is an eternall immanent act or will in God not to punish and impute sin unto his people antecedently not only to their birth and faith but to the death of Christ nor is the death of Christ the cause of this Justification though with him Justification thus taken is most accurate and properly taken and so he maketh Christ no cause of the act of Justification for he will acknowledge no other transient act and immanent there is none 1. And this act is not purely * Page 67. negative as the non-imputation of sin to a stone but privative being the non-imputation of a sin realiter futuri inesse which how Scholastically it is spoken being a privative act of a privation in a positive decree of God when neither the subject nor the sin are in being and as if sin were debitum inesse that that ought to be in us for privation is properly understood of these 2. And this non-imputation is actual though the sin not to be imputed be not in actual being a will not to impute it hereafter may be actual but to call that an actuall non-imputation is improperly spoken 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it self for God by his eternal and unchangeable will not imputing sin to his Elect none can impute it c. Here is a compleat Justification then without a satisfaction for which Socinus will give him the right hand of fellowship and many thanks for a gratuity And yet he addeth that this renders not the death of Christ uselesse surely as to this act it is uselesse * And Mr. Eyre acknowledgeth no other act of Justification and if it be the meritorious cause of the effects of this Justification how was that Justification compleat whose effects could not be obtained without the death of the Son of God Where let the Reader observe also that he maketh Christ no more the cause of Justification then of Election for he addeth by way of similitude As the love of God is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effectt of it Pag. 67. and so Pag. 66. As electing love precede c. so this act of justifying is compleat in it self but yet Christ is the meritorious cause of all the effects of it Moreover he saith That the Lord did not impute sin to his people when he purposed in himself not to deal with them according to their sins when the Father and the Son agreed upon that sure and everlasting Covenant Page 64. that his Elect should not bear the punishment which their sins should deserve Surely the Lord must then by Mr. Eyre impute it to Christ and so Christ was man and a sinner from eternity and crucified from eternity and all this in Gods minde and there Judas and Pilate and those that murdered Christ did exist too and what will not this bring in And * Mr. Eyre p. 8. the ground of this is that he conceives God constituting and ordaining Christ a Head and the Elect his Members they were by this mystically implanted before they were borne even from eternity And Justification thus taken saith he makes no change in God nor
to their consciences but not for the benefit which they had in Christ before they were borne And what diminution is it of the grace of Christ if they were justified from the time of Christs death to tell them there is a sufficiency in the death of Christ for Justification when according to you there is an efficiency in the death of Christ forasmuch as they were not virtually only but actually and formally as you affirme p. 63. justified at his death Nor will it help you to say you speak there of the non-elect for we are bound to presse all men to believe as you there acknowledge and it is not known who are Elect neither to the Minister nor to the people therefore in pressing the Elect to believe a sufficiency you extenuate the merit of Christs death if they were actually justified as you affirme And there is the same ground of Faith to all the ability of Christ to save and Gods indefinite offer of salvation to whomsoever the Gospel is preached Fourteenthly He affirmeth Faith if it evidences our Justification is a signe is a dark and unsatisfying evidence as other works of Sanctification are 1 John 3.14 where he contradicteth the Apostle who saith By this we know that we are passed from death to life because we love the Brethren not we hope not we conjecture but we know it is a sure and stedfast signe Little children let no man deceive you 1 John 3.7 saith John he that doth righteousnesse is righteous is thereby viz. by his doing righteousnesse declared to be a righteous person Rom. 8.1 and in Rom. 8.1 he saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus and he givesh this as a signe Rom. 8.13 Who are in Christ who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit doth the Holy Ghost by Paul give us a dark unsatisfying evidence of our being in Christ What is more frequent then this he that is in Christ is a new Creature they that mortifie the deeds of the body shall live Gal 5.24 They that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof are all these dark and unsatisfying evidences then the Apostle did not well to propound them as satisfying evidences of the persons that are in Christ and shall be saved but we had