article But he is sound in the faith of the Resurrection that believes all men shall rise though he do not believe that himself shall rise for he believes as much as the Scripture reports If it be said that a man cannot assent to the one but he must assent to the other I think so too But the ground of it is because it is against reason not because it is against faith and therefore the Conclusion is partly of reason not purely of faith which was that I was to demonstrate The Conclusion is there can be no way imagined in which faith may be said to evidence our Justification but one of those three mentioned Mr. Eyre proposeth a fourth but we have shewed that it must be reduced to one of these three and so differs in name only not in thing But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to its evidencing our Justification either of these wayes Therefore faith must be said to justifie in some other respect then that it doth evidence Justification or else we cannot be said to be justified by faith at all SECT VIII MY third Argument comes next in place That Interpretation §. 32. of the phrase which makes us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification is not true The Reason is because our Justification by faith in regard of the formal act of pronouncing us just is in Scripture attributed wholly unto God Rom. 8. 33. and 4. 6 8. But to interpret our Justification by faith meerly for a Justification in our own consciences is to make us at least concurrent causes with God in the formal act of our own Justification Ergo it is not to be admitted Mr. Eyre before he answers the Argument reformes my expressions and sayes That he doth not say that Justification by faith is meerly a Justification in conscience faith is sometimes put objectively for Christ c. Rep. Whether meerly or not meerly is an impertinent quarrel he doth it too frequently and to those most eminent texts mentioned before in my third Chapter which speak of Gods justifying sinners by faith in Jesus Christ he answers meerly so And as for his putting of faith objectively for Christ we have already shewed at large what injury it offers to the plain and pure Word of God But I must tell him it is most intolerable dealing to build so large a discourse as is the greatest part of his book upon two Supporters which have no place in Scripture to set their feet on The one is when he pleaseth to interpret Justification for the manifestation thereof The other when he pleaseth to put faith for its object Christ When such a weight is laid upon these foundations had it not been necessary to shew us the places to clear and vindicate them where these words must have this sense and no other But to the answer for this is nothing but a delay This it is The pronouncing of us just is not the formal act of our Justification but the imputing of righteousnesse which is the Act of God alone Ministers may pronounce us just without robbery done to God So doth faith declare to our consciences the sentence of absolution c. Rep. The Argument is wholly yielded and the sinner thereby §. 33. made his own Justifier 1. Let the formal act of Justification consist in what it will it matters not much in the present case The Justification which in Scripture is said to be by faith is wholly and only ascribed unto God as the Justifier Rom. 3. 30. and 4. 6 8. and 1. 17. and 3. 22 24 25. and 8. 33. Gal. 3. 8. and all the places that speak of Justification by faith which all suppose it to be Gods peculiar Royalty to justifie us through faith therefore cannot be interpreted of Justification in our own consciences that is of our justifying our selves without setting up our selves in the Throne of God Is this the man that reproacheth me in the face of the world as a friend to Papists for maintaining faith to be the condition of Justification because he thinks it will follow thence that men may be said to justifie themselves But I see one may better steal a horse then another look over the hedge 2. My expression of Gods pronouncing us just I acknowledge to be a little too narrow as most properly denoting that Justification which is by sentence at the day of judgement but I do therein also include Justificationem juris the act of God by the Law of grace that is the Promise of the Gospel giving us right to impunity and eternal life for the sake of Christ And this is formalissimè the imputation of Christs righteousnesse The righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to believers in their Justification inasmuch as that for his merits they are reputed just before God saith r Medul theol l. 1. c. 27 thes 12. Dr. Ames Now that Justification which is in Scriptures said to be by faith is formally an imputation of righteousnesses and a non-imputation of sin Rom. 4. 2 5. compared with ver 6. 11 24. Ergo by Mr. Eyres concession it is only Gods act and no creature can be joyned with him therein without robbery done to him But we do joyne with him by faith in imputing righteousnesse to our selves if imputing righteousnesse to believers be their knowing by faith that righteousnesse is imputed to them as we heard Mr. Eyre interpreting it before in answer to Rom. 4. 24. 3. If there be any sense wherein Ministers may be said to justifie §. 34. sinners yet it cannot be in that sense wherein God is said to justifie them that beleeve for that is an act proper to himself I acknowledge the Apostles are said to remit and retain sins John 20. 23. namely s Vid. Calv. in loc Altham concil loc pugn cap. 194. Dr. Reynolds Conference with Hart. Ch. 2. Divis 3. pag. 65. because it comes to passe upon every one according to the Word which they preached He that believes shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned As the Prophet in a like sense is said to be set over Nations and Kingdomes to root out and to pull down to build and to plant Jer. 1. 10. Yet was it not they but the Word which they preached which did justifie or condemn and that also received all its efficacy immediately from God So that remission of sins is ascribed to the Apostles but as moral instruments Such as they also were in raising the dead healing the sick converting of sinners and the like All which works were wrought immediately by God himself immediatione virtutis without any contribution of vertue or efficacy from man But when we are said to be justified by faith if the meaning be that by faith we know our selves to be justified in this case faith hath a true proper immediate and real efficiency in our Justification And it
pardon of sin is so far from being excluded as that indeed it is the principal blessing included in the life here promised is manifest from the Lords own words almost the very same with those used throughout this chapter in administration of his Supper This is my body which is broken for you as Paul hath it 1 Cor. 11. 24. This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Matth. 26. 28. Ergo remission of sins is that life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world 3. The life mentioned throughout the chapter containes all the blessings which Christ hath purchased for believers Ergo it containes Justification and pardon of sins or else Christ never purchased that for them If it be said that Christ purchased not the act of pardon but that consolation and refreshment which is the effect of it we have already shewed that neither is that act worthy the name of pardon which cannot of it self produce the effects of pardon nor was it needful that where pardon is so great a price should be paid for the effects of it What can hinder good things from us but sin and sin if it be pardoned can no more hinder then if it never had been committed that there would be no need for Christ to die to purchase any good things for us if he do not purchase the very act of pardon 4. The life which the flesh and blood of Christ gives to the world is not life simply but salvation from perishing as appears by comparing ver 40. with John 3. 16 17. therefore surely containes more then a life of comfort and refreshment precisely as was before observed 5. And I leave it with Mr. Eyre to consider whether there be not some greater malignity against the grace of God and salvation by Christ in his opinion then in the doctrine of those whom he opposeth pretendedly as enemies to grace when for the maintaining of it he is forced to bear us in hand that God sent not Christ nor did Christ come to quicken a dead world but to give ease to a sick world or healing to a wounded world not to give life to them that were dead but comfort and refreshment to them that were alive or not to restore them unto life but to continue and perfect them in the life they had before Eph. 2. 5. You that were dead in sins hath he quickened namely by remission Col. 2. 13. If one died for all then were all dead 2 Cor. 5. 15. Ergo a lesser matter then the death of Christ woâ—ld have served turne for our Redemption if our death had been any thing lesse then a total privation of life and the flesh and blood of Christ which so often in the Chapter is said to give life to the world is Christ dying or Christ crucified SECT III. MY fourth general Argument proving faith to go before Justification §. 7. was this What place and order works had to Justification in the Covenant of works the same place and order faith hath to our Justification in the Covenant of grace But works were to go before Justification in the Covenant of works Ergo faith is to go before our Justification in the Covenant of grace Mr. Eyre declames most tragically against the Proposition as no lesse unsound then the worst point in Popery or Arminianisme Thus do wise mens passions sometimes out-run the Constable and so they may overtake their adversary care not how many innocent persons they over-run in the way This very Proposition which Mr. Eyre disclaims as a piece of Popery and Arminianism have I received from as worthy opposers of both as the world hath any Bellarmine arguing against Justification by faith only saith That it did not please God to give Justification upon the condition of faith alone b Bell enerv l. 5. c 4. p. 3â—3 in 12. Dr. Ames answers Vel maximè hoc placuit Deo It pleased him altogether and addes Apostolus eâ—iam Gal. 3. 11 12. clarè testatur sidem in Evangelio ita se habere ut fac hoc in lege which I cannot better English then in the words of my Proposition denied Thus c Com. iâ— Eph. p. 243. 244. Bayne Look as in the Covenant of the Law Do this and live no deed no life so in this Covenant of the Gospel wherein the Lord promiseth for Christ to pardon sin to justifie to accept to eternal life here it may be said No saith no portion in the Prâ—mises of God in the grace of God in Christ Jesus for look as plaisters unapplied so is Christ unbelieved Nay more hast thou not saith whiles thus thou art God will not justifie thee nor accept thee to life for to pronounce thee just that doest not beleeve on Christ were to pronounce the guilty innocent which is an abomination with God For hence it is that Gods mercy and justice kisse offering no violence to each other because God doth so of grace save us sinners in our selves that first he maketh through Christ applied righteous c. Thus d De recoâ—cil â—ar 1. l. 2 c. 1â— p 101. Wotton Fides igitur est conditio quidem talis conditio ad Justificationem per Christum in foedere gratâ—itâ— qualis â—rant opera ad Justificationem ex operibus legis The sense of which is altogether the same with Dr. Ames Thus Calvin e In Rom. 10. 8 there quoted Colligimus sicut lex opera exigit Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Thus f Of the Covenâ—nt part â— ch 6. p. 360. Mr. Bulkley almost verbatim though I did not know so much till a Minister that had read the book told me of it and were it worth the while to transcribe testimonies in so known a case I could confirme the same from the testimonies of Dr. Twisse Pemble Downham Ball Beza and I think all the Protestant Authours I have most of whose names are mentioned chap. 1. and that according to the constant language of the g Vid Gasp Laurent Conseâ—s Orthoâ— vâ—t Art 5. â— â— per â—â—â— Ancients And because I foresaw that an adversary might be ready to misrepresent me as if I had compared faith and works in every respect as the same for use and effect in their respective Covenants I therefore said not that they had the same place meerly in the two Covenants but the same place and order putting in the latter word purposely as an Explication of the former for preventing that very mistake which Mr. Eyre is here run into of which latter word notwithstanding Mr. Eyre takes no notice in all he sayes against me My meaning therefore in the Proposition is this That as by the Covenant of works it was required that men should fulfil the Law that they might be justified so by the Gospel it is required that men beleeve that they
Quibus condition bus peccata remittantur per tot passim Musculus m System Theol. tom 2. pag. 247. ad obj 5. Promissiones Evangelii semper requirere Conditionem fidei dâ—mus Brochmand n Thesâ— Salmur parâ— prior de Justif Thes 37. fide igitur justificamur non tanquam parte aliqua Justitiae c. sed tanquam Conditione foederis gratiae quam à nobis Deus exigit loco conditionis foederis legalis the Professors of Somers in France o Sâ—hol in Luc. cap 11. Deus promisit nobis remissionem cum hac Conditione si nos prius remiserimus proximo c. Piscator p Opeâ— Tom. 1 pag. 420. 4â—3 vide loca Wallaeus q In Thoms Diatâ—ib pag. 148. Promissiones de fine sunt conditionaâ—ae c. vide locum passim Abbot r Christ Theol. lib. 1. cap 22. ad Thes 2 Promissio remissioniâ— peccatorum vitae aeteâ—â—ae sub conditione fidâ—i c. Wendeline s Of the Covenant pag 66. and elsewhere frequently onely mislikes the tearme in some respect because it seemes to take away all causality from Faith in the matter of Justification and therefore chuseth rather to call it an Instrument then a Condition Ball t Treatise of Justif Sâ—ct 2. cap. 1. Pemble u In Eph. 2. pag. 250. Bayne x Voâ—st loc com â—x cap. 3. ad Rom. pag. 23 Tit. 6. Mr. Blake of the Covenant cap. 6. pag. 26. Mr. Bulkley of the Covenanâ— part 4. cap. 1. and many others All which being considered I shall neither account it Popery nor Arminianisme to maintaine that Faith is the condition of our Justification before God till Master Eyre hath proved that it cannot be made a condition but it must withal be made a meritorious cause or that to make it the condition of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a sinner be to deny that Christs righteousnesse is at all imputed to a sinner or to affirme that God of his grace doth accept of Faith as our legal righteousnesse which is a palpable contradiction None of which he hath performed in his book nor ever will do When he distinguisheth those that take Faith objectively from those that make it an instrument in Justification it is a distinction without §. 6. a difference on purpose to impose upon the Reader as if they were two sorts of Authours whereas the very same men that take Faith objectively for Christ beleeved on do yet universally make Faith an Instrument in our Justification Our Protestants do indeed maintaine against the Papists and that most truly that the righteousnes of Christ is the meritorious cause of our Justification or the righteousnesse for which we are justified but the same Authours do as unanimously affirme that Faith is the instrumental cause thereof though otherwhile they call it a condition and most use the words promiscuously Thus y Instit l. 3. c. 14. §. 17. Calvin z Epist 45. p. 210. Beza a Loc. com clas 3. cap. 4. §. 47 48. Peter Martyr b Explic. cat par 2. q. 61. 3. pag. 399. Vrsine c Thes Theol. cap. 35. 11. Junius d Synt. Theol. l. 6. c. 36. p 456. Polaenus e De Justif per. fid cap. 4. §. 64. Sect. 6. §. 153. Gerhard f Enchyr. Theol. p. 134. Hemmingius g Synops pur Theol. disp 33. 27. the four Leyden Professours h In Heb. pag. 486. Hyperius i Meth. Theol. p. 227. Sohnius k Harm Evang. p. 279. Exam. Conc. Trid. ses 6. Kemnitius l Loc. Com. 31. 33. Bucanus and all the rest that ever I read both Lutherans and Calvinists voting concurrently for Faiths antecedency to Justification At last Mr. Eyre gives us his own sense of Justification by Faith in §. 7. these words My sense of this Proposition we are justified by Faith is no other then what hath been given by all our ancient Protestant Divines who take Faith herein objectively not properly and explain themselves to this effect We are justified from all sinne and death by the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ who is the sole object or foundation of our faith or whose righteousnesse we receive and apply to our selves by Faith Yet I say it doth not follow that it was not applyed to us by God or that God did not impute righteousnesse to us before we had Faith If Mr. Eyre had concluded as he began leaving out the exception which brings up the rear and understanding our ancient Protestants in their known sense this one sentence had confuted all his book and saved me the pains of such an undertaking It is most true that our Protestants maintaine that we are justified by the obedience of Christ as the meritorious cause of our Justification and it is as true that they maintaine a sinner to be justified by Faith as the instrument or condition of his justification Nor can I finde one amongst the ancient Protestants that did ever dreame of a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith no though for the most part they place Faith in a particular assurance To the single testimonies already mentioned let us adde a few more out of the Confessions that the difference betweene our Protestants and Master Eyre may the better appear We begin with the m Oâ—thodox Tig. eccles Minist confess Tract 2. fol. 43 44. Tigurine Confession Nullis humanis vel operibus § 8. vel meritis sed per solam Dei gratiam id est per sanctam illam crucifixi filii Dei passionem innocentem mortem homines justitiam consequi peccatis mundari docemus quod mortis Christi innocentiae meriti participes tunc reddamur cum Dei filium nostrum esse propter peccata nostra ut nos nimirum justos beatos redderet mortem subiisse vera constanti fide credimus To the same purpose the n Corp. Synt. Confes fid p. 45. Helvetian Confession Propriè ergo loquendo c. To speak properly God alone doth justifie us and justifies us onely for Christs sake not imputing to us our sinnes but imputing to us his righteousnesse But because we receive this justification not by any works but by faith in Gods mercy and in Christ therefore we teach and beleeve with the Apostle that a sinner is justified by Faith alone in Christ not by the Law or any works Therefore because Faith receiveth Christ our righteousnesse and attributes all to the grace of God in Christ therefore Justification is ascribed to Faith principally because of Christ and not because it is our work to the same purpose pag. 89. § 13. The o Gallic confess ibid. p. 105 §. 20. French Confession agrees Credimus nos c. We beleeve that by Faith alone we are made partakers of this righteousnesse as it is written that he suffered to obtaine
