Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	act_n	grace_n	habit_n	906	5	9.7429	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

be a necessary antecedent of salvation as other graces are which are necessary necessitate medii and are causae dispositivae of salvation but this is necessary by way of causality for the application of Christs righteousnesse unto justification And when we say that we are justified by faith we understand it not by faith as a work or a grace as an act or as an habit by vertue of any innate worth excellency and dignity in faith we do not take it sensu proprio in whole or in part as Arminians Papists and Socinians doe in making it the matter of our righteousnesse but when that is spoken of we understand it metonimicè tropically by relation to its object for what man that is not a professed Papist and enemy to the free grace of God did ever dreame of justification by faith without an object you may as well dreame of a man without a soul as to be justified without Christ Yet when we take faith tropically for the object of faith we do not take faith exclusively although we so apprehend it when you speak of the matter of our righteousnesse as if faith had no hand in justification no not by way of application of Christs righteousnesse as if by the word faith were understood Christ surely this were not to keep our wits company And if it were the Apostles meaning to exclude faith from having any hand in justification upon any tearmes whatsoever surely he would not so darkly have expressed himself by a figurative expression when he might have done it more clearly by putting in the name Christ for faith as Mr. Eyre would teach us to doe Wee willingly grant that Christ is the meritorious cause of justification which he seemeth to me to deny making justification an * Christis not the meretorious cause of any immanent act in God immanent and not a transient act as we doe we also grant that Christs active and passive obedience is the matter of our righteousnesse and the formal cause of justification is the imputation of this righteousnesse without any works of ours Yet this no way excludes faith from being an active instrument to apply this righteousnesse to us faith it is our act although it be Gods gift it is our instrument wrought in us by God for our benefit to apply by his ordination the righteousnesse of Christ unto justification For as the efficient cause excludeth not the meritorious so neither doth the meritorious exclude the instrumentall which in suo genere in its kind is as necessary as the other for bonum est ex integris causis but I shall more fully open this in stating of the controversy and will not therefore anticipate my selfe any further but shall referre the reader thither for further satisfaction where I intend to handle this controversy more largely though I desire the reader to take notice that I shall chieflly meddle with that in Mr. Eyres his book which relates to my selfe and purely belongs to this controversie leaving that which belongeth to Mr. Woodbridge that I may not falcem in alienam messem immittere put a sickle into another mans harvest And if any man desire further satisfaction why I publikely interpose in this controversie seeing Mr. Woodbridge so eminently qualified hath already undertaken this taske I take that of Hierom Hierom. to be a sufficient apology Nolo quenquam in suspicione haereseos esse patientem I would have none to beare the suspicion of heresie and Mr. Eyre hath both in the pulpit and presse rendred me to be heterodox in the point of justification he hath declaimed against my Sermon as anti-scripturall my arguments as irrationall and in his booke he saith I have delivered what was wide from the orthodox faith Mr. Eyres vindic p. 5 and contrary to many plaine scriptures derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death disconsolatory to the soules of men in laying the whole weight of their salvation upon an uncertaine condition of their own performing And should I be silent in such a charge the world would count me guilty therefore to purge my selfe from these crimes I have published my sermon with a vindication of it and a short refutation of the said book and although I have a little in one place digressed from the controversy sp●aking more largly then I needed in the doctrine of Christs death and passion yet it is only to shew that I have delivered and hold nothing therein contrary to the orthodox faith as Mr. Eyre affirmeth which he is more able to say then prove And for as much as he hath wronged both me and the truth in relating what I said not viz. that I should say that the union between Christ and the Saints was a personall union which I called a union of persons but not a personall union and hath represented our conference in as unhandsome a dresse to render me contemptible I am the lesse troubled though I rejoyce at no mans sin knowing that he is a man of hard language and morose carriage unto many of my brethren of farr more eminent worth and esteem in the Church of Christ then my self And for that slaunder where he saith that I compared him to Judas and my self to Christ I doe solemnly beseech him to remember what God hath threatned to him that loveth and maketh a lie Rev. 22.15 and to take heed how he beareth false witnesse against his neighbour where he hath God angels and men and his owne conscience to contradict him least God impute that as sin to him which he feareth not to commit it may be upon this ground because he judgeth it to be antecedently pardoned before it is committed My expression for which he blameth me was this I said to him What are you come out against me as against an heretique before you know whether that which I hold be a