the Apostle were not whether a man be justified simply by faith or works But whether a man were justified by faith by faith or works and the Apostles answer is to this effect That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith we are justified by faith and not by works He that hath nothing else to do may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen if he please If Mr. Eyre mean no more then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe as the latter words of his answer seem to import then is this second answer a meer tautologie as being the very same with the former SECT III. THe next Scripture alleged is Rom. 8. 30. Whâ—m he predestinated §. 7. them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified From whence it is manifest that as glory follows Justification so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the order of words in Scripture doth not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our consciences Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors that ever I met with or heard of ancient or moderne Papist or Protestant Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place to be principally to shew the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us And though I will not build my faith on humane authority yet neither do I account it â—ngenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis without pretending at least some reason for my singularity but to the matter I acknowledge that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact do frequently use a Hysteron prâ—teron reporting those things first which it may be were acted last or è câ—ntra as in 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. Also that in a copulate axiome where many things are attributed to one subject the order many times is not attended but the connexion only as if I should say of God as the Apostle doth of the Law that he is holy and just and good or the latter is exegetical of the former as in that of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath saved us and called us But 2. I do utterly deny that such manner of speech as is here used Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation where several Propositions are linked together the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter is any where else to be found but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare not only the connexion but specially the order of the things themselves h Vid. Vâ—ssâ—um instit orat lib. 5 cap. 8. And. Talâ—um Rhetor â—x P. R. cap. â—1 Examples hereof out of Poets Oratours Greek and Latine and Ecclesiastical Writers the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician Ovid. Mars videt hanc visámque cupit potitúrque cupitâ Cicero In urbe luxuries creatur ex luxuriâ— existat avaritia necesse est ex avaritiâ â—rumpat audscia c. But let the Scriptures determine it Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Affliction worketh patience and patience experience and experience hope and hope maketh not ashamed that is for the words are a Meiosis giveth boldnesse and joy which is the thing the Apostle is proving ver 3. so Rom. 10. 14 15. where the order is retrograde How can they call on him on whom they have not believed how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard how can they heare without a Preacher how can they preach unlesse they be sent The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically to shew the orderly dependance of things one upon another As in the former example of patience on affliction experience on patience hope on experience joy on hope And in the second example of invocation on faith faith on hearing hearing on preaching preach 〈…〉 3. In the present text the matter is yet more clear because Predestination §. 8. Vocation Justification and Glorification are all of them actions of one and the same efficient tending unto one and the same end and every second action cumulative to the former as the partitle also doth evidence Whom he predestinated them he also called whom he called them he also justified whom he justified them he also glorified And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts yet from the termination of each former act upon him he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom Them So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated of Justification a person called of glorification a person justified or else those particles are utterly superfluous and the whole sentence ridiculous 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge that in two of these Propositions not only connexion but order is observed namely in the first whom he predestinated them he called and the last whom he justified them he glorified Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these as the middlemost And if Arminians who acknowledge no absolute election before faith should deny the first and a Sadducee who confesseth no resurrection but what is past already should deny the last he could not vindicate the text against either but by the same Arguments which will convince himself of errour in denying the second 5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve when he §. 9. tells us he can see no inconvenience at all in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared in conscience whereas one would think it had been easie to see that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying the one is of contradicting himself the other of abusing the text 1. The Apostles scope here saith he is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us I wonder in which of them he breaks order In the first and last Proposition as was but now observed it will surely be granted that he keeps order punctually and when he saith in the second Proposition whom he called them he justified I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge that he hath hit the order as right as can be if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience as he speaks And why then doth he deny that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits belike though his scope were not to do it yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it quite besides his purpose and intention 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience for the Justification here spoken of is only and entirely Gods act no lesse then Predestination Vocation
rewarding of the believer with a right to blessednesse I gather from ver 4 5. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse Where the imputing of faith unto righteousnesse is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works Ergo as the imputing works unto righteousnesse were to give a right to blessednesse according to works sub ratione mercedis so on the contrary to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to give the beleever a right and title to blessednesse sub ratione mercedis The difference only is this the former is of debt the latter of grace as we shall further shew anon 2. Thus also we finde the Apostle interpreting the phrase for after he had said that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them also ver 11. he explains himself ver 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law but by the righteousnesse of faith The reason whereof he renders ver 16. That it might be by grace that the Promise might be sure to all the seed So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham and all that walk in the steps of his faith by which a right to life is given both to him and them is the imputation Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exâ—lic in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteousnesse to them 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse unto all generations for evermore The meaning of which words is easie to be learned from the story it self Numb 25. 12 13. Wherefore say Behold I give unto him my Covenant of Peace And he shall have it and his seed after him even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line from one generation to another as the reward of his zeal is that which the Psalmist calls the imputing it to him unto righteousnesse to all generations Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing and so could not constitute him righteous universally but only in part and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to Yet it shews the Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith to shew that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousnesse 4. The imputation of righteousnesse in respect of the terminus à quo is all one with the non-imputation of sin ver 6 8. and what is it to non-impute sin but not to render the wages of sin by destroying the guilt and punishment of it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessednesse though this reward be not of debt but of grace This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter we leave Mr. Eyres glosse to go seek entertainment where it can finde it SECT V. THere remain three texts more which I mentioned in my Sermon §. 13. to prove that Justification follows faith namely Acts 10. 43. Through his Name whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sin And 26. 18. To turne them from darknesse to light and from the Power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith And 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses To the two former Mr. Eyre answers That the giving of remission and receiving it are two things The former is Gods act and the latter is ours A Prince may pardon a Malefactour and he thereby is secured from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively as when we are said to receive God and Christ and his Word Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely by believing Sometimes it is taken passively in which sense giving and receiving are not two acts but one and the same as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold Matth. 19. 29. In all which and the like places our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance eternal life a hundred fold And thus to receive remission of sin is all one with Gods giving remission or to have our sins remitted and pardoned In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith as was before observed out of Contarenus So do the Scriptures also Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin That the Promise to wit of Justification by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve In which place Gods giving righteousnesse by the Promise and our receiving it are one and the same act compare ver 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life c. Whence also it is manifest that Gods giving and our receiving are both one act Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousnesse is called the coming of grace or righteousnesse upon us ver 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense as the receiving of the inheritance for they are joyned both together in the text Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance But for us to receive the inheritance is no more then to be made partakers of the inheritance not by any act of ours but by the free and effectual gift of God 3. To receive remission what act of ours is it Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly but by his answers to former texts and his instance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it I presume he meanes that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do unlesse it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge till after long searchings and experience and it is very improper to say a man receives such an act of his own which himselfe works out with much labour and travel of minde if our knowledge of remission were by immediate
revelation or enthusiastical inspiration the expression were much more tolerable 4. To the instance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned though he do not know it till a great while after I answer in the words of k Christ set forth p. 26 â—7 Reverend Dr. Godwin Gods Promises of forgivenesse are not as the pardons of a Prince which meerly contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitour upon marriage with his childe whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation So as all that would have pardon must first seek out for his childe and thus it is in the matter of believing The Promises hang all upon Christ and without him there is no interest to be had in them He that hath the Sonne hath life 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle shews §. 14. the excellency of the Gospel above the Law in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin 2. And but in an external typical manner 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice c. Rep. All which things I readily grant Yet 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned and then came to the offering of sacrifice or to the Priest So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true High-Priest the Lord Jesus that sinners may partake therein 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification and faith only for proof of which Mr. Eyre confesseth my Concordance would furnish me with many more places then I have taken notice of I will never be brought to beleeve that it is required as a consequent of Justification for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents as well as faith even by Mr. Eyres grant Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance that we are justified because unto that also many other things may be required and not faith only As for example self-examination and proving of our selves 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence in adding one grace to another 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 10. a good conscience towards God and man and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ 1 John 3. 20 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren 1 John 3. 18 19 14. and the like And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts proving Faith's antecedency to Justification By all which the Reader may see that when I said the only answer made to these Texts was That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience this account is true and perfect though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect there being not one of all the places mentioned but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification It was therefore necessary that I should prove that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon the asserting of which against Mr. Eyres exceptions is my next undertaking CHAP. IV. An Answer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter and part of the Ninth His saying and unsaying Many Arguments proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is to be taken proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is be taken properly for the faith in us and not for Christ Faith and works how opposed in the matter of Justification That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification virtually or axiomatically or syllogistically Sinners according to Mr. Eyre the causes of their own Justification Nor is Justification taken properly in all the Scriptures as he expounds it SECT I. THe first Argument proving that when the Apostle §. 1. pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God or in the sight of God and not in the Court of Conscience is this The Question between him and the Jewes was not whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God And he concludes that it is by faith and not by works Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand not the act or habit of faith but the object scil Christs righteousnesse or righteousnesse imputed His reason is because else there were no opposition between faith and works seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no lesse then love Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works and for the imputation of faith unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. still as opposed to works ver 4 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation But now we have another answer which overthrows the former namely that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousnesse What aileth thee O Jordan that thou art turned backward Yea he will not allow that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when or the conâ—tion upon which we are justified Yet I think all men besides himself will grant that his designe is to shew the way and meanes by which a sinner may come to be justified Though I confesse I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this For if the Justification of all that are justified be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ as he supposeth then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner no counsel given him what course to take that he may be justified Only he may be told that if he be justified the way to know it is to beleeve And when the Jewes say We must be justified by works and the Apostle By faith they are both out for we are justified by neither And the Gentiles were in an errour in seeking to be justified by faith as well as the Jewes in seeking it by works if they seek any thing more then to know that they are justified But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion §. 2. that saith is put for its object Christ and his righteousnesse though he give us not one text that may convince us of it we must of necessity examine the truth of it And yet when I consider how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it selfe and how solidly already confuted by Mr. a De reâ— onâ— pâ—c par 2. l 1. c. 15. Wotton who also hath set down the testimonies of no lesse then fourty Authours Fathers and Protestants besides Papists all
coâ—senting with him I confesse I can hardly think it worth my labour yet something must be done this only being premised which hath also been before observed That when our Protestants sometimes say the word faith in this Proposition we are justified by faith is to be taken objectively they intend not to exclude faith it selfe from its concurrence to our Justification as Mr. Eyre doth for we have shewed in the first Chapter their unanimous consent in making faith the instrument or condition of our Justification But only to deny it to be the matter or meritorious cause of our Justification which they truly say is only the righteousnesse of Jesus Christ who is the object of our faith So that we are justified by Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and yet by faith as the instrument or condition upon which the righteousnesse of Christ hath effect upon us to our Justification And so I come to prove that faith is to be taken subjectively for the grace or act of faith not objectively for Christ throughtout the Apostles discourse for Justification by faith SECT II. 1. SUch an Interpretation of the words as makes non-sense of most §. 3. of the Scriptures which speak of Justification by faith is not to be admitted But to put faith for Christ beleeved on makes non-sense of most of those texts which speak of Justification by faith Ergo. For proof of the minor we shall begin where the Apostle begins to dispute for Justification by faith Rom. 3. 21 22. But now the righteousnesse of God without the Law is manifested even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ put faith for Christ believed or and the words run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by Christ of Jesus Christ or put it for the righteousnesse of Christ and they run thus Even the righteousnesse of God which is by righteousnesse of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve Almost the very same words doth this Apostle use Phil. 3. 9. That I may be found in him not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Where in like manner if faith be put for righteousnesse we must reade the words thus Not having my own righteousnesse but that which is through the righteousnesse of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God through righteousnesse I hope the Reader doth not expect that I should spend time in confuting these absurd paraphrases I count that sufficiently done in mentioning them In the same Chapter to the Romanes ver 25. Whom God hâ—â—h set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood According to Mr. Eyre we must reade it Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Christ in his blood or at best through righteousnesse in his blood But his blood being here set forth as the object of the faith mentioned in the text the blood of Christ must be made the object of his righteousnesse if by faith be meant righteousnesse which will resolve the words into a pretty piece of sense Again ver 26. God through the death of Christ is said to be the Justifier of him that beleeveth in Jesus What 's that of him that christeth in Jesus or what is it It is an easie matter to say that faith is put for Christ or his righteousnesse but the mischief is the substantive cannot be varied into a verbe or participle to make an intelligible Proposition for example We are justified by faith that is will Mr. Eyre say by Christ or his righteousnesse But then change the substantive into a verbe or participle and give me the sense of it As He that beleeveth in Christ is justified If faith be put for Christ what is it to beleeve in Christ or what do we mean when we say We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ We are justified by Christ in Jesus Christ or by righteousnesse in Jesus Christ This latter I confesse hath a more tolerable sound but not a grain more of sense For when we say We are justified by faith in Christ Christ in that Proposition is the object of faith and we the subject But if faith signifie righteousnesse then Christ is the object of his own righteousnesse Of the non-sense of this Interpretation the Reader shal see more in that which follows 2. Justification by Christ or his righteousnesse was finished in his death according to Mr. Eyre Ergo if faith signifie Christ or his righteousnesse we were justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead But many yeares after Christs death there were many who were to be justified by faith Rom. 3. 30. It is one God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the future tense which shall justifie the circumcision and uncircumcision that is Jewes and Gentiles by faith which is the application of the general Conclusion ver 28. We conclude That a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law Ergo they were not justified by faith as soon as Christ was dead 3. But because Mr. Eyre by his marginal Annotation referres us §. 4. to Rom. 4. let us make some enquiry into that Chapter And if we prove that faith in that Chapter is meant of the act not of the object this controversie is ended We begin with the third verse Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse What can be more plain then that it was Abrahams believing which was imputed to him of the sense of that phrase we have spoke already even as when it is said of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse I appeal to common sense whether his executing of judgement were not the thing that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse or if something be to be understood which is not expressed let every mans fancie be left to its liberty to supply what he sees sit and we shall be much the better for the Scriptures 2. The same is also delivered more generally of all believers ver 5. To him that worketh not but beleeveth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse If there had been no more spoken in all the chapter this had been enough to prove that by faith here is meant the act not the object For 1. It is the expresse letter of the text To him that worketh not but believeth 2. That faith is here meant which is a mans own before it be imputed His faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse But the righteousnesse of Christ is no mans before it be imputed If it be let us know what act that is distinct from imputation and antecedent to it by which Christs righteousnesse is made ours 3. That faith is here meant which is so a mans owne as that in individuo it is no bodies else But Christs righteousnesse is not so any one mans as to be no bodies
4 5. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth c. Not working is opposed to works Beleeving is not working with the Apostle Ergo believing is opposed to works Judge then who will for I am indifferent in so just a cause whether the Apostle contradict himselfe or Mr. Eyre him 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification stands thus according to Scripture That he that worketh doth himself effect that righteousnesse for which he is justified personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man to make him just before God And hence righteousnesse by works or by the Law is called our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousnesse of another even of the Lord Jesus Christ for which only he is justified And hence righteousnesse by faith is opposed to our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith So that he that is justified by works is justified for his own sake but he that is justified by faith is justified for anothers sake §. 9. But because this is the total summe of all Mr. Eyre hath to say for the abuse of the word Faith from its own native sense to a tropical I shall set down my answer more fully I distinguish therefore 1. Of works 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action and so no doubt but faith is a work so is laughing crying speaking reasoning and the like 2. Strictly for that obedience by which the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled really or in conceit and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to or of being made the conditions of our Justification by the righteousnesse of another In this sense doth the Apostle take works when he opposeth them to faith b Vid Conraâ— Vorst Schol. in loc Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt and ver 2. If Abraham were jâ—stified by works he hath whereof to glory Both which Propositions were false if works were any thing lesse then perfect legal righteousnesse for he had said before that there is no glorying for a sinner before God * Vid. Joh. Piscat Schol. in loc ex Olev Calvin Rom. 3. 23. Not that I think the Jewes themselves who sought righteousnesse by works did conceive they were able so to keep the Law as not at all to sin but rather thought such was their blindnesse that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification if they forbore the outward acts of sin and performed the outward act of duty c Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. Joh. Reynol Coâ—f with Hart. ch 7. D. 4. p. 264. neglecting the inward purity of heart d Sic Mâ—rmon in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉 or if their good works were more then their evil works or finally if they did perform those ceremonial observances which were required in the Law for the expiation of sinne Matâ—h 19. 18 19. and 23. 25 26 27 28. Luke 18. 11 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this That all had sinned against the Law Rom. 3. 19 20 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law for it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10 11. Now works being taken in this strict sense it is manifest that faith is not works no e Fidem non esâ—e opus Viâ— Câ—mâ—ron prâ—lect in Mâ—â— 16. â—7 opâ—r p. 47 48. nor a work as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous as the Apostle expressely witnesseth Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith that is requires not faith in order to Justification but the man that doth them shall live in them 2. When we speak of Justification by works and of Justification §. 10. by faith the particle By hath not the same sense in both Propositions But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousnesse for which a person is justified in the latter it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition upon which we receive the gift of Christs righteousness Of the use of that particle in such a sense the Reader shall finde many instances in answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter When then he disputes that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense we are justified by works because faith is a work I deny the consequence with the proof of it The former because to be justified by faith is to be justified by the righteousnesse of another through faith as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us but to be justified by works is to be justified by and for a righteousnesse wrought by our selves The latter because faith is not a work as the Apostle useth works that is no part of that righteousnesse for which we are justified What can be objected against this the Reader will meet with in the following discourse In the mean time I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument in all the following places which are very many wherein it is objected against me that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies even unto nauseousnesse SECT IV. THe second general Argument proving that Justification by §. 11. faith is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification is this It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three wayes Either as an Argument affected to prove it or axiomatically or syllogistically which termes because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three wayes Ergo we cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification This Reader is the summe and scope of my second Argument which I have here set down distinctly that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake common to Mr. Eyre with some of my own friends as themselves have told me as if I had denied all use of faith in evidencing Justification which is as farre from my judgement as the East is from the West I confesse I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken because there is an ellipfis in my words which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension for whereas it is said in my Sermon page 3. It is a most unsound Assertion that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The full sentence should have been
Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
