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
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.
note Reader that the words as well are not a note of parity as Mr. Eyre mistakes them I doubt not unwillingly but of similitude for I do not mean that works do evidence with an equal degree of clearnesse or certainty but in the same way or manner or that they are an evidence of the same kinde and nature as faith is if faith evidence barely as an effect And so we may be said to be justified by works by the very same reason as we are said to be justified by faith if to be justified by faith be no more then by faith as an effect to know that we are justified which is that which Mr. Eyre will never be able to answer while he lives But let us see what he sayes for his denial of works to evidence as well as faith First saith he they do not evidence so clearly and certainly as faith doth because works may proceed from principles of natural ingenuity and morality 2. Works do evidence in the judgement of charity and before men but not in the judgement of infallibility or with that clearnesse and demonstrative certainty which the conscience requires Rep. All this is nothing Majus minus non variant speciem If works evidence Justification in the same way and manner as faith doth though not with such a perfect degree of evidence as faith doth then are we justified by works as well as by faith if to be justified be to know that we are justified 2. The Scriptures tell us that works Christian and spiritual works are a very clear and certain evidence 1 John 3. 14. We know that we are passed from death to life because we love the brethren So 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7. with ver 10 11. It is true there may be works like good works which are not so in truth and there may be faith like true faith which yet is not faith unfeigned but when works are brought to the light and manifested that they are wrought in God they are a very sure evidence as sure for ought I know as faith it selfe though I will not dispute it 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. I have fought a good sight I have finished my course I have kept the faith hencefâ—rth there is laid up for me a Crown of righteousnesse c. 3. What he sayes in the second place that works do evidence before men but not with that clearnesse and certainty which the conscience requires is point blank against the Scriptures 1 John 3. 18 19. My little children let us not lâ—ve in wâ—rd neither in tongue but in deed and in truth And hereby we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our hearts before him 4. Observe also Reader that Mr. Eyre doth here as also in other places distinguish between faith and works and yet to oppose me will not allow that we are justified by faith because faith is a work Before I passe to the next branch of this Argument I must acquaint §. 17. thee Reader that in the close of this I added these words Whether works be the first effect namely of Justification or the second and by consequence the first evidence or the second is not at all material in this case because the Apostle when he denies Justification by works excludes works altogether Rom. 3. 28. and 4. 5. The Reason why I added this was Because when Mr. Warren proposed this Argument against Mr. Eyre all the answer he could get was this Question Whether Works were the first evidence or the second The impertinency of this Question I thought fit to discover by observing that the Apostle denies to works any influence at all into that Justification which he speaks of and therefore he speaks not of Justification by way of evidence whether first or second But the principal intent of the Argument was to prove the main Conclusion That the Apostle when he disputes for Justification by faith cannot be understood of Justification declared in couscience for works have an efficiency in producing that Justification But the Apostle rejects works from having any hand at all in that Justification which he disputes for Therefore he meanes not Justification in conscience To this Mr. Eyre hath held it his wisest course to say nothing If he should have distinguished of works as that he must do if he do any thing he knows well enough what advantage he had put into my hands against himself Whether this be an Argument of a minde desirous to advance the truth the day will make manifest SECT V. I Come now to the second branch of my Argument and that is §. 18. That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification immediately or axiomatically which before I prove I must speak something by way of Explication By an axiome we mean a sentence or Proposition manifest by its own light worthy to be believed for its own sake so that it is no sooner proposed but the mind h In intellectione perfecta reperiuntur tria Primum est conformitas actus cum objecto secundum necessitas assentiendi tertium impotentia ad falsitaâ—em Pâ—imum vocatur veritas Secundum evidentia Tertium certitudo P. Hâ—rt de Meâ—doz de Anim. d. 8. sect 1. §. â— assents to it presently that it is true As in naturall things that every whole is more then its part That man is a reasonable creature That two make four or the like These things are evident to our reason at first view without any farther proof And there is a double evidence in all such assent The one is the evidence of the object or the truth assented to which must be clearly represented in