heresy or that I am obstinate in the defence of it moreover at the request of friends that heard my Sermon with which Mr. Eyre hath dealt as Pharaoh with the male children of the Israelites having given way to the publishing of it not doubting but when it cometh under the censure of my brethren but they will do the same office for it that the religious midwives did for the male children to save it alive from the hand of the oppressour I conceive I was ingaged to some further act towards the ending laying this controversy asleep especially seeing Mr. Eyre saith Mr. Woodbridg did but blow the coales that Mr. Warren had kindled whereas this fire was kindled long before by himselfe and the pulpit turned by him into a cock-pit to defend this errour And because some are infected more are in danger the truth is oppressed the course of the Gospel like to be hindred and prophanenesse and Antinomianisme goe hand in hand and speake with one tongue as Mr. Baxter hath well observed I have put my selfe upon this taske of confuting his conceit Besides his dis-ingenious

and redundancy of merit yet was it not altogether the same in the Obligation For first the Law in the rigour of it doth not admit of a surety but the delinquent himself is bound to suffer the penalty that acknowledgeth no commutation of the person or substitution of one for another and therefore God by an act of Sovereignty did dispense though not with the substance of the Laws demands for then we had had forgivenesse without a satisfaction and considering his decree he could not do it but with the manner of execution which in respect of the Law is called a relaxation so then God relaxed his Law to put in the name of a surety therefore the satisfaction is not altogether the payment of the same debt for Dum alius solvit necessariò aliud solvitur and therefore an act of grace must come in by the will and consent of the Lord to whom belonged the infliction of the punishment that another persons sufferings may be valid to procure a discharge to the guilty person and that the satisfaction was made by another and not by the party to whom remission is granted no Protestant will deny 2. Christ did not bear the same punishment due to us in all accidents 1. In respect of place he did not locally discend into the place of the damned Nor 2. In respect of time and duration his sufferings had an end though they were infinite intensivè yet not extensivè in respect of duration nor did he suffer the losse of Gods Image nor was he deprived of any measure of grace nor was he really but as to present sense and feeling forsaken nor did he lose his right to the creatures nor did his body see corruption all which are effects of mans sin and penal effects of it as I apprehend Therefore Christ did not suffer altogether the same though the sufferings of Christ so farre as were consistent with his Godhead and holinesse were of the same kinde and by the dignity of his person raised to a more then equipollency with ours so as to merit for us eternal life Quid enim Majestas tanta par ipsi Patri poenis suis non commeribitur Cyrillus Alex. de fide ad Regin Cyrillus Alexandrinus and it conduced to a compensation in those sufferings which were unworthy the dignity of his person 3. Though Christ were obliged to the same punishment yet not altogether with the same obligation for his Obligation was arbitrary and voluntary not arising from the guilt of inherent sin but by way of vadimony and suc●ption our guilt or obligation was intrinsecally from the desert of inherent sin Christ's was only an obnoxiousnesse unto punishment from the imputation of sin ours from a desert of sin called reatus culpae which guilt is inseparable from sinne which draweth reatus poetus along with it Christ was reatus poenae not culpae 4. Christs sufferings was to be a valuable compensation not only for our breach of the Law but for our non-suffering and therefore is not altogether the same The second thing to be cleared is this that it being not the same therefore it requires some act of grace in the Creditour to accept it for a discharge unto the guilty person and herein undoubtedly the sinner hath no wrong for it is mercy in God to accept it the Law requires his personal sufferings and there is no promise made to any that they shall have benefit by Christs death but only to Believers And this cannot be denied with any shew of reason for such a payment is refusable which is not altogether the same and therefore unlesse the will and consent of him to whom the infliction of the punishment belongeth it cannot procure a discharge to the guilty person for the offending sinner is the proper subject of suffering and the Law threatneth the offender and the surety is not the offender and none but he that had power to make the Law can dispense with any thing in the Law therefore that the Law may be dispensed with in respect of the manner of execution by transferring the punishment upon another and that this may be accepted as a full satisfaction for the offender as if he had in person suffered this must be an act of grace in the Law-giver receding from his own right and therefore might constitute and ordain how and in what manner it shall be accepted and none that I know will deny it an act of speciall grace in God to accept of the sufferings of Christ for us to free us from our personal sufferings and therefore I passe from that unto the third thing 3dly That it was the will of Christ in making satisfaction and of God in admitting of this satisfaction that it should not procure pardon of sin presently from the time of Christs passion but when man is turned unto God by faith seeking and humbly intreating for pardon Now to manifest this we must premise 1. That it was