judgement If a man shall come to him and say Sir I am assured by the Spirit of God that I am justified and that all my sins are pardoned but whether I beleeve or no or ever did that I cannot tell Would he allow this perswasion to be of God If not then doth not the Spirit testifie to any man immediately that he is justified but the evidence of the Spirit as I said before is if not expressely yet implicitly syllogistical If so I would thus convince the Pretender from Mr. Eyres principles He that doth not believe cannot be assured that he is justified But thou dost not believe Ergo thou canst not have assurance from the Spirit that thou art justified What will be here denied Not the major for that 's an undoubted truth grounded in Mr. Eyres interpretation Not the minor for the man whom we are now convincing of his errour in pretending to assurance by the Spirit is supposed not to know whether he have faith or no. Ergo he cannot truly say he hath faith though he have it because to affirme that for truth which we do not know to be true is a lie though the thing should be so as we say Ergo he must yield to the Conclusion that his assurance is not from the Spirit else the testimony of the Spirit is contradictory to that of Scripture Secondly Mr. Eyres words do also contradict themselves notoriously §. 23. First he tells us that faith evidenceth our Justification by assenting to and tasting the general Propositions of the Gospel then he tells us that those general Propositions are made particular by the Spirit to a beleever otherwise he could taste no sweetnesse in them To tell us that faith evidenceth by tasting general Propositions and then to say in the same breath that it can taste no sweetnesse in general Propositions but they must be first made particular by the Spirit is to say and unsay 3. Accordingly the general Propositions in the Gospel must first be made particular by the Spirit before the soul can taste any sweetnesse in them for which I confesse there is all the reason in the world for the object apprehended must be before the act apprehending the Proposition assented to and tasted must be before the act assenting and tasting But then hence it will follow that a man before he believes hath a particular testimony from the Spirit that he is justified For this Proposition thus made particular by the Spirit is the object of his assent and taste that is of his faith Ergo it exists before his faith even as the general Promises in the Word exist before we can believe them But to say it is evidenced to any man before he believes that he is justified is that which Mr. Eyre hitherto disowned as well he may A mans faith suppose Peters can evidence no more to him subjectively §. 21. then the Word doth evidence to him objectively even as the eye can see no other thing then what the light makes manifest But this Proposition He that believes is justified doth not evidence objectively immediately that Peter is justified for the former is general and the latter is proper And otherwise every one in the world that believes that Proposition might thereby have the evidence of Peters Justification as well as of his own Even as we know by faith that they to whom the Lord said Your sins are forgiven you were justified as well as themselves And all believers one as well as another know by faith that the world was made by the Word of God Heb. 11. 3. because the Scriptures say so Object But the Spirit makes this general Proposition to be particular unto Peter Answ I ask whether the Scriptures be not equally the rule of all mens faith If not then neither of their obedience which will introduce Antinomianisme with a vengeance If so as most undoubtedly so then this particular testimony of the Spirit is no object of Peters faith which I farther argue thus It is no object of Pauls faith that Peter is justified Ergo it is no object of Peters faith The reason is because the rule of all mens faith is one and the same equally Therefore the faith of Christians is called a common faith Tit. 1. 4. the faith of Gods elect ibid. ver 1. which is but one Eph. 4. 5. But if Peter beleeve upon the testimony of the Spirit that which Paul cannot or hath no ground to beleeve upon the testimony of Scripture then Peters faith doth not act by the same rule that Pauls doth but there will be as many rules of faith as there be persons in the world that pretend to this particular testimony of the Spirit 5. To conclude to make a general Proposition particular is to §. 25. change the substance and nature of it for it cannot be general and particular too though I readily grant as before that a truth proposed in common may be made particular in respect of its effectual operation upon one and not upon another but the Proposition it self remaines general still Ergo this particular testimony of the Spirit must be some other then that of Scripture unlesse by being made particular be meant no more then that a particular is inferred out of a general which is a syllogistical evidence not axiomatical which Mr. Eyre now disputes for But I do wholly deny any such particular testimony of the Spirit for which there is not so muth as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Scripture and Mr. Eyre I think is of the same mind for he produceth not one text for it That which seemes most to favour it is Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the children of God which text Mr. Eyre doth not mention and therefore I answer it for the sake of some others Compare this verse with the foregoing and with a parallel place to the Galatians and it will not be difficult to give the right sense of it Gal. 4. 6. Because you are sonnes God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Sonne into our hearts crying Abba Father So Rom. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of Adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Then it followes ver 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That very same Spirit so I render the words beareth witnesse c. Hence I gather that this witnesse of the Spirit is not any secret revelation of a Proposition as this Thou Peter or Paul art justified made by the Spirit to the soul But the Spirits working in us liberty in our accesses unto God to call him Father is the thing that evidenceth to us as an infallible Argument that we are the children of God And because Arguments by themselves do not m Argument◠non arguunt extra dispositionem evidence actually but virtually therefore the Spirit by this work helping us to conclude our selves the children of God doth thereby witnesse that we are Gods children SECT VI. MY second
Argument to prove that faith doth not evidence Justification §. 26. axiomatically was this The faith which justifies is that which is to be preached and pressed upon the whole world But we cannot presse it upon every man in the world to believe that he is justified and that if he doth not beleeve this he shall be damned Understand Reader that the direct tendency of this Argument is to prove that justifying faith is not a mans assurance that he is justified which I presumed was Mr. Eyres judgement because that Justification which is in Scripture made an immediate consequent of believing is with him a knowledge that we are justified I thought therefore that he had held faith to be an assurance because otherwise a man might beleeve and yet not be justified by faith And so the proving that faith was not an assurance would withal have proved that it doth not evidence Justification axiomatically or immediately But now I perceive that he doth not place the formality of faith in an assurance but rather makes this an essential property and effect of that if I understand him And so I confesse this Argument is not directly against him Neverthelesse it will not be amisse to examine his answer for if I mistake not either he must make faith to be an assurance tantamount or else he contradicts himself His answer therefore is this We do not presse every man to believe that he is justified but to beleeve 1. Assensu intellectus to acknowledge that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners 2. Amplexu voluntatis to accept embrace and cleave unto Jesus Christ Rep. I acknowledge this to be the very truth but Mr. Eyre cannot §. 2◠own it if he will be true to his own principles 1. He hath told us before that faith is essentially assensus cum gustu an assent with a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise assented to But this circumstance must concurre to make the Promise an object of my faith namely that I have right and interest therein otherwise I can taste no sweetnesse in it that is otherwise I could not truly beleeve it for to taste sweetnesse is essential to faith Wherefore when we presse all men to believe and all men equally and that with a true faith it is supposed that all men have equally a right in the Promise or else they are commanded to beleeve without an object to be believed for the object of faith is the Promise in which I have right and interest according to Mr. Eyre And this is that which I say is tantamount to a perswading of all men to beleeve that they are justified To argue it a little farther The right which I have in the Promise is either antecedent to my faith or consequent to it If antecedent I have what I would for then when in the preaching of the Gospel the Promise is proposed as an object of that faith which we perswade all men to the right of all men equally in that Promise must be presupposed it being not the Promise simply but the Promise in which men have right that is the object of faith If consequent then the first act of faith cannot be a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise because till I beleeve I have no right in the Promise and therefore can taste no sweetnesse in it according to Mr. Eyre To what he here sayes that we presse all men to believe there is §. 28. a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners because it is the summe of that which the soul assenteth to and tasteth sweetnesse in and thereby immediately comes to know its own Justification we must endeavour to understand more particularly 1. By sinners he meanes all or some only 2. The sufficiency of the merits of Christ must be understood either as distinguished from their efficiency and then the meaning is That Christ merited Justification for men sufficiently yet they are not thereby actually justified or as including their efficiency and then the meaning is that men were actually and most sufficiently justified in the meritorious death of Christ 3. The same sufficiency of Christs merits may be considered either absolutely and in themselves in respect of their own intrinsecal worth and value or relatively and ordinatively in reference to the ordination and intention of God in giving up his Son to death and of Christ in giving up himself which distinctions being premised it were an easie matter to ring the changes upon the foresaid Proposition and vary it into innumerable formes but I shall mention no more then I must needs When then it is said that every man is to beleeve that there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ for the Justification of sinners the meaning must be either 1. That the merits of Christ were of themselves sufficient to have purchased Justification for all sinners though they did not purchase it de facto for any This is false Or 2. That Christs merits are indeed sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but the effect which is the actual Justification of sinners is suspended till we beleeve Nor can this be proposed to be believed by all men equally for it is false in respect of the Elect who according to Mr. Eyre were justified actually sixteen hundred yeares ago in the death of Christ Or 3. That the merits of Christ were sufficient for the Justification of all sinners but were never ordained to be effectual to the Justification of all upon any termes or conditions whatsoever Nor can this be the Promise or Proposition which is the object of our justifying faith according to Mr. Eyre The reason is because supposing that every man in the world should beleeve this which is no contradiction and therefore may be supposed as possible yet they should not be justified notwithstanding seeing Christ never intended that every man should be justified by his blood upon any termes Or 4. That the merits of Christ were ordained of God and Christ to the obtaining of Justification for every sinner most sufficiently if they should or would believe This is most true but Mr. Eyre rejects it as too much gratifying those that are for Universal Redemption in the grossest sense which is a needlesse feare and the two Arguments which he here proposeth against it he might have seen long since answered by Reverend and Learned Bishop Davenant of famous memory in his Dissertation De Morte Christi cap. 3. page 22 23 30 31. In short let Mr. Eyre state his Proposition how he will To say the merits of Christ are sufficient and but sufficient before faith to Justification is that which the Elect cannot believe without errour To say they are sufficient in reference to their own value and intrinseca◠greatnesse n Vid. Job Raynoll Apolog. thes parag 14. can neither be a motive to an unbeliever to come to Christ for righteousnesse nor can the believing it ever evidence
article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
believe c. Answ I am sure he knows that many famous Protestants assert this as well as I and we shall see proof sufficient of it in due place and of the last also that none were to have any benefit by the death of Christ till they beleeve But Mr. Eyre takes special notice of one passage in this Argument §. 38. wherein I say that neither Justification in conscience nor before men are of much worth in the Apostles judgement 1 Cor. 4. 3. To this he gives a large answer § 11. which I am apt to think he would have taken no notice of but to acquaint the world with his good wishes concerning me He refers me to some texts of Scripture to learn what account the Apostle had of Justification before men and in conscience though I cannot learn what account he had of the former from any of the texts mentioned But be it what it will be I give him this brief reply That in comparison of Justification before God neither the one nor the other are much worth though they may be of some worth in these inferiour Judicatories Not only children but grown persons for ought I know may be saved without being justified of men or of their own consciences And I will never beleeve that that Justification is worthy of those many glorious commendations which are every where in Scripture given to Justification by faith which one may live and die without and yet be saved Who will prove to me convincingly that a Christian may not live many years and die at last in melancholy or madnesse under which distempers the judgement of men or of conscience is not much valued and yet be saved or that a soul may not for some grievous sin go with sorrow and darknesse to the grave and never see light till it be carried up to him that dwelleth in light CHAP. V. An Answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter whether faith be the condition of Justification The Affirmative proved from Scripture Mr. Eyres Arguments to the contrary all invalid SECT I. TO Mr. Eyres Argument That if we were justified by §. 1. faith we were not purely passive in our Justification I gave this answer That to beleeve is a formal vital act of thesoul in genere physico but the use of it in Justification is to qualifie us passively that we may be morally orderly capable of being justified by God or though physically it be an act yet morally it is but a passive condition by which we are made capable of being justified according to the order and constitution of God As the reading of the book or acceptance of a pardon amongst men is a condition without which an offendor is not pardoned Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is not the condition of Justification wherein I do the more gladly joyne issue with him because upon this assertion of ours doth he take occasion to asperse the received doctrine of Protestants with the reproachful names of Popery and Arminianisme Here therefore I shall shew three things 1. What a condition is 2. That faith according to Scripture is the condition of Justification 3. That all Mr. Eyres Arguments §. 2. to the contrary are most miserably inconclusive A condition then is diversly described by divers Authours Some describe it thus a Navar. Enâ—hâ—r page â—8 Conditiâ— est suspensio ali cujus dispositioniâ— tantisper dum aliquid futurum fiat Others thus b Baldus apud Joh. Baptist in verb Conditio est adjectio quaedam per quam dispâ—situm habet in sui esse pendentium existentiam vel defectum Others thus c Pet. de Perus ibid. Est verbâ—rum adjectio in futurum suspendentium secundum quam dâ—â—ponens vult dispositum regulari d In L. 1. F. de â—oud demonstr Bartolus thus Conditio est quidam futurus eventus in quem dispositio suspenditur Any of these will serve my turn these things being agreed 1. That it pertaines to him that disposeth of any thing to propound upon what condition his will is that it be disposed of or not disposed of 2. That the nature of a condition consists mainly in suspending the actual obligation of the disposer until the condition be performed 3. That it is the will of him that makes the condition which is the cause of the obligation that comes upon him when the condition is performed of which we shall see more anon Now that faith is the condition upon which God hath suspended §. 3. his actual donation of righteousnesse to a sinner is so plain and evident to me that I confesse I cannot but wonder that men acquainted with the Scriptures should so much as question it Several expressions there are taken notice of by e Vide Bartelum late in L. 1. F. de cond Demonstr Azor. Inst Moral par 3. l. 4. c. 24. Civilians and Moralists as signes or notes of a condition and scarcely one can I finde which the Scripture doth not use somewhere or other in describing the order and habitude of faith to our Justification But I shall instance but in one or two I begin with that Rom. 10. 6 9. The righteousnesse which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved That salvation here includes Justification appears from the very next words ver 10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousnesse And I appeal to common sense whether the particle If in this place be not a manifest signe of a condition upon which Justification is suspended or whether it be possible for mortal men to invent any words that can more plainly expresse the matter of a condition Try it by comparison with other Scriptures Gen. 43. 4 5. If thou wilt send our brother with us we will go down but if thou wilt not send him we will not go down and Gen. 34. 22. Only herein will the men consent to us If every male amongst us be circumcised Herein will they consent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is upon this condition will they consent as we render that word 1 Sam 11. 2. on this condition will I make a Covenant with you See Gen. 18. 26. 28 30. Exod. 4. 23. Prov. 2. 1 4. Jor. 18. 8 10. and hundreds of other places In all which the particle If is manifestly conditional nor upon the strictest observation which I have made in reading the Scriptures am I able to espy so much as one place wherein the said particle hath any other use when it supposeth to any thing that is future by vertue of a Promise Indeed Mr. Eyre did f Chap. 5. §. 6. before mention two places wherein he will have the particle If not to propound the condition by which a benefit is obtained but only to describe the person to whom it belongs viz. 2
cannot indeed be denied but that the same words which propose the condition upon which a benefit is obtained may also consequentèr declare the persons to whom the said benefit doth belong but that such manner of speech as is used in these texts doth only shew the persons who and not the condition or meanes by which a benefit is obtained is contrary to the perpetual sense of Scripture Let us transcribe a few texts of many Numb 21. 8. And it shall come to passe that overy one or whosoever is bitten when he looketh upon it namely upon the brazen Serpent shall live I do the rather instance in these words because the Lord illustrateth the method of Redemption by them John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish c. If the protasis had been full it had run thus As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed even so c. And do those words that whosoever looked on him only describe the person that was healed but not propound the condition or meanes of healing common sense cannot endure it Their looking up to the brazen Serpent was antecedent to their healing and a meanes ordained for them to use that they might be healed and their healing followed by vertue of Gods power and faithfulnesse Ergo it was a condition of their healing And the distributive particle whosoever doth sufficiently shew that it was every one promiscuously one as well as another for whose healing the Serpent was lifted up through their looking on it and not a note of distinction to difference one from another So Mark 11. 23. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain believingly Be thou removed he shall have whatsoever he saith Is this also a description of the person but not a propounding of the meanes by which those works may be obtained to be wrought see the like expressions Matth. 13. 12. and 16. 25. and 18. 4. Mark 9. 41. Rev. 22. 17. and other places without number To all which if Mr. Eyre can oppose but one that will admit such a sense as here he puts upon the texts under debate he shall do more then any Authour else that I can yet meet with 2. If these and the like places do only describe the persons that shall be saved then do they ascribe no more to faith in reference to salvation then unto works Works of righteousnesse being as proper and peculiar to them that shall be saved as faith it selfe and therefore the description of the person might as well be taken from them as from faith 3. That which serves only to describe a person in specie cannot be proposed to another person as a meanes by which he may enjoy a like benefit no more then if the said person had been described in individuo for example suppose the Lord had described them that shall be saved not from faith their specifick quality but by their proper names and had said God gave his Son to death that Peter and Paul and James and John c. might be saved were it not against all sense and sobriety to go to Geofry Roger and Anthony and tell them if they will be Peter and Paul they shall be saved or suppose the description had been from the species and the words had run thus God gave his Son that whosoever is borne of Jewish Parents should be saved were it not ridiculous with all seriousnesse earnestnesse and tendernesse of compassion to exhort and beseech and charge the Gentiles to be borne of Jewish Parents that they might be saved yea suppose they had been described from their Election as they might have been more properly then from their faith had it not been absurd to exhort men that they would be elected that so they might be saved I conclude therefore that the texts before us are not a description of the person but a proposing of a condition upon which only salvation is attainable words that are meerly descriptory can never be resolved into a command or exhortation SECT II. LEt us now see whether Mr. Eyre hath done any thing towards §. 8. a proofe that faith is not the condition of Justification His first Reason is this That interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true But to interpret Justification by faith meerly thus that faith is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification as to repentance charity new obedience c. Answ 1. If the Proposition be true as I believe it to be most true Mr. Eyre hath hitherto deluded us grossely in interpreting Justification by faith for a knowledge or evidence that we are justified seeing works concur to such an evidence and that by his own concession as was above demonstrated 2. The Assumption also I presume proceeds upon the supposed principles of those whom he opposeth and not according to his own sense for I think he will not say that any works of Sanctification do qualifie us for Justification 3. I deny the Assumption And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it Why Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond say so Yet are neither of these Authours of such authority with Mr. Eyre in other cases as that their word should passe for a proof And yet hath he not fairly represented them neither Dr. Hammond I confesse is to me lesse plain and intelligible but if Mr. Eyre will undertake that his notion is the same with Mr. Baxters he might have seen in very many places of Mr. Baxters writings that he makes works but the secondary lesse principal conditions at most and denies them to be any conditions at all in reference to our first entrance into a state of Justification And must we yet believe against an Authours owne words that he ascribes no more to faith then unto other works of sanctification in the matter of Justification 4. I also do make repentance a necessary condition of remission of sins because the Scripture doth so Luke 24. 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and 3. 19. Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. But I conceive withal that the one is included in the other and that their difference is rather respective then real if we speak of faith as it is in the will partly as to the object faith respecting Christ immediately and repentance God Acts 20. 21. partly as to the termes the same motion of the soule in respect of the terminus à quo namely dead works being called repentance and in respect of the terminus ad quem namely God in Christ more peculiarly faith Heb. 6. 1. Repentance also in its formal
righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Hence it is manifest that faith and faith only is requisite to justification but confession also is required of them that are justified unto salvation according to what our Lord himself speaks whosoever shall confesse me before men him will I also confesse before my Father but whosoever shall deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father Matth. 10. 32 33. Luk. 12. 8. Indeed our compleat and final justification at the day of judgement is no small part of our salvation but the Apostle here distinguishing justification as a thing going before from salvation as a thing following after teacheth us to understand him of our initial justification or of the first right to the inheritance of life which by the promise is given a man as soone as he believes which yet is to be understood not as if confession were of as universal and absolute necessity to salvation as faith it self for if a man believe in the very last moment of his life when he hath neither opportunity nor ability of body to make confession he shall be saved notwithstanding but that it is k Vid. Amâ—s Cas Con. l. 4 c. 3. q. 2. necessary in its time and place but faith only absolutely universally and indispensably necessary as the Apostle also intimates in his proofe subjoyned v. 11. mentioning faith without confession whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed Even as our l Chaâ— pâ—nstrat de Baptis l. 5. c 9 §. 3. Spanhâ—â— dub evang part 3. dub 96. pag. 493 494. Protestants argue against the Papists that though it be said Mark 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet is not Baptisme hereby made as necessary to salvation as faith it self because it is not mentioned in the negative proposition presently added He that beleeveth not shall be damned Not he that is not baptized shall be damned Nor finally is confession required as by it self and in coordination with faith but as in subordination thereunto being indeed the natural effect thereof and that wherein the truth and life of faith doth exert it self To what is added that the Apostles scope is to answer that question §. 13. how a man may know that he shall be saved and that he doth describe the persons that shall be saved by two markes or characters faith and confession I reply we have been too often imposed upon by pretended scopes and Mr. Shepheard is falsly alledged as a witnesse that the Apostles scope is to answer the foresaid question for he saith it not but is purposely arguing in that very place which m Sound beleev p. 230. Mr. Eyre referres to out of this very Text that we are not justified before we beleeve Yet is it most true that a man may come by faith to know that he shall be saved and the ground of it is because faith is appointed of God to be medium fruitionis a means of obtaining salvation and therefore cannot be denied to be medium cognitionis a means by which a man may know that he shall be saved Even as the same Law which made workes the means of life do this and live if a man had kept it would have also bred the assurance and knowledge that he should have lived But 1. As it is not the knowledge of life simply but life it self which is promised in those words for it were too grosse to paraphrase them thus do this and thou shalt thereby know that thou shalt live so it is not simply the knowledge of justification and salvation but salvation it self which is promised in these beleeve and thou shalt be saved The righteousnesse which is of the Law sayes thus do this and live v. 5. But the righteousnesse which is of faith sayes this if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved v. 6 8 9. What can be more plaine 2. When it is said v. 10. with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the moutâ— confâ—ssion is made unto salvation must we read it thus with the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto the knowledge of salvation What will become of the Scriptures if men may interpret them after this rate 3. And here to see how it falls out Mr. Eyre is forced to contend that the Apostle mentioneth faith as that which evidenceth justification as a mark or character which way of evidencing he could by no means approve of when I urged it p. 77. § 3. and 4. of his book 4. If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved That these words propound §. 14. the condition or means of salvation and not only describe the persons that shall be saved we have proved n chap. â— sect 1. before by several Arguments And according to my promise there I shall adde something here that if it be possible Mr. Eyre may suspect the truth of that notion which he cannot defend but by turning the Scriptures into a nose of wax And 1. I say that if the foresaid words do only describe the persons that shall be saved then are they here used otherwise then the like words or manner of speech is used any where else in Scripture Mr. Eyre hath not yet produced us one place where such phrase of speech is a bare description of a person at least unlesse we will take his bare word that so it is meant And though it be hard to be peremptory in such a nicety and deny universally that there is any example in Scripture of such phrase of speech used in such a sense yet upon the most diligent and critical observation which I have made on purpose to discover it I can find none neither in the Old nor New-Testament and therefore shall deny it till Mr. Eyre not only say it but prove it For if the foresaid words If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved do only describe what manner of persons they are that shall be saved then do they not suspend salvation upon the act of beleeving but their meaning is this If thou be one of those who be or shall be believers thou shalt be saved Shew us the like in all the Scriptures And hence 2. It follows that these words do not present believers as such reduplicativè as the objects of salvation but only Specificativè the men that are believers but under some other respect and notion For example Peter gives a legacy to Simon the Tanner that lives in Joppa by the sea side The messenger that carries the legacy knows not the man but tells him if he be the Tanner of Joppa this legacy is his Which words do not indeed propound the condition but the description of the Legatee from his place and profession and the legacy is not given him in respect of either of these circumstances but immediately as the person whom these circumstances describe or it is not given the man Quatenus he
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