salvation for us that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish The p Ibid. p. 128. â— 11. English consent Tantùm propter c. Onely for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith not for our works and merits are we reputed just before God So q Ib. p. 157. 25. Scotland Sed qui corde c. They that do in heart sincerely beleeve and with their mouth confesse Jesus Christ do most certainly receive those blessings First in this life remission of sinnes and that by Faith alone in the blood of Christ The r Ib. p. 173 22 Belgick Confession in like manner Meritò igitur jureque dicimus c. We do therefore well and rightly say with Paul that we are justified only by Faith or by Faith without the works of the Law But to speak properly we do by no means understand Faith it self by it self or of it self to justifie us as which is onely as it were an Instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousnesse Christ then himself is our righteousnesse who imputes to us all his merits but Faith is the Instrument by which we are coupled unto him in the society and communion of all his good things and are continued therein Of the same Faith are all the other s Argent p. 223 c. 3. Paâ—t 2. August p. 22 c. 1. Saxâ—n p. 79 80 81. Wiâ—â—emberg p. 14â— c de justif Palat p. 210. si â—emissionem Churches whose Confessions follow Thus t Just lib. 3 c. 11. §. 10. Calvin Fateor hoc tam incomparabili beno nos privari donec Christus noster fiat Non ergo eum extra nos procul speculamur ut nobis imputetur ejus jusâ— itia sed quia ipsum induimus insiti sumus in ejus corpus unum denique nos secum efficere dignatus est ideo justitiae societatem nobis cum to esse gloriamur Thus u Ubi supra Epist 45. Beza Quae obedientia Christi viz. nobis per fidem Christo unitis datur nostraque fit per imputationem x Loc. com clas 3. c. 4. §. 65. Thus Peter Martyr Si quid Deus condonat vel remittit id facit hominibus jam regeneratis non autem à se alienis filiis irae quales necesse est eos esse qui nondum sunt justificati Istis inquam nihil remittitur Quare obligati sunt ad â—mnia And thus all our more ancient Protestants that I can read but it is a tedious thing to me to transcribe so much of humane testimony and what is written is sufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Eyre differs from our ancient Protestants notwithstanding his pretended agreement almost as farre on the one hand as the Papists do on the other in the very foundations of his discourse For first it is manifest by the testimonies produced that our Protestants when they plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ intend the very first act of Justification which Mr. Eyre rejects and ascribes no more to the righteousnesse of Christ then that it obtaines the effects of our justification but not the Act pag. 62. § 4. 2. Our Protestants do so plead for Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ as that they require and assert the necessary existence of Faith in us as the instrument or condition or antecedent of our Justification Mr. Eyre contends for a Justification by the righteousnesse of Christ without Faith at present coexisting 3. They plead for a Justification which begins upon believing and therefore must needs be a transient not an immanent act of God He for a Justification which is an y Augustan Confes de fide p. 21. Non est hic opus disputationibus de praedestinatione aut similibus immanent act and included in the decree of election as part of it pag. 65. § 5. 4. They when they speak of Justification by Faith meane Justification before God He the manifestation and declaration thereof onely to the conscience So that Mr. Eyres opinion and that of the ancient Protestants look so little like Countrey-men that it may not expect to be owned by them though it challenge kindred of them CHAP. II. An Answer to Mr. Eyres seventh Chapter What is meant by Gods sight Two parts or degrees thereof Mr. Eyres Exposition contradicts it selfe and the Truth Gods Will or Purpose never called by the name of Justification in Scripture The consequences which Mr. Eyre denies to follow upon his doctrine necessary and unavoidable A large enquiry whether Justification consist in Gods Purpose not to punish Imputation and non-imputation what in the use of Scripture Gods electing love no Justification Rom. 8. 33. answered Several Arguments proving that Justification is not Gods purpose of not punishing The foure objections which Mr. Eyre makes against himselfe not answered by him Not the first Nor the second Nor the third Nor the fourth of Mr. Eyres second and third Proposition SECT I. NExt we shall enquire what it is to be justified before God or in Gods sight 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gal. 3. 11. or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 20. by which the Septuagint render the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal 143. 2. a word that hath many faces and significations in a Drus observat cap. 17. Scripture But in the matter of Justification which is a forensical terme unlesse the whole body of our Protestants be mistaken it signifies as much as Gods judgement As to be justified in mans sight or before men is to be justified in mans judgement or for man to justifie and to be righteous in a mans own eyes is to be righteous in a mans own judgement or to justifie a mans selfe In like manner to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in Gods judgement or for God to justifie Compare 1 Cor. 4. 4. Luke 16. 15. Numb 32. 22. and many other places Now this judgement of God is either a judgement of justice by which no flesh living shall be justified Psal 143. 2. or a judgement of mercy and grace 2 Sam. 22. 25 26. Col. 1. 22. Heb. 13. 21. by which only a sinner can be justified or stand in the sight presence and judgement of God In this judgement of God we consider these two degrees or parts §. 2. The first is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle calls it Rom. 1. 32. Jus b Vid Joh. Driâ—d de capt Redempt c. 2. mem 3. de Reg. dogmat Sac. Script l. 3. p. 96 97. Dei that Rule Law or Constitution of God determining of rewards and penalties whence Gods Precepts Statutes Threatenings and Promises are so often called in Scripture his judgements The second is the sentence which God the righteous Judge shall passe upon all men according to this Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the day of judgement Accordingly my opinion is that a sinner is justified in Gods sight either ipso jure
what is Why saith Mr. Eyre to shew that we are justified not by works or righteousnesse in us but by the righteousnesse of Christ freely imputed to us which we apprehend and apply by faith Very good and this is as much as I stand for namely that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith But know Reader that when we speak of apprehending Christs righteousnesse we mean not an intellectual apprehension when a man comes to discern and know that he is justified as Mr. Eyre doth but the right and interest which is given us by the Promise in the righteousnesse of Christ when we believe And in this sense are our Protestants to be understood when they say the righteousnesse of Christ is apprehended by faith Therefore when a De instit lib. 1. cap. 16. pag. 992. in 80. Bellarmine denies that it is the office or property of faith to apprehend our Protestants reject him as a Quibler b Ames Bill ener page 314. in 12â— Non enim ignoravit Bellarminus longè aliud intelligere per apprehensionem quà m speculationem intellectus Rectè Contarenus Accipimus Justificationem per fidem Gal. 3. 14. Hanc acceptionem Thomas appellat applicationem Protestantes appellant apprehensionem non eâ significatione quae pertinet ad cognitionem intellectus sed quâ illud dicimur apprehender quo pervenimus quod post motum nostrum attingimus This I thought good here to observe once for all that the Reader may not be deceived with the ambignity of the word apprehend but might know the different use of it in our Protestants writings and Mr. Eyres The mistake in my Conclusion was that I told unbelievers that §. 2. Christ was not a High Priest or Advocate to them and that they had no Court of Mercy to appeal unto which Mr. Eyre denies to be true If he mean they may appeal by faith I consent but that is nothing to his purpose If that they may appeal without faith or that Christ intercedes that their sins may be forgiven who yet live in impenitency and unbelief let him prove it Of this also I shall speak more when I come to debate how farre we are reconciled in the death of Christ In the mean time I wonder why Mr. Eyre should quarrel with Mr. Baxter for asserting universal Redemption in the sense of Davenant Cameron Testardus Crocius Amyraldus and others when in the words following he yields the main foundations of their judgements in this point namely when he sayes Our duty is to exhort all men every where to believe in Christ we were as good bid the devils to believe as those for whom Christ is not a High-Priest I inferre Ergo Christ died for all men though I say not for all equally or else we were as good preach the Gospel to divels as to men But let that passe After Mr. Eyre hath leaped from one end of my Sermon to the other he comes to the middle which indeed doth most concern him And whether he hath convinced me of errour in that also is our next enquiry And first he considers that place which was then my text Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ His answer is double First saith he we may without any violence to the text place the comma after justified as thus Being justified by faith we have peace with God Reply And yet gives us no intelligence of any one copy former or §. 3. latter printed or manuscript to warrant such a punctation As to the division of the sentence the Syriack the Ancients c Lib. 5. advers Marcion c. 13. Si in eum competit pax cum quo suit belsum ei justificabimur ejus eâ—iâ— Christus ex cujus fide justificabimur Tertullian d Trans lat cdit Loud 1636. Justificati ergo ex side pacem habeamus Et Exâ—os 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Theophylact e Edit Henr. Savill Fronto Duc. Paris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrysostome f In loc Origen and our Protestant Commentatours both Lutherans and Calvinists agree with our Translation And if Mr. Eyre will be just and allow the same liberty to others which he takes himself as small a matter as a comma is the mis-placing it may unravel a whole texture of Scripture The Psycopanycists and some Papists when they are urged with the words of the Lord Jesus To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise elude the place by putting the comma after day and so reade the words thus g Vid. Hag. Grot. Annot. in Luc. 23 43. Verily I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise 2. I accept of Mr. Eyres observation that the illative particle therefore shews that this place is a corollary or deduction from the words foregoing and that the Apostles scope in the whole chapter foregoing is to prove that we are justified by faith is more plain then to need proof So that these words are the Conclusion of the former dispute issuing into this doctrine That we are justified by faith The uses whereof the Apostle immediately subjoynes But this way not taking Mr. Eyre is provided of another which is this If saith he we take the words as commonly they are read the sense comes all to one sâ—il That being justified by Christ we have peace with God who by the faith he creates in us causeth us to enjoy this reconciliation Rep. This is somewhat worse then the former The Apostle saith Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ Mr. Eyre to turne out faith from its office in Justification will have the words read by transposition Being justified by our Lord Jesus Christ we have peace with God through faith Or the word faith in the beginning of the verse must signifie our Lord Jesus Christ and the Lord Jesus Christ in the latter part of the verse must be put for faith which as it is an intolerable liberty of interpreting Scriptures so is it without all precedent in Scripture which is neither wont to put faith for Christ nor Christ for faith though both are often included where but one is mentioned Some I know do fasten such a sense on a text or two but without any necessity or compulsory reason SECT II. THe next place is Gal. 2. 16. We have believed in Jesus Christ §. 4. that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law Mr. Eyre answers 1. That this doth no more infer that we are not justified before we believe then that of our Saviour Matth. 5. 44 45. Love your enemies c. that you may be the children of your Father in Heaven infers That works do go before Adoption Things in Scripture are then said to be when they are known manifested and declared to be Rom. 3. 26. That
he might be just i. e. that he might be known and acknowledged to be just So John 15. 8. and 13. 35 c. So here That we might be justified is that we might know that we are justified Not the being of our Justification but the knowledge and feeling of it is a consequent of faith Rep. 1. I would never desire that any Argument of mine should conclude more firmely then that text Mat. 5. will infer that none are the children of God in the sense there meant before they love their enemies and performe the other duties there enjoyned for it is manifest the Lord there speaks of becoming the children of God not by adoption but by similitude of manners Reader see ver 46 47 48. and give judgement impartially Now in this way it is impossible to be a childe of God till these things be done and therefore that part of the answer strengthens my Argument 2. To Rom. 3. 26. where God is said to have set forth his Son c. that he might be just I answer that there is no necessity of understanding the word just of being known and acknowledged to be just for it will be a kinde of tautologie To declare I say at this time his righteousnesse That he may be declared to be righteous Nor yet will it follow that God was not just before but that he had not been just now if Christ had not suffered for sinners But if by the word just be meant declared to be just it will not reach our case We seek such a sense of the word Justification when God is the justifier and man the object which throughout all Mr. Eyres book is a non-inventus when man is the justifier and God the object such a sense is necessary because God is capable of no other Justification from man as man is from God 3. As to the thing it self I acknowledge it readily That things are many times said to be in Scripture when they are only manifested and declared to be but such an interpretation is seldom warrantable unlesse the subject-matter invite to it as in John 15. and 13. where the Lord speaking to those that were already disciples that if they brought forth much fruit they should be his disciples it is most natural to understand it of being manifested or of continuing his disciples But we may not therefore interpret Justification by faith of a manifestation or declaration that we are justified not only because the texts wherein that phrase is used suppose no Justification before it but also 1. Because other Scriptures deny them that beleeve not to be justified John 3. 18. Rom. 3. 19 22 23 24. 1 Cor. 6. 9 11. Eph. 2. 3. and other places And 2. Because when to be in Scripture signifies to be manifested or declared it is understood perpetually of an external publike manifestation or declaration to many not of an internal spiritual private discovery to the soule or conscience of a particular person for proof of which I desire no other witnesse then these very texts which Mr. Eyre hath here mentioned supposing them all to be understood as he would have them Our love to our enemies declares us to be the children of God our bringing forth much fruit declares us to be the disciples of Christ both publikely and in the sight of many witnesses God is declared to be just still publikely and in the judgement of many yea of all good or bad men or devils But this sense will by no meanes fit Mr. Eyres turne for he contends for no more then that Justification is manifested upon faith to the believers own conscience nor do I think he will so much as pretend that he that believes is by his faith publikely declared to the world to be a justified person So that neither can Justification by faith be allowed to be understood of a declarative Justification nor if it might could it yet at all gratifie his design Of all places it cannot have that sense in this text 1. Because §. 5. Justification by faith is expressely opposed to Justification by works Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified But it is most certain and Mr. Eyre confesseth it roundly that works do manifest and declare our Justification page 79 80. Ergo by Justification here is not meant the declaration or manifestation that a person is justified 2. Justification in regard of its common nature is the same whether it be by faith or works namely as it signifies a constituting of us just before God for Christians attain that righteousnesse by faith which the Jewes sought after by works as the Apostle doth more largely expresse it Rom. 9. 31 32. Israel which followed after the Law of righteousnesse have not attained to the Law of righteousnesse Wherefore because they sought it not by faith but as it were by the works of the Law Ergo Justification when ascribed to faith must be taken in the same sense as when it is denied to works But the Jewes by their works sought to be justified before God and not simply that it should be manifested to them that they were justified before their works were wrought for they sought to be justified by works as the matter for which they should be justified And therefore when the Apostle opposeth himself directly to their principle it is in these words By the deeds of the Law shall no flesh living be justified that is in the sight of God as it is expressed by the Psalmist Psal 143. 2. and by this Apostle in this Argument Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. Ergo to be justified by faith in this place is not simply to be assured of a mans Justification but to be justified before God 3. And because Mr. Eyre doth use to oppose Justification by faith to Justification by Christ I desire him to consider that Justification by faith is here the very same with Justification by Christ for after he had said ver 16. We have beleeved in Christ that we may be justified by the faith of Christ he addes ver 17. but if while we seek to be justified by Christ But to be justified by Christ is not meerly to have it by Christ declared that we are justified This is not only a concession but a main principle of Mr. Eyres Ergo to be justified by faith here is not simply to have the knowledge of our Justification But Mr. Eyre hath another answer a very strange one and that §. 6. is this In the text it is We have believed that we might be justified by faith so that from hence it can be inferred only that we are not justified by faith before believing Rep. As if the question between the Jewes and