an act of special grace not only to us but to Christ himself that should be constituted a Mediatour of a New Covenant between God and us by vertue of whose mediation and sufferings we should be forgiven and made heirs of eternall life Christ as he is the second person in the Trinity in respect of his Godhead is equall with the Father and so not subject to any preordination or predestination as an act of grace but Christ considered as God-man in respect of his Mediatorship is a servant of God and so subject to Predestination and Gods singular grace in his Election to this office is as much seen as in our Election unto life for the manhood could never deserve to be united personally to the Sonne of God and thus it was a great honour put upon Christ Heb. 5 5. when he was put into the Priestly Office to make atonement for us 2. It was at the commandment of grace he made satisfaction it was an act of free grace to us and Christ as Mediator was a servant of God Isa 42.1 John 10.18 and wholly at the will of the Lord in this work at his commandment he laid down his life and at his will and pleasure the benefit of his death is extended to particular persons and denied to others therefore Christ saith Power is given him over all flesh John 17.2 to give eternal life but it is with restriction only to as many as the Father had given him Now the sufferings of Christ were of sufficient value to redeem the whole world but yet it is available by Gods eternal will only for the Elect and if it be no wrong to the sufferings of Christ to be limited by the will of God to the Elect only and Christ submitteth to it why should it be thought any injury to Christs sufferings that at the will and pleasure of God the very Elect should not partake of it untill faith in that order that he hath appointed 3. It is an act of grace

voluntary act of condescension on Gods part which is expressed by way of Covenant there is not therefore a mutual obligation of debt between God and man for that is founded on equality but there is no such equality between God and the creature much lesse between God and the sinner it is therefore a free Covenant that God maketh with man and of his abundant rich grace in Christ The Author of this Covenant is God our merciful Father in Christ-Jesut the impulsive moving cause from within was his own free love the outward moving cause was mans misery and Christs merits Ezek. 16.6 When I passed by thee I saw thee polluted in thy own blood I said unto thee live The fall of man was the occasion of this Covenant God permitted man to fall that he might shew the abundant riches of his mercy in our redemption For mercy might have freed us from misery by preventing our fall but the exceeding abundance of Gods rich mercy is more seen in recovering us out of the misery into which we were fallen And the grace of God was much seen in the time of giving this Covenant at the very fall before judgement was given upon the delinquents that they might not be swallowed up with wrath and before Satan had made too great a waste upon the creation and especially upon man drawn by his temptation into condemnation with himself This Covenant was made with Christ * Vide The Assemb larger Catechisme and in him with all that believe for since God and man were separated by sin there was no Covenant could passe between them * With Christ personal that is considered as a publick person but not with Christ mystically considered but in and through a Mediatour reconciling both parties The first Covenant was a Covenant of friendship the friendship between God and man was broken off by sin this is a Covenant of reconciliation There is no reconciliation to God but by Christ therefore this Covenant was made in Christ and for the sake of Christ with us so that there are three parties contracting 1. God the party offended 2. Man the party offending 3. Christ the Mediator between both The Scripture saith Gal. 3.16 The promise or Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed He saith not And to seeds as of many but as of one And to thy seed which is Christ This Christ was not Christ mystical as Beza Piscator and many expound it as Mr. Rutherford hath well observed but Christ personall The reason which they alledge is because if it be meant of Christ personally considered so it would not agree with the scope of Paul who proveth that life eternal is promised to all Believers 2. It would follow say they that life eternal is given to Christ only But with their leave saith * Ruth Trial and Triumph of Faith Serm. 7. pag 5● Mr. Rutherford this is not sure for the truth is the promise is not made to Christs person singly considered nor to Christ mystical For 1. The promise is made to Christ in whom the Covenant was confirmed vers 17. 2. In whom the Nations were blessed vers 14.3 In whom we receive the Promise of the Spirit through faith vers 15. Who was made a curse for us ver 13. Now not any of these can agree to Christ mystical Christ mysticall did not confirme the Covenant nor give the Spirit nor was he made a curse but Christ Mediatour is he to whom the promises are made and in him to all his heirs and kindred not simply in his person but as a publick person and Mediatour and upon believing we are truly in him and so Abrahams seed and so heires according to the promise And here it will be good to consider the relations of Christ to this Covenant 1. Heb. 8.6 As he is the middle person between contrary parties he is the Mediator of the Covenant 2. As he dealeth between both parties Mal. 3.1 Heb. 7.22 he is internuncius the Messenger of the Covenant 3. As he undertaketh for the parties at variance he is the surety of the Covenant And Heb. 9.16 17 Isa 55.4 Rev. 1.5 4. As he signeth the Covenant