I thus proposed If we are justified in Christ then we are justified before we beleeve But we are justified in Christ Ergo. This Argument Mr. Eyre proposeth more at large in his answer to my Sermon shewing withal how each part was proved in his conference with me concerning which I am able to give the Reader no account having so perfectly forgotten the method he used in proposing and prosecuting his Argument the summe is Christ was justified in his resurrection as a common person Ergo the elect were then justified in him My answer to this in my Sermon is large and distinct The summe is if justification be taken properly I deny that we were justified in Christ if improperly I deny that it will follow that we were justified before faith because we were justified in Christs resurrection no more then it will follow that because we are said to be risen with Christ Ergo men are risen from the dead before they are borne or dead or while they are lying in their graves But because M. Eyre hath taken my answer in pieces let us see what he doth animadvert upon each part of it First then I say we may conceive of a threefold justification 1. A justification purposed in the decree of God Gal. 3. 8. 2. A justification purchased and impetrated in the death of Christ Heb. 9. 12. 3. A justification exemplified in the resurrection of Christ who himself was justified in his own resurrection and thereby became the exemplary cause of justification to beleevers by virtue whereof themselves shall also be justified in due time c. What says Mr. Eyre to this 1. He infers in general that then by my own confession justification in a Scripture sense goes before faith The vanity of which triumph we have already discovered chapt 1. § 2. should I say that our glorification may be conceived as purposed of God as purchased by Christ as exemplified in his glorification I should not count him worthy of a reply that should inferre that I had therefore yeelded glorification to be before believing Mr. Eyre therefore foreseeing that I would deny either of these to be actual justification tells his Reader before hand that That were a poore put off because omnis justificatio simpliciter dicta congruenter exponenda est de justificatione actuali Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato When we speak of justification simply there is no man but understands it of actual justification Which makes me beleeve his report concerning his book at least some parts of it that it had cost him but little paines for I cannot see how such observations could cost him much I mention justification cum adjecto with a limitation and in the close of my answer oppose each branch of my distinction to justification simply so called and this I may not be allowed to do because of Analogum per se positum c. Nextly He speaks something on each member of the distinction §. 2. and says 1. That which I called justification purposed in the decree of God is real and actual justification Ans Thou hast then thy choise Reader whether thou wilt beleeve the Apostle or M. Eyre The Text quoted Gal. 3. 8. says thus The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham The justification here spoken of is surely justification simply so called because it is put by it self without any Term of restraint or diminution and M. Eyres rule is Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato And this justification according to the Apostle was a thing foreseen a thing that God would do a thing before the existence of which the Gospel was preached to Abraham all which notwithstanding M. Eyre will have the eternal decree of God to be our justification But of this we have spoken already as also of what he notes upon the second branch of the distinction The great exception is against the third branch wherein I say that §. 3. Christ in his resurrection being himself justified became thereby an exemplary cause of a justification future to them that should beleeve I did little expect so much vehemency and acrimony in opposing this as I meet with in M. Eyres answer to it 1. Saith M. Eyre there is not the least hint thereof in holy writ the Scripture no where calls our Saviour the example or patern of our justiâ—â—cation Rep. If the Question be concerning a name or term where doth M. Eyre find in Scripture the Term of a common person in which he so much delights attributed to Christ 2. If concerning that which is equivalent surely the Term of an exemplary cause is every whit as agreeable to Scripture as the other for in all spiritual and eternal blessing we beare the image of the heavenly Adam 1 Cor. 15. 49. and we are predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ from the beginning to the end of our faith Rom. 8. 29 17. Now wherin we bear Christs image therein was he an exemplary cause for to an exemplary cause no more is required then that another thing be conformed to it as its image and exist by virtue of it which I desire the Reader to observe because M. Eyre doth often confound an example with an exemplary cause as if there were no difference between them If then we in our resurrection and justification bear the image of Christ then he in his resurrection and justification was the exemplary cause of ours And whereas M. Eyre says that Christ in his works of mediation was not an exemplary but a meritorious cause it is not universally true For the resurrection and ascension of Christ were acts of Christs as Mediatour and yet in them he was not the meritorious cause of any thing He proceeds thus It was needlesse Christ should be a patern §. 4. of our justification for this patern must be of use either unto us or unto God Not to us because we do not justifie our selves not to God because he needs no patern to direct him Rep. The disjunction is imperfect for it was needful for the glory of Christ as the Apostle expresly witnesseth Rom. 8. 29. Them he also did prâ—dâ—stinate to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the first born among many brethren It is no small part of Christs glory to be the first begotten from the dead and a person so farre advanced above all others that their highest glory shall consist in a conformity to him and in being fashioned according to his image 2. It is also of as much use to us in all respects as if we are said to be justified in Christs resurrection as a common person whether we respect the evidence which his resurrection gives or the influence which it hath upon our justification And whereas Mr. Eyre saies it can be of no use to us because we do not justifie our selves
since that o De traduct peccat ad vitam thes 5. 6. Conditio reconciliationis a parte nostra est Christi receptio the condition of reconciliation on our part is our receiving of Christ which must first be done Cum ex ea tanquam medio praerequisito reconciliatio ineatur because it is a means praerequisite to our reconciliation As for Dr. Twisse if he were capable of receiving any addition of honour by my testimony I should be more ambitious to perform it then Mr. Eyre could be desirous of the favour of his p Ep. dedic most noble Senatours I may not deny that I had bestowed some paines in comparing the Doctours expressions in several places but it pleased God to stir up a far better hand q In his Preface to Mr. Gâ—ayles book Mr. Constant Jessop a learned faithful suffering servant and Minister of Jesus Christ to do the Doctour the honour of vindicating his judgement and doctrine from those general misreports and misapprehensions that went abroad of him Something I should alsospeak concerning Mr. Eyres marginal quotations which are many of them false as I was once intended to have shewed the Reader in a List But considering that the difference of Volumes or Editions in which his Authors are extant may breed a mistake of some and that the Printer tells us Mr. Eyre was not able to overlook the Presse and so through the errour of that others might be mistaken I have thought fit to forbear 3. As for this my Reply though the Authors above mentioned and Mr. Eedes besides who yet hath misrepresented me in reporting that I deny faith to be an evidence of our Justification coming all out so long before me may seem to make my undertaking needlesse yet I was loth to deceive the expectations of so many as had so long waited for my Reply The truth is I had soon drawn up the summe of my answer so far as I was sure that I understood Mr. Eyre aright That I made no more haste to the Presse the Reasons were 1. The incessant emploiments I have had both at home and abroad which have made me uncapable of following works of this nature so close as they should be 2. The frequent and long-continuing bodily infirmities which have kept me from writing many weeks together 3. While the controversie was hot I was willing to see whether any thing would come out pro or con that might occasion any new enquiries I hear of none but Mr. Robertson who threateneth us with a few pedantick Scoticismes and Mr. Crandon against Mr. Baxter whom for the report I had heard of the man I greedily desired to reade But lighting by accident upon his discourse about the afflictions which befal the godly in this life I found him vox praeterea nihil and so leave him to those Readers who can be edified by his melody Mr. Eyres Comment upon the title page of my Sermon I passe over His digression in chap. 2. about publick disputes with the Ministers will have some more cautions before it passe for canonical if ever it be his lot to be exercised in that way as much as some worthy Ministers have been in some Churches which I have known In my Reply to his Arguments I have faithfully set down the strength of his argument though not every word in every place And so Reader I commend thee and this my writing unto the blessing of him who will one day owne it for his truth and thee for a childe of truth if thou walk in it BENJAMIN WOODBRIDGE THE METHOD OF GRACE IN THE JVSTIFICATION OF SINNERS CHAP. I. An Answer to M. Eyres 6. chap. The Question stated Justification what Justification by Faith what The consent of Protestants in making Faith the condition of Justification Or an instrumental cause thereof Proved also by the confessions of several Churches SECT I. IN our entrance upon the discussion of the present Question namely whether a sinner be justified in §. 1. the sight of God before he beleeve or not till he beleeve I must crave leave to digresse a little from Master Eyres method who first gives his answer to those Texts produced in my Sermon for proof of our Justification by Faith in his fifth Chapter and then states the Question in his sixth and seventh I shall therefore first examine those two Chapters beginning here with the former and so proceed to the entire Vindication of my Sermon by it selfe In the stating of the Question these three things are to be dispatched 1. What Justification is 2. What it is to be justified by Faith or what is the office of Faith in Justification 3. What is meant by the phrase In the sight of God or before God when we enquire concerning the Justification of a sinner before God or in Gods sight For the first when we enquire what Justification is it is supposed §. 2. that the word Justification is taken properly in sensu formali not in a diminutive comparative or tropical sense Analogum per se positum stat pro famosiori significato The Reason why I observe this is because Master Eyre pretends to his Reader that I have no lesse then yielded the cause when I grant a Justification purposed of God and merited by Christ before Faith So then saith he pag. 147. by his own confession Justification in a Scripture sense goes before Faith which is that horrid opinion he hath all this while so eagerly opposed pag. 101. challengeth some one text of Scripture to prove that Justification doth in no sense precede the act of Faith Whereas I doubt not but the world may be said to be from eternity in some sense namely in reference to the counsel and purpose of God And he that is never justified at all simply may yet notwithstanding be said to be justified in some sense that is comparatively as being lesse unjust then another Jer. 3. 11. And many of those who are now alive and never yet tasted of death may neverthelesse be said to be already risen from the dead in some sense to wit in Christ the first fruits of them that slept And Justification it self may be called condemnation in some sense for the Scots say a man is justified when he is hanged and the word seemes to be used in a sense not much unlike Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified from sinne If Master Eyre do indeed think which I am perswaded he doth not that the Question between him and me is whether the wit of man cannot invent some sense wherein Justification may be said to go before Faith he should have acquainted his Reader with it here in the â—stating of the Question and not have kept him ignorant of any such controversie between us till he is come towards the later end of his book Wherein the particular nature and formality of this glorious blessing §. 3. of Justification doth consist is more particularly debated in
farther disputing that this place is insufficient to prove that Gods eternal purpose of not punishing is our Justification 3. But I am out of doubt that the Elect here are not so called in reference to Election from eternity but rather in reference to election temporal as our l Dr Twisse in â—orv defens Arm. Cont. Til. pag. 202. Divines distinguish namely in respect of their effectual separation unto God and forsaking the conversation of the world and their admittance through faith into a state of favour and precious esteem with God as election doth sometimes signifie in Scripture See 1 Cor. 1. 26 27 28. James 2. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 4 6. The reason is plain because such Elect are here meant who were the present objects of the worlds reproaches injurious sentences false accusations and slanders c. for whose comfort in this their suffering condition the Apostle speaks these words to assure them that all the malice and abuses of the world should do them no harme so long as God justified them and approved of them Compare ver 21 35 37. And this also is the intent of the words in the Prophet who speaks them as in the Person of Christ when he was delivered up into the hands of wicked men Isa 50. 8 9. Now the Elect themselves before Conversion have their conversation according to the course of the world and are not the objects of persecution from the world Eph. 2. 23. SECT IV. WE have heard what Mr. Eyre can say for himself Before I §. 11. go any farther I shall set down a few Arguments to prove that the essence of Justification doth not consist in Gods eternal Will or Purpose of not punishing And first from the efficient cause Justification is such an act whereof Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King is the efficient cause with God the Father He is also the meriting cause as Priest by the offering or sacrifice of himself But of this we speak not now Acts 5. 31. John 5. 19 22 26 27. Luke 24. 47. and other places before quoted But Jesus Christ our Mediatour as Lord and King doth not will or purpose with God from eternity not to punish sinners The reason is plain because himself from all eternity was purposed of God to be Lord and King Ergo Justification doth not consist essentially in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish 2. Justification is an act of God purposed Ergo it cannot consist in his purpose The reason is because else God must purpose to purpose which is inconvenient The Antecedent is almost the words of the Apostle Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles through faith preached before the Gospel to Abraham We have scarce more evidence of any truth upon which we lay the weight of our salvation then this text affords us of the point in hand saying that God would justifie in the future tense making Justification the object of divine foresight affirming the Gospel to have been preached to Abraham many yeares before it 3. If there be no such act in God at least that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely and formally then our Justification cannot consist in that act the reason is plaine because then our Justification were precisely nothing But there is no such act in God that we may conceive of as velle non punire precisely Ergo. For proof of the Assumption Reader thou must remember that the foregoing Argument proves that there was in God from eternity a will to justifie believers in time that is 1. To discharge them from the obligation of the Law by which that punishment becomes legally undue which before was legally due and hence it follows 2. That they are not punished de facto so that impunity simply is no part nor effect of Justification but as following upon a legal disobligation otherwise every sinner in the world that were not presently punished were justified The impunity of a sinner therfore that it may be an effect or part of Justification must be considered with its modus as the impunity of a person discharged from the obligation of the Law for God doth so free us from punishment as may be without the least prejudice to the truth or justice or authority of his Law Accordingly I affirme that God never purposed not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo as impunity is severed from the manner in which it is given but he purposed not to punish modo congruo in a congruous way by disobliging first from the threatning of the Law and thereby giving them a legal right not to be punished and not to let them go unpunished while the Law stands in full force against them 1. That which was never executed was never purposed But never sinner went unpunished while the Law stood in full force against him Ergo. The Proposition is unquestionable In the Assumption Mr. Eyre will agree with me for he contends that all the Elect were discharged from the Law and had a right given them to impunity in the death of Christ and no elect person ever had or shall have impunity in any other way Ergo it was never purposed that they should have it in any other way that is that it was never purposed precisely that they should not be punished 2. Gods Purpose and his Laws will else be at enmity one with another for if he purpose not to punish precisely praescindendo à modo and yet do punish then he crosseth his purpose and if he do not punish the Law being supposed to remain in full force he is unfaithful if not also unjust as some k Dr. Oâ—en â—â—atr de Just vind learned men think 3. If non-punition l Vid. Tâ—oiss â—ind dâ— prâ—dest lib. 1. par 1. digr 9. c. 1 2 3. 4. precisely tend not to the glory of Gods grace then did he not will precisely not to punish for such a will were neither of the end nor of the meanes but non-punition precisely is no congruous meanes to glorifie Gods grace Ergo. For if a man had continued obedient and had never broken Gods Laws in the least tittle his impunity had not been of grace but of debt Rom. 4. 4. as it is with the holy Angels at this day Therefore we cannot conceive of any act in God purposing precisely not to punish in which yet Mr. Eyre placeth the very formality of our Justification 4. If Justification be velle nâ—n punire then condemnatiâ—n is vâ—ll◠§. â—â— punire for oppositorum eadem â—st ratio But condemnation is not velle punire Shall I need to prove this who ever said that Gods eeternal purpose of punishing men for sin was condemnation 'T is an expression that neither God nor man will owne so farre as I can finde Dr. Twisse is known to reject it often not without some passion and detestation Condemnation is every where in Scripture made an act of justice Rom.
and not acquitted discharged and not discharged what can be more contradictorious or who can conceive what is that security discharge and acquittance from all sin wrath punishment condemnation which yet leaves a man under the power of a condemning Law and without freedome from punishment till Christ buy it with the price of his blood 3. Our discharge from the Law and freedome from punishment may be understood either de jure in taking off our obligation unto punishment and this cannot be the effect of the death of Christ for Mr. Eyre doth over and over deny that the Elect did ever stand obliged by the judgement of God to the suffering of punishment as the Reader shall largely see below in the debate of John 3. 18. and Eph. 2. 3. or it may be understood de facto in the real and actual removal of all kindes and degrees of punishment but neither can this be the effect of the death of Christ by it self or with the former The Purpose of Gods Will saith Mr. Eyre chap. 10. § 10. pag. 108. secures the person sufficiently and makes the Law of condemnation to be of no force in regard of the real execution of it So that what is left for the death of Christ to do I must professe I cannot imagine seeing the act of our Justification and our disobligation from wrath and our real impunity do all exist by vertue of another cause But for further confirmation of this Proposition Mr. Eyre refers us to chap. 14. where we shall wait upon him and say no more to it till we come thither His third Proposition is this Justification is taken for the declared sentence of absolution and §. 27. forgivenesse and thus God is said to justifie men when he reveales and makes known to them his grace and kindnesse within himselfe Answ Understand Reader that when we say Justification is a declared sentence of absolution it is not meant of a private manifestation made to a particular person that himself is justified or pardoned but of that publike declared Law of faith namely the Gospel it self which is to be preached to every creature under heaven He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life By which Promise whosoever believeth shall receive remission of sin 2. I wonder Mr. Eyre will not give us throughout his whole book so much as one text wherein Justification must signifie a manifestation or declaration made to a person that he is justified and yet tell us here that Justification is so taken If he mean it is so taken in Gods language let him shew where if in mans I will not dispute with him how men take it And as to that text Gen. 41. 13. me he restored but him he hanged which Mr. Eyre doth here instance in to prove that things in Scripture are said to be when they are only manifested if he had consulted Junius he would have told him that the word He relates not to Joseph but to Pharaoh Me Pharaoh restored but him that is the Baker he hanged The following part of this Chapter is spent in a discourse concerning §. 28. the several times and wayes in which God hath manifested his Will of non-imputing sin to his people In which there is nothing of distinct controversie but what hath its proper place in the following debate some where or other And most of what he sayes may be granted without any advantage to his cause or prejudice to thâ— truth there being no act of grace which God puts forth in time but declares something of his gracious purpose as every effect declares and argues its cause And so our Justiâ—â—cation it selfe declareth that there was a purpose in God to justifie because he acteth nothing but according to his purpose I shall not therefore make any particular examination of this remnant of the chapter though there be many things therein which I can by no meanes consent to but set down in the following Propositions how far I consent to each of his 1. I consent that God hath declared his immutable Will not to impute sin to believers in his Word and particularly in the Promise given to our first Parents The seed of the woman shall break the Sâ—rpents head 2. That Gods giving of Christ to the death for our sins and his raising of him up for our Justification doth manifest yet more of the same purpose 3. That baptisme sealing to a believer in act or habit the remission of sins past and entring him into a state of remission for the future doth also further declare something of the same purpose 4. That the same purpose of God is sometime or other in some measure manifested to most true Christians by the work of the Spirit But whether every true Christian hath a full assurance of this purpose of God towards himselfe or any immediately upon their first believing at least in these dayes I am in doubt 5. And that our Justification in the great day of judgement doth most fully perfectly and finally declare the same purpose as being the most perfect compleat and formal justification of all And so much for a discovery of the genius and issues of Mr. Eyres doctrine I come next to a vindicaiton of my own CHAP. III. My Reply to Mr. Eyres fifth Chapter His exceptions against the beginning and ending of my Sermon answered Rom. 5. 1. vindicated And the Antecedency of faith to Justification proved from Gal. 2. 16. and Rom. 8. 30. and Rom. 4. 24. and other places of Scripture SECT I. FOr proof of our Justification by faith the doctrine §. 1. insisted on in my Sermon I advanced several places of Scripture to which Mr. Eyre shapes some answer in his fifth Chapter which we shall here take a view of that the Reader may yet better understand how unlike scripture-Scripture-Justification is to that eternal Justification which Mr. Eyre pleads for But before he gives his answer to particular places he thinks fit to informe the Reader that I began my Sermon and concluded it with a great mistake The mistake in the beginning is that I said the Apostles scope in the Epistle to the Romanes was to prove That we are justified by faith i. e. that we are not justified in the sight of God before we beleeve and that faith is the condition on our part to qualifie us for Justification which is a mistake I intend to live and die in by the grace of God The Apostle tells us himself that his scope is to prove that both Jewes and Gentiles are all under sin Rom. 3. 9. and that by the deeds of the Law neither Jew nor Gentile shall be justified in Gods sight ver 20. that so he may conclude Justification by faith ver 28. and if this be not to prove that men are unjustified but by faith I know not what is And that faith here is to be taken properly we prove at large below If this be not the Apostles scope
else for then should be but one man in the world to whom the righteousnesse of Christ were imputed The Proposition is manifest because the faith here spoken of is determined to the person of the beleever To him that beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision ver 11. And the truth is that otherwise I mean if His faith be His Christ Abrahams faith or Davids faith or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us with the very same propriety of speech as it is said to be imputed to him or them 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness the words are non-sense Put faith for righteousness and the words run thus But unto him that believeth his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness What sense is that or put it for Christ and they run thus But unto him that believeth his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousnesse I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctiâ—ication that is the Authour of both but to impute him unto righteousnesse is a barbarisme To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase His Christ in Scripture and of making Christ as distinct from his righteousnesse the object of justifying faith 3. We have already proved that to impute faith unto righteousnesse §. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life If then faith be put for Christ to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward Christ with righteousnesse And if for righteousnesse it is to reward righteousnesse with righteousnesse both which are absurd 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousnesse was the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised ver 10 11. If faith do here signifie Christs righteousnesse the words sound thus The righteousnesse of Christ which he had in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse And because he could not have it but by imputation therefore the full sense will be this The righteousnesse of Christ which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Spectatum admissi c. 5. Consider we also what is said ver 9 10 11 12. from whence §. 6. we advance three Arguments more 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful was the habit or grace of faith not the object A conjugatis Even as it is the habit of wisdom goodness temperance c. from whence a man is denominated wise good temperate c. but the faith which was imputed to him was that from whence he was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful for faith was imputed to him unto righteousnesse saith the Apostle ver 9. and that in his uncircumcision ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might become the father of all the faithful that are in uncircumcision that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ver 11. for so stands the connexion of the sentences and the beginning of this ver 11. And he received Circumcision c. is answered immediately by ver 12. And the father of circumcision c. The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith be blessed with faithful Abraham 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing then Abrahams faith signifies his believing and not Christs righteousnesse The reason is because to be a childe of Abrahams faith is to follow or imitate him in that which is called his faith as when Mr. Eyre calls me a sonne of Mr. Baxters faith And if we are like him by believing then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists between him the Father and us the children But we become the children of Abrahams faith even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse by believing ver 10. The father of all them that beleeve ver 11. That walk in the steps of father Abrahams faith Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham ver 16. 3. And I would that Mr. Eyre or some body else would make sense of the Apostles words if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse ver 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision to them that walk in the steps of his faith What is that Why to them that walk in his Christs righteousnesse I am even sick of this non-sense let me adde one word more that I may rid my self of this nausâ—ous work 6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter is that which is §. 7. described at large from ver 18. to the end where it is said that Abraham against hope believed in hope And being not weak in faith he considered not his own nor Sarahs age ver 19. That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith ver 20. And was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform ver 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse is manifest from the very next verse ver 22. And therefore it â—as imputed to him unto righteousnesse To make this the description of Christs righteousnesse would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous that I professe Reader I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase lest some prophane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt I might adde that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousnesse of Christ another may make as bold to interpret it of the Wisdome Power Goodness Faithfulness or any other Attribute of God for these also are the objects of faith and so to be justified by faith is to be justified by the Wisdome of God or by his Goodness c. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith will be as good sense thus expounded as if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse unless it be in those places where faith is particularly and expressely determined to Christ as its object and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act not for the object SECT III. NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth to §. 8. prove that faith must be put for its obiect the righteousnesse of Christ Else saith he the Apostle contradicts himself in opposing Justification by faith to Justification by works because faith it selfe is a work of ours Answ But by his favour I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apostle and that as perfectly as if he had studied to do it on purpose then that the Apostle contradicts himself For it is as manifest as light can make it that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works Rom. 4.