rather suspect Mr. Eyre's opinion then question the Apostles judgement or unfaithfulness to propound dark and unsatisfying evidences of Justification 2. He saith that nothing that followes Faith is so apt to evidence or prove Justification as Faith because it is the first of all inherent graces but I take this for an errour and that works are every way as declarative of Justification if not more is an apparent truth For first if we speak of evidencing Justification to others it is more for saith the Apostle Thou hast faith shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works James 2.18 And Abraham was in this sense justified by his works If any man shall say he is a justified person Vers 2â— 1 John 1.6 James 2.20 and yet liveth in the practice of any known sin I shall be bold to tell him he is a liar and the truth is not in him and works of Sanctification are no lesse declarative of Justification in evidencing it to the conscience then Faith For how shall I know my saith is a true faith an unfeigned faith and peculiar to the Elect but by the effect of a true Faith the works of Sanctification therefore if the truth of my faith be evidenced by my works then the truth of my justification is no lesse evidenced to my conscience by works then by faith nor is his reason of any worth because it is the first of all inherent graces this may prove it to have an excellency in that respect above other graces but that it hath for this reason an eminency above other graces in evidencing Justification is a lame consequence of which Master Eyre's Book is too full Fifteenthly He affirmerh that we should not be justified freely by grace if any condition were required of us in order to our Justification I take this also for a manifest errour if it be understood aright of an Evangelical condition ordained and wrought by God for the applying of Christs righteousnesse to Justification Indeed if you take a condition in a strict sense for a condition performed by us without the help of grace meriting and obliging God to give us the righteousnesse of Christ in such a sense it is true it is inconsistent with grace but such an Evangelical condition wrought by the grace of Christ without which we are not justified salvation is no lesse of grace though it be by faith as the Apostle speaketh Ye are saved by grace through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God where the Apostle speaketh of the grace of faith Eph. 2.8 and saith we are saved by it and yet he saith We are saved by grace because it is Gods gift Sixteenthly He saith pag. 99. that all the blessings of the Covenant of Grace are given us freely Pag 99. and not upon conditions performed by us viz. by our own strength yet God hath his order method in the bestowing of them c. If all the blessings of the Covenant be alike absolutely and freely given and alike merited by Christ and yet God may for order and methods sake deferre some blessings of the Covenant without wrong to Christs merits and satisfaction why is it any wrong to Christs death if Justification merited by Christ be suspended untill it be fitly applied by faith that God may not justifie a person under the reigne and power of sinne which is not agreeable to his Holinesse and Justice Seventeenthly In his 103. pag. he is guilty of a double error First â—ag 103. in making God to impute sin to men before there was any Law to offend or any breach of that Law committed by man And secondly in * Sin is apparently the cause onely of condemnation but not of Gods purpose Dr. Twisse Exam. Mr. Cot. p. 54. confounding Gods hatred of Justice with his negative act of non-election or preterition which ought to be distinguished He saith Though men will not impute sin or charge it where there is no Law to convince them of it yet it followes not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged or before the sin was actually committed for what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin or his will to punish him for his sin Now the Lord hated all that perish before the Law was given To which I answer that Gods preterition or non-election though it be justly called a hatred negatively yet this was an act of Sovereignty and not of Justice nor is this hatred an imputing of their sin nor was their sin foreseen the cause *
if one should say All the unregenerate whoremongers in the act of their uncleannesse if they be Elect persons are Saints and to excuse it should say by Saints he meaneth justified persons and to prove the expression legitimate should say the justified persons are often called Saints which is true but very impertinent to prove that unregenerate Elect persons wallowing in uncleannesse are Saints 9. That which maketh an Elect person never to be a sinner not to be borne a sinner under the guilt of sin so as to be a childe of wrath is contrary to the Scriptures But to assert with Mr. Eyre that the Elect are justified from eternity is to make them never to be sinners under the guilt of sin and children of wrath Therefore it is inconsistent with the Scriptures to affirme eternal Justification For the Major it is evident that