and confirmeth it with his blood he is the Testatour of the Covenant 5. As he saw and heard and testifieth all that the Father hath promised to believers he is the witnesse of the Covenant Now as the Covenant was made with Christ in the behalf of the Elect yet it followeth not they were in Covenant before they believe for God Covenanted with Christ to be their God that shall believe in him hence untill we believe we are not actually in Covenant with God and Christ contracted with the Father not only to die for us but to bring us to faith he is a surety to see the condition of the Covenant performed on our part and therefore we must be brought to faith before God is properly said to be in Covenant with us and faith then is the condition of the Covenant in reference unto us Now in what sense faith is the condition of the Covenant I shall here explaine First Faith is not the condition of the Covenant in a Popish sense as if by the performing this condition of believing we did merit and earn eternal life and salvation were the wages of faith and God ex debito bound to give it Secondly Faith is not an Antecedaneous condition * Dicunt nostri fidem non esse conditionemmo ventem Dei voluntatem tamen salutem nostram esse conditionatam quod est verissimum nam Deus non vult nobis aliam vitam quàm quae antecedanem habet fidem tamen nullo modo movetur Dei voluntas à fide nostrâ Ruth Apol. Exerc. p. 3●4 moving God to give Christ to redeem us and to propound the Gospel to us as if God did not or could not propound the Covenant of Grace to us nor offer the Covenant to us till we believe the price of redemption was paid without any condition that it should be paid though not without a condition for the application of it Thirdly We do not understand faith a condition in an Arminian sense for such a condition by way of contract and bargaine by a free voluntary act of our own performed by the power of free-will withour the predeterminating and assisting grace of Christ by vertue of which God is oblidged to save us and give us the benefits of the Covenant We take it not in such a juridicall sense as the Jurists do for a condition in a strict proper sense upon which the benefits of the Covenant depend nor do we take it in that manner as the first Covenant did that as our workes personally performed by us in obedience to the whole Law were the condition of the Covenant and the matter of our righteousnesse that so the Tò credere or act of believing performed by us should stand instead of the righteousnesse of the

of their estate by faith they were justified by Christ of which change in the judgement of charity he concludes by their sanctification Now what can be spoken more fully to clear this matter in controversie that before faith and effectuall vocation they are no more freed from condemnation then others 2. He saith It is wide from the Orthodox Faith To which I answer first by retortion that then he himself is wide from the Orthodox faith because pag. 66. he saith the same thing in different termes Mr. Eyre vindic pag. 66. Num. 2. Though the state of the loved and hated are different in the minde of God yet not in the persons themselves till the different effects of love and hatred are put forth Now an immanent act of Gods minde puts no present difference for Praedestinatio nihil ponit in praedestinato is a known rule Secondly It hath hitherto been the unanimous consent of the Orthodox that there is no difference between the Elect and reprobate as to present enjoyment untill actual faith indeed they hold in this respect a difference which I never questioned that although they be equally in a state of sin and wrath yet God hath a purpose to bring the Elect infallibly out of that misery and to leave the reprobate Rom. 9.13 in which respect God is said to love Jacob and to hate Esau and in this respect Acts 13.48 all that God hath ordained to life shall believe and whosoever the Father giveth unto Christ they shall come for 2 Tim. 2.19 The foundation of God standeth sure the Lord knoweth who are his but on the other hand for the present there is no difference both are children of wrath both are without Christ both aliens to the Covenant of Grace having no promise of the pardon of sin both without hope in the world only Gods purpose will in time make an actuall difference between them so Mr. Burgesse of Justifica p. 188. Burgess of Justific p. 188. but you are prejudicated against him I will propound three others of unquestionable authority Holy and Learned Mr. Baines in his Commentary upon Eph. 2.3 drawes this observation from it First then saith he we have to consider how that the chosen of God before their conversion have nothing in them d●ffering from other sinners the Election of God standeth sure Vide Calv. Institut Lib. 3. Sect. 10. but before he call effectually it doth put nothing in the party Elected so where you may see more to this purpose And he gives two reasons why God will have it so 1. That the mercy of God may be magnified and made manifest in the free grace of Justification 2. That love may be engendred in us being justified Mary who had many sins forgiven loved much so that eminent servant of Christ Dr. Tayl. in his Commen upon Titus ch 3. v. 3. Dr. Tayl. Tit. c. 3. v. 3. p. 591. pag. 591. Whosoever are called unto the faith have experience of a double estate in themselves once in time past and another for the present the one of nature the other of grace And a little after And good reason there is that he that is now beloved should see that once he was not beloved and that he who now is in the state of grace should see that he was once in the state of wrath as well as others which will cause him to love much And indeed the Elect could not be Elect