Word which saith that God made the Heavens and the earth Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us unlesse we beleeve that Word And so in the present case if any person suppose Peter have by faith the evidence of his Justification immediately or axiomatically it must be by assenting to some Axiome or Proposition of divine revelation Thou Peter art justified These things being premised we come now to prove that we §. 19. cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification axiomatically Two reasons I gave of it 1. Because such an immediate evidence of a particular mans Justification cannot be had without a particular testimony from God Thou Paul or Peter or Thomas art justified But there is no such thing written in Scripture Ergo no such evidence can be had Mr. Eyre saith I mistake the nature of justifying faith conceiving it to be a bare intellectual assent to a Proposition which yet is quite against my judgement and that which I do purposely oppose in my next argument I consent to Mr. Eyre in placing faith partly in the understanding and partly in the will But our question is now concerning that faith which is in the understanding how Peter for example comes to know or to be assured by faith immediately that he is justified And this say I must be by the assent of faith to some such Axiome Proposition or Word of God as was but now mentioned Thou Peter art justified Even as Paul was assured that neither himself nor any that were in the ship with him should perish by beleeving the testimony of God sent him by an Angel Acts 27 25. And because there is now a dayes no such testimony of a particular mans Justification therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way at least ordinarily and if there were yet I would not call that faith justifying faith but rather evidencing faith His Answer to the Argument is large and to me very confused He excepts against my terme of an axiomatical evidence I would change it if I could devise any terme more significant but at last yields it me yet thinks it fitter to say faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or instrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Christ But we shall shew fully that this organical evidence must be reduced to one of those three by me mentioned and cannot make a fourth way of evidence distinct from them The summe of his answer is That faith is such an assent to the truth of the Gospel as that withal the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and he that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-Promises and grace knows his interest and propriety therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing which causeth it And so faith doth evidence our Justification axiomatically by assenting to and withal tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospel which by a secret and unscrutable work of the Spirit are applied and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them Rep. How truly did I say that Mr. Eyres doctrine would at last § 20. leave the poor doubting Christian without all evidence of his Justification I need no other confirmation of it then these words wherein are many things delivered not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyres bare word but directly against experience reason and Scripture 1. I deny that faith is alwayes accompanied with such a taste of sweetnesse in the Promises of the Gospel as will give an evidence to the soule of his Justification The reasons are set down already in this chapter § 12. I remember what holy i Neither the letters nor pages are numbred and therefoâ—e I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place Bayne sayes of himself in one of his letters I thank God in Christ sustentation I have and some little strength suavities spiritual I taste not any But indeed I often tell my selfe Physick purgative and restorative are not to be taken at the same time c. Neither do I dare to deny but that it may be the case of one that is saved to die in as much darknesse as Spira himself if any man can prove the contrary let him Yea so separable is sweetnesse from faith that sometimes on the contrary excesse of sweetnesse hath hindred and overcome faith as it was in the disciples who for very joy beleeved not Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like case Gen. 45. 26. 2. I also deny that there can be no manner of sweetnesse tasted in the Gospel but by such as have interest and propriety in the grace thereof A propriety in conceit though not in truth or an interest possible and attainable though not actually obtained may make the Gospel taste not a little sweet The Scriptures tell us that some may be enlightened and taste of the heavenly gift and of the good Word of God Heb. 6. 4 5. and receive the Word with joy Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not justified nor pardoned 3. A taste of sweetnesse in the Gospel doth evidence to the soule sensibly and experimentally that God and his Word are good which may be an Argument to prove that he is justified But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him unlesse there intervene another act of the minde concluding himself to be justified according to the Promise made to such a faith Sugar will evidence its sweetnesse to my taste but my tasting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature unlesse I conclude it by the discourse of my minde because according to the rules of Philosophy None can taste but a living creature Beasts can taste as well as men yet-they do not know that they are living creatures because they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act which ability in the reasonable soule is usually called a power of reflecting upon its own act The case is much the same in Infants Therefore Mr. Eyres organical evidence is the very same with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument or if he understand it of that which is not only affected to prove but doth actually prove then it is the same with that which I below call syllogistical as being an act of the soule concluding its own Justification from the sweetnesse it tasteth in the Promises 4. But the truth is it is a most preposterous course to send the soul for its evidence of right and interest in the Promises to a taste of sweetnesse in them which will quickly appear if Mr. Eyres metaphorical expressions be made more grammatical Wherefore to taste sweetnesse in the Promises is either an act of the understanding judging of the Promise sub ratione bâ—ni
the words of Mark arguing manifestly from the right and authority which he had received to the lawful exercise of it in making and ordering to be published that Law or Act of Pardon whereof he doth then and there appoint his disciples to be Ambassadours I confesse I cannot imagine what can here be said unlesse it be one of these two things Either 1. That remission of sin is not contained in that salvation which is here promised to them that believe But this me thinks should be too harsh for any Christians eares to endure seeing it must contain all that good which is opposed to condemnation and therefore primarily remission of sins which is also expresly mentioned by the other Evangelists Luke 24. 47. John 20. 23. and by the Apostles in the execution of this their commission as a prime part of that salvation which they preached in the Name of Christ Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19 c. Or 2. That those words He that believes shall be saved are a meer description of the persons that shall be saved which I think is the sense that Mr. Eyre somewhere doth put upon them but this to me is more intolerable then the former partly for the reasons mentioned before chap. 5. and to be mentioned hereafter partly because according to such an interpretation the words will be no more then a simple affirmation or relation of what shall come to passe whereas by their dependance upon the foregoing All power is given to me in heaven and in earth it is manifest that they are an authoritative Sanction of the Lord Christ's an act of that jurisdiction and legislative power which he hath received from the Father and so the standing rule of remission of sins 2. If it be by the Promise of the Gospel He that believes shall not perish §. 19. but shall have everlasting life If I say it be by this Promise that God gives sinners a right to impunity and eternal life then by this Promise he justifies them But by the foresaid promise doth God give sinners a right to impunity and eternal life Ergo. The Proposition I passe as manifest by its own light The Assumption is delivered in several Scriptures Thus Paul Gal. 3. 18. God gave the inheritance to Abraham by Promise Ergo it is by Promise also that a right to life is given to all that have it This Promise is either particular or general The former it is not for God doth not now make any particular Promises to particular men such as was his Promise to believing Abraham Ergo it must be the general Promise wherein the same blessings as were given to Abraham are proposed to all men to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and by the same Promise given them when they believe which Promise is that before mentioned of life and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ the Apostle himself being Interpreter ver 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe The same doth he assert at large Rom. 4. 13 14 16 23 24. 3. The Lord Jesus sayes expressely John 12. 48. That the §. 20. Word which he spake shall judge unbelievers at the last day If a judgment of condemnation be ascribed to the Word in reference to unbelievers how can it be denied a judgement of Justification in reference to believers Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quà m dum illi judiciâ— potestas defertur Conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit saith Calvin upon the place Yea the Lord ascribes to the same Word a judgement of Justification ver 50. And I know that his Commandment is life everlasting that is the cause of it as Moses also speaks Deut. 32. 47. i See also Deuâ— â—â— v 15 â—â— It is your life though God be the principal cause and the Word but the k Vid. Synops pâ—r theol disp â—3 §. 10 Down of Jâ—stif c. â— â— 5. â—libi passim instrumental and therefore the power which it hath of judgement it hath from hence that it is the Word of God ver 49. For I have not spoken of my selfe but the Father which sent me he gave me a Commandment what I should say as the instrumental cause works not but in the vertue of the principal To this plain testimony let me adde an Argument as plainly deduced from it If judgement shall passe at the last day according to the Word then the Word is that Law which is the rule of judgement and by consequence to one is given by the Word a right to life and another is obliged to condemnation by the same Word But the antecedent is most true Ergo so is the consequent It is the work of judgement to give unto eâ—ery one according to what is due to him by Law if then a judgement of Justification passe upon any some Law of grace must be supposed according to which it becomes due for such a gracious sentence to passe upon him 4. And this is that which the Apostle James saith chap. 4. 12. §. 21. There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy Beza observes that in foure ancient Greek Copies l As also in the Kings MS. See Dâ— Hammond Annot. in loc as also in the Syriack and the Latine Interpreter the word Judge is extant There is one Lawgiver and Judge who is able to save and destroy that is to whom pertaines the soveraign right and power of saving and destroying But whether the word be expressed or no it is surely implied for the Apostles scope is to disswade us from judging one another ver 11. because there is one Lawgiver to whom the power of judgment and so of absolving and condemning of saving and destroying doth appertain Now he that saves as a Lawgiver saves by absolution and he that absolves as a Lawgiver absolves by Law Ergo God absolves men that is pardons and justifies them by Law And when he shall judge all men at the last day his judgement whether of salvation or destruction shall proceed according to Law 5. Adde to this that the Apostle commends the excellency and glory §. 22. of the Gospel that God doth thereby justifie 2 Cor 3. 9. For if the ministration of condemnation he glory much more doth the ministration of righteousnesse exceed in glory The ministration of condemnation is that which ver 7. he calls the ministration of death written and engraven in stones His scope is to shew the excellency of that Gospel which himself and other Apostles did preach and publish to the world above the ministration of the Law committed to Moses As then the ministration of death and condemnation was the ministration of that Law which did condemn unto death the effect being put for the cause so the
is a Tanner but it is given the Tanner Quatenus he is the man whom Peter meant in his will In like manner when it is said if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved if the meaning be this if thou be one of them that do or shall believe thou shalt be saved then salvation pertaines not to men as believers but to believers as men under some other notion and capacity And that must be either 1. As they are men simply or 2. As they are sinful men or finally which I suppose Mr. Eyre will say for to affirme either of the former were intolerably absurd as they are elect And so the issue will be this believers Quatenus they are elect Specificativè are the objects of salvation Now see Reader what this will come to at the long runne 1. Hereby is faith devested of all necessity and usefulnesse in order to salvation farther then it is a mark or sâ—gne as all other saving graces are of a man that shall be saved Even as the profession and place of the Tanner forementioned contributed nothing to his obtaining of Peters legacy it served only to describe the person to whom it was given And is this that precious faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. more precious then gold 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Christians riches Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtaines and inherits promises Heb. 11. 33. 6. 12. righteousnesse Heb. 11. 7. salvation Eph. 2. 8. and all good things whatsoever 2 Pet. 1. 3. so highly every where commended in Scripture and urged upon such tearms of necessity How can we be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse and salvation by faith if faith serve only to describe the person It may be this new divinity will shortly produce a new Rhetorick and that is no more then needs 2. If the elect had been described by their names parents time and place of their birth and habitation they might be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse salvation by these as well as by saith if there be no other necessity of faith to righteousnesse and salvation then as it is a description of the persons that shall be saved 3. And according to this glosse there can be no ground of exhorting beseeching and commanding sinners to believe on and accept of a Saviour no more then of exhorting or commanding them to be elected as we have demonstrated in the place before mentioned 4. Nor have the words according to the same glosse the forme and nature of a promise but of a meer conneâ—e Axi me affirming the consequent upon supposition of the Antecedent For if thou beleeve that is if thou be such a one as art or shalt be a believer is but a periphrasis of election unto faith for the down right meaning without circumlocutions is this If thou be one of those whom God from eternity purposed to make a believer thou shalt be saved And why not because of the Promise by which God hath obliged himself to give salvation upon their believing who before had no right to it that will infer a conditional Promise which Mr. Eyre abhors but because he that purposed the one purposed the other also and this he commanded to be declared and published to the world And I say in like manner If the Sun rise we shall have light upon the earth and if God make stones the children of Abraham they shall be able to speak But we know from the Scriptures that the inheritance of life and salvation is given by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 13 16 20. Heb. 6. 13 15. 5. And we know from the same Scriptures that righteousnesse and salvation is not given to believers quatenus they are elect but rather to the elect quatenus they are believers that is they are not only given to the men that are believers but given to them as they are believers It was Abrahams faith that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. and the Promise was to him and to his seed through faith ver 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve where we have distinctly set down the righteousnesse which justifies us The persons justified They that believe The means or condition of their Justification By faith of Jesus Christ The same distinction is accurately observed Gal. 3. 22. That the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve The Promise is that of salvation and blessednesse Compare ver 6. 9 18. Here then we have again the persons to whom the Promise is given namely believers the condition or meanes by faith To teach us that the Promise of life and salvation is not only given to men that are believers but given to them as believers Righteousnesse not only upon them that are faithful but righteousnesse by faith a Promise not only to them that do beleeve but a Promise by believing 6. If thou beleeve thâ—â— shâ—lt be saved or Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Life and salvation is here promised as the reward of faith a reward I mean not properly but metaphorically as the word is used in Scripture often not for a reward of debt but for a reward of grace Now I would ask why it is called a reward Mr. Eyre will tell me because it follows faith Be it so though I think there is much more in it But faith may be conâ—dered either as an act required of us or as the work of God in â—s Now I would know whether life and salvation be the reward of faith as it is our act or as it is Gods work If the former as most certain then Mr. Eyre must quit his beloved glosse for if salvation by the Promise be made consequent to faith as an act required of us and performed by us then faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to salvation by the same Promise and so salvation pertaines to us as believers formaliter and not only as to the men whose property and priviledge it is to be believers sooner or later If the second be said namely that salvation follows faith and so is the reward thereof as it is the work of God in us then God rewards himself he doth not reward us Even as if I should call Gods preserving the world the reward of his creating it or the destruction of the world the reward of his preserving it or his glorisying our bodies the reward of his raising them out of their graves or his calling us unto faith the reward of his predestinating us for each of these actions is consequent to the foregoing And yet I doubt not but if a man should talk after this rate he would be accounted to utter strange kinde of tropes 7. Mr. Eyre may do well to remember that he hath yet given me no similitude of Answer to the main Argument When the Law sayes Do this and live or If thou do this thou shalt live or He that doth these
ruv. var. Resol l. 1. c. 14. in continenti presently If he say this right is given them sub termino or in diem as if I give Titius ten pounds when he comes to the age of twenty one so God gives ungodly men a right to heaven but they cannot enjoy it till they beleeve yet even thus it must be acknowledged that they have more right when they beleeve then they had before as Titius hath more right to what I gave him at the age of twenty one then he had before for he had before but a remote right jus ad rem and at that age he hath an immediate right But neither will this which Mr. Eyre must stick to or to nothing salve the sore partly because the day when a wicked man shall repent and beleeve is in it self contingent and uncertain in its self I say because it is known to God but Gods knowledge alters not the nature of things he knows what events shall come to passe contingently and what necessarily Now dies incerta aequiparatur conditioni what is given upon an uncertain day is all one as if it were given upon condition according to the determination of the z I. Stipulatio ista §. inter certam ff de verb. oblig Civil Law as if I promise ten pounds to Titius upon the day of his marriage it is all one as if I promised it upon condition he marry and if God promise ungodly men to give them heaven when they beleeve it is all one as if he promise it on condition they beleeve which Mr. Eyre cannot away with Partly and principally which also is my second Argument for proof of the consequence because the right which is given a man to the Kingdome by Justification according to Scriptures is independent upon time so that if he die the very next moment that he is justified he shall and must be saved yea such an immediate and necessary dependance there is of the Kingdome upon Justification that nothing more is required to make a man morally and immediately capable of inheriting the Kingdome but that he be justified Rom. 8. 30. Whom he justified them he glorified See also Rom. 5. 9 10 17 18 21. Tit. 3. 7. and other texts before mentioned all importing such an immediate connexion between Justification and the inheritance that though no other change be made in a mans state yet being justified he shall be saved Ergo if the elect have right to heaven while they are ungodly they must be saved whether ever they be converted to the faith of Christ or no. No saith Mr. Eyre it will not follow because Christ hath §. 24. purchased faith and God hath purposed to give it as well as glory Rep. Both which I grant in thesi but if Mr. Eyre will take in the hypothesis too and tell us that God did purpose and Christ did purchase faith for a people that had right to heaven before I shall desire him to prove it for I am not like to beleeve it Yet I am out of doubt that God never purposed faith to any such person but to such as are aliens strangers and forreigners that they through faith might partake in the rights and liberties and immunities of his Kingdom Eph. 3. 5 6 9 11. For 2. Give me leave to ask To what end should God purpose to give faith if men have right to the Kingdom without it It must be purposed either as a means to the obtaining of righteousnesse and life and then I have what I would for then no man hath a right to heaven but by faith and if any man hath right without it the gift of faith as to them in order to that end is utterly needlesse and superfluous or it is purposed as part of the natural essential perfection of mans nature unto which he is restored by Christ and this I deny at least I am very doubtful of it and desire it may be proved a Vide 〈◊〉 in Sent l. 4 dist 14 ◠19. ad 3. There are some things which in themselves are perfections of mans nature as love to God and our neighbour and all the vertues pertaining to the first or second table that faith which Adam had in his innocency and the frame of righteousnesse in which he was created Other things are no vertues at all but upon supposition of sin and do alwayes imply imperfection as shame for sin brokennesse of heart repentance and faith in a Mediatour as it signifies an abnegation of our own righteousnesse and a dependance upon another for righteousnesse These of the latte◠sort are no part of the essential perfection of man yea they do essentially suppose imperfection for faith in a Mediatour is at an b Vide Aquin. 1. ◠ae q. 9◠art 3◠o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ◠end when we shall be perfected in glory 1 Pet. 1. 9. 2 Cor. 5. 7. there being no farther use of it nor object for it for even Christ himself as it seem◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cease to be a Mediatour after he hath brought all his redeemed ones unto God 1 Cor. 15. 24 27 28. though the vertue and effects of his Mediatourship abide for ever Faith it selfe therefore being no part of our inheritance nor meanes of obtaining it upon Mr. Eyres supposal that it is no meanes of obtaining right to it it remaines that it is not necessary to any mans salvation and then what should hinder but that men may be saved without it 3. If this be the true reason why the elect in their ungodlinesse cannot inherit heaven though then they have right to it namely because they have not that as yet which God is purposed to give them before they go to heaven then their incapacity of heaven even while they live in all manner of wickednesse is not at all privative or positive but purely negative that is they are therefore uncapable of heaven not because the Law or sin or any thing they do deprives them of the possession of heaven but because God hath not done what his purpose is to do in all whom he intends to glorifie Wilt thou see Reader what are the issues of this Gospel 1. Hereby sin is made of a like necessity to the enjoyment of Heaven as faith for he that purposed to bring the elect to heaven purposed also that they should be sinners ipso permittente by his permission And so for example Adam and Eve while they were innocent had a right to heaven but they could not enjoy it till they had sinned because he that purposed to give them heaven purposed also to permit them first to sin 2. Yea so far was sin from being their hindrance that it was their furtherance rather for having sinned the more was over and past of those things which God had appointed should go before their salvation and so by their sin they became nearer heaven then they were before 3. And on the contrary the purpose of giving
to our Justification before God the contrary to which he had spoke but just before upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis Respondet in Christo nihil valere ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse c. Perkins his words are these in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words Faith worketh by love Paul saith he doth not shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love viz. not that it justifieth as working by love though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified to work by love But he was far from thinking that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God It is his own observation upon this very verse not far before The second Conclusion Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdome of Christ By it first our persons and then our actions please God and without it nothing pleaseth God And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to disputes for Justification by faith without works against the Papists The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40. the Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse which God hath given us in Jesus Christ ver 11. Ergo he that hath not the Son hath no benefit by him But he that believeth not hath not the Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifest 1. From the Apostles own interpretation for having spoke in general He that hath the Son hath life he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God that you may know that you have eternal life 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase throughout all these Epistles as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely in his Epistle 2 ep v. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HATH NOT GOD But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne Compare 1 ep 2. 24. 2. If we are said in Scripture any where to have the Son in any other sense then by believing or as excluding believing why have we no intelligence of it Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence partly in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith partly in not attempting to justifie it from the phrase of Scripture as an argument that himself is conscious that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures Briefly the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation He that hath the Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ But the antecedent is proved true from the text Ergo the consequent is true To these texts mentioned in my Sermon and now vindicated let §. 41. me adde one or two more If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood then was it not the Will of God that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ till he did beleeve But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ then is not Christ a propitiation z Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. Paraeus in loc through faith but without it Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cause of our remission but because God hath so constituted that our remission shall not follow and so our sins not be propitiated quoad â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking the work of Redemption is set down at large Isa 53. throughout particularly ver 10. 11 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned as the fruit and effect of Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him where knowledge as elsewhere in Scripture often signifies faith And what shall I say more we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures that God requires commands and exhorts all men to beleeve that they may be justified by the blood of Christ And what stronger evidence can we need then this that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