the Apostle were not whether a man be justified simply by faith or works But whether a man were justified by faith by faith or works and the Apostles answer is to this effect That indeed if you speak of Justification by faith we are justified by faith and not by works He that hath nothing else to do may exercise his wits farther upon this acumen if he please If Mr. Eyre mean no more then that we are not justified in conscience before we believe as the latter words of his answer seem to import then is this second answer a meer tautologie as being the very same with the former SECT III. THe next Scripture alleged is Rom. 8. 30. Whâ—m he predestinated §. 7. them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified From whence it is manifest that as glory follows Justification so doth Justification follow vocation unto faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. That the order of words in Scripture doth not shew the order and dependance of the things themselves 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. 2 Tim. 1. 9. 2. The Apostles scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us but how inseparably they are linked to our predestination 3. The Apostle here speaks of Justification as it is declared and terminated in our consciences Rep. Mr. Eyre is the first of all Authors that ever I met with or heard of ancient or moderne Papist or Protestant Remonstrant or Contra-Remonstrant that ever denied the Apostles scope in this place to be principally to shew the order in which the benefits mentioned are bestowed upon us And though I will not build my faith on humane authority yet neither do I account it â—ngenuous to desert the sense of all men gratis without pretending at least some reason for my singularity but to the matter I acknowledge that the Scriptures in relating matters of fact do frequently use a Hysteron prâ—teron reporting those things first which it may be were acted last or è câ—ntra as in 1 Sam. 6. 14 15. Also that in a copulate axiome where many things are attributed to one subject the order many times is not attended but the connexion only as if I should say of God as the Apostle doth of the Law that he is holy and just and good or the latter is exegetical of the former as in that of the Apostle 2 Tim. 1. 9. He hath saved us and called us But 2. I do utterly deny that such manner of speech as is here used Rhetoricians call it climax or a gradation where several Propositions are linked together the predicate of each former being the subject of the latter is any where else to be found but where the Speakers Purpose is to declare not only the connexion but specially the order of the things themselves h Vid. Vâ—ssâ—um instit orat lib. 5 cap. 8. And. Talâ—um Rhetor â—x P. R. cap. â—1 Examples hereof out of Poets Oratours Greek and Latine and Ecclesiastical Writers the Reader may see in almost every Rhetorician Ovid. Mars videt hanc visámque cupit potitúrque cupitâ Cicero In urbe luxuries creatur ex luxuriâ— existat avaritia necesse est ex avaritiâ â—rumpat audscia c. But let the Scriptures determine it Rom. 5. 3 4 5. Affliction worketh patience and patience experience and experience hope and hope maketh not ashamed that is for the words are a Meiosis giveth boldnesse and joy which is the thing the Apostle is proving ver 3. so Rom. 10. 14 15. where the order is retrograde How can they call on him on whom they have not believed how can they believe on him of whom they have not heard how can they heare without a Preacher how can they preach unlesse they be sent The wit of man cannot digest words more methodically to shew the orderly dependance of things one upon another As in the former example of patience on affliction experience on patience hope on experience joy on hope And in the second example of invocation on faith faith on hearing hearing on preaching preach 〈…〉 3. In the present text the matter is yet more clear because Predestination §. 8. Vocation Justification and Glorification are all of them actions of one and the same efficient tending unto one and the same end and every second action cumulative to the former as the partitle also doth evidence Whom he predestinated them he also called whom he called them he also justified whom he justified them he also glorified And though one and the same person be the object of all these acts yet from the termination of each former act upon him he becomes the more immediate object of the succeeding as appears by the relative particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whom Them So that the object of vocation is a person predestinated of Justification a person called of glorification a person justified or else those particles are utterly superfluous and the whole sentence ridiculous 4. Mr. Eyre will also acknowledge that in two of these Propositions not only connexion but order is observed namely in the first whom he predestinated them he called and the last whom he justified them he glorified Yet hath he as much reason to deny both these as the middlemost And if Arminians who acknowledge no absolute election before faith should deny the first and a Sadducee who confesseth no resurrection but what is past already should deny the last he could not vindicate the text against either but by the same Arguments which will convince himself of errour in denying the second 5. But what doth Mr. Eyre meane to make us beleeve when he §. 9. tells us he can see no inconvenience at all in saying the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared in conscience whereas one would think it had been easie to see that he is liable to a double shrewd inconvenience in so saying the one is of contradicting himself the other of abusing the text 1. The Apostles scope here saith he is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed upon us I wonder in which of them he breaks order In the first and last Proposition as was but now observed it will surely be granted that he keeps order punctually and when he saith in the second Proposition whom he called them he justified I am sure Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge that he hath hit the order as right as can be if by Justification be meant that which is terminated in conscience as he speaks And why then doth he deny that the Apostle intends to declare the order of these benefits belike though his scope were not to do it yet he had the good hap to stumble upon it quite besides his purpose and intention 2. But neither can it be understood of Justification in conscience for the Justification here spoken of is only and entirely Gods act no lesse then Predestination Vocation
revelation or enthusiastical inspiration the expression were much more tolerable 4. To the instance of a Malefactour that may be pardoned though he do not know it till a great while after I answer in the words of k Christ set forth p. 26 â—7 Reverend Dr. Godwin Gods Promises of forgivenesse are not as the pardons of a Prince which meerly contain an expression of his royal word for pardoning But as if a Prince should offer to pardon a Traitour upon marriage with his childe whom in and with that pardon he offers in such a relation So as all that would have pardon must first seek out for his childe and thus it is in the matter of believing The Promises hang all upon Christ and without him there is no interest to be had in them He that hath the Sonne hath life 1 John 5. 12. Thus the Doctor To Acts 13. 39. Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle shews §. 14. the excellency of the Gospel above the Law in that 1. The Law did not cleanse from all sin 2. And but in an external typical manner 3. And that by sacrifice after sacrifice c. Rep. All which things I readily grant Yet 1. Some kinde of pardon there was under the Law which did necessarily suppose a coming unto those sacrifices Heb. 10. 1. The people were not first pardoned and then came to the offering of sacrifice or to the Priest So doth also the more perfect pardon under the Gospel necessarily presuppose a coming by faith to the true High-Priest the Lord Jesus that sinners may partake therein 2. When the Scriptures do so constantly require faith unto Justification and faith only for proof of which Mr. Eyre confesseth my Concordance would furnish me with many more places then I have taken notice of I will never be brought to beleeve that it is required as a consequent of Justification for all Christian graces and duties are required as consequents as well as faith even by Mr. Eyres grant Nor yet that by Justification is meant our knowledge and assurance that we are justified because unto that also many other things may be required and not faith only As for example self-examination and proving of our selves 2 Cor. 13. 5. diligence in adding one grace to another 2 Pet. 1. 5 6 7 10. a good conscience towards God and man and a keeping of the Commandments of Christ 1 John 3. 20 21. John 14. 23. love of the brethren 1 John 3. 18 19 14. and the like And thus much for the Vindication of the Texts proving Faith's antecedency to Justification By all which the Reader may see that when I said the only answer made to these Texts was That Justification is to be understood of that which is evidenced in conscience this account is true and perfect though Mr. Eyre tell him it be very imperfect there being not one of all the places mentioned but what he answers to by such a temperament of the word Justification It was therefore necessary that I should prove that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God and not of that which is in the Court of Conscience To which end I advanced foure Arguments in my Sermon the asserting of which against Mr. Eyres exceptions is my next undertaking CHAP. IV. An Answer to Mr. Eyres eighth Chapter and part of the Ninth His saying and unsaying Many Arguments proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is to be taken proving that when we are said to be justified by faith faith is be taken properly for the faith in us and not for Christ Faith and works how opposed in the matter of Justification That we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification virtually or axiomatically or syllogistically Sinners according to Mr. Eyre the causes of their own Justification Nor is Justification taken properly in all the Scriptures as he expounds it SECT I. THe first Argument proving that when the Apostle §. 1. pleads for Justification by faith he is to be understood of Justification before God or in the sight of God and not in the Court of Conscience is this The Question between him and the Jewes was not whether we were declared to be justified by faith or works but whether we were justified by faith or works in the sight of God And he concludes that it is by faith and not by works Rom. 3. 20 21. Gal. 3. 11. All this Mr. Eyre grants but will have the Apostle by the word faith to understand not the act or habit of faith but the object scil Christs righteousnesse or righteousnesse imputed His reason is because else there were no opposition between faith and works seeing faith or the act of believing is a work of ours no lesse then love Yet when the Apostle disputes for Justification by faith Gal. 2. 16. and that in a direct opposition to works and for the imputation of faith unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. still as opposed to works ver 4 5. we were told that justifying and imputing were the manifestation of Justification and Imputation But now we have another answer which overthrows the former namely that faith is to be taken for Christ and his righteousnesse What aileth thee O Jordan that thou art turned backward Yea he will not allow that the Apostle hath any question with them about the time when or the conâ—tion upon which we are justified Yet I think all men besides himself will grant that his designe is to shew the way and meanes by which a sinner may come to be justified Though I confesse I see not how Mr. Eyre can grant this For if the Justification of all that are justified be absolute and perfect in the death of Christ as he supposeth then from that time there can no way be prescribed to a sinner no counsel given him what course to take that he may be justified Only he may be told that if he be justified the way to know it is to beleeve And when the Jewes say We must be justified by works and the Apostle By faith they are both out for we are justified by neither And the Gentiles were in an errour in seeking to be justified by faith as well as the Jewes in seeking it by works if they seek any thing more then to know that they are justified But because Mr. Eyre doth so often take Sanctuary at this notion §. 2. that saith is put for its object Christ and his righteousnesse though he give us not one text that may convince us of it we must of necessity examine the truth of it And yet when I consider how presumptuous and irrational the conceit is in it selfe and how solidly already confuted by Mr. a De reâ— onâ— pâ—c par 2. l 1. c. 15. Wotton who also hath set down the testimonies of no lesse then fourty Authours Fathers and Protestants besides Papists all
4 5. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth c. Not working is opposed to works Beleeving is not working with the Apostle Ergo believing is opposed to works Judge then who will for I am indifferent in so just a cause whether the Apostle contradict himselfe or Mr. Eyre him 2. The opposition between faith and works in the matter of Justification stands thus according to Scripture That he that worketh doth himself effect that righteousnesse for which he is justified personal and perfect obedience being that which the Law requireth of every man to make him just before God And hence righteousnesse by works or by the Law is called our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 10. 3. But he that believeth doth by the gift of God partake in the righteousnesse of another even of the Lord Jesus Christ for which only he is justified And hence righteousnesse by faith is opposed to our own righteousnesse Phil. 3. 9. Not having my own righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith So that he that is justified by works is justified for his own sake but he that is justified by faith is justified for anothers sake §. 9. But because this is the total summe of all Mr. Eyre hath to say for the abuse of the word Faith from its own native sense to a tropical I shall set down my answer more fully I distinguish therefore 1. Of works 2. Of the particle By. 1. Works are taken largely for any humane action and so no doubt but faith is a work so is laughing crying speaking reasoning and the like 2. Strictly for that obedience by which the righteousnesse of the Law is fulfilled really or in conceit and so they are uncapable of an ordinability to or of being made the conditions of our Justification by the righteousnesse of another In this sense doth the Apostle take works when he opposeth them to faith b Vid Conraâ— Vorst Schol. in loc Rom. 4. 4. To him that worketh the reward is imputed of debt and ver 2. If Abraham were jâ—stified by works he hath whereof to glory Both which Propositions were false if works were any thing lesse then perfect legal righteousnesse for he had said before that there is no glorying for a sinner before God * Vid. Joh. Piscat Schol. in loc ex Olev Calvin Rom. 3. 23. Not that I think the Jewes themselves who sought righteousnesse by works did conceive they were able so to keep the Law as not at all to sin but rather thought such was their blindnesse that the Law was sufficiently kept to Justification if they forbore the outward acts of sin and performed the outward act of duty c Joseph Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 13. Joh. Reynol Coâ—f with Hart. ch 7. D. 4. p. 264. neglecting the inward purity of heart d Sic Mâ—rmon in 〈◊〉 Te 〈…〉 or if their good works were more then their evil works or finally if they did perform those ceremonial observances which were required in the Law for the expiation of sinne Matâ—h 19. 18 19. and 23. 25 26 27 28. Luke 18. 11 12. Phil. 3. 6. Against which conceit of theirs the grand Argument which the Apostle opposeth is this That all had sinned against the Law Rom. 3. 19 20 23. and therefore none could be justified by the Law for it is written Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10 11. Now works being taken in this strict sense it is manifest that faith is not works no e Fidem non esâ—e opus Viâ— Câ—mâ—ron prâ—lect in Mâ—â— 16. â—7 opâ—r p. 47 48. nor a work as being no part of that obedience which the Law requires to make a man righteous as the Apostle expressely witnesseth Gal. 2. 12. The Law is not of faith that is requires not faith in order to Justification but the man that doth them shall live in them 2. When we speak of Justification by works and of Justification §. 10. by faith the particle By hath not the same sense in both Propositions But in the former it denotes works to be that very righteousnesse for which a person is justified in the latter it denotes faith to be the meanes or condition upon which we receive the gift of Christs righteousness Of the use of that particle in such a sense the Reader shall finde many instances in answer to Mr. Eyres ninth Chapter When then he disputes that if we are justified by faith in a proper sense we are justified by works because faith is a work I deny the consequence with the proof of it The former because to be justified by faith is to be justified by the righteousnesse of another through faith as the condition of the application and donation of it unto us but to be justified by works is to be justified by and for a righteousnesse wrought by our selves The latter because faith is not a work as the Apostle useth works that is no part of that righteousnesse for which we are justified What can be objected against this the Reader will meet with in the following discourse In the mean time I desire him to have recourse hither for answer to this Argument in all the following places which are very many wherein it is objected against me that I may not be forced to multiply tautologies even unto nauseousnesse SECT IV. THe second general Argument proving that Justification by §. 11. faith is not meant of the evidence or knowledge of our Justification is this It cannot be imagined how faith should evidence to us our Justification but one of these three wayes Either as an Argument affected to prove it or axiomatically or syllogistically which termes because Mr. Eyre reproacheth me with their obscurity we shall endeavour to explain as we come to them But we cannot be said to be justified by faith in reference to faiths evidencing our Justification in any of these three wayes Ergo we cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification This Reader is the summe and scope of my second Argument which I have here set down distinctly that thou mayest not be lead into a mistake common to Mr. Eyre with some of my own friends as themselves have told me as if I had denied all use of faith in evidencing Justification which is as farre from my judgement as the East is from the West I confesse I have little cause to blame Mr. Eyre or others for being thus mistaken because there is an ellipfis in my words which might give some occasion of such a misapprehension for whereas it is said in my Sermon page 3. It is a most unsound Assertion that faith doth evidence our Justification before faith The full sentence should have been