the Axiome or Proposition The other of the subject which is the light of reason within us by which we assent to a Proposition of evident truth and have the clear knowledge thereof Even as unto our seeing of any thing there must concurre an external light to make the object visible and internal sight in the eye to evidence the same object to each man in particular for though the light shine never so clearly a blinde man can see nothing nor the most quick-sighted without outward light The case is the same in supernatural verities as That Jesus Christ is the Sonne of God that he is come into the world to save sinnâ—rs that whosoever believeth on him shall be saved and the like Which things because they are above the reach and comprehension of natural reason therefore our mindes assent not to them nor have the evidence of them till they be informed with a more supernatural light and principle namely faith which is the eye and sight of the soule Heb. 11. 26 27. Hence the Apostle in that chapter ver 1. describes faith to be the evidence of things not seen and sayes ver 3. By faith we know the world was made by the Word of God That God made the world is evidenced objectively by the
proved in my Sermon in these words If the tenour of the first Covenant do this and live by the consent of all people and Nations Jews and Gentiles will undeniably evince that works were necessary Antecedents of justification in that covenant why then should not Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved which is the tenour of the New Covenant Rom. 10. 6 9. plead as strongly for the like necessity of the Antecedency of faith to justification in this Covenant Mr. Eyre answers That Beleeve and thou shalt be saved is not the tenor of the new Covenant for 1. It 's no where called so 2. In Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. The new Covenant runs quite in another straine That Text Rom. 10. 6 9. is not the tenour of the new Covenant for that requires confession as well as faith The Apostle there describes the persons that shall be saved they are such as do beleeve and professe the truth His scope is to resolve that question how a man may know that he shall be saved c. Rep. The stresse of the Argument lies not at all on this that Beleeve and thou shalt be saved is the tenor of the new Covenant as Mr. Eyre supposeth I think that he may the more colourably wave an answer If I had left out the word Covenant in the Argument and proofe of it yet had the Argument been the same as to its principall intent Do this and live by the consent of all the world proves undeniably that works were to go before justification according to the purport of that saying Ergo Beleeve and thou shalt be saved will as necessarily inferre that faith is to go before justification though we do not at all dispute whether that were the tenor of the Covenant of workes or this of the Covenant of grace Now judge Reader what weight there is in Mr. Eyre's answer The tenor of the new Covenant saith he is not Beleeve and thâ—u shalt be saved Suppose it yet is it that which the Apostles preached v. 8. and one would think should be as plaine to prove the antecedency of faith as the other of workes to justiâ—â—cation 2. And that this is the tenor of the Covenant of grace appears 1. That which the Apostle calleth the righteousnesse which is of the Law v. 5. is the tenor of the Covenant of workes Ergâ— that which he calls the righteousnesse which is of faith v. 6. is the tenor of the Covenant of grace and that is this If thou shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved v. 9. 2. The doctrine whereof the Apostles were the special Ministers is the tenor of the new Covenant 2 Cor. 3. 6. But Bâ—leeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the doctrine whereof the Apostles were special Ministers c. Rom. 10. 8 9. The word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt believe and confesse c. This it seems is the summe of what the Apostles preached and that according to the commission and call they had received from God v. 14. And that faith and repentance and salvation thereupon was the summe of the Apostles Ministry appears also from other Texts of Scripture Act. 20. 21. Luk. 24. 47. Heb. 6. 1. c. 3. The Gospel and the Covenant of grace is all one But this is the summe of the Gospel Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Mark 16. 15 16. Go preach the Gospel to every creature He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved 4. Beleeve and thou shalt be saved are words that have the forme of a Covenant Ergo they are either the Covenant of the Law or of grace or some third Covenant Not the Covenant of the Law for the Apostle expresly opposeth them against that Covenant Rom. 10. 5 6. a third Covenant they cannot be Ergo they are the Covenant of grace Let us now see upon what grounds Mr. Eyre denies these words §. 11. to be the tenor of the new Covenant 1. Saith he they are no where called so Ans Nor doth the name of the Covenant of workes appeare in Scripture nor of the Covenant of grace neither is it therefore a sufficient ground to deny that do this and live is the tenor of the Covenant of workes 2. If it be not called by the name of the Covenant yet is it called by names of equipollent signification as when it is called the Gospel the word of faith the righteousnesse of faith the Law of faith Rom. 3. 27. the Law of righteousnesse 9. 31. the promise Heb. 4. 