nor justified nor washed if they were alwayes the children of God and were it not for this once and time past wherein there was no difference between them and the reprobate but only in Gods counsel and possibility of calling Learned Camero setteth to his seal to this truth Ad Petrum in peccatis mortuum non magis pertinet Christi mors quàm ad alium quemvis sed postquam Petro datum est credere est discrimen sanè magnum Camero opusc misc p. 534. And that he was no Arminian is evident by what he saith in another place Rectiùs faciunt qui Christum pro impiis sufficienter ut loquntur satisfecisse docent efficaciter autem pro solis piis Cam. opusc misc p. 534. Sect. 6. Thirdly he objecteth that it is derogatory to the full atonement made by Christs death If this could be proved there needed no further argument to silence me yea it were better my tongue should cleave to the roof of my mouth then that I should affirme any thing to abase the worth or diminish the reputation of Christs sufferings he deserves not to open his mouth to God for mercy that willingly opens his mouth to undervalue the merits and satisfaction made by the death of Christ I therefore answer that if Christ had died to purchase forgivenesse of sins whether we believe or not this argument would have some strength in it then to suspend the benefit of Christs death untill faith were to wrong the satisfaction of Christ but Christ did not so die for the Elect that whether they believe or not believe they should be saved therefore to suspend the benefit of Christs death till actual faith is no wrong to the atonement and satisfaction made by Christs death Now because this is the maine argument to which Mr. Eyre trusts and is the onely pillar and support of his opinion That it was the will of God that the death of Christ should be the payment of our debt Mr. EYRE p. 138 139. and a full satisfaction for all our iniquities and therefore it was his will that our discharge procured hereby should be immediate because he saith it's contrary to justice and equity that a debt when it is paid should be charged either upon the surety or principal I will here lay down sundry conclusions which may serve to vindicate our doctrine that the benefit of Christs death is suspended untill faith as to a formall justification of the sinner and shew the insufficiency and weaknesse of his argument from hence to conclude an immediate discharge of all the Elect from the time of Christs death antecedent to their faith First therefore I willingly acknowlege that Christ in his death was a common person and a surety for the Elect taking upon himself by Gods eternal appointment this work of redemption and reconciliation That the act of Gods Ordination together with a particular command from the Father to lay down his life John 10.18 and his voluntary consent and submission to become a surety for the Elect Heb. 10.7 9. for it was not imposed upon him by constraint therefore when he is said to come to do his Fathers will his own will is included John 10.18 And no man took away his life from him but he did lay it down of himself this act of Ordination in God and submission in Christ together with his free dominion over his own life which dominion he had both by vertue of the hypostatical union and the command of the

anothers sin but he imputeth that which is their own that is the sin of the whole nature Now I take this as an errour of great consequence that Master Eyre saith that we are not sinners by Adam or that the issues of Adams sin came not upon his posterity by propagation but by vertue of the Covenant made with him as a common person in the behalf of his posterity for many reasons 1. Because he maketh Adams sin only to be ours by imputation or an act of pure and absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative and no way an act of justice when as it is a mixt act not only an act of Prerogative and Sovereignty in ordaining Adam to be a common person and so his sin to be the sin of the whole nature for God could have ordered it so had it been his pleasure that this sin should only have been personal as his other sins after the fall are But it is an act of justice also for death is inflicted as a punishment upon all which is an act of justice The reason followes in the fifth of the Romans Because in him all have sinned so that death is the wages of that sin because it is our sin all sinned in him and it is not only Adams sin but their own sin by vertue of their relation to him being in his loynes And to make the bare and strict imputation of another mans sin which is no way ours but by imputation the sole ground and foundation of that heavy judgement and punishment of condemning all mankinde to eternall death which is one of the most weighty acts of Gods judgement that was ever executed in the world is to represent God not so much as a just Judge as one that delighteth in the death of his creature in the blood and ruine of his creature when as he professeth that as he doth live he hath no delight in the death of a sinner much lesse of a creature that were not a sinner if it were not for his imputation And although I doubt not but God may as an act of Sovereignty adjudge an innocent creature unto pain and misery if it were his will and that it would less reflect upon God to say he dit it because it was his absolute pleasure then to pretend or conceive that the bare imputation of the act of Adams sin was the cause of it yet I have no warrant to say that ever God did or will do such an act to make the creature miserable meerly to shew his Sovereignty And what is there in the imputation of Adams sin if this imputation be grounded upon his will and not that naturall union and relation between Adam and his posterity