arguments advanced with my answers then given to them to which I do not intend to digresse so far as to reply 1. Because the Basis and foundation of his whole Argument as he hath now proposed in print is laid in this that we were justified in Christs Justification and therefore as to the summe is answered already 2. Because there is no proof of any particular branch of the Argument but is proposed again before he hath done and therefore must be answered hereafter 3. Because though I have altogether forgotten the order of his arguments and of my own answers yet I very well remember that as I understood his argument in no other sense then as it is set down in my Sermon printed so many things I spake by way of answer whereof his relation takes no notice but I must desire him to take more notice of before he and I part My answer then to the foresaid argument was double 1. That upon supposition that we were in Covenant before we beleeve yet would it not follow that we were justified before we believe because the blessings of the Covenant have an order and dependance one upon another and are enjoyed successively one after another To this Mr. Eyre replies in the second paragraph of this his sixteenth chapter and says That though a man be not sanctified and glorified before faith yet if he be in Covenant with God i. e. one of the elect he is certainly justified For 1. God from all eternity did will not to punish his Elect which is real Justification Rep. To this Reader thou must expect no other answer from me then what I have at large given already 2. Saith he Justification is the first benefit that doth accrew to us by the death of Christ for Justification goes before Sanctification and faith is a part of Sanctification Rep. I acknowledge that our English Divines whom I confesse in matters of this nature I preferre before any other are wont to place Sanctification in order after Justification which also is so plain from Scripture that it cannot be denied But Mr. Eyre also knows that they are wont to distinguish faith and sanctification as two things as the Scriptures also do 1 Tim. 2. 15. Acts 15. 9. and 16. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 13 14 15 16. though I do not finde that they do all expresse this difference in the same manner Should I interpose my own opinion it may be I should finde little thank for my labour and therefore I shall say no more then what others have said before me 1. It being plain that faith and holinesse are tâ—o things in the use of Scripture Mr. Eyre should have proved and not laid it down so rawly without any distinction that faith is a part of sanctification I deny it provided I may be tried by Scripture-language 2. As faith is in the understanding a perswasion of the truth of the Gospel and the Promises of life and glory contained therein so is it wont to be distinguished from sanctification 2 Thes 2 13. is not so much a part of it as a cause for by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve and see the glory of the Promises by so much the more are we changed into the image of Gods holinesse 2 Pet. 1. 3 4. 2 Cor. 3. 18. and 7. 1. 3. As faith is in the will an acceptance of Christ that by him we may be brought unto God it hath much the same difference for as God hath made Christ to us sanctification 1 Cor. 1. 30. so doth faith receive him and in that respect is not properly any part of our sanctification but the turning of the soul to Christ as unto a most sufficient principle and authour thereof Acts 26. 18. and so much for the exceptions against my first answer My second answer was a flat denial of the Assumption viz. that we are in Covenant with God before we beleeve if the phrase of §. 2. being in Covenant be understood properly for such an interest in the Covenant as gives a man right and title to the blessings of the Covenant Mr. Eyres proof is this Some benefits of the Covenant to wit the Spirit which works faith is given us before we beleeve My answer to this was large and distinct though Mr. Eyre reproach it sufficiently with a designe of darkening the truth and blinding the Reader but that 's no matter I shewed 1. That the word Give had a double sense in Scripture 1. When no receiving follows and so it signifies no more then the Will of God constituting and appointing Acts 4. 12. Eph. 1. 22. and 4. 11. 2. Sometimes it includes a receiving and possession of the thing given Thus the Spirit is given when we receive him and are as it were possest of him and he dwells in us In this sense is the Spirit never said to be given in Scripture but unto them that do beleeve Luke 11. 13. Gal. 3. 14. Eph. 3. 16 17. with Rom. 8. 10. 11. 2 I shewed also that the Spirit may be said to be given three ways essentially personally or in regard to some peculiar operations which he worketh in us Now there being no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in an hypocrite which hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God therefore the Spirit is neither given nor received before faith be wrought but is given and received together with faith and not before This is the summe the further explication the Reader may see in my Sermon at leisure Mr. Eyre thus expounds the giving of the Spirit That God according to his gracious Covenant doth in his appointed time give or send his Spirit in the preaching of the Gospel to work faith in all those that are ordained to life Rep. Then see Reader what a proof we have that the Spirit is given us before faith Mr. Eyre should prove that we have some benefits of the Covenant before faith viz. the Spirit when he explains it he tells us the Spirit is given before faith not in that sense in which the word give or given includes our receiving but as it signifies the sending or constituting of the Spirit to be by way of specialty the efficient cause or worker of faith Mr. Eyre doth not so much as open his mouth against what I said before that the Spirit is said to be given to us in reference to some peculiar work of his upon or in us which work is faith Here when he should shew how he is given us before faith he says he is sent to work faith in which sense the Spirit may be said to be given in the first sense mentioned of that word but not given to us so as that we can be therefore said to receive him eo ipso because he is sent to work faith and therefore this is but a deserting of the Argument in hand nor are we yet proved to have received any benefit of the
into covenant If the assumption be denyed we confirme it diversly 1. From the plaine scope of some places as Ezek. 37. 23. I will cleanse them So shall they be my people and I will be their God and chap. 14. 11. That they may be no more polluted with all their transgressions but that they may be my people and I may be their God Even as he is often said to have brought them out of Egypt which signifies spiritually the bringing of sinners out of the darknesse and slavory of a sinful condition into the way of life Jude v. 5. that he might be their God Lev. 11. 45. and 26. 45. and 25. 38. and 22. 33. Numb 15. 41. 2 Faith is promised for this end that we thereby might obtaine that which was promised to Israel when God brought them out of Egypt though they obtained it not because they continued not in Gods covenant Ergo it is promised as a means for this end that God may be our God and we his people The reason of the consequence is because this was that which the Lord said to Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt obey my voice so will I be your God and ye shall be my people Jer. 7. 23. and 11. 4. The antecedent is written with a Sun beam in the place under debate Jer. 31. 31. c. Where the writing of Gods Laws in our mind which in some other of the places mentioned is called the putting of a new Spirit within us and a causing us to walk in his statutes is most apparently promised as a means of obtaining that good which Israel by the covenant made with them in the day when the Lord took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt did not obtaine for herein lay the imperfection and faultinesse of that covenant that they brake it and consequently that the Lord regarded them not In opposition to both which it is that God promiseth to write his Laws in their minds and so to be their God other things we referre till by and by It is therefore a truth beyond contradiction that the giving of the first grace is promised not as a part of the Covenant but as a means §. 4. and qualification on mans part for his entrance into covenant Let us see what Mr. Eyre hath against it and first in generall from § 4. downward First he excepts against the fitnesse of my expression in calling our conversion the first grace which he saith is more properly spoken nf Gods eternall love or of Christ himself Answ But the question is onely understood of the grace of God in us which is more frequently called by the name of grace then either of the other two Jam. 4. 6. 2 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 12. 28. and 13. 9. c. The first of which is faith or our conversion unto God But even in this sense saith Mr. Eyre inherent sanctification is unduly put in the first place which is a consequent both of justification and adoption Gal. 4. 5 6. though it be promised in Jeremy before remission of sins yet in other places it is put after it as Ezek. 36. 25. 26. Jer. 32. 38 39. Answ The former part is true of sanctification strictly and most properly taken for the habits of the life of holinesse opposed to the body of sin in us But in this sense I deny faith to be any part of sanctification and if Mr. Eyre doth thus interpret the promise of writing Gods Laws in our heart c. Then shall I also deny that faith in Christ is herein promised but onely a greater measure of grace to them that beleeve which will much advantage his cause But if sanctification be taken largely for any gracious workings of God upon the soul so as it includes faith it self then do I deny that it is any where in Scripture put after remission of sins The two places mentioned for of Gal. 4. 5 6. we speak below say nothing so Ezek. 36. 25. Then will I sprinkle cleane water upon you and you shall be cleane from all your filthinesse and from all your Idâ—ls will I cleanse you Mr. Eyre takes it for granted that this is meant of pardon of sin and I acknowledge that sprinkling or washing with water doth sometimes also include that 1 Cor. 6. 11. But sometimes also it signifies our regeneration or conversion unto God Tit. 3. 5. and so do I understand it in this place for a through conversion of them from dumb Idols to the true and living God the former of which is more peculiarly intended v. 25. and the latter v. 26. my reason is because the cleansing of them from their Idols is expressely opposed to their defiling themselves with Idols chap. 37. 23. Neither shall they dâ—file themselves any more with Idols But I will cleanse them and that for this end that he might be their God Which by Mr. Eyres own acknowledgment includes remission of sin and therefore the said remission is not meant by cleansing them from their Idols otherwise the sense were this I will pardon their sin and so I will pardon their sin The second Text is Jer. 32. 38 39. They shall be my people and I will be their God and I will give them one heart and one way that they may feare me for ever for the good of them and of their children after them to which I adde the next verse v. 40. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turne away from them to do them good c. Here indeed it cannot be denyed but that Gods giving a heart to feare him is mentioned after the promise of forgivenesse of sin included amongst other things in the words foregoing I will be their God But though it be mentioned after yet is it apparently mentioned as the means to this end that God may be our God I will give them a heart to fear me for the good of them and of their children The fear of God is promised for this end that he may do us good or as v. 40. that he may never turne away from us to do us good Ergo it is promised for this end that he may be our God because as we have shewed before for God to be our God is all one as to be our benefactor and to do us good Wherefore this verse followes the former in place or writing not in dependance declaring the way which God will take that he may be our God namely by putting his feare into our hearts and so advanceth what Master Eyre would prove from it by overthrowing it Secondly He utterly denyes that the giving of a new heart is §. 5. promised as a means on mans part for his entrance into covenant For 1. The Scripture no where affirmes it and it is weakly concluded hence because it is sometimes mentioned first in the recitall of the covenant c. Answ Whether it be
salvation for us that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish The p Ibid. p. 128. â— 11. English consent Tantùm propter c. Onely for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits are we reputed just before God So q Ib. p. 157. 25. Scotland Sed qui corde c. They that do in heart sincerely beleeve and with their mouth confesse Jesus Christ do most certainly receive those blessings First in this life remission of sinnes and that by Faith alone in the blood of Christ The r Ib. p. 173 22 Belgick Confession in like manner Meritò igitur jureque dicimus c. We do therefore well and rightly say with Paul that we are justified only by Faith or by Faith without the works of the Law But to speak properly we do by no means understand Faith it self by it self or of it self to justifie us as which is onely as it were an Instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousnesse Christ then himself is our righteousnesse who imputes to us all his merits but Faith is the Instrument by which we are coupled unto him in the society and communion of all his good things and are continued therein Of the same Faith are all the other s Argent p. 223 c. 3. Paâ—t 2. August p. 22 c. 1. Saxâ—n p. 79 80 81. Wiâ—â—emberg p. 14â— c de justif Palat p. 210. si â—emissionem Churches whose Confessions follow Thus t Just lib. 3 c. 11. §. 10. Calvin Fateor hoc tam incomparabili beno nos privari donec Christus noster fiat Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur ut nobis imputetur ejus jusâ— itia sed quia ipsum induimus insiti sumus in ejus corpus unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est ideo justitiae societatem nobis cum to esse gloriamur Thus u Ubi supra Epist 45. Beza Quae obedientia Christi viz. nobis per fidem Christo unitis datur nostraque fit per imputationem x Loc. com clas 3. c. 4. §. 65. Thus Peter Martyr Si quid Deus condonat vel remittit id facit hominibus jam regeneratis non autem à se alienis filiis irae quales necesse est eos esse qui nondum sunt justificati Istis inquam nihil remittitur Quare obligati sunt ad â—mnia And thus all our more ancient Protestants that I can read but it is a tedious thing to me to transcribe so much of humane testimony and what is written is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Eyre differs from our ancient Protestants notwithstanding his pretended agreement almost as farre on the one hand as the Papists do on the other in the very foundations of his discourse For first it is manifest by the testimonies produced that our Protestants when they plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ intend the very first act of Justification which Mr. Eyre rejects and ascribes no more to the righteousnesse of Christ then that it obtaines the effects of our justification but not the Act pag. 62. § 4. 2. Our Protestants do so plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ as that they require and assert the necessary existence of Faith in us as the instrument or condition or antecedent of our Justification Mr. Eyre contends for a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith at present coexisting 3. They plead for a Justification which begins upon believing and therefore must needs be a transient not an immanent act of God He for a Justification which is an y Augustan Confes de fide p. 21. Non est hic opus disputationibus de praedestinatione aut similibus immanent act and included in the decree of election as part of it pag. 65. § 5. 4. They when they speak of Justification by Faith meane Justification before God He the manifestation and declaration thereof onely to the conscience So that Mr. Eyres opinion and that of the ancient Protestants look so little like Countrey-men that it may not expect to be owned by them though it challenge kindred of them CHAP. II. An Answer to Mr. Eyres seventh Chapter What is meant by Gods sight Two parts or degrees thereof Mr. Eyres Exposition contradicts it selfe and the Truth Gods Will or Purpose never called by the name of Justification in Scripture The consequences which Mr. Eyre denies to follow upon his doctrine necessary and unavoidable A large enquiry whether Justification consist in Gods Purpose not to punish Imputation and non-imputation what in the use of Scripture Gods electing love no Justification Rom. 8. 33. answered Several Arguments proving that Justification is not Gods purpose of not punishing The foure objections which Mr. Eyre makes against himselfe not answered by him Not the first Nor the second Nor the third Nor the fourth of Mr. Eyres second and third Proposition SECT I. NExt we shall enquire what it is to be justified before God or in Gods sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3. 11. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 20. by which the Septuagint render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 143. 2. a word that hath many faces and significations in a Drus observat cap. 17. Scripture But in the matter of Justification which is a forensical terme unlesse the whole body of our Protestants be mistaken it signifies as much as Gods judgement As to be justified in mans sight or before men is to be justified in mans judgement or for man to justifie and to be righteous in a mans own eyes is to be righteous in a mans own judgement or to justifie a mans selfe In like manner to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in Gods judgement or for God to justifie Compare 1 Cor. 4. 4. Luke 16. 15. Numb 32. 22. and many other places Now this judgement of God is either a judgement of justice by which no flesh living shall be justified Psal 143. 2. or a judgement of mercy and grace 2 Sam. 22. 25 26. Col. 1. 22. Heb. 13. 21. by which only a sinner can be justified or stand in the sight presence and judgement of God In this judgement of God we consider these two degrees or parts §. 2. The first is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle calls it Rom. 1. 32. Jus b Vid Joh. Driâ—d de capt Redempt c. 2. mem 3. de Reg. dogmat Sac. Script l. 3. p. 96 97. Dei that Rule Law or Constitution of God determining of rewards and penalties whence Gods Precepts Statutes Threatenings and Promises are so often called in Scripture his judgements The second is the sentence which God the righteous Judge shall passe upon all men according to this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the day of judgement Accordingly my opinion is that a sinner is justified in Gods sight either ipso jure
by the Law or Constitution of grace the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity and to the heavenly inheritance or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day by which he is adjudged unto the immediate full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel John 3. 16. He that believeth on me shall not perish but shall have everlasting life Even as amongst men an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present and legally future punishments though the effects of this right he do not possesse any otherwise then in hope till his cause be tried and himself absolved in Court by the sentence of the Judge In reference to the former a sinner is justified presently upon believing in reference to the latter he is not justified till the day of judgement Therefore Peter exhorts the Jewes to repentance that their sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God And he shall send Jesus Christ Acts 3. 19 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus that God would grant him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day And in the name of all Christians he tells us Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith that is Justification through faith as it stands in opposition to Justification by works ver 4. and throughout the whole Epistle So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh a white stone Rev. 2. 17. c Vid. Paraeum Aretium Brightman Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie that eminent eternal and universal absolution from all guilt which shall be given to the Saints that overcome and continue faithful to the end So Rom. 2 13 16. Not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified In the day when God shall judge the secrets of meâ— by Jesus Christ the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis This is my opinion in this matter which I have therefore set down the more distinctly that Mr. Eyre may understand how ignorant or impudent his Informer was that told him I maintained that we were not justified till the day of judgement page 19. Now to Mr. Eyre he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods knowledge 2. As it signifies his legal justice 3. As it signifies his making of us to see To which I shall need to give no other answer then his own words in the same paragraph of the last thus he speaks This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei in foro Conscientiae would be a meer tautology Of the first thus Although in articulo Providentiae in the doctrine of divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo Justificationis in the doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other Thus of three senses of the phrase himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre it to the justice of God we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood 3. If we referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres own confession such is the first sense which is here the last then thus But if you take it in such a sense in which it may not be taken in the present question such is the last of the three which is here put first then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in his knowledge 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction because the members thereof do interferre for Justification in the death of Christ and in our own consciences is Justification in Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods Will I ask then whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice if it be then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction if it be not I would know how God doth justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to us 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be Indeed he may well know that he intends to justifie us but if he know that then he knows we are not yet justified for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse for the better understanding of these mysteries I attend his motion that I may spare tautologies as much as I can SECT II. He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions The first is this Justification is taken variously in Scripture §. 4. 1. For the Will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people 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 Justification is put for this latter act he supposeth none will question The only scruple is concerning the former which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification because some grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God whereas saith he we say that notwithstanding the Will of God not to punish his Elect the Law must needs be satisfied for their sins no lesse then for the sins of others And 2. Their notion who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature c. Answ Here is the foundation of all the following obscure discourse which I perceive Mr. Eyre had rather we should take for granted then he be put to prove I do therefore deny 1. That Justification doth any where in Scripture signifie Gods eternal Will or Purpose not to punish of which more presently 2. That it is any where in Scripture put pro re volitâ for the thing willed formally and under that habitude or relation Justification is the discharge of a sinner from his obligation to punishment whether it were willed or not willed from eternity is but extrinsecal and accidental to the Act it selfe 3. That Justification is any where used in Scripture for the effects of Justification though I deny no man the liberty of making use somtimes of such a trope but we are now enquiring de nomine concerning the use of the Word The Apostle makes that one Act of Election the cause of all spiritual blessings Eph. 1. 3 4. of which our Justification is one ver 6 7. no lesse then Adoption ver 5. which is an Act of the same common nature with Justification and by some eminent d See Dr. Reignolds Life of Christ page 402. Divines made a part of it and that suitably enough to Scripture phrase even when it is made consequent to our faith John 1. 12. Gal. 3. 25. with 4. 5 6. 4. Our discharge from the curse is either our discharge from an obligation to it or from our actual suffering it In this latter sense it is indeed an effect of Justification but in the former sense it is the very life being and forme of it unlesse it be understood passively and so that also may be called an effect of Justification because the immediate effect of a discharge active is a person discharged These observations Reader thou wilt finde useful in the following debate That absurd conceit as he calls it that some have inferred upon §. 5. an eternal Justification viz. that then Christ came not to satisfie the justice but only to manifest the love of God is so natural a consequence of his doctrine that it will never be put off with a cold Negatur And I presume Mr. Eyre is not ignorant that it is a maine principle upon which the Socinians deny the satisfaction of Christ And if he will owne what himselfe hath wrote in this book he must joyne with them He affirmes that Gods eternal Will not to punish is the very essence of Justification page 64. 2. That by this Will men are secured from wrath and discharged and acquitted from their sins that it is a real discharge from condemnation an actual and compleat non-imputation of sin page 67. § 6. upon which premises I demand Whose debt did Christ pay his own That 's little lesse then blasphemy Ours why our bond was cancelled long before and our selves discharged and acquitted from all sinne and death really actually compleatly if Mr. Eyres doctrine be true And where then is any place left for satisfaction e De satisfact p. 119. Grotius hath well observed Obligationis destructio liberatio dicitur Hanc praecedere potest solutio sequi non potest quia actus nullus versari potest circa id quod non existit amplius To the same purpose f In tert Tho. tom 1. disp 4. sect 8. p. 58. edit Venet. Suarez Propriè non dicitur satisfactio quae post remissionem debiti sit sed quae fit ad debiti remissionem Est enim remissio debiti terminus satisfactionis non principium ut communi sensu omnium hominum constat Nec dici potest eandem peccati remissionem quae facta fuit gratis ante satisfactionem postea etiam fieri per satisfactionem quia repugnat idem debitum gratis remitti per justam solutionem But what need we the testimony of man the testimony of God is greater The text is plain Heb. 10. 18. where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sinne Ergo if sin were remitted from eternity Christ neither did nor could make any satisfaction If it be said that God did discharge us upon the foresight of Christs satisfaction I beleeve it to be most true of all the godly that lived before Christ but Mr. Eyre that makes this discharge to be an immanent not a transient act in God will not may not endure that it should be caused by the foresight of Christs satisfaction The next grosse mistake which Mr. Eyre tells us some have fastened §. 6. upon the doctrine of eternal Justification is theirs who upon this ground have asserted the eternal being of the creature thus If men are justified from eternity they are from eternity And I confesse Mr. Eyre hath well removed this consequence if his principle be good that esse justificatum is a terme of diminution But verily if the Scriptures have rightly informed us in the nature of Justification I do not see how the consequence can be avoided for Justification is one of the most eminent blessings contained in that Promise I will be their God So Paul Rom. 3. 29 30. Is he the God of the Jewes only and not of the Gentiles also yea of the Gentiles also seeing it is one God who shall justifie the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith Now God is not the God of the dead but of the living Matth. 22. 32. And if not the God of the dead who yet live as to their soules then much lesse is he the God of them that are not nor never were Ergo he doth not justifie them that are not Again He that is justified is blessed Rom. 4. And he that is blessed from eternity is from eternity for he that is not is neither blessed nor miserable To say he is blessed from eternity in Gods intention is no more then that there was a preparation of blessednesse for him in Gods intention which I readily grant and it profits Mr. Eyre nothing But it little concernes me to make good the foresaid consequence something more of it the Reader shall finde a little below in the mean time we come to the great Question whether Justification consist formally in the Will or Purpose of God not to punish SECT III. THe Will of God as Divines are wont to distinguish is either §. 7. voluntas beneplaciti or voluntas signi The former is the Intention Decree or Purpose of God concerning some Act of his owne to be done by himselfe in his due time The latter to confine it to our present use is his signal legislative revealed royal Will by which
he determines as supream Governour of the world what shall be our duty to do or not to do and what shall be due to us according to our doing or not doing of this Will Hence the Word and Lawes of God are called in Scripture his Will in hundreds of places By this Will of God doth he give Believers a right to impunity which is their proper Justification whereof his not punishing them de facto is the effect This I shall prove God willing when I come to the vindication of my first Argument against Mr. Eyre In the meane time the thing which he undertakes to prove is That the very essence and quiddity of a sinners Justification is Gods Decree or Purpose from eternity not to punish him I deny it and shall subjoyne some reasons against it by and by besides those which Mr. Eyre takes notice of in his book But first let us see what he hath to say for it Thus then he begins Justification is Gods non-imputing of sin and imputing of righteousnesse to a person Psal 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 8. but Gods Will not to punish a person is his non-imputing sin to him Ergo. Answ I grant the major but I do very much long to see what §. 8. definition Mr. Eyre will give of Justification that may include Justification in Gods knowledge and in his legal justice and in our consciences that I might know whether these three be three several sorts or only three degrees of one and the same Justification but let that passe I deny the minor For proof of it Mr. Eyre appeales to the Original words both Greek and Hebrew both which saith he doth signifie an act of the minde or will Mr. Eyre is to prove that they signifie the purpose or resolution of the will in which sense they appear not so much as once neither in the Hebrew nor in the Greek Interpreters nor do our Translators render them at any time in such a sense and therefore that observation might have been spared 2. An act of the understanding they signifie often but it is such an act as will not endure to be called by the name of imputation but thinking devising esteeming or the like for example Isa 10. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the LXX 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We render it Neither doth his heart think so Nor doth common sense permit that it be rendred Neither doth his heart impute se In like manner Psal 41. 7. Against me do they devise my hurt where the words are the same both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint And cannot be rendered Against me do they impute my hurt So Isa 53. 3. He was despised and we esteemed him not where the words are still the same It would be worthy sense to render them He was despised and we imputed him not Multitudes of like instances might be given But when the words will beare to be grammatically rendered by the name of Imputation they then signifie not an immanent act of the understanding or will but a transient act containing an objectum Quod or something that is imputed and an objectum cui some person to whom it is imputed who also is thereby changed physically or morally And thus the word imputation is used in Scripture 1. When by Law one thing passeth in stead of another Numb 18. 27 30. This your heave-offering shall be reckoned or imputed to you as though it were the corne of the threshing sloâ—re and ver 30. When you have heaved the best thereof from it then it shall be counted or imputed to the Levites as the increase of the threshing floore c. Not that the said heave-offering was esteemed or thought to be the corne of the threshing floore for that had been a fiction or an errour and imperfection of the understanding but because by the determination of the Law it was made equivalent thereunto or equally available to all effects and purposes This is a transient act 2. When a man is charged as the Authour of such or such a fact 2 Sam. 3. 8. Imputas mihi iniquitatem hujus mulieris Junius This also is a transient act 3. The giving of a reward to a man whether the reward be of debt or of grace is Imputation Rom. 4. 4. and to punish sin is to impute sin 2 Sam. 19. 19. because punishment is the wages of sin and not to punish sin when punishment is due by Law is the non-imputing of sin Psal 32. 1 2. and when the Law denies a man that benefit of an action which otherwise he might have expected that action is said to be non-imputed to him Lev. 7. 18. It shall not be accepted neither shall it be imputed to him This also is a transient act In the same sense is the word used in the New Testament Righteousnesse shall be imputed to us if we beleeve Rom. 4. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur Beza Mr. Eyres glosse upon that text we shall meet with in due place and Paul prayes for them that deserted him in his troubles that their sin may not be imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 12. in both which places imputation expresseth a future act and therefore cannot be understood of an immanent eternal act of God See also Rom. 5. 13. of which more hereafter So that I may very well retort Mr. Eyres Argument upon himself If Justification be a non-imputation of sin then it is a transient act and not an immanent act of Gods Will. But the first is true ex concessis Ergo so is the last And I wonder Mr Eyre should nor foresee the weaknesse of his proofe The original words note an immanent act when they signifie some other thing then imputation Ergo imputation is an immanent act So much for the first Argument The second is this that which doth secure men from wrath and whereby they are discharged and acquitted from their sins is Justification But by this immanent act of God all the Elect are discharged and acquitted from their sins and secured from wrath and destruction Ergo. Answ The Proposition I readily grant the Assumption I deny §. 9. â— and detest For 1. It makes void the death of Christ for what sayes the Apostle Gal. 2. 21. If righteousnesse come by the Law then Christ is dead in vain The case is altogether the same as to any other way by which men may be said to be justified for if they be made righteous in any other way then by the death of Christ then was it a vaine needlesse thing that he should die for our Justification 2. Nor was there any need as to our Justification that he should rise again from the dead whereas the Scripture saith Arose from the dead for our Justification Rom. 4. 25. And therefore saith Paul 1 Cor. 15. 17. If Christ be not risen ye are yet in your sins he speaks to those that did confesse his death but he was out when he