1. Gal. 3. 22. 3. But neither is the name wanting Gal. 3. 15 16 17. If it be but a mans Covenant no man disannulleth or addeth thereto Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made And the Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ c. Compare these expressions with v. 22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe And v. 14. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith And v. 9. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Hence the Argument is The promise of blessednesse through faith is the summe and substance of the new Covenant Beleeve in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved is the promise of blessednesse through faith Ergo it is the summe and substance of the new Covenant or of the Covenant of grace These two tearms I use as of the same import to expresse that Covenant which is opposed to the Covenant of workes strictly so called The Minor is past denyall The Major stands upon this foundation That the same inheritance and blessing which was given by promise to beleeving Abraham which promise is called the Covenant is now proposed to all the world Gentiles as well as Jews to be obtained by the same faith that Abraham had and given to them when they believe As to Mr. Eyres second Argument that when the new Covenant is mentioned Jer. 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another straine I must desire thee Reader to have patiâ—nce till thou come to the particular debate of those Texts which thou shalt meet with below wherein thou shalt see it fully proved that there is nothing spoken in them but what doth confirme the truth of that which I here assert I referre thee thither purposely that I may forbeare tautologies But Mr. Eyre hath a speciall reason why this Covenant Rom. 10. §. 12. 6 9. cannot be the Covenant of grace because it requires confession as well as faith and so justification by the new Covenant would be justification by confession as well as by faith Rep. The Apostle answers this fully v. 10. With the heart man beleeveth unto
righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Hence it is manifest that faith and faith only is requisite to justification but confession also is required of them that are justified unto salvation according to what our Lord himself speaks whosoever shall confesse me before men him will I also confesse before my Father but whosoever shall deny me before men him will I also deny before my Father Matth. 10. 32 33. Luk. 12. 8. Indeed our compleat and final justification at the day of judgement is no small part of our salvation but the Apostle here distinguishing justification as a thing going before from salvation as a thing following after teacheth us to understand him of our initial justification or of the first right to the inheritance of life which by the promise is given a man as soone as he believes which yet is to be understood not as if confession were of as universal and absolute necessity to salvation as faith it self for if a man believe in the very last moment of his life when he hath neither opportunity nor ability of body to make confession he shall be saved notwithstanding but that it is k Vid. Amâ—s Cas Con. l. 4 c. 3. q. 2. necessary in its time and place but faith only absolutely universally and indispensably necessary as the Apostle also intimates in his proofe subjoyned v. 11. mentioning faith without confession whosoever beleeveth on him shall not be ashamed Even as our l Chaâ— pâ—nstrat de Baptis l. 5. c 9 §. 3. Spanhâ—â— dub evang part 3. dub 96. pag. 493 494. Protestants argue against the Papists that though it be said Mark 16. He that beleeveth and is baptized shall be saved yet is not Baptisme hereby made as necessary to salvation as faith it self because it is not mentioned in the negative proposition presently added He that beleeveth not shall be damned Not he that is not baptized shall be damned Nor finally is confession required as by it self and in coordination with faith but as in subordination thereunto being indeed the natural effect thereof and that wherein the truth and life of faith doth exert it self To what is added that the Apostles scope is to answer that question §. 13. how a man may know that he shall be saved and that he doth describe the persons that shall be saved by two markes or characters faith and confession I reply we have been too often imposed upon by pretended scopes and Mr. Shepheard is falsly alledged as a witnesse that the Apostles scope is to answer the foresaid question for he saith it not but is purposely arguing in that very place which m Sound beleev p. 230. Mr. Eyre referres to out of this very Text that we are not justified before we beleeve Yet is it most true that a man may come by faith to know that he shall be saved and the ground of it is because faith is appointed of God to be medium fruitionis a means of obtaining salvation and therefore cannot be denied to be medium cognitionis a means by which a man may know that he shall be saved Even as the same Law which made workes the means of life do this and live if a man had kept it would have also bred the assurance and knowledge that he should have lived But 1. As it is not the knowledge of life simply but life it self which is promised in those words for it were too grosse to paraphrase them thus do this and thou shalt thereby know that thou shalt live so it is not simply the knowledge of justification and salvation