to free it from such an act of pure Sovereignty therefore I look upon it as an act of justice as well as prerogative the equity of which act lieth much in the relation of Adam and his posterity to one another 2. I urge as before I hinted If death entred by sin then Gods imputation is not the onely cause of it But it entred by sin as the Apostle saith Death passed upon all inasmuch as all have sinned 3. Then Adam was only the occasion of our sin but God the Authour for if Adam had sinned if God had not imputed it we had not been sinners But this is an insufferable blasphemy to make God the Author of sinne Therefore Gods imputing it is an act of justice and not of Sovereignty only 4. This overthrowes the community of his person for if it be meerly an act of his will he might have done this though Adam had not been a publick person 5. This ascribeth to God a fallible judgement in esteeming him a sinner that is innocent and is not a sinner but by his imputation 6. This ascribeth injustice to God to impute sin to him that is no sinner but by his imputation which the sinner would be delivered from and consents not to it as the regenerate that bewaile it and earnestly desire to be delivered from it 7. The very necessity that there was for Christ to be borne of a Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost to prevent his being a sinner confutes this conceit for if Adams sinne be ours only by imputation let but God not impute Adams sin to Christ and he intended not so miraculously to be borne for it behoved him to be like us in all things and why not by the help of man to be borne if Adams sin be ours by imputation only and not by propagation also Thus you see how many errours Mr. Eyre is driven unto to hold and maintaine one Nor are his reasons of any weight that he produceth to prove that the issues of Adams disobedience came not upon his posterity by vertue of their natural propagation for then his sin should not be imputed untill they are actually propagated if he meant of an actual and formall imputation of sin it is granted that sin is not so imputed till an actuall being For the understanding of this we must know what imputation of sin is it implieth either an estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner or an adjudication of punishment for that sin or the execution of that punishment now look in what manner we are sinners in that manner is the imputation for Gods judgement must be according to truth now as we are but seminally potentially and virtually sinners because we had but a virtual existence in Adam for it is a known rule and of approved verity Operatio rei consequitur esse rei The acts and operations of things still follow the being of things and are suitable and proportionable thereunto so we are reputed by God only virtually sinful in Adam and so not actual sinners nor so reputed by God nor formally obliged to punishment nor any punishment actually or formally to be inflicted till we have an actuall existence hence by vertue of that Covenant made with Adam we are not actually and formally constituted sinners till we are actuall members and so his argument will return upon himself For if the righteousness of Christ come upon us in the same manner to Justification as Adams sin to condemnation then as we are not actually sinners till we have an actual being so neither are we actually justified till we be actuall members of Christ by faith His second Reason halteth right down and is pittifully inconsequent for it doth no way follow that if the sinne of Adam be ours by propagation that therefore the sins of other parents should be imputed to their posterity as much as Adams because they descend as naturally from their immediate parents as from Adam but rather the consequence should be Therefore our next parents do as truly transmit and propagate that sin as Adam to their children and this is true and will advantage your cause nothing nor hinder ours but it followes not that their personall sins should be imputed as was Adams first sin For if no more of Adams

his person are removed for the merit of Christ but then you fraudulently withold the latter part of the sentence which makes against you as he did that cited Scripture to Christ but not by vertue of that signal promise of the Gospel He that believeth shall be saved for the effects of Gods anger against the sins of the Elect are not removed by vertue of that promise till he actually believe for hence the Elect have no consolation till faith Now if you say he meant our Justification was not evidenced to our consciences till faith and that is all he meanes Ruth Apol. Exercit. p. 44. Hear what he saith Pag. 44. Dicent ergo Arminiani nos hîc Justificationem sumere pro sensu notitia Justificationis remissionis ideòque homines fide Justificantur idem valet ac homines tum demum Justificantur quandò credunt hoc est sentiunt se justificari cum anted essent justificati Nugae tricae Siculae Nam justificari plus est quàm sentire se justificari Nam 1. Est actus Dei absolventis terminati in conscientiam hominis citati tracti ad tribunale tremendi Judicis qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiam 2. Deus hoc actu certum facit conscientiae citati innitenti fiducialiter in Christum jam etiam in Christo plenam expiationem omnium peccatorum factam Ipse peccator actu fiduciali recumbit in Christum sufficientem Salvatorem credentium at verò actus Dei terminatus in nos non potest esse nudus sensus illius actûs quis sanus ità argumenta retur cui paulò magis sobrium est sinciput The Arminians will say for against them he principally dealeth in that Book and therefore opposeth an Arminian condition of faith and not ours that we take Justification for the sense and