Brookes Heaven upon earth page 65 66. heard of in such a condition If it be said we may be mistaken in men I acknowledge it But withal I am not bound to beleeve impossibilities and contradictions If I must beleeve that it is possible for them to have true faith even whiles they have not the least spark or twinkling evidence of Gods justifying pardoning love then I cannot beleeve Mr. Eyres affirmation to be universally true That wheresoever there is faith there is some evidence of Justification And me thinks he should not have expected that we should take his word against Scripture and experience both 2. Yet if all this were granted it comes not up to our case when the Scriptures say He that believes shall be justified it surely speaks of a Justification which is the same equally unto all that beleeve And for Mr. Eyre to say every one that believes hath some evidence of Justification though it may be not so much as another is to say one believer may be more justified then another which we desire him to prove the Scriptures imply the contrary Romanes 3. 29 30. and 4. 23 24. and 10. 12. The second Argument to prove that we are not said to be justified §. 13. by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justificarion as an effect was because faith is not the effect of Justification for if it be then we may as truly be said to be faithed by our Justification as to be justified by our faith and in stead of saying Beleeve and thou shalt be justified we must say hence-forward Thou art justified therefore beleeve Mr. Eyre answers That he sees no absurdity at all in saying That faith is from Justification causally That grace which justifies us is the cause and fountain of all good things and more especially of faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 29. Rep. Is it then no absurdity to set the Scriptures upon their heads we are said in Scripture to beleeve unto righteousnesse or Justification Rom. 10. 10. and were it no absurdity to say we are made righteous or justified unto believing when the Apostle saith Heb. 10. 39. we are not of them who draw back unto perdition but of them that beleeve unto the saving of the soule Surely the particle unto doth in both sentences denote the issue and consequence in the former perdition of drawing back in the latter salvation of believing 2. Faith cannot be the effect of Justification if Justification be what Mr. Eyre sayes it is namely the eternal Will of God not to punish precisely for a Will determined precisely to a non-punition is not the cause of faith unlesse Gods not punishing be our believing 3. And what an Argument have we to prove faith to be the effect of Justification That grace which justifies us is the cause of all good things and particularly of faith Ergo Justification is the cause of faith This is Logick of the game The grace that justifies us is also the grace that glorifies us shall I therefore infer that glorification is the cause of faith I did therefore truly say that according to this doctrine we must §. 14. not say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified but rather thou art justified Ergo beleeve No saith Mr. Eyre because 1. It is not the priviledge of all men 2. We know not who are justified no more then who are elected Though faith be an effect of Election yet we may not say Thou art elected therefore believe 3. When the cause is not notiâ—r effectu we must ascend from the effect to the cause Rep. Indeed to be justified is not the priviledge of all men yet Justification is to be preached as a priviledge attainable by all men if they will beleeve which yet it cannnt be if Justification be the cause of faith and not the consequent 2. It is also true that we cannot say Thou art elected therefore beleeve neither may we say Beleeve and thou shalt be elected But we may and must say Beleeve and thou shalt be justified therefore the case of Election and Justification is not the same The third answer I understand not nor I think no man else at least how it should be applied to the present case and therefore I say nothing to it My last and indeed the main Argument for proof of the position §. 15. namely that we cannot be said to be justified by faith in respect of faiths evidencing our Justification as an Argument or particularly as an effect is this because then it will unavoidably follow that we are justified by works as well as faith works being an effect evidencing Justiâ—ication as well as faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. By retortion That this follows from my opinion for if we be justified by the act of beleeving we are justified by a work of our own For answer to which I refer the Reader to the second and third Sections of this chapter If works be taken largely for any humane action faith is a work but it is as I may so call it an unworking work for to beleeve and not to work are all one with the Apostle as we have shewed before out of Rom. 4. 4 5. His second answer is a large grant that works do declare and evidence Justification and therefore I take notice only of the last line of it wherein he quotes Rom. 1. 17. and Gal. 2. 16. as proving faith to declare and evidence Justification to conscience Of Gal. 2 16. I have already spoken largely and have proved that the Apostles words We have beleeved that we may be justified cannot have this sense we have beleeved that we may know our selves to be justified And I wonder Mr. Eyre doth not see how he stumbles again at the common rock of contradicting himself in alleging that text He here acknowledgeth that works do evidence our Justification but the Apostle there doth altogether remove works from having any hand in the Justification there spoken of Ergo The Justification there spoken of is not the evidencing of Justification The words in Rom. 1. 17. are these Therein namely in the Gospel is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That is as the Apostle expounds himself chap. 3. 21 22. In the Gospel is manifested the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve from beleeving Jewes to believing Gentiles for that questionlesse is the meaning of those words from faith to faith as is manifest by comparing them with the foregoing ver 16. The Gospel is the Power of God to salvation to every one that belâ—eveth to the Jew first and also to the Greek But how this proves that to be justified by faith is to have the evidence of Justification in our consciences I cannot divine At last Mr. Eyre gives us his direct answer or rather something §. 16. like an answer and denies that works do evidence Justification as well as faith where
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
cannot indeed be denied but that the same words which propose the condition upon which a benefit is obtained may also consequentèr declare the persons to whom the said benefit doth belong but that such manner of speech as is used in these texts doth only shew the persons who and not the condition or meanes by which a benefit is obtained is contrary to the perpetual sense of Scripture Let us transcribe a few texts of many Numb 21. 8. And it shall come to passe that overy one or whosoever is bitten when he looketh upon it namely upon the brazen Serpent shall live I do the rather instance in these words because the Lord illustrateth the method of Redemption by them John 3. 14 15. As Moses lifted up the Serpent in the Wildernesse even so must the Son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth on him should not perish c. If the protasis had been full it had run thus As Moses lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse that whosoever looked on him might be healed even so c. And do those words that whosoever looked on him only describe the person that was healed but not propound the condition or meanes of healing common sense cannot endure it Their looking up to the brazen Serpent was antecedent to their healing and a meanes ordained for them to use that they might be healed and their healing followed by vertue of Gods power and faithfulnesse Ergo it was a condition of their healing And the distributive particle whosoever doth sufficiently shew that it was every one promiscuously one as well as another for whose healing the Serpent was lifted up through their looking on it and not a note of distinction to difference one from another So Mark 11. 23. Whosoever shall say unto this mountain believingly Be thou removed he shall have whatsoever he saith Is this also a description of the person but not a propounding of the meanes by which those works may be obtained to be wrought see the like expressions Matth. 13. 12. and 16. 25. and 18. 4. Mark 9. 41. Rev. 22. 17. and other places without number To all which if Mr. Eyre can oppose but one that will admit such a sense as here he puts upon the texts under debate he shall do more then any Authour else that I can yet meet with 2. If these and the like places do only describe the persons that shall be saved then do they ascribe no more to faith in reference to salvation then unto works Works of righteousnesse being as proper and peculiar to them that shall be saved as faith it selfe and therefore the description of the person might as well be taken from them as from faith 3. That which serves only to describe a person in specie cannot be proposed to another person as a meanes by which he may enjoy a like benefit no more then if the said person had been described in individuo for example suppose the Lord had described them that shall be saved not from faith their specifick quality but by their proper names and had said God gave his Son to death that Peter and Paul and James and John c. might be saved were it not against all sense and sobriety to go to Geofry Roger and Anthony and tell them if they will be Peter and Paul they shall be saved or suppose the description had been from the species and the words had run thus God gave his Son that whosoever is borne of Jewish Parents should be saved were it not ridiculous with all seriousnesse earnestnesse and tendernesse of compassion to exhort and beseech and charge the Gentiles to be borne of Jewish Parents that they might be saved yea suppose they had been described from their Election as they might have been more properly then from their faith had it not been absurd to exhort men that they would be elected that so they might be saved I conclude therefore that the texts before us are not a description of the person but a proposing of a condition upon which only salvation is attainable words that are meerly descriptory can never be resolved into a command or exhortation SECT II. LEt us now see whether Mr. Eyre hath done any thing towards §. 8. a proofe that faith is not the condition of Justification His first Reason is this That interpretation of the phrase which gives no more to faith in the businesse of Justification then to other works of sanctification cannot be true But to interpret Justification by faith meerly thus that faith is a condition to qualifie us for Justification gives no more to faith then to other works of Sanctification as to repentance charity new obedience c. Answ 1. If the Proposition be true as I believe it to be most true Mr. Eyre hath hitherto deluded us grossely in interpreting Justification by faith for a knowledge or evidence that we are justified seeing works concur to such an evidence and that by his own concession as was above demonstrated 2. The Assumption also I presume proceeds upon the supposed principles of those whom he opposeth and not according to his own sense for I think he will not say that any works of Sanctification do qualifie us for Justification 3. I deny the Assumption And how doth Mr. Eyre prove it Why Mr. Baxter and Dr. Hammond say so Yet are neither of these Authours of such authority with Mr. Eyre in other cases as that their word should passe for a proof And yet hath he not fairly represented them neither Dr. Hammond I confesse is to me lesse plain and intelligible but if Mr. Eyre will undertake that his notion is the same with Mr. Baxters he might have seen in very many places of Mr. Baxters writings that he makes works but the secondary lesse principal conditions at most and denies them to be any conditions at all in reference to our first entrance into a state of Justification And must we yet believe against an Authours owne words that he ascribes no more to faith then unto other works of sanctification in the matter of Justification 4. I also do make repentance a necessary condition of remission of sins because the Scripture doth so Luke 24. 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and 3. 19. Repent and be converted that your sins may be blotted out c. But I conceive withal that the one is included in the other and that their difference is rather respective then real if we speak of faith as it is in the will partly as to the object faith respecting Christ immediately and repentance God Acts 20. 21. partly as to the termes the same motion of the soule in respect of the terminus à quo namely dead works being called repentance and in respect of the terminus ad quem namely God in Christ more peculiarly faith Heb. 6. 1. Repentance also in its formal
righteousnesse as our natural being in the first Adam to our partaking in his condemnation Yea. 3. It is a great deal more necessary and therefore I deny §. 6 Mr. Eyres consequence for though it were yielded that condemnation comes on men only by the Law of Adam yet will it by no means follow that Justification descends to us from Christ as the immediate effect of that Law or Covenant by which himselfe was justified The reason is plain because Adam represented all mankind as virtually in the same obligation with himself b Vide Paul Ferrium scholast Orthod spe c. 20 §. 3. and his offence was the act of the whole humane nature though it be not imputed to particular persons till they begin to exist and his condemnation was so far forth the condemnation of all mankinde it being the very same sentence that condemneth both him and us But Christ Jesus represented no man as in the same obligation with himselfe either in his obedience or Justification otherwise we are justified by works or he by grace for we must be acknowledged to have satisfied Gods justice in him and to have merited eternal life in him in the very same propriety of speech as we are said to have sinned and dyed in Adam which I will never beleeve while I live because it excludes grace altogether from having any hand in the justification of a sinner The grace of our justification is usually placed in these c See the Assemb confes cap. 11. §. 3. two things 1. In that Christ was given freely of the Father for us 2. And his obedience and â—â—tisfaction accepted in our stead But in neither of these is there any grace at all if we have merited and satisfied in him as we are said to sin and die or be condemned in Adam For the Law it self will allow us to make satisfaction if we are able for it inflicts the penalty but in ordâ—r to satisfaction and the punishment of sinners is not eternall but because they cannot satisfie by bearing it But if we have satisfied in Christ it seems we were able to do it â—b esse ad posse valet consequentia And justice it self will accept of satisfaction being performed And as God deals not more rigorously with us in condemning us then he did with Adam in condemning him so neither doth he deale any whit more mercifully with us in justifying us then he did with Christ in justifying him if his satisfaction and justification be ours in the same sense in which Adams sinne and condemnation is ours How much safer is it to say with the Scripture He is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Joh. 2. 2. and that he hath obtained eternall redemption for us Heb. 9. 12. then to talke of our being in him a propitiation for our owne sinnes or of purchasing in him redemption for our selves The conclusion is the Law that justified Christ cannot justifie us though the law that condemned Adam were yeelded to be the only law that condemneth us which yet I have already denyed Ergâ— there must be some other Law according to which sinners are justified and that is that Law of grace preached in the Gospel whosoever beleeveth shall be saved called the law of faith Rom. 3 27. and the Law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. 