just the effect which follows upon it is that we shall therefore be saved from wrath It seemes the distinction between the velle and the res volita in the matter of Justification was unknown to him 5. And his discourse supposeth that the love and grace of God is nothing so much commended by giving the effects as by putting forth the act of Justification for herein God commends his love towards us that while we were yet sinners he gave his Son to death for our Justification and then as a lesser matter he infers much more being now justified we shall be saved from wrath So also ver 10. Now if by Justification in Christs blood be meant the effects and not the act of Justification then the love and grace of God is nothing near so great in justifying us through the blood of Christ as in justifying us before without his blood But this is most notoriously false as is manifest not from this text only but from all the Scriptures which proclaim that temporal Justification which we have through the blood of Christ to be an act of greatest love and richest grace Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 20 21. Eph. 1. 6 7. and 2. 4 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 1. 14. Tit. 3. 4 5 6 7 6. The effects of Justification follow upon the act by moral necessity and without impediment Ergo the Justification here spoken of is not the effect precisely but the act The reason of the consequence is because the Justification mentioned in the text follows not upon any simple precedent act of Justification but is set forth as an act of such moral difficulty that it required no lesse then the precious blood of the Son of God to remove the obstructions and hindrances of its existence and to make it to exist The Antecedent is proved from his manner of arguing à majori ad minus being now justified much more shall we be saved implying that salvation follows as it were necessarily upon the position of the act of Justification Yea and I appeal to Mr. Eyre himselfe or any man else whether that act be not unworthy of the many glorious titles and epithets which are every where in Scripture put upon Justification and consequently unworthy of that name which being put in actu completo can yet produce no good effect to a sinner nor set him one degree farther from wrath then he was before unlesse some other more sufficient cause do interpose to midwise out its effects This mindes me of another Argument and that is this 7. Justification is not an act of grace simply but of powerful grace or of grace prevailing against the power of sin for this is that which creates the difficulty and so commends the excellency of the grace of Justification that it is the Justification of sinners Were it the Justification of such as had never sinned but had been perfectly righteous there were no such difficulty in that And therefore in the following part of the Chapter the Apostle expresly declares the quality of this grace in justifying us in that it abounds and is powerful to justifie above the ability of sin to condemn ver 15 17 20 Ergo the Justification here spoken of is the very act of Justification or there is no such thing at all for if we place it in a simple eternal volition there could be no moral difficulty in that no more then in the will of creating the world because from eternity there could be no opposition or hindrance for an act of grace to overcome 8. The Justification merited by Christ is not the effect but the act The reason we shall shew anon because it is absurd to make Christ the meritour of the effects when the act is in being before his merit But the Justification here spoken of is that which is merited by Christ Ergo I might also argue out of the following part of the Chapter from the opposition between Justification and the act of condemnation which passeth upon all men by vertue of the first transgression and therefore sure cannot consist in any eternal act of Gods will and from the method there used in comparing Adam and Christ and of our partaking first in the image of the first Adam in sin and the effects thereof before we be conformed to the image of the second Adam in Justification and the effects thereof but these Arguments out of the text it self shall suffice Other Scriptures also there are in abundance which testifie that Justification §. 18. doth make a change in a persons state ab injusto ad justum As Col. 2. 13. You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with him having forgiven you all trespasses To be dead in sins in this place is clearly to be dead in Law that is to be obliged by Law to the suffering of death for sin for it is opposed to that life which consists in remission of sin or Justification so 1 Cor. 6. 11. such were some of you but ye are justified of which place more hereafter See also Rom. 3. 19 20 21 22 23 24. and 5. 18 19 20 21. Eph. 2. 12 13 14 15 16. And indeed all the places of Scripture which speak of Gods justifying sinners If there be found out a new Justification which the Scriptures are not acquainted with may they have joy of it that have discovered it But I hasten to the second part of Mr. Eyres answer The change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the Law and the consideration of man in reference thereunto by whose sentence the transgressour is unjust but being considered at the Tribunal of grace and cloathed with the righteousnesse of Christ he is just and righteous which is not properly a different state before God but a different consideration of one and the same person God may be said at the same time to look upon a person both as sinful and as righteous as sinful in reference to his state by nature and as righteous in reference to his state by grace Now this change being but imputed not inherent it supposeth not the being of the creature much lesse any inherent difference c. Answ These words are mysteries to me and I confesse have occasioned §. 19. me more perplexity and vexation of thoughts then all the book besides Before I can give any answer to them I must make some enquiry into the meaning of them And for avoiding of confusion in the words just and unjust their importance in this place is no more then to have or be without a right to salvation and life Now to be unjust by nature or in our selves may be understood in a threefold sense 1. Positively and then the meaning is that for the sin of nature or for mens sinfulnesse in themselves they stand obliged before God to the suffering of eternal punishment This is so far from being Mr. Eyres meaning that I suppose
and that by the Law of nature Rom. 2. 12 14 15. 4. If the Elect were never simply and absolutely unjust then Christ is not their Saviour But Christ is most surely the Saviour of the Elect Ergo. The reason of the Proposition is because if Christ be properly a Saviour then he saves either from that wrath which they do actually suffer which neither Mr. Eyre will grant nor my selfe without limitation or from an actual obligation to the suffering of wrath when the time is come and this Mr. Eyre denies But tell me then how is Christ called a Saviour seeing none can be properly saved but such as are subject to perishing either de jure or de facto If Adam had continued righteous he might well have propagated life to his children but not salvation because they had never been in danger of death And he that is simply and absolutely just though in some respect unjust is not in danger of perishing and therefore not capable of being saved If it be said that Christ saves us from wrath because we should have been obliged to wrath if some act of grace in God had not prevented there being matter enough in us for which we should have forfeited our right to life The answer is 1. Let that act then which prevents our obligation be called our Saviour and not Christ 2. And let the thing it selfe be proved viz. That supposing the Elect do now at no time stand obliged before God to punishment for any or all their sins that yet they should have been so obliged if Gods purpose had not hindred that is supposing the Law hath now no effect upon their persons as to the binding of them under wrath for sin that yet it should have had if the foresaid purpose had not prevented I deny it and if it be true yet I conceive it impossible for man to prove it But we must of necessity speak something more of these matters in another place and therefore here I supersede any farther arguings Let us therefore a little farther demurre upon Mr. Eyres words as § 21. he here presents them to us and I passe on to the next Argument 1. Whereas he saith that the change ab injusto ad justum ariseth from the different consideration of a person he may be pleased to consider that considerations make no changes Things are to be considered as they are and not by consideration made what they are not Our understanding will conceive of a man as cloathed with or abstracted from all moral qualifications and so consider him sometimes as just and not unjust sometimes as unjust and not just sometimes as neither just nor unjust But to consider an unjust man as he is just or a just man as he is unjust is to consider a man as he is a horse Obj. A man is not a horse therefore I cannot so consider him Answ No more is a justified man unjust nor an unjustified man just before God Obj. Yes that he is for he may be unjust by nature and yet justified of grace at the same time Answ True But then observe Reader that to be unjust by nature in this sense is terminus diminuens and so to consider a man as unjust by nature is not to consider him as unjust simply because to be unjust by nature is not to be unjust simply for a man is supposed to be just by grace at the same time therefore when it is argued a man may be unjust by nature and just by grace at the same time Ergo he may be just and unjust at the same time I deny the consequence He that hath nothing else to do may if he will consider the same man as just before God and unjust before man and according to the variety of humane Law multiply the notions of injustice and say he is unjust by the English Law but not by the Romane Law or by the Romane Law but not by the Grecian Law c. and when all this is done he may say he hath proved that a man is just and unjust at the same time before God but I will not believe him 2. And as it is contrary to reason so to the manner of speech in Scripture as was noted before Rom. 5. 8 9. we were sinners but now we are justified He doth not say we are sinners but are or were justified 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. You were unrighteous but now you are justified Must we read it thus you are unrighteous but you were or are justified Eph. 2. 3. you were the children of wrath He doth not say you are the children of wrath Col. 1. 21. You were alienated but now are reconciled In all which places we finde a state of righteousnesse succeeding a state of unrighteousnesse but of being righteous and unrighteous at the same time we have no mention 3. And what is it to consider a man as just or unjust either it is a meer speculative consideration apprehending in a man rationem justi without apprehending rationem injusti or è contra but how unreasonably is it said that the change of a persons state ab injusto ad justum ariseth from such a consideration as this is which is as compatible to man as unto God and altogether extrinsecal and accidental to a mans being just or unjust or else it is a practical judicial consideration in order to Gods dealing with a man as just and unjust but surely Mr. Eyre will abhorre as well he may that God should intend to deal with his Elect as unjust 4. And to what he speaks of an imputed change 't is an expression I never heard before I have read of an imputed righteousnesse which makes a real change real I mean not as opposed to moral or relative but to mental or notional but an imputed change is a meer fiction and good for nothing as I know but to give just ground to the Papists to reproach us with a putative righteousnesse as they call it in a jeer But there be no fictions in God at all and by how much the more they are found in men by so much the more phantastical we account them unlesse they be rhetorical fictions used for doctrine or illustration or the like 5. And much like all the rest it is that he saith to be just and unjust is not a different state whereas himself so calls it but just before and immediately after tells us that men are accounted just in reference to their state by grace and unjust in reference to their state by nature Is a state of nature then and a state of grace different states if they be not why doth Mr. Eyre call them so if they be then a state of nature is a state of unrighteousnesse and a state of grace is a state of righteousnesse and so to be righteous and unrighteous is a different state or else there is no man in the world unrighteous before God or the unrighteous are in as good a state
as the righteous But I will puzzle my selfe no longer with these ambiguous Oracles SECT VII THe third objection succeeds and that is this If justification be §. 22. an immanent act in God it is antecedent not only to faith but to the merits of Christ which is contrary to many Scriptures that do ascribe our Justification unto his blood as the meritorious cause Mr. Eyre answers That although Gods Will not to punish be antecedent to the death of Christ yet for all we may be said to be justified in him because the whole effect of that Will is by and for the sake of Christ As though electing love precede the consideration of Christ John 3. 16. yet are we said to be chosen in him Eph. 1. 4. because all the effects of that love are given by and through and for him Reply Here again I must complain of Mr. Eyres mincing Had he said the Act of Justification goes before the death of Christ but the effects follow he had spoken plainly But when we are disputing that Gods Will is not our Justification because our Justification according to Scripture is a fruit of Christs merit which an immanent act of Gods Will cannot be to tell us now that indeed Gods Will is antecedent to Christs merits is to yield the Argument that therefore it is not our Justification for nothing more certain from Scripture then that our Justification is the fruit of the merits and blood of Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. and 5. 8 9. and 4. 25. and 8. 3 4. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. Gal. 3. 13 14. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 2. 13 14. Heb. 9. 12 22. and 10. 14 18. and sundry other places 2. It is also unworthy of the precious blood of the Sonne of God to ascribe no more to it then that it merits the effects of our Justification seeing it is a farre lesse matter to purchase the effects then to purchase the act which is the cause of them as I have before observed from the Apostles manner of arguing Rom. 5. If while we were sinners Christ died for us much more then being now justified shall we be saved from wrath 3. It is also no little undervaluing of the glorious blessing of Justification to suppose it so impotent as that it cannot produce its own effects nor do the sinner any good at all unlesse the Son of God interpose by his death to make it effectual I desire to speak of spiritual things with feare and trembling But I am not afraid to say such a Justification as this is not worth grammercy If it be objected that I may say as much of Gods electing love for neither doth that produce its effects without the death of Christ I answer no such matter for the death of Christ it selfe and all other particular causes of our salvation are the effects of election which it selfe produceth in their respective subordinations But Justification is a particular cause determined precisely to a non-punition which yet it cannot effect Nor doth Mr. Eyre himself make the death of Christ an effect of Justification and if he did he must reade the Scriptures backward but of this more by and by 4. I deny that the effects of Justification can be merited without the act for this eternal Justification according to Mr. Eyres theologie is an actual and real discharge from all sin and condemnation a compleat non-imputation of sin and imputation of righteousnesse Therefore it is impossible but that by this act the Elect must have a right given them to deliverance from wrath which is so evident that himselfe contendeth that the Elect even whiles they are in actual rebellion against God have a right to salvation grounded in the Purpose of God page 122. And what then did Christ merit for them Not a right to deliverance from wrath for that they have already and o Vid. Aquiâ— 1. q. 62. 4. â— 12. q. 1 â—4 5. â— 3. q. 19. 3. â— Nullus meretur quod jam habet what one hath already that cannot be afterwards merited Christ is dead in vain as to the purchasing of this right if they had it before Upon this ground do our p Jun. Animad in Bell. l. 5. c. 10. Divines deny that Christ merited any thing for himselfe because there was no advancement of soule or body but was due to him upon an antecedent title Nor yet doth Christ merit the continuance of this right for it is impossible it should be forfeited for a man can forfeit nothing with God but by sin and sin if it be pardoned as here it is supposed to be even all sins and that from eternity hath no strength to work such a forfeiture no more then if it never had been committed Nor doth he merit the possession of that which they have a right to for the effect of merit is properly acquisitio juris the acquiring or obtaining of the right it selfe q Duranâ— â— 2. dist 5 q 3. 8. Nullus meretur id quod est suum sed per meritum facit quilibet ut aliquid efficiatur ei debitum per consequens suum quod ei prius non erat debitum nec suum Indeed men may by violence be kept out of the possession of that which is their own But God is not wont to deny possession where himself hath given a right and if sinners have from eternity a firme and valid right to life and salvation Christ should not need to have put himself to the expence of his blood to have purchased possession Wherefore the effects of Justification being inseparable from the act Christ merited the act as well as the effect or else he merited neither The comparison brought in for illustration makes the matter worse §. 23. then it was before For 1. It is utterly false that all the effects of Gods electing love are given for the merits of Christ for the giving of Christ to death is an effect of Gods electing love and yet Christ did not merit his own sending into the world 2. That the parallel may consist it must be first supposed that the intention of particular meanes have particular names as so many particular acts or causes and then determined that Christ merited not those acts but their effects As for example That Gods intention to make us his children is our Adoption and Christ merited not our Adoption but the effects thereof His intention to sanctifie us is our sanctification and Christ merited not our sanctification but the effects of it His intention to glorifie us is our glorification and Christ merits its effects even as his intent to pardon us is our Justification and Christ doth afterward merit the effects but not the act Thus must the comparison run or it leaves the matter darker then it found it If Mr. Eyre will not allow of this let him acknowledge his doctrine to be without parallel 3. The effects of Christs merits are also the effects of Gods electing love
because the merits of Christ themselves are the effects of the same love and the cause of the cause is also the cause of the thing caused But if our Lords death had been only from his own will not pre-ordained of God in the decree of election all the benefits purchased by it must have been ascribed to it as the first cause and Gods Will of bestowing them had not been causal but meerly concomitant or consequent Now his will not to punish containes not a preparation of any subordinate cause for the effecting of this impunity Ergo if Christ merited it it must be ascribed to him as the principal and only cause and not to Gods Will of not punishing because that Will of God is not the cause of the merits of Christ as being determined precisely to a non-punition And so there will be the effects of Justification without an act or the act of Justification produceth its own effects but by accident or rather doth not produce them at all but stands by without efficacy whiles another cause doth the work Therefore herein also the comparison halts The fourth and last objection which Mr. Eyre makes against himself §. 24. is this We may as well call Gods Will to create Creation and his Will to call Calling and to glorifie Glorification as his Will to justifie Justification His answer is Creating calling and glorifying import an inherent change in the person created called glorified which forgivenesse doth not it being perfect and compleat in the minde of God Rep. 1. The answer contradicts it selfe for it yields it to be a proper speech to say that God doth will or purpose to justifie even as proper as to say he doth will or purpose to create to call to glorifie and yet beares us in hand that Justification is perfect and compleat in the minde of God Whatsoever is purposed is future If it have already an actual existence it is not capable of being purposed to exist But the immanent acts of Gods minde are not future but from eternity 2. Though Justification do not make an inherent change yet it makes an adherent change as was largely proved from Scripture but now even as if a Malefactour be condemned and afterwards pardoned his condemnation and pardon make an adherent change that is a relative though he remain the same man that he was and be not changed inherently and really And I wonder why the purpose of an act which makes an adherent relative change should be called by the name of that act rather then the purpose of such an act which makes an inherent real change should be called by its name Ars posterior utitur prioris operâ— Morality supposeth nature 3. It is true that Creation c. do make an inherent change But the question is whether we have not as much ground from Scripture to understand those words as signifying not the act but the effect of Creation c. as Mr. Eyre hath to interpret the word Justification in Scripture for the effects not for the act Suppose a man should be so void of sobriety as to say the words Creation Vocation Glorification and what of like nature signifie not those several acts but their effects what could Mr. Eyre say against it To say Creation c. makes an inherent change is to say nothing for it will quickly be answered that the effects of Creation Vocation c. do make an inherent change not the acts If he tell me the words are never used in Scripture but as importing such a change I answer still as he doth of Justification that the words where-ever they are to be found in Scripture are to be understood of the effects not of the act If he yet say that it is contrary to all our Protestant Divines I say so too Et nomine mutato narratur fabula de te Thus much for the vindication of the foure objections which Mr. Eyre proposeth against himselfe He concludes this discourse thus SECT VIII HOwever were it granted that there was in God from everlasting §. 25. an absolute fixed and immutable will never to deal with his people according to their sins but to deal with them as righteous persons this controversie were ended Answ Such a purpose I acknowledge in God to justifie his Elect when they should beleeve and being justified not to deal with them as sinners but as with righteous persons yet so as that they are equally with others obliged by the Law to punishment till they do beleeve and subject actually to the bearing of the temporal penalties of sin If this will satisfie Mr. Eyre let him make his most of it But let us see how it ends the controversie First saith he Gods non-imputation of sin to his Elect is not purely negative but privative being the non-imputation of sin realiter futuri in esse as the imputation of righteousnesse is Justitiae realiter futurae in existentia 2. This non-imputation of sin is actual though the â—â—n not to be imputed be not in actual being So is the imputation of righteousnesse 3. This act of justifying is compleat in it selfe Answ If the begging of the question be the ending of a controversie we have done It is here supposed that the aforesaid Purpose of God is the imputation of righteousnesse and the non-imputation of sin which should have been proved and not begged And therefore the foundation failing there needs no more to be done to demolish the superstructure yet a word or two of that also 2. I say therefore that an eternal actual privative non-imputation of future sin is either non-sense or a contradiction let Mr. Eyre take his choice and consider withal what he is like to make of Justification at last for that which is only future can be deprived of nothing but its futurity and if it be ab aeterâ—o deprived of its futurity then it is ab aeterno non futurum and if ab aeterno non futurum then it is ab aeterno undepriveable of its futurity for that which is never future is never capable of being made non-future unlesse we could in eternity concâ—â—e one moment wherein it is made future and another moment wherein it is made non-future which cannot be because in eternity there is neither prius nor posterius Now this privative non-imputation of future sin what doth it privare Not the futurity of sin for then there never was nor shall be any such thing as sin in the world for nothing exists in time which before its existence was not future That then which this non-imputation is privative of must be the imputation of sin to a person cui debitum est imputari for that is the habit which only is contrary to it for as the privative non-imputation of sin present and in actual being is privative only imputationis nunc debitae so the like non-imputation of sin future is privative only imputationis futurae debitae The Argument therefore returnes for if this
what is Why saith Mr. Eyre to shew that we are justified not by works or righteousnesse in us but by the righteousnesse of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by faith Very good and this is as much as I stand for namely that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith But know Reader that when we speak of apprehending Christs righteousnesse we mean not an intellectual apprehension when a man comes to discern and know that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth but the right and interest which is given us by the Promise in the righteousnesse of Christ when we believe And in this sense are our Protestants to be understood when they say the righteousnesse of Christ is apprehended by faith Therefore when a De instit lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80. Bellarmine denies that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend our Protestants reject him as a Quibler b Ames Bill ener page 314. in 12â— Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehensionem quà m speculationem intellectus Rectè Contarenus Accipimus Justificationem per fidem Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem Protestantes appellant apprehensionem non eâ significatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus sed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus This I thought good here to observe once for all that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend but might know the different use of it in our Protestants writings and Mr. Eyres The mistake in my Conclusion was that I told unbelievers that §. 2. Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which Mr. Eyre denies to be true If he mean they may appeal by faith I consent but that is nothing to his purpose If that they may appeal without faith or that Christ intercedes that their sins may be forgiven who yet live in impenitency and unbelief let him prove it Of this also I shall speak more when I come to debate how farre we are reconciled in the death of Christ In the mean time I wonder why Mr. Eyre should quarrel with Mr. Baxter for asserting universal Redemption in the sense of Davenant Cameron Testardus Crocius Amyraldus and others when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point namely when he sayes Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Christ we were as good bid the devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High-Priest I inferre Ergo Christ died for all men though I say not for all equally or else we were as good preach the Gospel to divels as to men But let that passe After Mr. Eyre hath leaped from one end of my Sermon to the other he comes to the middle which indeed doth most concern him And whether he hath convinced me of errour in that also is our next enquiry And first he considers that place which was then my text Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ His answer is double First saith he we may without any violence to the text place the comma after justified as thus Being justified by faith we have peace with God Reply And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy former or §. 3. latter printed or manuscript to warrant such a punctation As to the division of the sentence the Syriack the Ancients c Lib. 5. advers Marcion c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo suit belsum ei justificabimur ejus eâ—iâ— Christus ex cujus fide justificabimur Tertullian d Trans lat cdit Loud 1636. Justificati ergo ex side pacem habeamus Et Exâ—os 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophylact e Edit Henr. Savill Fronto Duc. Paris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostome f In loc Origen and our Protestant Commentatours both Lutherans and Calvinists agree with our Translation And if Mr. Eyre will be just and allow the same liberty to others which he takes himself as small a matter as a comma is the mis-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture The Psycopanycists and some Papists when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jesus To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise elude the place by putting the comma after day and so reade the words thus g Vid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43. Verily I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise 2. I accept of Mr. Eyres observation that the illative particle therefore shews that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing and that the Apostles scope in the whole chapter foregoing is to prove that we are justified by faith is more plain then to need proof So that these words are the Conclusion of the former dispute issuing into this doctrine That we are justified by faith The uses whereof the Apostle immediately subjoynes But this way not taking Mr. Eyre is provided of another which is this If saith he we take the words as commonly they are read the sense comes all to one sâ—il That being justified by Christ we have peace with God who by the faith he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation Rep. This is somewhat worse then the former The Apostle saith Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Mr. Eyre to turne out faith from its office in Justification will have the words read by transposition Being justified by our Lord Jesus Christ we have peace with God through faith Or the word faith in the beginning of the verse must signifie our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus Christ in the latter part of the verse must be put for faith which as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures so is it without all precedent in Scripture which is neither wont to put faith for Christ nor Christ for faith though both are often included where but one is mentioned Some I know do fasten such a sense on a text or two but without any necessity or compulsory reason SECT II. THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jesus Christ §. 4. that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5. 44 45. Love your enemies c. that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before Adoption Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known manifested and declared to be Rom. 3. 26. That