knowledge of Justification and pardon and therefore to say men are justified by faith it is as if we should say that men are then justified by faith when they believe that is when they perceive they are justified when as they were justified before These are but fables and trifles for to be justified is more then to know we are justified For First It is the act of God absolving terminated in the conscience of a sinner cited and drawn to the tribunal of a dreadfull Judge which act before this instant was not terminated upon the conscience Secondly In this act God assureth the conscience of a sinner cited to his barre fiducially trusting upon Christ that now a full expiation is made of all his sins Thirdly The sinner by a fiducial act relying upon Christ as a sufficient Saviour of Believers But the act of God terminated upon us cannot be a bare sense or knowledge of that act what sound man that hath a sober brain would so reason And immediately followeth Quamvis itaque in mente Dei peccata c. Although therefore sins were remitted in the minde of God from eternity where let the Reader observe he is speaking against the temporal and conditional decrees of Arminius making God to elect upon foreseen faith yet is not a man justified from eternity that is declared to be just in Christ in his conscience when he is cited to Gods tribunal where he taketh declared to be just for a transient act of God terminated upon the conscience fotgiving and declaring this forgivenesse and not for a bare knowledge of this by a reflex act of faith for although that act of justifying in God note an immanent and an eternal act of God yet notwithstanding that act is not the whole integral and formal reason of the Justification of a sinner of which Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians and the Scripture speaketh Formaliter enim justificare c. For for God formally to justifie is to declare actually to wit in a judiciall act that the guilty sinner trembling before his Judge now hath the benefit of eternal absolution and now first of all and never till now that the effects of his divine displacency against their sins do now cease by vertue of that divine promise wherein Christ and all his benefits and an actuall right to the Kingdom of God and the dignity of Adoption or Son-ship are promised to the Beleever Indeed he saith Pag. 43. N. 20. that faith is not the instrument of Justification actively taken as an immanent eternal act of God for no man saith he by believing doth make God to have a will not to punish sin or to have a will to love us which the Arminians plainly make and therein he saith true yet he maketh faith the instrumental cause of Justification passively taken as a declared act of God terminated upon us as that place declareth and in expresse words in pag. 37. Ruther Apol. Exer. p. 37. which Mr. Eyre in his 32. pag. of his Book when he boasted that Master Rutherford made the opinion he did oppose the chief of the Arminians and Socinians and Papists Errors could not be ignorant of for he there maketh faith the organical cause of Justification In that place he saith the Arminians would desire nothing more then this that remission of sin is not before actuall faith And that the Remonstrants in their Apology do say that nothing is more false Socinus part 4. de Salv. c. 10. then that men have sinnes remitted before they believe in which they make Socinus more plausible who saith that sinnes cannot be forgiven by an act of believing if they are remitted before they believe and Bellarmine who hath these words how is that faith true whereby I believe my sins are forgiven if while I therefore believe they are not forgiven but are to be remitted by the act of faith because every object is before his act so the Remonstrants urge to which he saith I would have these three acts distinguished 1. The act of satisfying for our sins performed by Christ and of reconciling us to God 2. The act of God the Father accepting it wherein he doth acknowledge that he is abundantly satisfied for all the sins of the Elect. 3. The act of Justification cui fides subordinatur tanquam organica causa to which faith is subordinate as an organical cause in all which Mr. Rutherford meaneth nothing but this that God did not take up a new volition but sins were intentionally pardoned from eternity Ruth Apol. page 4. which yet in his judgement is not justification for pag. 43. Homo non est justificatus ab aeterno quia homo non est ab aeterno homini credenti non sunt remissa peccata ab aeterno qumiam non estab aeterno nam justificatio remissio hoc sensu-non sunt termini diminuentes A man is not justified from eternity because a man is not from eternity sins are not remitted to a Believer from eternity because he is not from eternity and Justification and Remission passively taken are not termini

premise that we understand not by qualifying us for Justification any moral disposing and qualifying us sensu pontificio in the Papists sense inchoating our Justification as if we were to be justified by something inherent in us but by qualifying we mean nothing but this that according to the tenour of the Gospel and New Covenant it makes us subjects capable of the act of Justification for as much as the condition required is now fulfilled and as faith is Gods gift so it is a passive condition as it is our act so it is an active instrument not elicited by the power of free will but by assistance of special grace whereby we apprehend Christs righteousnesse for Justification and in this sense we are justified by faith according to the Scriptures Now let us consider his Arguments First That Interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of our Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in