the Scriptures call even the Elect sinners children of wrath Ephes 2.1 2 3. thus the Apostle putteth himself into the number and saith he And they were children of disobedience under the power of Satan Eph. 2.1 2 3. dead in sins and trespasses workers of iniquity and children of wrath as well as others And they could not be at the same time children of wrath and in the favour of God and so he argueth in his 138. page in his second Argument to prove we are immediately and actually reconciled from the time of Christs death he saith They for whom Christ died could not be the children of Christ at the same time and children of wrath and yet will not acknowledge the truth of it when we urge it against his eternal Justification but let us see what he answereth to it in his 111. pag. in answer to this Scripture he saith it speaks most fully to the cause but he answereth two things First That the Text doth not say God did condemne them or that they were under condemnation before conversion 2dly That the Emphasis of the Text lieth in this clause That they were by nature children of wrath that is in reference to their state in the first Adam but this hinders not but that by grace they might be children of love 1. He saith the Text doth not say that God did condemne them I answer it saith that that is equivalent to it for it saith they were children of wrath by the wrath there all Expositors agree is meant the wrath of God and when they are called children of wrath it is an Hebraisme signifying that they were borne such and surely subject to it and obnoxious to divine wrath and guilty of eternall death and to call a man a childe of wrath is to aggravate the misery as a son of perdition is a hopelesse wretched lost person the son of disobedience a very gracelesse disobedient wretch so a childe of wrath he is one to whom wrath is eminently due as an inheritance is to a child and this is utterly inconsistent with the grace of Justification for no justified person can be truly said after his Justification to be a childe of wrath liable to damnation and guilty of it For the clear understanding of this we must know what is meant by the wrath of God to which the Elect are subject First By the wrath of God we must not understand any immanent affection in God opposite to his eternal love of benevolence or good will that he did beare to his Elect For 1. There is not properly any affection in God that is a passion to which God is not subject 2. God cannot hate or be angry with his Elect so as to cease bearing the same good will towards them that he did from eternity James 1.17 This were no lesse then Vorstian blasphemy for with him there is not the least shadow of turning This wrath then must be something that leaves them liable to the same condemnation with the Reprobates though with this difference that God bearing them this love of good-will will not leave them in it as he will the others for which cause he is said to love the Elect and to hate the Reprobate I answer therefore the wrath of God may be taken for that just and holy immutable will of God to punish and revenge the sinnes committed against him hence the Lord having created man from whom as his creature he might justly expect obedience he therefore gives him a Law and commandeth his obedience threatening his sinne or disobedience with eternall death or damnation this Law is given to all both Elect and Reprobates and all alike are bound to yield obedience and alike threatened in case of disobedience now Adam in whom we all were as in our common Parent being intrusted as a common person with sufficient grace to yield obedience for himself and us God maketh a Covenant with him and in him with us to give us eternall life in case of obedience and to punish him and us with eternal death in case of disobedience he sinned and we all in him and thus become liable to condemnation threatened this is the wrath here meant when we are said to be children of wrath that is liable to condemnation and eternall death Now the Elect are involved in this estate as well as others but now God from all eternity bearing good-will to his Elect and purposing to save them and to leave the others under the condemnation into which they are fallen purposed to give Christ to take the punishment due to their sins and the wrath due to their persons willing that Christ should suffer what was due to them and promising to give them deliverance from this condemnation through Christ upon believing Now Christ being made a second Adam ordained to be head of the Elect the Elect must be in him before they can be partakers of the benefit of his death to give them an actual deliverance from the wrath threatened for we were not sinners in Adam only by imputation as an act of Sovereignty but were in him in a natural way from whom we are descended this natural union being the ground of Gods imputation of Adams sin to his posterity together with Gods ordaining him a publick person now all sinned in him virtually and were virtually guilty of eternal death and actually become subject to it at their birth and hence the Elect being borne of Adam they become as yet members of him and so are subject unto death as well as others and so remain till God cut them off from the first Adam and implant them into the second this is done by faith for faith is not our righteousnesse by and for which we are justified but answereth to that which is the ground of our being partakers with Adams sin for we being one with Adam in respect of original and nature were in him and one with him and were so involved in his guilt even so by faith we are implanted into Christ by a work of the Spirit cutting us off by the Law from the old stock upon which we grew