he might be just i. e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be just So John 15. 8. and 13. 35 c. So here That we might be justified is that we might know that we are justified Not the being of our Justification but the knowledge and feeling of it is a consequent of faith Rep. 1. I would never desire that any Argument of mine should conclude more firmely then that text Mat. 5. will infer that none are the children of God in the sense there meant before they love their enemies and performe the other duties there enjoyned for it is manifest the Lord there speaks of becoming the children of God not by adoption but by similitude of manners Reader see ver 46 47 48. and give judgement impartially Now in this way it is impossible to be a childe of God till these things be done and therefore that part of the answer strengthens my Argument 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is said to have set forth his Son c. that he might be just I answer that there is no necessity of understanding the word just of being known and acknowledged to be just for it will be a kinde of tautologie To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse That he may be declared to be righteous Nor yet will it follow that God was not just before but that he had not been just now if Christ had not suffered for sinners But if by the word just be meant declared to be just it will not reach our case We seek such a sense of the word Justification when God is the justifier and man the object which throughout all Mr. Eyres book is a non-inventus when man is the justifier and God the object such a sense is necessary because God is capable of no other Justification from man as man is from God 3. As to the thing it self I acknowledge it readily That things are many times said to be in Scripture when they are only manifested and declared to be but such an interpretation is seldom warrantable unlesse the subject-matter invite to it as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord speaking to those that were already disciples that if they brought forth much fruit they should be his disciples it is most natural to understand it of being manifested or of continuing his disciples But we may not therefore interpret Justification by faith of a manifestation or declaration that we are justified not only because the texts wherein that phrase is used suppose no Justification before it but also 1. Because other Scriptures deny them that beleeve not to be justified John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19 22 23 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places And 2. Because when to be in Scripture signifies to be manifested or declared it is understood perpetually of an external publike manifestation or declaration to many not of an internal spiritual private discovery to the soule or conscience of a particular person for proof of which I desire no other witnesse then these very texts which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned supposing them all to be understood as he would have them Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God our bringing forth much fruit declares us to be the disciples of Christ both publikely and in the sight of many witnesses God is declared to be just still publikely and in the judgement of many yea of all good or bad men or devils But this sense will by no meanes fit Mr. Eyres turne for he contends for no more then that Justification is manifested upon faith to the believers own conscience nor do I think he will so much as pretend that he that believes is by his faith publikely declared to the world to be a justified person So that neither can Justification by faith be allowed to be understood of a declarative Justification nor if it might could it yet at all gratifie his design Of all places it cannot have that sense in this text 1. Because §. 5. Justification by faith is expressely opposed to Justification by works Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified But it is most certain and Mr. Eyre confesseth it roundly that works do manifest and declare our Justification page 79 80. Ergo by Justification here is not meant the declaration or manifestation that a person is justified 2. Justification in regard of its common nature is the same whether it be by faith or works namely as it signifies a constituting of us just before God for Christians attain that righteousnesse by faith which the Jewes sought after by works as the Apostle doth more largely expresse it Rom. 9. 31 32. Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse have not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law Ergo Justification when ascribed to faith must be taken in the same sense as when it is denied to works But the Jewes by their works sought to be justified before God and not simply that it should be manifested to them that they were justified before their works were wrought for they sought to be justified by works as the matter for which they should be justified And therefore when the Apostle opposeth himself directly to their principle it is in these words By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh living be justified that is in the sight of God as it is expressed by the Psalmist Psal 143. 2. and by this Apostle in this Argument Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo to be justified by faith in this place is not simply to be assured of a mans Justification but to be justified before God 3. And because Mr. Eyre doth use to oppose Justification by faith to Justification by Christ I desire him to consider that Justification by faith is here the very same with Justification by Christ for after he had said ver 16. We have beleeved in Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ he addes ver 17. but if while we seek to be justified by Christ But to be justified by Christ is not meerly to have it by Christ declared that we are justified This is not only a concession but a main principle of Mr. Eyres Ergo to be justified by faith here is not simply to have the knowledge of our Justification But Mr. Eyre hath another answer a very strange one and that §. 6. is this In the text it is We have believed that we might be justified by faith so that from hence it can be inferred only that we are not justified by faith before believing Rep. As if the question between the Jewes and
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour and Heb. 3. 6. whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence unto the end As to the former place it should have been proved and not said only that the particle If is not a note of a condition if to be a vessel of honour be to be glorified in heaven Or if to be a vessel of honour do signifie a man specially and eminently serviceable unto God sanctified and meet for the Masters use and prepared unto every good work as the Apostle in the same verse expounds it then the particle If is a note of more then a condition even of a true proper cause of an effect that follows naturally and not by Promise for the more a man purgeth himself from spiritual defilements and defilers the more prepared and disposed he must needs be to every spiritual employment The next place Heb. 3. 6. is nothing to the purpose if the particle If be there granted to be meerly a description of the person because the consequent part of the Proposition is not promissory but simply affirmative The text saith not whose house we shall be if we hold fast but whose we are if we hold fast Neverthelesse g Parall l. 3. in loc Junius upon ver 14. which in sense is much the same with this doubts not to affirme the holding fast of our confidence to be a condition A nobis verò conditionem unicam desiderat scil Christus nempe ut maneamus in ipso atque hanc conditionem nâ—tat Apostolus his verbis siquidem principium illius subsistentiae c. which testimony I quote the rather that Mr. Eyre may know that Junius was no enemy to faiths being a condition as he doth somewhere represent him yea and on this verse he is expresse that continuance in the faith is the condition of our continuing to be Gods house §. 4. And that the words Rom. 10. 9. If thou beleeve with thine heart c. cannot be a description of the person meerly I prove largely below in a particular debate of that place I have here only one word to speak against it Either it describes the person from his faith to signifie that as such that is as a believer he is the subject of Justification and then faith must needs be antecedent to Justification and if it be antecedent as an act required of us in point of-duty to a blessing consequent by vertue of a promise then is it antecedent as a condition Or it is a meer description of the person shewing that that is the man that shall be justified though his faith have no order nor tendency to his Justification but may as well follow after it as go before it But 1. This cannot be current sense if Justification be either from eternity or immediately in the death of Christ or at any time before this description be made for example Is it sense to say If thou be the man that dost or at any time shalt beleeve thou shalt be elected or Christ shall die for thee when both election and the death of Christ are long since past or if a man should say If thou shalt be glorified thou shalt be justified would not such a speech suppose that the person to whom those words are spoken was as yet not justified though the Scripture is not wont to speak after this manner in any place 2. Let us take some parallel place and see how it will accord with it As the words of Christ to the father of the childe that was possest Mark 9. 23. If thou canst beleeve all things are possible to him that believeth Or the same words to his disciples Matth. 17. 20. If you have faith as a grain of mustard-seed nothing shall be unpossible unto you If faith do here only describe the person and not propound the condition then whether the father had at present believed or no his childe must have been presently healed notwithstanding supposing him to be a person that at any time should believe and whether the disciples beleeve or no at present all things are possible to them presently they being the persons whose property it is to believe some time or other But more of this hereafter Another note of a condition is the particle if not or except which §. 5. we finde also used in Scripture in this matter for men are threatened that they shall not be justified except they beleeve John 8. 24. If you beleeve not or except you believe you shall die in your sins when men are threatened with damnation except they believe are they threatened absolutely or conditionally if the first then all the men of the world shall be damned for this is to be preached to all men that if they believe not they shall be damned If conditionally then faith is the condition of deliverance from damnation And is not God to be thus understood in all his speeches of like nature Gen. 44. 23. Except your youngest Brother come down with you you shall see my face no more Josh 7. 12. Neither will I be with you any more except you destroy the accursed from amongst you Can the Sun shine more bright in the firmament then it is clear from hence that their destroying the accursed from amongst them was a necessary condition of their enjoyment of Gods Presence Acts 27. 31. Except these abide in the ship you cannot be saved See also Luke 13. 3 5. Rev. 2. 5 22. and multitudes of other places In all which the same particle is a note of a condition unlesse we shall have the modesty to think that the Scriptures were penned on purpose to puzzle and confound our understandings All those texts of Scripture which promise remission of sins to §. 6. them that believe prove the same thing particularly Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned John 3. 16. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten sonne that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life and 6. 40. This is the Will of him that sent me that whosoever seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life with many places of like nature To all which I guesse what Mr. Eyres answer will be by what he saith of the last of these chap. 13. § 14. pag. 135. This text saith he and others like it do only shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ to wit They that beleeve Many such cathedral determinations we have from him without §. 7. so much as a pretence to proof especially in his answers to Scriptures alledged against him yet might he very well think that we would expect some solid reason for this his perpetual wresting and abuse of words from their obvious and common sense 1. It
the same in our justification before God which consists in a Law of grace and in sentence passed according to that Law which because we must purposely prove by and by I shall here supersede for a while One thing more I added for illustration in these words It is God §. 28. that glorifies us and not we our selves yet surely God doth not glorifie us before we beleeve Mr. Eyres answer consists of two parts the one is a concession of what I say with an explanation how glory is called a reward and sayes That a reward is for a work two wayes 1. When a work is proportionable to the wages 2. When it is not answerable to the wages yet is due by Promise as when a poor man hath twenty shillings for an houres labour though the work be not worth it yet it is a due debt and he may challenge it as such Rep. Against which I have not much to oppose yet if the houres work neither in respect to its selfe nor any circumstance that attends it as the Art Danger Detriment of the Labourer or the necessity pleasure profit c. of him for whom he labours all which corne into the m Less de just jured 2 c. 18. d. 3. value of the work deserve the said twenty shillings then is the reward though partly of debt quia operanti aliquid abest because the workman puts himself to expence of time and strength and he for whom he worketh hath the benefit and advantage thereof yet is it also of grace n Azor. Insiit Mor. p 3. l. 11. c. 3. quatenus excedit meritum inasmuch as it exceeds the value of the work And that the Labourer may challenge it ariseth from civil not from natural justice But I readily grant that glory is not our reward in this sense But how then is it a reward Because it comes after and in the place of the work saith Mr. Eyre Rep. Of which I shall speak more hereafter for the present what is said sufficeth me viz. That the reward follows the act whereof it is the reward for hence it follows that if Justification be given as the reward of faith then must it needs follow faith But we have proved before that Justification even the imputation of righteousnesse is the gracious reward of faith Ergo it must needs be consequent to it His second answer is this Though the blessings of the Covenant be given us freely and not upon conditions performed by us yet God hath his order in bestowing them first he gives grace imputed and then inherent Rep. My Argument is à pari we are not glorified unlesse we believe §. 29. yet by beleeving we cannot be said properly to glorifie our selves so though we beleeve that we may be justified yet will it not follow that we may be therefore said to justifie our selves properly the reason is the same on both sides Now whereas Mr. Eyre will have us when beleevers yet to be passive in our glorification meerly because God doth first give faith and then afterwards give glory I wonder he sees not the insufficiency of such answers and how the Arminians get ground by them Say plainly Doth God require and charge us to beleeve and repent that we may be saved or doth he not If he doth then doth he require a condition to be performed on our parts in order to our Justification though he give it us for as o Dr. Twisse observes often Medium ad aliquid obtinendum o Vindic. Grat. de crrat p. 163. ex contractu vel foedere illud demum est conditio A means ordained to obtain any thing by Contract or Covenant is a Condition If he doth not what shall become of those many places wherein God exhorts and commands men to repent and beleeve that they may be saved Then unbelief and impenitency are no sins nor are men thereby the causes of their own ruine and destruction contrary to Scriptures John 3. 19 and 8. 24. passim The reason is plain because man 's not being the object of a gift of God precisely cannot be meritorious of his damnation Indeed Mr. Eyre told us before that he that doth the least work towards the procuring of a benefit is not only physically but morally active in obtaining it I wonder at my heart then why we pray for grace and salvation or why we do or suffer any thing for obtaining a Crown and Kingdom p Authores elus primi fuere Sadoc unde Sadducaei Baythos de quibus videsis Joh. Drus de trib sect Judaeor l. 3. c. 3. 4. Joh. Cameron Myroth in Mat. 22. 23. This very conceit was that which drew many in former ages to deny any resurrection other then what was past already and by some improvement may bid faire for a resurrection of that and like consequences The very substance of Religion and the vital act of faith consists in looking to the reward promised in Heaven Heb. 11. 6 26. 2 Cor. 4. 16 18. And had I not known some Christians fallen and falling off from prayer and ordinances and other spiritual duties upon this very ground that they are passive altogether in their salvation and that they neither can nor must do any thing toward it I would not have lost so much time as to have taken notice of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to Mr. Eyres tenth Chapter My first Argument against Justification before faith vindicated from all Mr. Eyres exceptions SECT I. HAving now asserted the antecedency of faith to Justification §. 1. from many expresse testimonies of Scripture and discovered the fruitlesnesse of all Mr. Eyres attempts against them We proceed to the Vindication of the Reasons added in my Sermon for proof of the same point These Mr. Eyre undertakes in his tenth Chapter They are five in number and the first is this If there be no act of grace declared and published in the Word which may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he is in unbelief then no unbelieving sinner is justified But there is no act of grace declared and published in the Word that may be a legal discharge of the sinner while he remains in unbelief Ergo. Mr. Eyre first denies the Assumption For the Gospel declares that God hath transacted all the sins of the Elect on Jesus Christ and that he by his offering hath made a full and perfect atonement for them whereby they are really made clean from all their sins in the sight of God as of old carnal Israel were typically clean upon the atonement made by the High Priest Lev. 16. 30. Rep. 1. Supposing the tenour of the Gospel or New Covenant to be such a declaration as this yet I deny that this declaration hath the forme or force of a Law to absolve the sinner from the sentence of a former Law The Reason's plain because it is but narratio rei gestae a meer historical narration of what
neither charge persons as guilty of sin nor punish them for it other sense the phrase of imputing sin hath none in all the Scripture for from the imputation of sin unto death the Apostle infers the necessity of a Law according to which sin was imputed in the long tract of time between Adam and Moses 2. Gods hatred of reprobation is not his imputing of sin as being §. 3. antecedent to any act of the creature whether good or evil Rom. 9. 13. If Mr. Eyre think otherwise why have we not one syllable of proof neither from Scripture nor reason to warrant us to call the acts of God by such new names as they were never known by before since the world was made The Apostle prayes that the sin of those that deserted him be not laid to their charge or imputed to them 2 Tim. 4. 16. and the same sense hath the prayer of Stephen for his murderers Acts 7. 60. Lord lay not this sin to their charge both which suppose the imputation or non-imputation of sin to be a consequent to it not antecedent And against the constant language of Scripture and of all men must we be forced upon no other Authority then Mr. Eyres bare word to beleeve the imputation of sin to be from eternity and when the Apostle says sin is not imputed where there is no Law we must beleeve for Mr. Eyre sayes it that the meaning is There is no sin where there is no Law Briefely if sin be imputed from eternity men are miserable from eternity which is impossible for he that is not is not miserable Mat. 26. 24. Therefore Mr. Eyre hath a second answer and that is That §. 4. there is not the same reason of our being sinners and being righteous seeing that sin is our act but righteousnesse is the gift of God Rep. What then yet there may be and is the same reason of imputing sin and imputing righteousnesse which are both Gods acts It is but changing the terme and the matter will be clear To impute righteousnesse and not to impute sin are termes much of the same signification with the Apostle Rom. 4. 6 8. Now to impute sin and to non-impute sin are contraries though the latter be expressed by a negative terme Ergo they are both of them actions of the same kinde and common nature Contraria sunt opposita sub eodem genere proximo Ergo there is the same reason for the one and the other that if sin cannot be imputed without Law then neither non-imputed More particularly thus I argued that as condemnation is no secret act or resolution of God to condemn but the very voice and sentence of the Law Cursed is he that sinneth so on the contrary our Justification must be some declared sentence or act of God which may discharge the sinner from condemnation Mr. Eyre answers That as condemnation comes upon men by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the first Adam so our Justification descends to us by vertue of that Law or Covenant which was made with the second Adam which New Covenant and not the Conditional Promise as Mr. W. would have it is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. Rep. The reason then is acknowledged to be the same on both § 5. sides Ergo as condemnation is by a Law so must Justification be which was before denied To what is here said for explication I reply 1. That the former part of it supposeth that which I will never grant nor Mr. Eyre ever prove and that is That there is no condemnation which comes upon sinners for moral transgressions but by the Law given to Adam Indeed that Law condemned him as the head of mankinde for his first disobedience and so condemneth all his posterity for original sin But his posterity are not concerned in those personal sins which he committed after his first transgression nor in the condemnation which became due to him for them no more then they are subject to condemnation for one anothers sins But that Law which was given to him at first as the common head of mankinde and had effect upon him as such became afterwards of meer personal obligation both upon him and all men else for personal actual sins So that no man now is or ever was since the first transgression subject to condemnation by that Law quatenus it was given to Adam as a publick person for any personal sins of their own but as it was obliging immediately upon each man in his own person And therfore the Law of Mâ—ses speaks more personally Cursed is every man that continueth not in every thing which is written in the Law to do it Gal. 3. 9 10. And by this Law is every transgressour condemned not with a derivative condemnation such I mean as is derived and as it were propagated from another but such whereof every sinner in his own person is the first and immediate subject And unto this condemnation is our Justification most frequently opposed in Scripture The Argument therefore hath yet no answer nor nothing like it The condemnation of a sinner for his own personal sins is an act of God condemning by a Law Ergo the Justification which is opposed thereto is an act of God by a Law in like manner 2. I deny that condemnation comes upon any man by vertue of the Law given to Adam till himself be borne a childe of Adam Ergo from the acknowledged pnrity of reason it must follow that no man is justified by the Covenant made with Christ till himself be borne of Christ that is by faith Gal. 3. 26. John 1. 12. 13. and 3. 5. so that in this respect the Argument is yielded For clearing of the antecedent note That when it is wont to be said we were condemned in Adam it is not to be understood properly but with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an As I may so say to use the Apostles expression in a case not much unlike Heb. 7. 9 10. As I may so say Levi also paid tithes in Abraham for he was yet in the loines of his father Not as if we were then actually condemned who then had no existence for he that is not can be no more under Law then he that is dead and free from Law Rom. 6. 7. and 7. 3. and condemnation by Law being a transient act requires an object existent upon which it may passe But because the very same sentence which condemned him then takes hold without any renovation of all his posterity successively unto the same condemnation Even as when it is said in Adam all diâ— 1 Cor. 15. 22. Not as if men could die before they are borne but because it was appointed and determined by the foresaid Law that all borne of Adam should die Heb. 9 27. And in this respect our spiritual being in the second Adam is as necessary to our partaking in his
common person is the act of them whom he represents But Christs satisfaction merits redemption and perfect obedience are not our act so as that we can be said to have satisfied merited redeemed our selves perfectly obeyed the Law and borne the curse thereof things for ever impossible for sinners to do Rom. 8. 3. and 5. 6. Ergo they are not representable as doing of them Would Mr. Eyre would give an example amongst men of a common person representing others in such an act which is impossible for them to put forth But the Scripture is expresse that as it was by the one offence of one man that all are condemned so is it by the one righteousnesse of one Jesus Christ that all are justified Romanes 5. 17 18. The Resurrection of Christ I acknowledge to be of another consideration §. 12. and that he may with much more reason be said to be a common person in his Resurrection then in his death Nevertheless neither in that do I approve the tearme unlesse it be understood in the second sense mentioned for the reason already given And to what Mr. Eyre addes of Parents being examples to their children he must again remember that I am not contending that Christ is the example but the exemplary cause of our Justification Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth for examples of what judgements God will execute upon such sinners but they are not exemplary causes thereof This for the fallacie 2. Saith Mr. Eyre it is impertinent because Christs discharge §. 13. may be ours though we did not choose him but God did constitute and appoint him to be the Head Surety and common Person to the Elect. We did not choose Adam and yet his sin was imputed to us Answ 1. Nor do I intend any thing more in changing the terme of a common person into that of an exemplary cause then to expresse that preheminence which Christ hath as in all things else so in his Justification which the terme of a common person is so farre from doing as that it supposeth the just contrary for the action or passion of a common person is not so properly his own as his whom he represents As what an Ambassadour doth is not so properly his own act as the Kings and what is done to him as such is more properly done to the King then to him In like manner if Christ were raised precisely as a common person representing us then are we properly the first risers from the dead and his Resurrection hath no causal influence at all upon ours 2. That God appointed his Sonne to be the Head Surety and common Person of the Elect is a contradiction if a common person be taken in Mr. Eyres sense for one that represents others in what he doth and in what is done to him Christ is undoubtedly a Head and Surety to the Elect so the Scriptures call him and both expressions imply a causal influence of life from him to us But the common Person described as such is neither Head nor Surety because the operations of a Head and Surety are his own peculiarly none other do the like and therefore are not capable of being represented in doing of them the case is the same in what he receives or in what is done to him as Head and Surety 3. Concerning Adam I do also deny that he is fitly called a common person in Mr. Eyres sense of that phrase and in what sense we may be said to have sinned in him we have already largely opened His sin is indeed imputed unto us not that it is imputed to us that we have done it or committed it for that is in it selfe an errour of falshood and besides is contrary to the Apostle who supposeth this sin to be imputed unto many who never sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression neither in individuo nor in specie Rom. 5. 14. but because by vertue of that sin we his children stand obliged to the suffering of death natural he being the common Parent who by Covenant received righteousnesse and life to be communicated to his children if himself continued obedient otherwise to lose it both to himself and us That the Reader might see how inconsequent Mr. Eyres argument §. 14. is inferring our Justification before saith from our Justification in some sense in the Resurrection of Christ I said we may as justly inferre that our Resurrection is past already because we are risen in Christ as that our Justification is past before we beleeve because we are in some sense justified in Christ We are also in some sense sanctified in Christ Rom. 6. 6. 1 Cor. 1. 30. yet we may not infer Ergo we are sanctified before faith In answer to this Mr. Eyre speaks many words to little purpose the summe of them is Our personal Resurrection necessarily supposeth our life and death But to our actual discharge there needed no more then the payment of our debt c. Rep. The difference between our Resurrection and Sanctification on the one hand and Justification on the other is plain and obvious but the whole strength of Mr. Eyres Argument lieth in this one thing that we were justified in Christ as a common person Now if our rising in Christ as a common person will not infer that our Resurrection is before faith then neither is our Justification proved to be before faith because we were justified in Christ as a common person and if we were justified simply in his Resurrection â—t must be upon some other account then because we were justified in him as a common person 2. Therefore Mr. Eyre doth tacitly deny not publickly for feare of the people that we are risen in Christ as a common person Christ saith he fully merited our Resurrection to glory in which respect we are said to be risen with Christ a strange and unheard of interpretation that we should be said to be raised with Christ because he in his death merited our Resurrection which might have been true though himself had never been raised but Mr. Eyre might easily foresee that as he interprets our Resurrection in Christ so might we interpret our Justification in Christ rising a phrase not used in Scripture but admitted by me as agreeable or not contrary thereunto not for our Justification in him as a common person but for his merit or purchase of our Justification Truly this doth Mr. Eyre own too though very privately and thereby quite and clean desert his whole argument in the very next words It is saith he no such absurdity to say Christ hath purchased our Râ—surrection though we are not risen as to say he hath purchased our discharge and yet we are not discharged for to say a debt is discharged and yet justly chargeable is a contradiction Purchased why I thought we had been now disputing whether the discharge of Christ as a common person in his Resurrection were really and formally the discharge of sinners and not whether he purchased