but salvation it self which is promised in these beleeve and thou shalt be saved The righteousnesse which is of the Law sayes thus do this and live v. 5. But the righteousnesse which is of faith sayes this if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved v. 6 8 9. What can be more plaine 2. When it is said v. 10. with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the moutâ— confâ—ssion is made unto salvation must we read it thus with the heart man believeth unto the knowledge of righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto the knowledge of salvation What will become of the Scriptures if men may interpret them after this rate 3. And here to see how it falls out Mr. Eyre is forced to contend that the Apostle mentioneth faith as that which evidenceth justification as a mark or character which way of evidencing he could by no means approve of when I urged it p. 77. § 3. and 4. of his book 4. If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved That these words propound §. 14. the condition or means of salvation and not only describe the persons that shall be saved we have proved n chap. â— sect 1. before by several Arguments And according to my promise there I shall adde something here that if it be possible Mr. Eyre may suspect the truth of that notion which he cannot defend but by turning the Scriptures into a nose of wax And 1. I say that if the foresaid words do only describe the persons that shall be saved then are they here used otherwise then the like words or manner of speech is used any where else in Scripture Mr. Eyre hath not yet produced us one place where such phrase of speech is a bare description of a person at least unlesse we will take his bare word that so it is meant And though it be hard to be peremptory in such a nicety and deny universally that there is any example in Scripture of such phrase of speech used in such a sense yet upon the most diligent and critical observation which I have made on purpose to discover it I can find none neither in the Old nor New-Testament and therefore shall deny it till Mr. Eyre not only say it but prove it For if the foresaid words If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved do only describe what manner of persons they are that shall be saved then do they not suspend salvation upon the act of beleeving but their meaning is this If thou be one of those who be or shall be believers thou shalt be saved Shew us the like in all the Scriptures And hence 2. It follows that these words do not present believers as such reduplicativè as the objects of salvation but only Specificativè the men that are believers but under some other respect and notion For example Peter gives a legacy to Simon the Tanner that lives in Joppa by the sea side The messenger that carries the legacy knows not the man but tells him if he be the Tanner of Joppa this legacy is his Which words do not indeed propound the condition but the description of the Legatee from his place and profession and the legacy is not given him in respect of either of these circumstances but immediately as the person whom these circumstances describe or it is not given the man Quatenus he
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
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-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
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
adde Dâ—ut 30 from v. 11. to the end of the chapter §. 17. 4. And whereas Mr. Eyre tells us again that the Purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure the sinner and make the Law of condemnation to be of no force as to the real execution of it we have before shewed at large the mischievous consequences of this doctrine If this be so to what purpose imaginable did Christ die at least there was no need he should die to redeem us from the curse of an abrogated Law which by an eternal Act was made of no force at all to condemne Before when the satisfaction and merits of Christ lay at stake for the credit of an eternal Justification Mr. Eyre was content to yield them this honour that they purchased the effects though not the act of Justification which effect he told us was our non-punition But here he tells us that the purpose of Gods Will doth sufficiently secure us from punishment which though I confesse it be more rationally spoken because that act is most unworthy to be called the cause of our non-punition or non-condemnation which is not able to effect it without the help of another more sufficient cause yet is it most perniciously spoken as not leaving so much as the effects of our Justification and by consequence excluding both act and effects from any dependance upon the merits of Christ for their existence 2. Were Adam and Eve either or both obliged by the Law to punishment upon their disobedience or no If not their sin did them no harme nor was there any truth in that severe commination In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die and it is past dispute they died by force of that Law and all their posterity to this day Rom. 5. 12 13 14. 1 Cor. 15. 22 56. And if so then was not that Law made of no force by the eternal purpose of God for if that Purpose of God do not hinder but that men are legally obliged to condemnation upon breach of the Law neither will Gods Justice and Faithfulnesse permit that they go unpunished unlesse his Law be satisfied some other way Numb 23. 