and by faith which he worketh in the Gospel he implanteth us into Christ hereby we are only united and now being one hence his death and sufferings in the merit of it is imputed to us and hereby are we actually acquitted and justified and delivered from that wrath we were subject to by nature Hence then it is evident that we are children of wrath liable to condemnation at our birth and then were not justified from eternity for if we were justified from eternity then we never were borne sinners under the guilt of sin liable to condemnation for Justification is a removal of this guilt therefore the Scripture saying we are children of wrath by nature denieth this eternall Justification and so the Minor is also made evident 2. I answer therefore to the second part of Mr. Eyre's answer where he saith that the Emphasis of this Scripture lieth in these words by nature where he saith that in reference to their estate in Adam they were children of wrath they could expect nothing but fiery indignation yet this hindereth not but that by grace they might be children of his love c. Where observe That the Apostle doth not speak of their naturall estate what it is as they are descended from Adam but he speaketh of it what it was as that which they were actually delivered from and are now not in the same state they were And that was a state inconsistent with the state of Justification for it implies a contradiction that they should be in both at the same time and that in reference to God 't is true they may be considered joyntly in the minde of a man but no man can actually be in both these estates sure they are two different estates the Apostle is speaking of one in Adam another in Christ by faith and at their birth they were in the first in which they could expect nothing but wrath and God in that estate could not pardon them keeping to his own order of salvation therefore then they were not justified therefore when he saith that this first estate hindered not but that by grace they might be the children of love if he mean only that they might be the object of Gods love of benevolence and as an effect of it be brought out of that estate it is not denied but if he mean that they were not then guilty of and subject to the wrath of God and so were objects of Gods love of complacency and justified and that they had as much freedome and deliverance from hell and actuall right to salvation it is denied and he apparently contradicteth the Holy Ghost who saith they are children of wrath John 3.36 and that while they remain in unbelief the wrath of God abideth on them there it was and will remain till removed by faith and it is not we that suborne the Spirit to serve our turne but he is found to bear false witnesse against the Holy Ghost He addeth that God calleth them his Sons and Children before conversion be it granted yet this is not because they actually are so but certainly shall be made so and to distinguish them for whom Christ died from them that shall perish and to shew that it was not for any thing in them that he first set his love upon them therefore he calleth them so not because they were such antecedently to their conversion but consequently should be made such He addeth likewise that it is not any inherent qualification but the good pleasure of God that makes them his children if he mean it is not any inherent qualification that is the impulsive moving cause inward or outward that moveth God to make and take them for his children it is readily granted but if he deny any inherent qualification to be the means of bringing as into the state of Son-ship that he hath predestinated us unto he contradicteth the Holy Ghost which saith John 1.12 John 1 1â— To as many as received him to them gave he power not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right and authority priviledge to become the Sons of God nor were we Sonnes from eternity but predestinated to the Adoption of Sons Eph. 1.5 And ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus He further answereth pag. 112 by concession Mr. Eyre pag. 112 113. that the Elect in some sense are under wrath because the Law doth terrifie their consciences but surely the Law doth not only terrifie their conscienceâ— but threateneth death and damnation to their persons and God by the Law so long as they remain unregenerate and not only their consciences as he affirmes but their persons are under wrath and the Law sheweth what their estate is towards God and how God doth account of them till they are delivered