4. No saith Mr. Eyre those places are to be understood of the §. 7. new covenant made with Christ not of the conditionall promise as I would have it Rep. Which is spoken after the old rate of Mr. Eyres disputing that is dictating I acknowledge my selfe unworthy to be compared with him in any respect yet the truth if he think himself in the truth is worthy of a more laborious defense then a frigid so 't is or 't is not so though I may not be worthy of a better answer I am perswaded himself will acknowledge that the propriety of the phrases favours me and he doth not so much as pretend to any Argument hat may compell me to understand them improperly 1. For the law of faith it is expresly opposed to the law of works Where is boasting then it is excluded By what law of works nay but by the law of faith The law of works is the law that requires us to performe works that we may be justified Ergo the law of faith is the law which requires faith unto justification even that doctrine which manifesteth the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law as he had before described it v. 21 22. Thus Beza Evangelium vocat legem fidei id est doctrinum quae salutem propâ—nit sub conditione si credideris opposâ—tam doctrinae quae justitiam salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris To the same purpose Paraeus Aretius Hemmingius c. And therefore the Apostle having said that the law of faith excludes boasting he addes immediatly v. 28. we conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law To put faith for Christ is such a piece of boldnesse as I dare not adventure upon as much as Mr. Eyre challength me for my forehead The reasons are mentioned before 2. And as for the law of righteousnesse Rom. 9. 31. it is called the righteousnesse which is of faith in the very next foregoing verse v. 30. And I would Mr. Eyre would tell us how we may otherwise make sense of the Apostle when he sayes the Gentiles attained it by faith v. 30. and the Jews fell short of it by stumbling at Christ through unbelief v. 31. And a few verses below chap. 10. 6. the Apostle calls it the righteousnesse which is of faith and v. 8. The word of faith which we preach the voyce and tenour of which he describes v. 9. If thâ—u shalt confesse with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shalt beleeve in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved and all this in opposition to the righteousnesse of the law which the Jews sought after the summe of which is comprehended in these words The man that doth them shall live by them v. 5. Hence it is manifest that the law of righteousnesse is that by which only righteousness is attainable and that is the Gospel-promise of justifying them that beleeve in Jesus though they be not able to fulfill the Law of Moses SECT II. IN the next place Mr. Eyre offers us some Arguments to prove §. 8. that justification is not the discharge of a sinner by that signall conditionall promise of the Gospel he that believes shall be saved Let us try then for whereas he censures that saying of mine every man is then condemned when the Law condemnes him I stay not to answer him he might have seen if he would that I intended no more then that whosoever is condemned is condemned by a Law What then are the Arguments The first is crambe bis shall I say or
may be justified faith goes before Justification here as works before it there And this was plainly enough expressed in the Argument to any one but Mr. Eyre As to all the Arguments he hath against it they are such grosse non-sequitur's that I know not whether it will be worth while to answer them yet out of civility I will take some notice of them First saith Mr. Eyre works were meritorious of eternal life §. 8. faith is not Rep. Very true though the former part about the meritoriousnesse of works Mr. Eyre himself contradicts in terminis page 190. but that 's common and therefore we compare not faith and works in point of worth and value but only in point of place and order or we compare them in the general nature of a condition wherein they agree not in the special nature or in what is accessory to either wherein they differ as much as buying with money Rom. 4. 4. and buying without money Isa 55. 1. If a commodity may be had for taking or buying he that takes it hath as sure a title as he that buyes it yet taking is not buying A genere ad speciem non valet Argumentum affirmativè Mr. Eyre 2. Works in the first Covenant are the matter of our §. 9. Justification faith is not Answ This is all one with the former If it were not it would only shew another difference between faith and works notwithstanding their agreement in point of place and order and in the geneneral nature of a condition in their respective Covenants Works were such a condition as that withal they were that very righteousnesse for which a person was justified but faith is the condition of our being justified by the righteousnesse of a Mediatour Mr. Eyre 3. If faith hath the same place in the second Covenant as works in the first then must God account saith to be perfect righteousnesse which is contrary to his truth and justice Ans I deny the consequence What manner of Readers did Mr. Eyre promise himself when he puts down such sayings as these without one word or pretence of proof that which made works man's perfect righteousnesse was not the place and order which they had by the Covenant to his Justification but their own essential natural perfection as being a punctual and exact conformity to the rule of his Creation the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that rule of Divinity which by Creation was implanted in the frame of mans nature That it was the condition of his Justification was ex accidenti by vertue of the Covenant promising a reward of life upon the doing of such works May not therefore faith have the same place and order that is be in like manner the condition of the Justification of a sinner because it is not mans natural perfect righteousnesse Titius will let Sempronius have a farme if he will give him to the worth of it He lets Maeveus have another if he will ask him for it Here asking is the condition there the payment of the full price both have the same place and order to the obtaining of the farme yet surely begging is not the payment of the full price Mr. Eyre 4. Then is the second Covenant a Covenant of works §. 10. seeing faith is a work of ours Answ 1. We have already shewed at large that the grace or act of faith is perpetually opposed to works in Scripture-language 2. However this Argument is inconsequent for it will by no means follow that if faith have the same place and order in the New Covenant as works in the old then the New Covenant is a Covenant of works Suppose God had made the world a promise of pardon upon the condition of the existence of some contingent event v. g. That if Paul be converted within seven years after Christs Ascension all the world shall be justified Pauls conversion in this case would have the very same place and order to the Justification of the world as workes had in the old Covenant though it be not a condition of the same nature and quality yet surely this latter promise could not therefore be proved to be a Covenant of workes M. Eyre 5. This assertion makes faith to be not of grace because not from the Covenant of grace seeing the Covenant it self depends on it Ans 1. This assertion supposeth that nothing can be of grace which is not by the Covenant of grace Was not the Covenant it self of grace 2. Of the dependance of faith upon the Covenant of the Covenant upon faith we dispute purposely below Here we speak only of one blessing of the Covenant namely justification And as soon as ever Mr. Eyre hath proved that faith cannot be given us of grace if it be the condition of justification I will write a book of retractations as long as Augustines if I live to it In the mean time he deals not like a disputant to charge such a consequence upon us and never go about to prove it And whereas he suggests to his reader that my proposition is contrary to all Protestants 't is a vaine and empty flourish to speak the best of it He that hath any acquaintance in their writings cannot but know it to be so Of all Protestants Mr. Eyre quotes two in his margine Calvin and Pemble of which the former in that very h Instit l. 3 c. â— sect 2. place which Mr. Eyre refers to speaks as plainly to the overthrow of what he is brought to prove as can be Nam quum dicit Apostolus c. For when the Apostle saies with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation he shews that it is not enough if a man beleeve implicitly what he understands nâ—t nor makes any search into sed explicitam requirit divinae bâ—nitatis agnitionem in quâ consistit nostra justitia but he requires an explicit acknâ—wlâ—â—gement of the divine goodnesse in which consists our righteousnessâ— This is somewhat more then is any where said in my Sermon Pâ—mblâ— also is as expresly against him as I think is possible and that very frequently I shall transcribe but i Of justâ—â— sect 4. c. 1. p 1. 7 â— one place of multitudes From hence saith he we conclude firmly that the difference between the Law and the Gospel assigned by our Divines is most certaine and agreeable to Scriptures viz. That the Law gives life unto the just upon condition of perfect obedience in all things the Gospel gives life unto sâ—nners upon condition they repent and believe in Christ Jesus Mr. Eyrâ— the is out or Mr. Pemble when the one sayes this is the judgement of our Divines and the other sayes it treads Antipodes to the current of all our Protestant writers SECT IV. THe proposition namely that faith hath the same place and order §. 10. to justification in the covenant of grace as workes in the covenant of workes was
faith is rather a hinderance then a furtherance of their happinesse for they have right to heaven even while they live in all manner of ungodlinesse only that which hinders their enjoyment is that there is a purpose of giving faith which must be accomplished before they can inherit were it not for that purpose they might go to heaven presently and as they are 4. And that without all gain-saying of the Law which though it be a bug-beare even to the elect themselves to terrifie and affright the conscience while they live in sin and ungodlinesse yet hath no authority it seemes to debarre them from entrance into heaven no more then if it never had been violated And so if it might be supposed per pâ—ssibile vel impossibile that an unrighteous man might go to heaven yet were this no impeachment to the justice of Gods government but would argue at most some kind of mutability in God in not doing according to his purpose Whereas the Lord himself professeth that if he should give life to an impenitent sinner it were against his equity The waies of the Lord are equal Ezek. 18. throughout Fiftly If ungracious men have a right to heaven onely they cannot §. 25. possesse it till they have the evidence of faith either this evidence is of such necessity that if they have it not they shall lose that life to which they are adjudged or no. If not then whether they believe or no they shall be saved if so then there is no absolute justification before faith and justification must be conditional To this Mr. Eyre answers 1. By this Argument not only faith but all other works of sanctification and perseverance in them must be the conditions of our justification and then we may be said to be justified and saved by them but this is no good Argument No man is saved or glorified without works Ergo men are saved by works 2. This reason makes as much against absolute election before faith as against absolute justification 3. The answer is election and justification are absolute because they depend upon no antecedent condition not because they are without consequents that depend on them Rep. To the first we reply That if the question be concerning our first entrance into a state of justification we have already with the Apostle Rom. 10. 10. excluded works from being at all necessary thereunto But if the question be of our last and universal justification at the day of judgement which the Apostle there calls salvation Mr. Eyre knows we maintaine that perseverance in the faith to the end and in a Christian conversation is a necessary condition of salvation according to Scriptures Rev. 2. 17. and 22. 14. Colâ—s 1. 23. 2 John 8. Heb. 10. 26 36. and the places quoted by M. Eyre Prov. 28. 18. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Matth. 24. 13. And the consent of c Ames Bellar. enervat tom 4. lib. 6. cap. 6. de nâ—ces oper ad salut ad obj ex Rom. 8. 13. Mortific tio igitur est conditio aâ— vitam quis negat Gerhard de bonâ—â— operib c. 9. §. 55. 4. Zanchius Gry 〈…〉 Sohnius Piscator ibid. §. 45. Chamier 〈◊〉 de bon Oper. Neceâ—â— cap. â— sect 7. 11 15 17 20 〈◊〉 c. appellat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quibus non 〈◊〉 ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Davenant de 〈◊〉 Act cap. 〈◊〉 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Protestants But when he infers then we may be said to be saved by works I deny the consequence partly because of the ambiguity of the word works which in our use generally hath another sense then with the Apostles who oppose them not only to faith as we have largely proved before but sometimes also to sanctification Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but by the renewing of the holy Ghost partly because the works of saâ—ctification are not the condition properly of our obtaining but of not losing our right to the heavenly Kingdom As if Titius upon 〈◊〉 his intreaty give him a farme to be held by him jure feudi the non-performance of that homage and fidelity which the feudatory is bound to forfeits his right neverthelesse his title is grounded in the Donors benevolence In like manner we are saved by grace through faith though if we do not by the spirit mortifie the deeds of the flesh we forfeit our life Rom. 8. 13. To the second I reply That there is no comparison between §. 26. election and justification as is at large above demonstrated Let us set Mr. Eyres parallel before us that the dissimilitude may the better appeare Thus then he argues Faith is of such necessity that they that have it not shall lose the life to which they are elected or not if not then whether the elect believe or no they shall be saved if it be then there is no absolute election before faith Here 1. The comparison is between an Act that giveth a right to life such is justification and an Act which giveth none such is election which indeed doth make the donation of right to be a thing future but is not it selfe the Act which giveth it as we have shewed before Now if a sinner have a right to the inheritance and yet it be necessary for him to believe that he may inherit then is his inheriting suspended upon believing that is faith is the condition of his inheriting and so the right he had to it before must needs be conditional more then this neither reason nor the civil Law requires to denominate a gift to be conditionall In election the case is otherwise which because it doth not transmit or conveigh any right but is only a preparation or preordination in the mind of God of those causes by which it shall be made to exist in time therefore may the purpose it self be absolute yea though it be of things which do not exist but upon condition Thus Dr. d In Coâ—vin dofens Armin. Cont. Tilen pag. 355. Twisse Neque enim negamus decreta Dei quoad res volitas dici posse conditionata quatenus scil neque vita aeterna nisi sub conditione fidei conferenda sit nec damnatio c. and particularly of justification or pardon of sin he addes Remissionem peccatorum salutem omnes consentiunt nemini contingere nisi sub conditione fidei i. e. All agree that pardon of sin and salvation betides none but upon condition of faith God may absolutely will or purpose to give a right to life upon condition of faith but he cannot absolutely give a right to life and yet afterwards require us to believe under a penalty of forfeiting or losing that life for then the gift is not absolute but conditional 2. The word necessary must be distinguished for it may be understood either in reference to God and so whatsoever he purposeth is necessary because his purposes being immutable and his power irresistable it must needs be that whatsoever he purposeth