19. God is not a man that he should lie neither the Son of man that he should repent hath he said and shall he not do it or hath he speken and shall he not make it good Therefore it is that we have before denied that there is in God any purpose precisely of not punishing 3. The Supreme Magistrate may neglect the execution of Laws with impunity to himselfe because if he be Supreme he is not accountable to any other humane authority but not without such a Prostitution of the authority of his Lawes and the honour of his own Government to contempt and obloqâ—y as God will never endure to be cast upon Himselfe or his Law by men or devils His Honour and his Lawes are dearer to him then a thousand worlds M. Eyre answers thirdly the publishing of an act of grace is for the § 17. comfort of an offendor rather then for any need the Magistrate hath thereof as the act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House So the publication of the New Covenant was for the comfort of Gods Elect and not for their security in foro Dei Rep. Our question is not precisely what is the end of promulgation but what is the effect of the Law promulged which say I is to give offendors a right to impunity which Mr. Eyre cannot deny though it be very true that such a Law be also for the comfort of an offendor namely secondarily and consequenter for it comforts him in that it gives him a right to deliverance from deserved punishment His right and his comfort are not opposites but both the effects of the same Law and the latter subordinate to the former so that hitherto there is nothing that contradicts me 2. It is also true that it is not the Magistrate who needs an act of grace but offendors need it for if the same authority which bound them under punishment do not also discharge them from it they cannot legally escape it 3. When it is said the Act of Oblivion was a real pardon when it passed the House it hath reference to what I said in my Sermon That a Vote in the House or a Declaration that an Act of Pardon shall come out is no legal security to a Delinquent by which I intended to declare that neither the Purpose of God within himself but the Law of grace which in time he established according to his eternal purpose was that act which pardoned the sinner which if Mr. Eyre would have contradicted he should have affirmed that the meer purpose or resolution of the House to make such an Act is that very pardon which dischargeth Delinquents The Act it self being once passed may be yielded to be a Law as being the declared will of the Lawgivers constituting a right to impunity though by printing writing or proclamation it be afterwards made more publick Neverthelesse I expected some proof that it is a compleat Law before publishing if after the pâ—sâ—ng it had been i Nic. vig. de Drâ—is Iust Jur. c. 1. p. 8. c. 2 p. 1â— ordered not to be published till some moneths or a yeare after I much question whether in that interim it had been Law or no though I am not so well acquainted with the customes of our own Nation as to determine peremptorily The Senatus-Consulta amongst the Romanes had not the force of a Law before publishing But it is quite besides our question to debate what promulgation is necessary to the compleating of a Law It cannot be denied but that when subjects are involved in common guilt as all the world is before God their pardon must be by Law which is as much as I needed or intended for illustration of the way and manner of Gods forgiving us by the Gospel or Law of grace He that believeth shall not perish but shall have everlasting life which because Mr. Eyre denies not disproves for that 's impossible it being a truth of God we shall yet farther evince by the following Arguments SECT III. ANd first from Mat. 28. 18 19. compared with Mark 16. §. 18. 15 16. And Jesus came and spake unto them saying All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Go ye therefore into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned from hence I inferre 1. That God hath given unto Christ the Kingdome and Government over all men 2. That this Government containes a power of remitting sins 3. That this power is exercised in enacting that gracious Law He that believes shall be saved for so doth the Lord speak Go ye therefore into all the world c. which particle therefore I have borrowed from Matthew ver 19. and put it into
that which is avoidable and is actually avoided by beleeving Ergo it is not the condemnation of final unbeleevers The Antecedent I proved in my Sermon from ver 36. He that believeth not the wrath of God abideth on him implying that the wrath of God by the Law is upon every sinner for he is condemned already yet not so necessarily and remedilesly but that by beleeving he may escape it but if he beleeves not then it abides on him To this Mr. Eyre tells me That to say the place hints there is a wrath of God which is done away by believing is but an attempt to suborne the Spirit to serve our turne A short way of answering Arguments y Contra Crell p. 452 453. This very interpretation doth Essenius vindicate at large against Mr. Eyres friends in the point of eternal reconciliation the Socinians and urgeth the significancy of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abideth according to its constant use in Scripture though I stand not so much upon the bare word The same interpretation doth z Tract 14. in Joan. Non dicit Ira dei venit ad eum sed manet super eum c. Augustine give of it and many others Protestants and Papists Chemnitius a Analys in loc Piscator Aretius Beza Dyke Jansenius Tolet Ferus c. Who being such professed enemies in religion cannot be rationally suspected of a confederacy against the Spirit I had thought a Minister might have said not only to each man distributively but to the whole world collectively if he were able to speak to their hearing believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved without being guilty of suborning the Spirit to serve his own turne And yet surely in so saying he doth more then hint that the wrath of God may be escaped by believing 5. And that I do not erre in the meaning of the holy Ghost I am yet farther convinced because the Lord came not into the world to §. 