from that estate by grace and not only what he is by nature For the Law is the Law of God and what power it hath to threaten and condemne it hath it from God and therefore when that condemneth God condemneth if the person be not already delivered from the damning power of it by Christ through believing so that it is not a meer scare-crow or bug-beare to affright the consciences of the Elect when it cannot reach their persons for it holdeth their persons under condemnation till by faith laying hold upon Christ they are delivered from the sentence of the Law for Paul speaketh of himself and the believing Romans Rom. 7.5 that While they were in the flesh that is in their unregenerate estate wherein they could not please God the motions of sins which were by the Law did work in our Members to bring forth fruit unto death the corruptions of nature took occasion by the Law forbidding sin to commit sin more greedily so to bring forth fruit unto death i. e. death eternal which is the wages of all sin and thus they did but heap up and treasure up wrath for themselves in that estate till they were married to Christ and so delivered from this servitude and bondage of the Law and of their corrupt nature The Apostle in that Chapter speaketh not of being under the Law as a rule of life only but he speaketh of being under the reign and dominion of it unto death so as that a man while under it is dead to Christ and that he and the Elect Romans were thus while they were in the flesh I will here adde a word or two about his threefold distinction of the wrath of God First he saith It signifies the most just and immutable will of God to deal with persons according to the tenor of the Law and to inflict upon them the punishment which their sins deserve Secondly It noteth the threateniâ—gs and comminations of the Law Thirdly It notes the executions of those threatenings In the first and third sense the Elect never were nor shall be under wrath but in the second sense they are under the threatening of the Law
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 theiâ— 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 effâ—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
effect of Gods eternal purpose and a fruit of Christs death which shall infallibly in Gods due time be wrought Now all Gods purposes of grace are free Secondly I make not Faith the matter of our righteousnesse for which we are justified but ascribe that to the active and passive obedience of Christ Thirdly Though Faith be our act yet is it Gods gift and therefore salvation is no lesse of grace though by Faith then if it were without it and if it be an instrument helping the principal Agent yet being wholly wrought by God and all the efficacy and activity that Faith hath it hath it not by any thing intrinsecal to it but extrinsecâ—â— and by Gâ—d◠〈…〉 the Covenant of Grace and merciful aâ—ceptance oâ— it this â—o way obscâ—â—eth the grace of God and therefore Paul â—â—â—th â—he inheritance is therefore by faith that it might be of grace and Rom. 4.16 Ephes 2.8 By grace ye are saved through faith it is the gift of God Faith it is an emptying soul-humbling and a Christ-exalting grace it renounceth all its own righteousnesse it goeth out of it self into another relieth wholly upon Christ for righteousnesse and receives heaven as an almes and all from God as a free gift and the more faith there is in any the lesse pride and resting upon any thing in our selves Therefore hereby the grace of God is no way the lesse free though that be the instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse unto Justification Fourthly we do not make Faith an antecedent condition moving and inclining Gods will to receive us into Covenant with himself but we make it antecedent to our being admitted to partake of the benefits of the Covenant CHAP. IX Shewing how weakly he hath defended himselfe against the charge of Antinomianisme and likewise manifesting that the Authors brought by him in defence of his Errour do some in the same place and most of them joyntly bring in evidence against his cause MAster Eyre Page the 19th complaineth that his Doctrine is called an Antinomian Error pag. 19. which is somewhat like the temper of such evil men pag 27. which the world is too full of that are more ashamed to be thought to be evil then to do it And he saith if it be an Error it is an Anti-evangelical Error Is not this a good * Incidit in Scyllam c. choice to choose rather to be accounted a corrupter of the Gospel then an enemy to the Law which is by so much the greater sin as the Gospel excelleth the Law and although I willingly grant and judge his Error to be diametrically opposite to the Gospel yet if the Antinomist be cast into his right tribe he will derive his pedigree from this Anti-evangelical principle and therefore this childe will lie at his door still but he purgeth himself from this crime by saying that it hath been an old designe of Satan to blast the truths of God with odious nick-names This I acknowledge and he verifieth it himself by stiling the Doctrine of Justification by Faith to be a joyning