angry with his brother without a cause Whosoever shall say unto his brâ—ther Racha Whosoever shall say thou foole shall be in dangâ—r of such and such punishments Can these or the like expressions any where else be onely the descriptions of persons that shall be punished and that from the consequent of their punishment as already begun 2. The Lord by comparing faith to seeing seems to allude to Israels §. 37. looking up to the brazen serpent for healing Numb 21. As he also doth almost in the same words altogether in the same sense Joh. 3. 14 15. As 〈◊〉 lift up the Serpent in the wildernesse so must the Sonne of man be lifted up that whosoever beleeveth on him should not perish c. Now I would know when it is said Numb 21. 8. Every one or whosoever looketh upon it sâ— the Serpent do the words onely describe the persons that should be healed from their property oâ— looking up or do they also proâ—â—â—â— the Act upon which their healing was suspended If the latter 〈◊〉 those words Whosoever seâ—â— and beleeveth the Sonne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 life must be understood in the same sense If the former thâ—n the Israelites might also have been healed before they looked up to the serpent for to denominate them lookers it is sufficient that they looked up at any time whether before or after they â—â—re healed But I will not do one work twice enough hath been spoken already against this notion unlesse it had some better authority then meerly mans invention The next place I mentioned was â—â—l 5. 2 4. without faith Christ §. 38. shall profit us nâ—thing 〈◊〉 it was not the will of God nor of Christ that any man should be justified by the death of Christ till he doth beleeve But sâ—ith Mr. Eyre this place is pâ—lpâ—â—ly abâ—â—eâ— Thâ— Apostle doth nâ—t 〈◊〉 withoâ—t faith Christ shall profit â—s nothing but if we 〈◊〉 any thing 〈◊〉 Christ as necessary to attaine salvation we are not beleâ—vers our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing Rep. Where doth the Apostle say these words If M. Eyre give us onely the sense of them we shall shew presently that what I say is included as part of the sense But I will never beleeve while I live that Mr. Eyre hath rightly expressed the Apostles sense As if the Apostle spake against joyning of any thing with Christ as necessary to attaine salvation unlesse by joyning with Christ he mean in an equal degree of causality or as sharing in that kind of causality which Christ put forth for our salvation For out of doubt Faith and Repentance are necessary to be joyned with Christ that we may be saved 2. But to discover how palpably Mr. Eyre hath abused me in charging me with an abuse of the Text let us transcribe the words v. 2 3 4 5 6. If you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole Law Christ is become of no effect to you whosoever of you are justified by the Law you are fallen from grace For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by Love 1. I do here observe the Apostles Argument by which he proves that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit them nothing Thus it runs He that is bound to keep the whole Law for justification to him is Christ of no effect for justification He that is circumcised is bound to keep the whole Law for justification v. 3. Ergo Christ is of no effect to him or as the Apostle varies the words v. 4. Ergo he is fallen from grace whosoever he be that expects to be justified by the Law In opposition to this he declares in his own and other Christians example the only way how Christ may become profitable and of effect to us for justification and that is by faith without legal performances v. 5. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith And have I yet abused the Text because I say it hath this sense that without faith Christ shall profit us nothing yea 2. The whole discourse of the Apostle proceeds upon this ground that legal observances make Christ of none effect to us because they overthrow faith For he that will be justified by the Law must keep the whole Law and that destroys faith as he had also often and plainly told them before chap. 3. 12. 10 11 17 18. compare Rom. 4. 14. 3. Mr. Eyre himself acknowledgeth in the very next words that the Apostle attributes that to faith which he denyes â—o other works v. 6. In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but faith which worketh by love I assuâ—â— But the thing denied to other works is that they are able to justifieâ— yea rather that they make it impossible for us to be justified because they make Christ to become of none effect to us v. â— 4. Ergo the thing ascribed to faith is that by it we are justified and through it doth Christ become profitable and grace of effect to our Justification Ergo without it Christ profits us nothing as to that end and purpose Therefore Mr. Eyre contradicts himself immediately in his Comment upon that v. 6. When he sayes that the intent of the Apostle here was not to shew what it is that doth justifie but what are the exercises of divine worship in which Christians should be conversant But out of doubt his meaning was to shew how Christ and grace become effectual to our Justification if he do here ascribe to faith that which before he had denied to other works which is Mr. Eyres own grant and the Apostles unquestionable intent for the words as appears by the particle for in the beginning of the verse are the reason why through faith he expected Justification and not in the way of circumcision ver 5. to wit because circumcision availeth nothing no nor uncircumcision neither but faith which worketh by love which reason of his faith he had also given before chapt 2. 16. As to those two truly godly learned Authours Calvin and Perkins whom Mr. Eyre alledgeth as abetting what he saith concerning the Apostles intent if the cause were to be carried by number of voices we could quickly dispatch it But neither do either of these gratifie Mr. Eyre a whit Calvins words are these Quantum ad praesentem locum attinet Paulus nequaquam disputat an charitas ad justificandum cooperetur fidei sed tantùm indicat quae nunc sint vera fidelium exercitia i. e. As to the present place Paul doth by no meanes dispute whether love do cooperate with faith unto Justification but only intimates what are now the true exercises of the faithful Is this all one as if he had said faith availes us nothing in order
by the Law or Constitution of grace the immediate effect whereof is to give the sinner a right to impunity and to the heavenly inheritance or by the sentence of the Judge at the last day by which he is adjudged unto the immediate full and perfect possession of all those immunities and blessings which were given him in right by that grand Promise of the Gospel John 3. 16. He that believeth on me shall not perish but shall have everlasting life Even as amongst men an Act of grace and pardon gives imprisoned rebels a right to deliverance from their present and legally future punishments though the effects of this right he do not possesse any otherwise then in hope till his cause be tried and himself absolved in Court by the sentence of the Judge In reference to the former a sinner is justified presently upon believing in reference to the latter he is not justified till the day of judgement Therefore Peter exhorts the Jewes to repentance that their sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the Presence of God And he shall send Jesus Christ Acts 3. 19 20. And Paul prays for Onesiphorus that God would grant him that he may finde mercy of the Lord in that day 2 Tim. 1. 18. which questionlesse is meant of the day of judgement of which himselfe also speaks a little before ver 12. I am perswaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day And in the name of all Christians he tells us Gal. 5. 5. That we by the Spirit do wait for the hope of righteousnesse by faith that is Justification through faith as it stands in opposition to Justification by works ver 4. and throughout the whole Epistle So doth the Lord Jesus promise to him that overcometh a white stone Rev. 2. 17. c Vid. Paraeum Aretium Brightman Dâ—od Eng. Annot in loc which having allusion to the custome of the Romanes in judgement condemning by a black stone and absolving by a white doth therefore signifie that eminent eternal and universal absolution from all guilt which shall be given to the Saints that overcome and continue faithful to the end So Rom. 2 13 16. Not the hearers of the Law but the doers of the Law shall be justified In the day when God shall judge the secrets of meâ— by Jesus Christ the 14. and 15. verses are to be read in a parenthesis This is my opinion in this matter which I have therefore set down the more distinctly that Mr. Eyre may understand how ignorant or impudent his Informer was that told him I maintained that we were not justified till the day of judgement page 19. Now to Mr. Eyre he gives us a threefold sense of the sight of §. â— God in the Question 1. As it signifies Gods knowledge 2. As it signifies his legal justice 3. As it signifies his making of us to see To which I shall need to give no other answer then his own words in the same paragraph of the last thus he speaks This phrase must have some other meaning in this debate for else that distinctiction of Justification in foro Dei in foro Conscientiae would be a meer tautology Of the first thus Although in articulo Providentiae in the doctrine of divine Providence seeing and knowing are all one yet in articulo Justificationis in the doctrine of Justification they are constantly distinguished throughout the Scripture and never promiscuously used the one for the other Thus of three senses of the phrase himselfe rejects two as impertinent to the matter in hand and yet states his answer thus If we take Gods sight in the last construction viz. for his making us to see then we are not justified in Gods sight before we believe 2. If we referre it to the justice of God we were justified in the sight of God when Christ exhibited and God accepted the full satisfaction in his blood 3. If we referre it to the knowledge of God we were justified in his sight when he willed or determined in himselfe not to impute to us our sins c. As who should say If you take Gods sight in such a sense in which it is never taken in all the Scripture by Mr. Eyres own confession such is the first sense which is here the last then thus But if you take it in such a sense in which it may not be taken in the present question such is the last of the three which is here put first then so If some other senses of the sight of God as when it signifies his favour his assistance his approbation and witnessing c. had been set down that we might have known when we are justified in Gods sight in those senses it had been every whit as conducible to the clearing of the Question As first to tell us that Gods sight doth never signifie his knowledge in the matter of Justification and then to adde in the same breath that to be justified in Gods sight is to be justified in his knowledge 2. Nor is it a lawful distinction because the members thereof do interferre for Justification in the death of Christ and in our own consciences is Justification in Gods knowledge for surely he knows both these no lesse then his Purpose and Determination within himselfe 3. We shall see by and by that Mr. Eyre maintaines that the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to sinners by the eternal Act of Gods Will I ask then whether that imputation be Justification in Gods legal justice if it be then there is a farther implication in the members of the distinction if it be not I would know how God doth justifie us in his legal justice and yet not by imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to us 4. God knows us not to be justified till we be justified for it is impossible that the same thing should be and not be Indeed he may well know that he intends to justifie us but if he know that then he knows we are not yet justified for he knows that what he intends to do is not yet done But because Mr. Eyre refers us to his following discourse for the better understanding of these mysteries I attend his motion that I may spare tautologies as much as I can SECT II. He therefore delivers his judgement in three Propositions The first is this Justification is taken variously in Scripture §. 4. 1. For the Will of God not to punish or impute sinne unto his people 2. For the effect of Gods Will to wit his not punishing or his setting of them free from the curse of the Law That Justification is put for this latter act he supposeth none will question The only scruple is concerning the former which he confesseth he hath been sparing to call by the name of Justification because some grosse mistakes have sought for shelter under the wings of that expression As 1. That absurd conceit that Christ
3. 8. and 2. 2. Matth. 23. 33. 2 Pet. 2. 3. and multitudes of other places But Gods purpose of punishing is no act of Justice Both these Propositions doth Dr. Twisse prove Vind. lib. 1. par 1. digr 10. cap. 1 2 3. 5. That which destroys not a sinners obligation to punishment is not his Justification The reason is because Justification is causa câ—rrumpens obligationis ad poenam a discharge and acquittance from sin and condemnation saith Mr. Eyre see Rom. 8. 1 33 34. and 5. 8 9. But Gods velle non punire destroys not a sinners obligation to punishment which I thus prove The obligation which this Will of God destroys either is that which lies upon them from eternity by some immanent act of God I speak now in Mr. Eyres Dialect for to me 't is very absurd to talke of an actual obligation upon a person not existing but this will never be endured that Gods immanent acts should destroy one another or else it is the temporal obligation which comes upon them by the Law other obligation in time there is none Now the foresaid Will of God destroyes this legal obligation either from eternity or in time How it should do it from eternity I cannot imagine because neither the Law nor the sinner nor the obligation do exist from eternity and what it is to destroy an obligation that is not nor never was upon a person that is not nor never was by a Law that is not nor never was is a mystery beyond humane comprehension If in time I would know when either as soon as the Law is made or as soon as it is broken or in some period of time after Not as soon as the Law is made for a sinner is not obliged to punishment by the Law till he hath broken the Law and where there is no obligation there can be no destruction thereof If as soon as the Law is broken I would know how for if notwithstanding the foresaid Will and Purpose of God the Law have power to oblige the sinner to punishment it hath power also to hold him under the same obligation notwithstanding the same purpose If it can oblige him for a minute then for two then for ten then for an houre then for a yeare then for ever unlesse there be some other act besides the bare purpose of God to abrogate or relaxe the Law Causa eadem semper facit idem Gods purposes make no changes immediately upon his Lawes or any other external objects 6. If there may be a will or purpose not to punish where yet there §. 13. is no Justification or pardon for these two words are of the same importance in this debate then Justification doth not consist essentially in a purpose not to punish But there may be a will not to punish where there is no pardon Ergo. The Assumption is manifest There may be hundreds of men at an Assizes suppose they all resolve not to punish the Malefactors that are then and there to be tried Are the said malefactors therefore pardoned No. Then there may be a will not to punish which is no pardon Ergo. Pardon is not essentially a will not to punish Definitio reciprocatur cum definito If it be said that pardon is not an act of the will as a natural power or faculty but as the will of a man under some other moral condition or qualification namely as having jus ad poenam exequendam a right to inflict punishment which because it is peculiar to the Judge therefore his will not to punish is pardon but not the will of the rest that may be present in the Court this is as much as I expect for hence it follows if the case be applied to God that the name of Justification cannot be given to his eternal Will or Purpose I will not meddle with the Question An Deus possit creaturam immerentem affligere But jus puniendi a right of punishing accrews to none whether God or man but upon supposition of some offence committed But from eternity there was no sin Ergo the will or purpose of not punishing was not voluntas habentis jus ad poenam infligendam Ergo it may not be called by the name of Justification When I speak of a right of punishing which results from an offence committed understand it not de jure potestatis as if the said offence gave any authority to God or man which they had not before but de jure exercitii inasmuch as that authority cannot be justly exercised in the punishment of a person but upon such offence committed by him 7. If notwithstanding this velle non punire God be bound in justice to punish the Elect for their sins unlesse his justice be satisfied some other way then his velle non punire is not their Justification The reason is 1. Because Gods justice doth not binde him to punish those whom he hath justified but rather not to punish them 2. Because his justice doth not binde him to punish another for their sins whom he already hath justified supposing their Justification to be as well in order of nature as of time before the others punishment But Gods justice bindes him to punish the elect for their sin unlesse his justice be satisfied in some other way as namely by the death of Christ This appears because de facto Christ bare that punishment which in justice was due to sinners Ergâ— this velle non punire was not their Justification One thing more I long to know Whether velle non punire do define Justification in general as it containes these two notable species Justification by works and Justification by faith or grace or whether it define Justification by grace only particularly and in specie If the former shew us that special forme by which Justification by works and by grace are immediately differenced and opposed If the latter shew us the genus or common nature wherein they agree If neither of these can be done as it is impossible either should then we have here a definition without genus and forma that is a thing defined without a definition or a definition that defines nothing SECT V. BEsides these Arguments there be found more which Mr. Eyre §. 14. objecteth against himselfe as disproving his position that Justification is the Will or Purpose of God not to punish which though they be not of my making yet because they are all very material for support of the truth I shall here undertake their defence The first objection then which Mr. Eyre proposeth against his owne doctrine of eternal Justification is this viz. That it confounds Justification and Election His answer is That Election includes the end and all the means but Gods Will not to punish precisely and formally only some part of the meanes Reply 1. Then the act of Justification is precisely nothing as we have above demonstrated 2. And the effects of this act are like it selfe just