way of opposition to other workes of Sanctification but to interpret Faith meerly thus that it is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to Faith then to other works of Sanctification We shall reverence the Major and let it go but must commit his Minor to the Marshalsie as a Rebel against reason For though we make Faith a condition and a passive condition in the sense explained yet this hindereth not but that it may be an instrumental cause of Justification and in this sense we give more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Besides we make not as he affirme works necessary antecedents to Justification necessary antecedents to Salvation we do but not unto Justification For we acknowledge that of August to be true opera non precedunt justificandum sed sequuntur justificatum And now I shall retort this Argument upon himself That Interpretation of the phrase which giveth no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of Sanctification cannot be true because the Scripture doth peculiarly attribute our Justification unto Faith in a way of opposition to other works of Sanctification but to interpret Faith subjectively taken thus that it justifieth us only because it evidenceth our Justification is to attribute no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification Ergo. If he answer that faith subjectively taken for the grace of faith is not opposed to works because it is a work I answer 1. If it be a work yet it is the work of God and not ours 2. It justifieth not as a work but as an instrument to apply Christs righteousnesse Nay 3. I see not but the opposition stand as strongly as if he took faith objectively for Christs righteousnesse or obedience for certainly the matter of our Justification is the obedience of Christ to the Law and so we are justified by works properly in the person of another Secondly That Interpretation which gives no more to faith then to works of nature such as are found in natural unregenerate men is not true but to interpret faith a necessary antecedent of our Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature I deny the Minor for conditio sine quà non a condition whithout which a thing is not done may be a necessary condition yet it is not so necessary as that is which is a cause by which the thing is done the eye-lids must be opened as a necessary antecedent unto sight But will you therefore say it is as equally necessary as the eye it self so it is in the present case sight of sin sorrow for it are necessarily required in the subject where God will work faith but it followeth not that they are as equally necessary and have as much influence into Justification as Faith The third Argument is this That by which we are justified is the proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification but Faith considered as a passive condition is not a proper efficient cause of Justification I answer by distinguishing upon the word by That by which we are justified as the material cause of our Justification or the matter for which we are justified is the meritorious proper efficient cause of Justification and in this sense we are not justified by faith 2. It may be taken for the instrument by which that righteousnesse for which we are justified is apprehended and applied and in this sense we are justified by faith and taking it in this latter sense I deny the Major Nor is faith only the instrumental cause of Justification in foro conscientiae as a little after you affirme though it be taken properly for the act of believing but in foro Dei nor a bare condition without which but a condition by which by vertue of Gods Covenant it is obtained and therfore I acknowledg a true causality in faith unto Justification Fourthly That which maketh us concurrent causes in the formall act of Justification with God and Christ because our Justification in respect of efficiency is attributed to them is not true but to make faith morally disposing us to Justification maketh us concurrent causes with God and Christ in our Justification I answer 1. He attributeth more to us then we affirme we say not that faith doth moraly dispose us to Justification as he taketh it in the Argument it is no meritorious moving cause of Justification nor is all moral disposition a morall causality 2. The Major is not universally true for Faith is a social cause but not a co-ordinate cause of Justification Besides what Faith doth it doth it virtute agentis principalis and by vertue of Gods Covenant not as our act nor by any inherent worth in it self 1. Nor doth it follow from hence that if any condition be required in order to our Justification then it is not free for the very condition is freely given nor is it left to be performed by the power of our free-will this would hinder the freenesse of Justification 2. It is not denied that we are concurrent causes with the merits of Christ but Christ and Faith are not causes ejusdem generis for Christs righteousnesse is that for which we are justified Faith is only that whereby this righteousnesse is received and applied unto Justification Fifthly That Interpretation which makes Works going before Justification not only not sinful but acceptable to God and praeparatory to the grace of Justification is not according to the minde of the Holy Ghost but to interpret Justification by faith that faith is a condition which doth qualifie us for Justification necessarily supposeth a work or works which have not the nature of sin but are acceptable to God and preparatory to grace The Major we shall let passe as innocent the Minor hath guilt and weaknesse more then enough to be imputed to it 1. We say Faith doth not us qualifie as an inherent disposition preparing us for a