in confederacy with Papists Socinians and Arminians for such he maketh all that distâ—r from him and enemies to the free grace of God yet he will not see this beame in his own eye when he can see a mote in his brothers 2. He saith that by all the Diagnosticks which Divines have given us to discerne between Truth and Error it hath the complexion of a saving Truth by which I am contented to try it and let me bear the blame of it if the beauty of that complexion vanish not at the warme breath of the nexâ— Argument as much as Jezabels painted colour faded when the heat did transforme her again into her first deformity I admit of the rule that he giveth to try it by That Doctrine which gives most glory unto God in Christ is certainly true and the contrary is as certainly false Now let such as he saith that are least in the Church judge which opinion giveth most glory unto God his or ours Either his which asserteth That an Infidel and an ungodly person * Mr. Eyre p. 10. so remaining under the reigning power of sin even while he lieth like a swine wallowing in the mire of sin committing uncleannesse and that with greedinesse yea in the very act of it if an Elect person he was justified from * Page 64. eternity in the decree of God and from the time of * Page 67 68. Christs death being united to him because they were then in him as a * Page 7. common person and so while they are thus in their * Pag 60 61. unregenerate estate being thus considered God beholds them as righteous persons perfectly righteous and accordingly dealeth with them and Divine Justice cannot charge them with the least sin nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve so that while they are thus they have as much * Master Eyre page 122. right to salvation as ever they shall have though they may by faith have more knowledge and comfort of their happinesse yet they have no more right nor is their estate changed before God upon believing as to Justification but only their former blessednesse is made * Page 66 evident to their consciences This is the soile of that brutish opinion and although in so many words together Master Eyre * Page 76. hath not expressed his minde yet it is fairely without any wrong to his opinion without wire-drawing per fidiculas consequentiaruâ— by threeds of consequences which he disclaimes collected as may appear by comparing it with the places quoted in the Margin Now we hold and maintaine God purposed in his eternal decree to justifie his Elect in time to that end he sent Christ in the fulnesse of time to die for their sins that a full satisfaction might be given to his Divine Justice as a foundation of Gods gracious act of Justification which is not immanent but transient and now by Christs death the price is paid and we are meritoriously redeemed but it was the will of the Father and the Son that none should have actual benefit as to a present discharge from the guilt of sin untill faith which faith is not the effect of free-will but a certaine effect of Gods decree and fruit of Christs death which shall be given to all the Elect for application of the righteousnesse of Christ and his satisfaction unto their actual Justification By which faith we are united to Christ and so partake of the saving benefits of his death Now let the Reader judge which giveth most glory to God in Christ his or ours First Doth he ascribe the whole work of salvation to the grace of God and the meritorious purchase of Jesus Christ so do we Nor Secondly Do we as he falsly accuseth us make men moral causes of their salvation let him prove it if he can Thirdly Nor do we
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 justâ—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 sixâ—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
had in Christ but only the way and means by which we obtain the things purposed in Election to wit in Christ or for Christs sake And therefore as it is not said that we were sanctified from eternity though he chose us in Christ that we should be holy so neither are we justified from eternity for there is no difference because a man cannot be the subject of a moral change to passe from a state of death and life till he do exist though he may be predestinated to be the subject of such a change in time any more then he can be the subject of a physical or natural change Nor doth that passage in the 6th Verse confirme it where it is said He hath made us accepted in the Beloved for that is to be understood of the Elect Ephesians as they were now regenerate and not to be referred to Gods eternall purpose And all this is made more manifest in that those that were Elect and chosen in Christ are said to be children of wrath without God without Christ and without hope in the world which as we have shewed is inconsistent with the state of Justification The second place in Timothy where it is said 2 Tim. 1.9 10. That grace was given us in Christ before the world began but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ holds forth no such thing as eternal Justification but grace is said to be given in respect of the firmnesse and