and Glorification But Justification in conscience is the act of conscience reasoning and concluding a mans selfe to be just and as for the expression of Justification terminated in conscience let me here once for all declare against it not only as not being Scriptural but as not being very rational For that upon which Justification is terminated is that which is justified But it is the man and not his conscience which is justified Erge it is the person and not the conscience properly upon which Justification is terminated Passio as well as Actio is propriè suppositi SECT IV. ANother text which doth manifestly hold forth Justification to §. 10. be consequent to faith is Rom. 4. 24. Now it was not written for his sake alone that righteousnesse was imputed to him but for our sakes also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeve Mr. Eyre answers that the particle if is used sometimes declaratively to describe the person to whom the benefit doth belong as 2 Tim. 2. 21. If a man purge himself from these he shall be a vessel unto honour And Heb. 3. 6. Whose house are we if we holdfast our confidence and the rejoycing of hope c. Rep. Which observation is here misplaced for I am not yet disputing the conditionality but meerly the antecedency of faith to Justification Now suppose the particle if be used sometimes declaratively yet is it alwayes antecedent to the thing which it declares or rather to the declaration of that thing As suppose which yet I do wholly deny that a mans purging himself do only manifest and declare that he is a vessel of honour yet surely his purging of himself is antecedent to that declaration or manifestation As the holding fast our confidence is also antecedent to our being declared to be the house of God Yea and Mr. Eyre himself interprets the imputation of righteousnesse in the text of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed to us of which knowledge himself will not deny faith to be the antecedent yea and more then an antecedent even the proper effecting cause And therefore to tell us before-hand that the particle if doth not alwayes propound the cause when by his own interpretation it must signifie the cause which is a great deal more then a meer condition or antecedent was a very impertinent observation His sense of the text he thus delivers His righteousnesse is imputed to us if we believe q. d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousnesse is imputed to us if God hath drawn our hearts to believe Rep. To whom righteousnesse shall be imputed if we beleeve saith §. 11. the Apostle We shall know that righteousnesse was imputed to us before we believed saith Mr. Eyre for that is his sense though I do a little vary the words This is an admirable glosse Whereas 1. Our knowledge that righteousnesse is imputed to us is our own act but the imputation of righteousnesse in the text is Gods act not ours ver 6. Yea saith Mr. Eyre himselfe page 87. § 13. it is the act of God alone and that in opposition to all other causes whatsoever whether Ministers of the Gospel or a mans own conscience or faith But it is like when he wrote that he had forgotten what he had said before in this place 2. Nor doth the text say righteousnesse is imputed to us if we beleeve as Mr. Eyre renders the words but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quibus futurum est ut imputetur To whom it shall come to passe that it shall be imputed if we beleeve 3. And that this imputation of righteousnesse cannot signifie our knowing it to be imputed should methinks be out of question with Mr. Eyre He disputes against me a little below that when the Apostle pleads for Justification by faith the word faith must be taken objectively for Christ because otherwise faith could not be opposed to works forasmuch as faith it selfe is a work of ours And saith the Apostle in this chapter ver 4. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt Hence it follows that that imputation is here meant which hath no work of ours for its cause But faith is clearly the cause of our knowing righteousnesse to be imputed and that as it is a work of ours Ergo the imputation of righteousnesse here spoken of is not our knowing or being assured that it is imputed 4. To impute righteousnesse in this verse must have the same § 12. sense as it hath ten or eleven times besides in the chapter and particularly when it is said that Abrahams faith was imputed to him not for righteousnesse as we render it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto righteousnesse ver 3. 9 22 23. and unto every son of Abrahams faith ver 5. 11 24 Now what is it to impute faith unto righteousnesse I know that learned and godly men give different Expositions I may be the more excusable if I am mistaken I conceive therefore that to impute faith unto righteousnesse is an Hebraisme and signifies properly to reward the believer with righteousnesse or more plainly i Vid. R Sol. Jarchi in Gen. 15. 6â— Maymon more Nevoch 3. 53. Oâ—cum in Rom. 4. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et Tertull advers Marcion lib. 5. 3. Abraham Deo credidiâ— deputatum est justitiae aâ—que exiâ—de Pater multarum Nationum meruit nuncupaâ—i Nos autem credendo Deo magis proinde justificamur sicut Abraham vitam proinde consequimur to give the believer a right to blessednesse as his reward the word Reward being taken in that more laxe and metaphorical sense in which the Scriptures use it when they call Heaven by glory and eternal life by that name And as the whole salvation of believers is expressed by its two termes to wit They shall not perish but shall have everlasting life John 3. 16. so in Justification there is a right given to deliverance from punishment which is the terminus à quo in which respect it is called the pardon and non-imputation of sin of which the Apostle gives an instance out of David ver 6. 7 8. and a right to the more positive blessings of heavenly and eternal life by the Promise which is the terminus ad quem in which respect it is called Justification of life Rom. 5. 18. of which also he giveth us an instance in Abraham ver 13. for the Promise that he should be heire of the world c. In reference to which part or terme of Justification it is in special manner that Abrahams faith is said to be imputed to him unto righteousnesse for though those Promises were things which in the letter were carnal yet in substance and signification they were spiritual and so did he understand them Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. and 11. 12 13 14 15 16. Now that this is the true notion of the phrase imputing faith unto righteousnesse namely a
rewarding of the believer with a right to blessednesse I gather from ver 4 5. To him that worketh the reward is not imputed of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth his faith is imputed to him unto righteousnesse Where the imputing of faith unto righteousnesse is directly opposed to the imputing a reward according to works Ergo as the imputing works unto righteousnesse were to give a right to blessednesse according to works sub ratione mercedis so on the contrary to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to give the beleever a right and title to blessednesse sub ratione mercedis The difference only is this the former is of debt the latter of grace as we shall further shew anon 2. Thus also we finde the Apostle interpreting the phrase for after he had said that Abraham was made the father of all them that beleeve that righteousnesse might be imputed unto them also ver 11. he explains himself ver 13. for the Promise was not to Abraham or his seed by the Law but by the righteousnesse of faith The reason whereof he renders ver 16. That it might be by grace that the Promise might be sure to all the seed So that the establishing of the Promise to Abraham and all that walk in the steps of his faith by which a right to life is given both to him and them is the imputation Vid. Dav Paraeum Dub. exâ—lic in Rom. 4. Dub. 3. of righteousnesse to them 3. The same phrase is used of Phineas Psal 106. 30 31. Then stood up Phineas and executed judgement And it was imputed to him unto righteousnesse unto all generations for evermore The meaning of which words is easie to be learned from the story it self Numb 25. 12 13. Wherefore say Behold I give unto him my Covenant of Peace And he shall have it and his seed after him even the Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood The Promise of the continuance of the Priesthood in his line from one generation to another as the reward of his zeal is that which the Psalmist calls the imputing it to him unto righteousnesse to all generations Indeed the phrase there is not altogether so comprehensive as it is here because the Promise made him was but of one particular blessing and so could not constitute him righteous universally but only in part and as to that particular blessing which the Promise gave him right to Yet it shews the Scripture-sense of the phrase as sufficiently as when the same phrase is used with reference unto faith to shew that thereby we obtain the reward of an universal righteousnesse 4. The imputation of righteousnesse in respect of the terminus à quo is all one with the non-imputation of sin ver 6 8. and what is it to non-impute sin but not to render the wages of sin by destroying the guilt and punishment of it 2 Sam. 19. 19. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Ergo to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward it with a right to impunity and blessednesse though this reward be not of debt but of grace This therefore being the sense of the phrase throughout the whole Chapter we leave Mr. Eyres glosse to go seek entertainment where it can finde it SECT V. THere remain three texts more which I mentioned in my Sermon §. 13. to prove that Justification follows faith namely Acts 10. 43. Through his Name whosoever beleeveth on him shall receive remission of sin And 26. 18. To turne them from darknesse to light and from the Power of Satan unto God that they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance amongst all them that are sanctified through faith And 13. 39. By him all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses To the two former Mr. Eyre answers That the giving of remission and receiving it are two things The former is Gods act and the latter is ours A Prince may pardon a Malefactour and he thereby is secured from punishment though it come not to his hands for a good whiles after Rep. The word receive in Scripture is taken sometimes actively as when we are said to receive God and Christ and his Word Matth. 10. 40. John 13. 20. Acts 2. 41. namely by believing Sometimes it is taken passively in which sense giving and receiving are not two acts but one and the same as when we are said to receive the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. to receive eternal life Luke 18. 30. to receive a hundred fold Matth. 19. 29. In all which and the like places our receiving is all one with Gods giving the reward of inheritance eternal life a hundred fold And thus to receive remission of sin is all one with Gods giving remission or to have our sins remitted and pardoned In this sense do our Protestants understand Receiving remission through faith as was before observed out of Contarenus So do the Scriptures also Gal. 3. 22. All are concluded under sin That the Promise to wit of Justification by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve In which place Gods giving righteousnesse by the Promise and our receiving it are one and the same act compare ver 14. 18. So Rom. 5. 17. They that receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse shall reigne in life c. Whence also it is manifest that Gods giving and our receiving are both one act Therefore this giving or receiving of righteousnesse is called the coming of grace or righteousnesse upon us ver 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came upon all men unto Justification 2. The receiving of remission must be understood in the same sense as the receiving of the inheritance for they are joyned both together in the text Acts 26. 18. That they may receive forgivenesse of sin and an inheritance But for us to receive the inheritance is no more then to be made partakers of the inheritance not by any act of ours but by the free and effectual gift of God 3. To receive remission what act of ours is it Mr. Eyre doth not tell me plainly but by his answers to former texts and his instance here of a Malefactour pardoned before he knowes it I presume he meanes that it is our knowledge of our sins being remitted But such a knowledge is not wont to follow so presently and immediately upon believing as pardon of sin is every where in Scripture supposed to do unlesse it be in those who have the perfect knowledge of the moment and minute of their first Conversion unto God But most Christians attain not to such a knowledge till after long searchings and experience and it is very improper to say a man receives such an act of his own which himselfe works out with much labour and travel of minde if our knowledge of remission were by immediate
else for then should be but one man in the world to whom the righteousnesse of Christ were imputed The Proposition is manifest because the faith here spoken of is determined to the person of the beleever To him that beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 HIS faith is imputed And it is called the faith which Abraham HAD in his uncircumcision ver 11. And the truth is that otherwise I mean if His faith be His Christ Abrahams faith or Davids faith or any other Christians faith may be said to be imputed unto us with the very same propriety of speech as it is said to be imputed to him or them 4. If faith be here put for Christ or his righteousness the words are non-sense Put faith for righteousness and the words run thus But unto him that believeth his righteousness is imputed to him for righteousness What sense is that or put it for Christ and they run thus But unto him that believeth his Christ is impured to him unto righteousness But what is it to impute Christ unto righteousnesse I know he is said to be made unto us righteousness 1 Cor. 1. even as he is made unto us Wisdom and Sanctiâ—ication that is the Authour of both but to impute him unto righteousnesse is a barbarisme To say nothing of the insolency of that phrase His Christ in Scripture and of making Christ as distinct from his righteousnesse the object of justifying faith 3. We have already proved that to impute faith unto righteousnesse §. 5. is to reward the believer with a right to life If then faith be put for Christ to impute faith unto righteousnesse is to reward Christ with righteousnesse And if for righteousnesse it is to reward righteousnesse with righteousnesse both which are absurd 4. The faith which was imputed to Abraham unto righteousnesse was the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised ver 10 11. If faith do here signifie Christs righteousnesse the words sound thus The righteousnesse of Christ which he had in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse And because he could not have it but by imputation therefore the full sense will be this The righteousnesse of Christ which was imputed to him in his uncircumcision was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Spectatum admissi c. 5. Consider we also what is said ver 9 10 11 12. from whence §. 6. we advance three Arguments more 1. The faith from which Abraham was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful was the habit or grace of faith not the object A conjugatis Even as it is the habit of wisdom goodness temperance c. from whence a man is denominated wise good temperate c. but the faith which was imputed to him was that from whence he was denominated faithful and the father of the faithful for faith was imputed to him unto righteousnesse saith the Apostle ver 9. and that in his uncircumcision ver 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might become the father of all the faithful that are in uncircumcision that righteousnesse might be imputed to them also ver 11. for so stands the connexion of the sentences and the beginning of this ver 11. And he received Circumcision c. is answered immediately by ver 12. And the father of circumcision c. The like Argument doth this Apostle use elsewhere Gal. 3. 9. They which be of the faith be blessed with faithful Abraham 2. If we become children of the faith of Abraham by believing then Abrahams faith signifies his believing and not Christs righteousnesse The reason is because to be a childe of Abrahams faith is to follow or imitate him in that which is called his faith as when Mr. Eyre calls me a sonne of Mr. Baxters faith And if we are like him by believing then believing is the quality wherein the similitude consists between him the Father and us the children But we become the children of Abrahams faith even that very faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse by believing ver 10. The father of all them that beleeve ver 11. That walk in the steps of father Abrahams faith Who are also called the seed of the faith of Abraham ver 16. 3. And I would that Mr. Eyre or some body else would make sense of the Apostles words if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse ver 12. Abraham became the father of Circumcision to them that walk in the steps of his faith What is that Why to them that walk in his Christs righteousnesse I am even sick of this non-sense let me adde one word more that I may rid my self of this nausâ—ous work 6. The faith spoken of throughout this chapter is that which is §. 7. described at large from ver 18. to the end where it is said that Abraham against hope believed in hope And being not weak in faith he considered not his own nor Sarahs age ver 19. That he staggered not at the Promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith ver 20. And was fully perswaded that what God had promised he was able also to perform ver 21. And that this was the faith which was imputed to him unto righteousnesse is manifest from the very next verse ver 22. And therefore it â—as imputed to him unto righteousnesse To make this the description of Christs righteousnesse would render the sense so beyond measure ridiculous that I professe Reader I am afraid to represent it to thee in a paraphrase lest some prophane wits should take occasion to make this blessed Word of God the object of their derision and contempt I might adde that by the same reason that Mr. Eyre interprets faith for the Righteousnesse of Christ another may make as bold to interpret it of the Wisdome Power Goodness Faithfulness or any other Attribute of God for these also are the objects of faith and so to be justified by faith is to be justified by the Wisdome of God or by his Goodness c. every line in Scripture that speaks of Justification by faith will be as good sense thus expounded as if faith be put for Christs righteousnesse unless it be in those places where faith is particularly and expressely determined to Christ as its object and in all such places Mr. Eyre himself will surely interpret faith for the act not for the object SECT III. NOw to the great Argument which Mr. Eyre opposeth to §. 8. prove that faith must be put for its obiect the righteousnesse of Christ Else saith he the Apostle contradicts himself in opposing Justification by faith to Justification by works because faith it selfe is a work of ours Answ But by his favour I will rather beleeve that he contradicts the Apostle and that as perfectly as if he had studied to do it on purpose then that the Apostle contradicts himself For it is as manifest as light can make it that it is the act of believing which the Apostle opposeth to works Rom. 4.