our discharge in his death But some men had rather speak nothing to purpose then nothing at all As to the reason added we have already shewed at large in what sense Christs death may be called the payment of our debt A debtour cannot discharge a debt and yet that debt be justly chargeable upon him but that another may not leave a full and sufficient price in the Creditors hand that he may discharge his debtour some time after that price is paid or upon some condition to be performed by him I shall beleeve when I see not words but power and argument which I have long in vaine expected from Master Eyre The Conclusion therefore and summe of my Answer was this Justification §. 15. is either causal and virtual or actual and formal we were causally and virtually justified in Christs Justification but not actually and formally Mr. Eyres answer is nothing but a repetition of several things already confuted concerning the imputation of our sins to Christ and the payment and satisfaction in his death but upon the distinction it self he fixeth nothing By all which I perceive he is weary of his argument drawen from Christs Justification in his Resurrection to prove ours I speak of a Justification virtual and causal in Christs Resurrection and he answers I know not what concerning Christs death Yet the latter part of the answer deserves a little consideration I grant saith Mr. Eyre that the death of Christ doth justifie us only virtually but the satisfaction in his death doth justifie us formally And therefore Christs dying for us or for our sins his reconciling us to God and our being justified are Synonyma's in Scripture phrase Rom. 58 9 10. Rep. 1. The distinction here proposed I never reade before nor can I understand now viz. How we are justified virtually in the death of Christ as it was his death not as it was a satisfaction in whole or part If the meaning be that there was that vertue and worth in the death of Christ as made it satisfactory which no mans death else could be for want of the like worth yet is the speech strangely improper As if a broken undone debtour seeing a very wealthy man that hath many thousands more lying by him then his debt comes to should say his debt is virtually paid or himself virtually discharged by that mans money 2. To say that Christs satisfaction doth justifie us formally is to deny our Justification formal to be Gods act for it was not God but Christ that satisfied or that it doth at all consist in the pardon of sin for Christ did not satisfie by having any sin pardoned to him or that he was justified before us yea rather we are first justified if his satisfaction justifie us formally because himself was not properly justified till his Resurrection I have often read that Christs satisfaction justifies us materially being that matter or righteousnesse for which we are justified never till now that it justifies formally 2. The next observation that Christs dying for us or for our sins and our being justified are Syâ—â—nyma's in Scripture is most plainly refuted by Scripture Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered namely unto death for our sins and rose again for our Justification In the next place Mr. Eyre undertakes the answer of an objection §. 16. not made by me but by some others and it is here brought in by head and shoulders without the least occasion offered saving what Mr. Eyre hath made to himself by forgetting his own argument and the right prosecution thereof and deflecting from our Justification in Christ as a common person to the Purchase of Justification in his blood Neverthelesse because the truth is on the objectours side and Mr. Eyre in answering contradicts himself let us see what is said The objection is this 2 Cor. 5. 21. Christ was made sin for us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we might be made he doth not say that thereby we are made the righteousnesse of God in him Ergo the laying of our sinnes on Christ is only an Antecedent which tends to the procuring of our Justification and not the same formally Thou seest Reader that the scope of the objection is to prove that the death of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification which Mr. Eyre after frequent acknowledgements of the truth of it doth now plainly deny and that of Justification not as signifying the act but the effects What have we heard so often of Christs procuring meriting purchasing Pardon and Redemption when he is here denied to have done any thing tending to the procuring of our Justification But let us see Mr. Eyres answer it consists of three parts 1. Saith he That this phrase that we might be or be made doth not alwayes signifie the final but sometimes the formal cause as when it is said That light is let in that darknesse may be expelled Rep. But in this sense is that phrase very rarely if at all used in the New Testament and improperly wheresoever it is used and thrice in this chapter but a little before used in its most obvious sense verse 10. 12 15. and in this text cannot have that sense which Mr. Eyre here mentions because himself acknowledgeth in his very next answer that the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us do differ But the Apostle in this verse speaks of the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us Ergo the making of him to be sin for us and of us righteousnesse in him is not formally the same Mr Eyre 2. Though the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousnesse to us differ yet the imputation of sin to him and non-imputation of it unto us is but one and the same act of God Rep. 1. I must needs say this is to be wise above what is written The Apostle supposeth the imputation of righteousnesse and non-imputation of sin to be one and the same act differing only in respect of the terminus à quo ad quem Rom. 4. 6 8. David describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without works Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin 2. Mr. Eyre argued not far before that God promiseth nothing in his Covenant which Christ hath not purchased But non-imputation of sin is the special blessing promised in the Covenant Heb. 8. 12. for the pardon of sin and the non-imputation of it is all one Rom. 4. 7 8. Ergo it was procured in the death of Christ 3. According to the model of this distinction the death of Christ procures the imputation of righteousnesse but not the non-imputation of sin that is it procures positive blessings but not the destruction of or our deliverance from the evil and miseries of sin which makes our Lord but halfe a Saviour 4. Would Mr. Eyre had told us what is that imputation of righteousnesse which
There can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was viz. to abstaine from the fruit of one tree Rep. 1. Our Divines are not wont to place the whole of the condition required of Adam in that one precept of not eating the forbidden fruit any otherwise then symbolically for as that tree had the nature of a Sacrament and the not eating of it a visible profession of vniversall subjection unto God so the eating of it was a visible and universal renouncing of his authority and of that obedience which Adam owed him 2. The objectors who they are I know not have I presume this sense 1. That if we compare the nature of the acts it is farre easier to beleeve then to keep the law and this is certaine for de facto multitudes beleeve who never kept the Law perfectly 2. That it is an easier way of salvation to be saved onely by committing our selves to Christ in his way that he may save us then to have the whole care and burthen of so great a work upon our selves this also is true because in this way our salvation is sure in the other it was uncertaine even when man was righteous as the event proves sadly and unto sinners impossible 3. That the commands of Christ are nothing so grievous to be borne as those given to the Church before his coming this also is undoubted Act. 15. 10. 4. That faith in exercitio or to beleeve is farre easier to us through the strength of God enabling us then it was to Adam to keep himself in that state of righteousnesse in which he was made for it is God which enables us to performe those acts which himself hath made the conditions of our interest in his covenant So will Mr. Eyre say Adams ability to keep the Law was given him of God True But 1. Not of grace but ut naturae debita as we maintaine against the Papists as due to his nature out of that common goodnesse which furnished every creature in its kind with those principles and abilities which were necessary to them for the attaining of the respective ends to which they were created which if they had wanted the work of God had been imperfect and unlike himself but the creature had been in no fault 2. The use and improvement of those abilities was left to Adams free will supposing that common concourse of divine providence without which no creature can move in its kind toward its own end But to quicken us when we were dead and restore lost abilities yea to vegetate and maintaine them against contrary principles and inclinations from within and oppositions from without is such special grace as Adam in that state received not Some other reasons Mr. Eyre adjoyns but he tells the Reader that he hath mentioned them before more then once or twice and I also have answered them before and therefore shall referre the Reâ—der thither and so passe on to his twentieth chapter CHAP. XVI A reply to Mr. Eyrs twentieth chapter containing the solution of his Arguments tending to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve SECT I. FRom the Apostles description of the New Covenant §. 1. Heb. 8. I retorted this argument upon Mr. Eyre If God be not the God of any nor they his people before they beleeve then none are in Covenant with God before they beleeve But God is not the God of any before they beleeve Ergo. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes against the assumption largely and advanceth many arguments to prove that God is the God of his people before they beleeve Let us take them in their order First If God be their God whom he doth peculiarly love §. 2. and whom he hath chosen then is he a God to some before they beleeve But God is their God whom he hath chosen Answ If by choosing be meant from eternity of which the Apostle speaks Eph. 1. 4. I deny the Minor God is never said in Scripture to be the God of any in reference to his eternal election of them that being no more then a purpose of making them his people and of becoming a God to them God is not the God of them that are not Matth. 22. 32. Let us see the proofes God was the God of Israel now he became their God by setting his love upon them and chusing them and by separating them from other people Deut. 7. 6 7 8. Lev. 20. 24 25. Answ 1. I deny that either the chusing of them Deut. 7. or the separating of them Lev. 20. are to be understood of eternal election of which neverthelesse Mr. Eyre pretends to be understood in his Major by quoting for proof Eph. 1. 4. otherwise I would have denyed the Major for even in vocation which also is sometimes in Scripture called choosing as we have shewed elsewhere God separates men to himself from the rest of mankind yet will it by no means follow that therefore he is the God of some that believe not for vocation is the giving of faith As to the texts before us it is manifest that the chusing spoken of Deut. 7. is a temporall act for the cause of it is set down ver 8. Because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto their Fathers expressed more plainely chap. 4. 37. Because he loved their Fathers therefore he chose their seed after them So also chap. 10. 15. 2. Much lesse is it said that this love or chusing them was the thing in respect of which he is said to be their God and they his people but the contrary is implyed verse 6. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people to himself above all people c. Where the making of them to be his people which also includes the correlate of becoming their God is mentioned as the end and effect of his chusing them which effect when it is wrought is easie to learne from Exod. 19. 5. Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my Covenant then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people Again saith Mr. Eyre the Lord Ezek. 16 8. declares concerning spiritual Israel that they became his whilest they were in their blood that he sware unto them and entred into Covenant with them which swearing as it referres to spiritual Israel must be understood of the oath which he made to Christ concerning the blessing of his seed Answ Nothing but uncertainties 1. It is not faire in a dispute to ground a conclusion upon Types unlesse we have firme demonstrations of the Antitype Mr. Eyre should therefore prove that the words there spoken are not peculiar to Israel in the letter 2. That the spiritual Israel typified are the Elect as such and not believers as such 3. That the Israel there spoken of were his before he entred into Covenant with them The text is expresse against it I entred into Covenant with thee and thou becamest mine
purchase See Exod. 19. 5. We shall cleare all this by a distinction at the end of Mr. Eyres Arguments Mr. Eyre proceeds fourthly We receive faith it self upon this §. 6. account because we are Gods people Ergo God is our God before we believe The antecedent he proves Gal. 4. 6. Because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts crying Abba father So. Isa 48. 17. I am the Lord thy God which teacheth thee to profâ—t Answ I deny the Antecedent The proof is such as I never expected to have met with from a Scholar and a Divine To Gal. 4. 6. I deny that the Spirit of the Sonne there mentioned is to be understood of faith but of that Spirit of prayer which includes that boldnesse liberty and confidence spiritual which God gives to them that are his Sonnes by faith For we are the Sonnes of God by faith in Jesus Christ saith this Apostle not farre before chap. 3. 26. and receive the Spirit of the Sonne through faith ver 14. a Spirit given to believers not a Spirit given to make men believers Joh. 7. 38 39. Rom 8. 14 15. for we are believers before we are Sons Joh. 1. 12. as to the other text Isa 48. 17. I consent to Junius that the meaning is Praesto quod mearum est partium not that they had actually believed which sense the very next ver contradicts but as Piscator in his Scholia upon the place because he had taught them ea quae apta vel comparata sunt ad prodessendum those things which if they had observed would have been very much for their profit and advantage Fifthly saith Mr. Eyre None do or can believe and repent §. 7. but they to whom the Lord doth manifest this grace That he is their God Ergâ— the Lord is our God before we beleeve and repent Answ This is strange Divinity that the soul must be assured by revelation that God is his God before he can believe or repent If this be true souls are in worse condition after they have repented and believed then before many faithful souls are groaning all their daies after this manifestation of God to be their God But what is the proof We châ—se and love him because he chose and loved us first Joh. 15. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 10 19. Hâ—â— 2. 23. And Burroughs Rivet and Zanchy are quoted to prove what That God begins with us first and makes us his people before we owneâ— him for our God Alas the thing to be proved is not that God gives faith and repentance of which there was never anâ— question between Mr. Eyre and me but that he is our God and we his people before he give it us we have shewed from Scripture that he gives faith that he may be our God and we his people And if God make us his people viz. by giving us faith and repentance before he be our God which is the sense of the Authours whom Mr. Eyre quotes have they not fairely proved his proposition viz. That none can believe and repent but they to whom God hath manifested himselfe to be their God His sixth and last Argument is They to whom God is a Father §. 8. and a Shepheard have the Lord for their God But God was our Father and Shepheard before we believed All the Elect are the sheep and children of Jesus Christ before they believed Joh. 10. 16. Isa 53. 10. Heb. 2. 13. Jer. 3. 19. Answ I deny the assumption Indeed the Elect are called the sheep of Christ Joh. 10. 16. not that they were his sheep at present for none of the qualities of sheep mentioned or not ment oned in that Chapter a gree to men dead in sinne and ungodlinesse and much lesse to men that are not and a shepheard actually there cannot be where there are no sheep but proâ—eptically from what they should be of which manner of speech we have given many instances before from Scripture Thus saith Abraham to his servant Gen. 24. 4 38. Thou shalt go unto my kindred and take a wife unto my Son Isaac Not that she was his wife or any mans else before he took her but because she was to be made his wife or she whom God had appointed for him ver 44. and if Abraham knowing Rebeckah had said to his man as is usual to be said amongst our selves in like cases I have a wife for my son in such a place it would have argued no more then that he had an intention if he could to make such a one his sonnes wife Thus a Qâ—est super Lâ—vâ—t cap. 23. Hieron in Ezâ—k 30. Augustine observes that before the ordination and sanctification of the Priests they are yet called by the name of Priests Exod. 19. 22. Non quia jam sacerdotes erant sed quia futuri erant hoc eos jam tunc Scriptura appâ—llavit per anticipationem sicut sunt pleraque talium locutionum Nam filius Nave Jesus appellatus est cum longe postea hoc nomen ei Scriptura narret impositum As to Isa 53. 10. and Heb. 2. 13. We have spoken to them often It should be proved and not only said that the seed and children there mentioned are meant precisely of the Elect. As to Jer. 3. 19. But I said how shall I put thee among the children and give thee a pleasant land and I said Thou shalt call me my Father and shalt not turn away from me Deodate gives the true sense viz. my will indeed is firme to re-establish you but true conversion is the only means and necessary condition of it God according to the order of government he hath established cannot give the inheritance of children to any but those whom he hath converted and made his children Junius upon the place to the same purpose Upon the survey of this whole dispute I have onely two things to §. 9. observe 1. That whereas I have proved the words of those covenant I will be their God and they shall be my people to be a promise made to them that beleeve of the many places in Scripture where those words are used Mr. Eyre cannot find us so much as one wherein they are applyed to men that are not converted unto God 2. His arguings from such passages of Scripture wherein men are sometimes said to be the Lords or to be Gods or the Lord thy God and the like conclude nothing till it be proved that such expressions imply as much and the same with those words in the Covenant I will be their God c. forasmuch as men may be said to be his and he theirs sometimes in some other sense then those words in the Covenant signifie All the earth is Gods and all the fullnesse thereof Psal 50. 12 10. 11. All men are his Ezâ—k 18. 4. generally whatsoever is made by him or used to his glory or subject to his government or separated more immediately
to his service as the Levites were Numb 3. 12. and the first borne Exod. 13. 2 12. or the like these in a generall sense are his So the Lord thy God a phrase which God often useth when he speaks to Israel mostly signifies the God whom they professed and externally worshipped or at least whom they ought to have worshipped as is to be seen in places without number Therefore it is not every sense in which we are called his or he ours which will conclude him to be our God in the covenant sense Jer 7. 23. compared with Jer. 31. 33. where it is plainly a promise of spiritual eternal universal and perfect blessednesse though gradually accomplished Accordingly neither did I use any of the foresaid texts or phrases though I might have used many with great advantage to prove either that I will be thy God c. contained all the blessings of the covenant on Gods part or that it is a promise made to them that beleeve and are converted but those plaine texts where these words are set down syllabically as the matter and summe of the Covenant nor can Mr. Eyre gaine any thing by the use of them till he hath better reconciled the Scriptures to his cause As to the following observation which I had from some learned Jewish and Christian writers viz. That God is never said to be our § 10. God in reference to his giving the first grace but onely in reference to the blessings which he promiseth to them that have faith My memory did a little faile me in the words but not at all in their sense If Mr. Eyre must needs know my authors they are b Upon Gen. 28. 13. R. Solomon Jarchi who saies that God is not in Scripture said to be the God of any whiles they are alive endeavouring to prove it out of Job 15. 15. c It is in Tanchum fol. 13. Col. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est Nâ—n in venimus in Scriptura Deum nomen ejus junxisse hominibus justis â—um in vivis sunt ut scribe retur â—eus cujusâ—â—bet c. â— In Berachoth fol. 5. Col. 4 c. and assignes a peculiar reason why in that place of Gen. 28. 13. God saith he is the God of Isaack whilest Isaack was yet alive The same author doth there also repeat the words in Tanchuma though he do not quote the place where it is said The holy blessed God doth not joyne his name to the Saints while they are alive but when they are dead as it is said to the Saints which are on the earth c. and to the same purpose the Jerusalem d Targum though I know some of them and particularly More Nâ— voch part 3 cap. 51 Maimâ—â—des give a farre different reason of Gods calling himself the God of any one though with farre lesse probability As to the notion it self I seek no more from it then that God is called the God of a people or person in reference to the blessednesse and rewards which he gives to them especially that of a heavenly and eternal life And thus farre forth it is grounded on Scripture Rev. 21. 3 7. Otherwise I cannot conceive how our Lord concludes the resurrection from hence that he calls himself the God of Abraham the God of Isaack and the God of Jacob Matth. 22. 32. and the Apostle so expounds it Heb. 11. 16. He is not ashamed to be called their God for he hath prepared for them a City which place firmlâ— shews that God is called their God in reference to the reward of a heavenly blessednesse specially which he gave them Mr. Eyre whether willingly or ignorantly himself best knows quite mistakes the Argument from the place as if it were no more but this God was the God of Abraham Isâ—ack and Jacoâ— who were beleevers Ergo he is not the God of any before they do beleeve No. The Argument is grounded in the Apostles interpretation of the phrase He is called their â—oâ— inasmuch as he hath prepared for them a City Neverthelessâ— â—f I had argued in his sense the Argument had been strong and undeâ—iable for their faith is mentioned as the reason upon wâ—â—ch God became a God unto them as appeares by the note of inference 〈◊〉 werâ—fâ—re Wherefore he is not ashamed to be called their God Hence the Argument is and let Master Fyre answer it if he can If Gods being the God of Abraham Isaack and Jacoh were a consequent of their faith then is it also a consequeâ—t of all other mens faith or he is not the God of any other before they beleeve the reason is because he is the God of all men in the same way Rom. 3. 29 30. But the first is cleare from the teâ—t Wherefore Ergo so is the last Mr. Eyres parallel if he will review it he will acknowledge to be rediculous and unworthy of an answer And as thus Gods being our God is clearly made a consequent of §. 11. faith so elsewhere our being his people is made a consequent of the same faith 1 Pet. 2. 10. In times past you were not a people but are now the people of God This saith Mr. Eyre is to be understood in reference to the external administration of the Covenant and not the reall participation or interest in the blessings of it Rep. 1. If the words be spoken of Jews to whom this Epistle is written chap. 1. 1. they were externally the people of God before and in reference to them it must be therefore something more that is here promised then that they shall be externally the people of God 2. If of Gentiles whom the Apostle also includes in this promise Rom. 9. 25. their condition had been happy if the want of an externall covenant had been the worst and they had had right and interest in Christ and everlasting life by some Covenant internall But all gentiles equally in their gentile state are strangers from the Covenants of promise Eph. 2. 12. that is have no right to any of those blessings which pertaine to the houshold and City of God v. 19. no more then Spaniards or any other forreigners have a right to any of the priviledges honours preferments of the City of London or an Indian in America hath right to inherit with the Son of an Englishman 3. To be externally in covenant is to be in covenant by visible profession and it is opposed to him that is in covenant internally by true faith this is the usual sense of that distinction used by the Apostle for substance when he distinguisheth between a Jew outwardly and a Jew inwardly Rom. 2. 28 29 if M. Eyre have here the same sense as he seemes to haâ—e or at least willing to have then when the Apostle sayes you are now a people and Mr. Eyre interprets him of a people onely visible and external either he supposeth that they had faith long before the time he speaks of or that
any mans Justification I am perswaded the devils beleeve it and it cannot be denied but that the merits of Christ were a price of themselves sufficient to have purchased salvation for them yea and to have turned all the stones in the streets into men and to have glorified them in Heaven And it is very strange that a soule should be drawn to Christ upon a ground common to divels with himself or have the evidence of his Justification by believing such a truth in which the devils have as much interest as himselfe SECT VII THe third branch of my Argument succeeds Namely that we §. 29. cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification syllogistically Two Reasons I gave of this The first is because there cannot be found out a medium before faith it selfe c. The farther Explication the Reader may see in my Sermon Mr. Eyre answers That it is not needful It is sufficient that faith it selfe is the medium as thus He that beleeveth was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo. Rep. The Argument remaines good for the purpose for which I advanced it For I not knowing certainly in what sense Mr. Eyre would maintain that faith did evidence could conjecture at none more probable then that he placed the nature and being of justifying faith in the evidence knowledge or assurance of our Justification Upon which presumption as I had before proved that it was not assensus axiomaticus an axiomatical and immediate assent to this Proposition I am justified so in this Argument my intent was to prove that neither was it assensus syllogisticus an assent to the same Proposition deduced by way of Conclusion out of premisses And this the Argument proves invincibly Let us set Mr. Eyres syllogisme before us and the matter will be plain He that beleeves was justified before faith But I beleeve Ergo I was justified before faith Hence it is manifest that the faith which I affirme of my selfe in the minor cannot consist essentially in my assent to the Conclusion for then the Syllogisme would consist but of two Propositions This is the manifest scope of the Argument which now I know Mr. Eyres minde better I see well enough doth him but little hurt and therefore I insist not on the vindication of it Nor yet may the Reader charge me for arguing impertinently seeing it was necessary I should suppose and confute what might be said when I did not know what would be said I know no other way I had to get out of Mr. Eyre his sense of faiths evidencing Yet because I did easily foresee he might give that answer which here he doth I added the next Argument which meets with it to the full If we are said to be justified by faith because faith doth evidence §. 30. Justification syllogistically then may we be said as well to be justified by sense and reason as by faith because sense and reason concurre with faith in a syllogistical evidence As thus He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The Proposition only is the assent or act of faith The Assumption an act of sense or spiritual experience The Conclusion an act of Reason Mr. Eyre answers That the Conclusion is of faith As in this Syllogisme All men shall rise from the dead I am a man Ergo I shall rise from the dead Rep. That the Conclusion is de fide is said not proved and I would that way of disputing were lesse frequent with Mr. Eyre I acknowledge the Conclusion to be partly of faith and partly of reason and experience as Mr. o Vindiâ— grat pâ—g 41. fol. Pemble determines it And that the Schooles determine otherwise I will beleeve when I see That it is not purely of faith I thus prove The assent of faith is grounded in the verity of divine testimony But the assent to a Conclusion is grounded in the necessity of its p Vid. Frâ—â— Bâ—ur Meneriz dâ—f P. Râ—dial l. 2. c. 9. disquis 1 2. consequence upon such and such premisses which forceth the understanding to assent to it whether of it self it be of necessary or contingent truth or in what matter soever it be whether grammatical physical theological or the like So that a Conclusion is said to be de fide because it depends upon some principle of saith in regard of its supernaturality but formally Et quâ—tenus attingitur per actum Conclusionis Reason is principium assentiendi proximum the nearest q De Mendâ—z loq disp 1â— de demonstr sect 3. â— 47. principle and cause of my assent otherwise we must have some other definition of a syllogisme then our Universities have hitherto been acquainted with 2. In the present case the matter is clearer then Mr. Eyre is aware of We will suppose Peter to be the man that makes the Syllogisme He that believes is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified When he faith in the minor I beleeve he is supposed to speak not only of that faith which sin the Will accepting and embracing a promised good but of that ialso which is in the understanding assenting omni credibili to all truths proposed to be believed But according to Mr. Eyre it is a truth proposed to Peters faith that himself is justified Let it be expressed then in the Syllogisme and it runs thus He that beleeves all the objects of his faith and particularly that himselfe is justified he is justified But saith Peter I beleeve all the objects of my faith and particularly that my self am justified Ergo I am justified If the Conclusion be here de side then Peter beleeves he is justified because he believes he is justified which Conclusion I confesse is no act of reason Neverthelesse if Reason be yielded to be principium assentiendi the principle of assenting to the Conclusion there will be better sense in his Argumentation namely that Peter knows that he is justified or is perswaded thereof with a certainty of Reason because he beleeves it with a divine Faith and that he could not do if he were not justified As to the Syllogisme which Mr. Eyre proposeth for Illustration §. 31. All men shall rise again I am a man Ergo I shall rise again The Conclusion is partly of faith and partly of reason Of reason formaliter elicitivè of faith fundamentaliter imperativè as I may so speak it being a particular knowledge grounded in a principle of faith for I could not have this knowledge unlesse I did by faith assent to the Proposition But that it is not purely of faith I thus prove If a man be sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise then to assent that himself shall rise is not purely an act of faith Because a man cannot at the same time be sound and unsound in the faith of the same