immutability of Gods purpose Therefore in this place Gods giving is not an actual collation but an eternal preparation of grace to be given infallibly to the Elect. And thus Augustinus Apostolus datam dixit gratiam August de Doct. Christ l. 3. c. 34. quando nec erant adhuc quibus daretur quoniam in dispositione ac praedestinatione Dei jam sactum erat quod suo tempore futurum erat The Apostle saith Grace was given when they were not as yet to whom it should be given because in the appointment and predestination of God that was done which in its time should be done Vide Junius Calvin and to this Junius and Calvin give in their suffrage with him The other Scriptures alledged by hâ—m are in pag. 128. which relate to the death of Christ from whence he would prove because it is said that we were then reconciled and had redemption in his blood therefore we were justified before faith from the time of Christs death But observe how the places brought for our Justification from Christs death do utterly overthrow the eternity of Justification For if we were then enemies and then reconciled then was he not reconciled from eternity That in Ephes 1.7 In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgivenesse of sins signifieth nothing but that the price of redemption was paid by him and we have forgivenesse of sins because it is purchased for us but it is not actually given For although Christs death be the meritorious cause of Justification yet is it not the only cause and therefore we are not actually justified till all those causes be actually which have an influence into it Col. 1.20 21. and that in Col. 1.20 21. signifies no more but that peace is thus farre made by the blood of his Crosse that now the cause of enmity is removed by a satisfaction made by the death of Christ and God is now willing to forgive such as believe whence he addeth these mercies named shall be enjoyed if they continue in the faith grounded Ver. 23. and setled and be not moved from the hope of the Gospel Eph. 2.13 14. And the like I affirme of that place Ephes 2.13 14. and of that in 2 Cor. 5.19 2 Cor. 5.19 20. we are causally and meritoriously reconciled Thâ—s was Gods designe in Christ in giving him to die but God and they were not actually reconciled that believe not Hence the Apostle exhorteth in the same place the Corinthians to be reconciled to God and when God justifies and is actually reconciled the reconciliation is mutual there is a change in Gods dispâ—nsation though not a change in his affection and when it is saâ—d that we are said to sit with him in heavenly places this is spoken in regard of a right purchased Eph. 2.6 and the certainty of the thing to be obtained though we do not yet personally sit with him and all such places as speak of our being enemies to God and that while we were enemies we were reconciled signifie nothing but this that we were translated out of a state of enmity into a state of actual reconciliation by Christ as soon as we believe Rom. 5.10 as that Rom. 5.10 for in the first verse he speaketh of them that were already justified by faith and in the 11th We have now received the atonement so that there he speaketh of actual believers not that they received this while they remained unbelievers and enemies to God and if you understand it of what was done for us before we had faith and were regenerated it signifieth nothing but the reconciliation meritoriously made by removing the guilt of sin by a sufficient price paid even while we were actually in the state of enmity but the paying of the price is not the whole nor the formalis ratio justificationis For this price paid is part of the matter of our righteousnesse but the formal nature of Justification stands in the imputation of this righteousnesse which is an actual bestowing of it and in our receiving of it by faith then Mr. Eyre pag. 132. and not till then are we formally justified Here Mr. Eyre objecteth two things First That Christ did not only pay the price of our reconciliation Object 1 but that God did so farre accept it for us that upon the payment he did not impute our sins to us for the Apostle define Justification to be a non-imputation of sin 1. This is petitio principii a begging the question to say God did accept it so as he did not impute sin to us that is at the same time when our sins were imputed to Christ 2. I adde that Gods imputing sin to Christ is virtually a non-imputing it to us but not formally and therefore not a formall Justification 3. I adde that the non-imputation of sin containeth not the whole nature of Justification unlesse under it be comprized the imputation of righteousnesse Secondly He objecteth that the paiment of the full price for our Object 2 deliverance from the curse of the Law is a yielding the question that we are actually set free from the obligation of it for when the debt is paid the debtor is free in Law it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid To this objection I have already given sufficient answer but because it is the maine Argument to which he and all of his judgement trust I will here also give a solution to it I