6. give life simply but to give salvation v. 17. that is to give life to them that were dead Ergo they whom he saves were dead de jure or de facto as the Apostle argues 2 Cor. 5. 14. If one died for all then were all dead And to be dead in Law is to be under condemnation Now whom doth Christ save not final unbeleevers but such as are unbeleevers for a time only Ergo they who are now beleevers were sometime under condemnation or else Christ never saved them If they are only condemned in themselves or by the Law in that diminutive respective sense in which Mr. Eyre useth that phrase they are never a whit the more in danger of perishing for that and therefore not capable of being saved properly 6. The comparison which our Lord proposeth v. 14 15. and upon which this whole discourse dependeth puts it yet farther out of doubt As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wildernesse even so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but have eternal life Concerning which words we debaâ—e more particularly under the third generall Argument following and therefore here I shall only make some brief observations upon the coâ—parison and passe on 1. As then the people for whom the serpent was lifted up were all mortally stung of the fiery serpents see the story it self Numb 21. 6 7 8 9. So is all the world become subject to condemnation through sin for the people that were stung in the type are the world in the Antitype and their mortal wound there is condemnation here by our Lords own exposition v. 16 17 19. 2. That as the serpent was by Gods appointment lifted up in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed of the mortal bites of the fiery serpent and live so is the Sonne of man lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish but should have everlasting life by Gods appointment in like manner v. 15 16. 3. That as the serpent was not lifted up to destroy any of the people for they were mortally wounded before but to heale them so Christ was not sent into the world to condemn the world for they are condemned already but to save them v. 17. 4. Yet they that looked not on the serpent so lifted up did thereby procure unto themselves a certaine death because it was to be absolutely unavoydable by any other means whatsoever so they that beleeve not on the Sonne of God but love darknesse rather then light do thereby procure to themselves certaine and remedilesse condemnation v. 18 19. There remaining no more sacrifice for sin as the Apostle speaks Heb. 10. 29. Hence I deduce these four Corollaries 1. That condemnation lyes upon all men without difference for sin 2. Yet there is a remedy and way of escape from this condemnation revealed in the Gospel 3. That the way to escape condemnation is to beleeve on Jesus Christ 4. The contempt of Christ by positive unbelief makes condemnation unavoidable Ergo every man in the world whiles an unbeleever or so long as he continues in unbelief is under condemnation And as to the Text which Mr. Eyre brings in for illustration §. 7. Joh 8. 24. If you beleeve not you shall die in your sins I consent to Mr. Eyres interpretation that the meaning is if you beleeve not at all or if you never beleeve you shall die in your sins And it informes us in the truth of those two things which I have been hitherto contending for 1. That because of their sins they became lyable to eternall death 2. That yet their condemnation was not peremptory and irrevocable unlesse to all their other sins they added unbelief final for if at any time they did beleeve they should escape that wrath which was due to them for sinne As when Paul saies Act. 27. 31. Except these men abide in the ship you cannot be saved He shews them that they were in eminent danger of perishing in the waters and yet that they might be safe enough if the men aforesaid continued in the ship That place therefore makes against Mr. Eyre altogether SECT II. BEfore we speak any further of this place we must attend M. §. 8. Eyre who interposeth another Text which I mentioned not under this but under the former Argument to the same purpose and that is Eph. 2. 3. Where the Apostle tells the Ephesians whom God had chosen to eternall life chap. 1. 4. that they were by nature children of wrath as well as others Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the Text doth not say that God did condemn them or that they wâ—re under condemnation before conversion Rep. This might have been spared if this text had been answered in the place where I produced it and so it may yet for wrath and condemnation often signifie one and the same thing in Scripture Joh. 3. 19 36. 1 Thes 1. 10. Rom. 1. 17 18. 2.