Word which saith that God made the Heavens and the earth Gen. 1. 1. but it is not evidenced unto us unlesse we beleeve that Word And so in the present case if any person suppose Peter have by faith the evidence of his Justification immediately or axiomatically it must be by assenting to some Axiome or Proposition of divine revelation Thou Peter art justified These things being premised we come now to prove that we §. 19. cannot be said to be justified by faith because of faiths evidencing our Justification axiomatically Two reasons I gave of it 1. Because such an immediate evidence of a particular mans Justification cannot be had without a particular testimony from God Thou Paul or Peter or Thomas art justified But there is no such thing written in Scripture Ergo no such evidence can be had Mr. Eyre saith I mistake the nature of justifying faith conceiving it to be a bare intellectual assent to a Proposition which yet is quite against my judgement and that which I do purposely oppose in my next argument I consent to Mr. Eyre in placing faith partly in the understanding and partly in the will But our question is now concerning that faith which is in the understanding how Peter for example comes to know or to be assured by faith immediately that he is justified And this say I must be by the assent of faith to some such Axiome Proposition or Word of God as was but now mentioned Thou Peter art justified Even as Paul was assured that neither himself nor any that were in the ship with him should perish by beleeving the testimony of God sent him by an Angel Acts 27 25. And because there is now a dayes no such testimony of a particular mans Justification therefore there is no evidence thereof to be had this way at least ordinarily and if there were yet I would not call that faith justifying faith but rather evidencing faith His Answer to the Argument is large and to me very confused He excepts against my terme of an axiomatical evidence I would change it if I could devise any terme more significant but at last yields it me yet thinks it fitter to say faith evidenceth organically as it is the organ or instrument whereby we do apprehend and adhere to Christ But we shall shew fully that this organical evidence must be reduced to one of those three by me mentioned and cannot make a fourth way of evidence distinct from them The summe of his answer is That faith is such an assent to the truth of the Gospel as that withal the soule tastes an ineffable sweetnesse in the same and he that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-Promises and grace knows his interest and propriety therein for all manner of sweetnesse is a consequent and effect of some propriety which we have in that good thing which causeth it And so faith doth evidence our Justification axiomatically by assenting to and withal tasting and relishing those indefinite and general Propositions Invitations and Promises that are held forth to us in the Gospel which by a secret and unscrutable work of the Spirit are applied and made particular to the soule of a true beleever for otherwise he could never taste any sweetnesse in them Rep. How truly did I say that Mr. Eyres doctrine would at last § 20. leave the poor doubting Christian without all evidence of his Justification I need no other confirmation of it then these words wherein are many things delivered not only without any other authority then Mr. Eyres bare word but directly against experience reason and Scripture 1. I deny that faith is alwayes accompanied with such a taste of sweetnesse in the Promises of the Gospel as will give an evidence to the soule of his Justification The reasons are set down already in this chapter § 12. I remember what holy i Neither the letters nor pages are numbred and therefoâ—e I cannot direct the Reader to the particular place Bayne sayes of himself in one of his letters I thank God in Christ sustentation I have and some little strength suavities spiritual I taste not any But indeed I often tell my selfe Physick purgative and restorative are not to be taken at the same time c. Neither do I dare to deny but that it may be the case of one that is saved to die in as much darknesse as Spira himself if any man can prove the contrary let him Yea so separable is sweetnesse from faith that sometimes on the contrary excesse of sweetnesse hath hindred and overcome faith as it was in the disciples who for very joy beleeved not Luke 24. 41. and with old Jacob in a like case Gen. 45. 26. 2. I also deny that there can be no manner of sweetnesse tasted in the Gospel but by such as have interest and propriety in the grace thereof A propriety in conceit though not in truth or an interest possible and attainable though not actually obtained may make the Gospel taste not a little sweet The Scriptures tell us that some may be enlightened and taste of the heavenly gift and of the good Word of God Heb. 6. 4 5. and receive the Word with joy Matth. 13. 20. who yet were not justified nor pardoned 3. A taste of sweetnesse in the Gospel doth evidence to the soule sensibly and experimentally that God and his Word are good which may be an Argument to prove that he is justified But it neither doth nor can actually evidence it to him unlesse there intervene another act of the minde concluding himself to be justified according to the Promise made to such a faith Sugar will evidence its sweetnesse to my taste but my tasting will not evidence to me actually that I am a living creature unlesse I conclude it by the discourse of my minde because according to the rules of Philosophy None can taste but a living creature Beasts can taste as well as men yet-they do not know that they are living creatures because they cannot compare their act with the rule according to which they act which ability in the reasonable soule is usually called a power of reflecting upon its own act The case is much the same in Infants Therefore Mr. Eyres organical evidence is the very same with that which I call faiths evidencing as an Argument or if he understand it of that which is not only affected to prove but doth actually prove then it is the same with that which I below call syllogistical as being an act of the soule concluding its own Justification from the sweetnesse it tasteth in the Promises 4. But the truth is it is a most preposterous course to send the soul for its evidence of right and interest in the Promises to a taste of sweetnesse in them which will quickly appear if Mr. Eyres metaphorical expressions be made more grammatical Wherefore to taste sweetnesse in the Promises is either an act of the understanding judging of the Promise sub ratione bâ—ni
convenientis as a most suitable good and thus it is a knowledge antecedent to faith or at most but the beginning of faith it self Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not justified but by the faith of Jesus Christ we have believed Or it is an act of the Will embracing delighting and taking complacency in the Promise as his best good and then it follows immediately not upon our right and interest in the Promise but upon our knowledge of that right for as we desire not that which we do not know so neither can we rejoyce in a right which we know not The Question then returnes viz. how the soul comes to know its right and interest in the Promise To say it knows it by taking complacency in it is to say it delights in it knows not what for the will follows the judgement and to take complacency in a good which we do not know we have a right in is naturally impossible Mr. Eyre therefore may speak truly when he sayes He that tastes the sweetnesse of Gospel-grace knows his interest therein such the taste may be but we are never the wiser in the understanding of the main question viz. How the soule comes to the knowledge of his interest in that Promise in which he tastes so much sweetnesse from answer to this Mr. Eyre makes an escape under the darknesse of his metaphorical expressions 5. I desire also to know whether it be the Promise of pardon and Justification in which the soule tastes such sweetnesse as thereby to have the evidence of his Justification or some other If some other how is it possible that faith should evidence to me my pardon and Justification by tasting sweetnesse in that truth which promiseth no pardon or Justification at all If it be the Promise of pardon let Mr. Eyre see that he consist with himself Promises are essentially boni futuri of a future good Therefore according to Mr. Eyre there can be now no Promise of pardon or Justification Not of the Act for that is past from all eternity not of the Effect for that is past as long as since the death of Christ and therefore neither the one nor the other can be the object or matter of a Promise It remaines then that it is the Promise of manifesting and declaring Justification But then behold the sense My faith doth evidence to me that I am justified by relishing the Promise which God hath made of manifesting and declaring Justification Hence it follows that I have the evidence of my Justification by beleeving that I shall have it And then either my faith must be false or the Promise must be false for if I do already know that I am justified that knowledge cannot be future else the same thing might be and not be at the same time But there can be no falshood either in a divine faith or in a divine testimony And I desire also Mr. Eyre to reconcile what here he speaks of faiths evidencing with the Interpretations given before of those sayings in Scripture whosoever beleeves shall receive remission of sins Acts 10. 43. and 26. 18. That receiving saith he is our act not Gods namely our knowing our selves to be justified Here he makes it intrinsecal to faith to beget assurance as it is a taste of sweetnesse in the Promise that is in the Promise of manifesting Justification for no other Justification is capable of being promised Lay all this together and one or both these two things must be the result either that I know I am justified before God manifest it to me for I beleeve and thereby know that I am justified and the Promise which I beleeve is that God will manifest my Justification to me Ergo he hath not yet manifested it or else the great Promise of justifying them that beleeve must be resolved into this ridiculous piece of non-sense He that hath the evidence of his Justification shall have the evidence of his Justification for in that he believes he hath this evidence and the thing that is promised is that he shall have this evidence Therefore Mr. Eyre doth not limit the evidence of faith to its relishing §. 21. the sweetnesse of indefinite and general Promises but there must concurre withal a secret and inscrutable work of the Spirit to make these general Promises particular It is not the first time I have been acquainted both at home and elsewhere with Pretenders to assurance in such a way whose lives and ends I have known so well that I shall for their sakes esteem it no other whilest I live then a carnal groundlesse enthusiastical presumption Two Authours Mr. Eyre quotes in his margin as countenancing his doctrine namely k Of faith sect 1 cap 9 ◠4. Dr. Jackson and l Sound Bel. pag. 220 221. Mr. Shepheard But the former hath not a word of making the general Promise particular but saith only That the particular manner of the Spirits working this alteration in our soules namely that now we relish spiritual things which naturally we taste no sweetnesse in is a mystery inscrutable to which I consent The latter whose memory is very honourable and precious to me was the most violent opposer of this doctrine of any man on earth that ever I knew or heard of his works shew something of it but they that knew him can testifie more I heartily consent to him that in vocation the Spirit makes the general call particular according to the sense in which he explaines himselfe in the place quoted The soule saith he at this instant feeles such a special stirring of the Spirit upon it which it feeles now and never felt before as also its particular case so spoken to and its particular objections so answered and the grievousnesse of its sin in refusing grace so particularly applied as if God spake only unto it All this I beleeve to be true but it is nothing in the world to our purpose To make the common motives and invitations unto faith to become in this manner particular in their operation upon particular persons doth neither affirme nor deny any thing concerning the state and condition of those persons But to evidence to a man immediately that he is justified must be by a particular testimony and that as distinct from the testimony of Scripture which saith only that believers are justified as a proper or particular Proposition from a general I say therefore 1. That the Spirit evidenceth to no man that he is §. 22. justified who hath not at the same time the evidence of his faith and so is this evidence of the Spirit alwayes at least implicitly syllogistical And the soule can have no setled comfort in it but by analysing the crypsis and resolving the whole evidence into its parts after the manner below specified He that beleeveth is justified But I beleeve Ergo I am justified The case is so plain to me that I appeal to Mr. Eyre himself for
is every whit as proper yea and more proper to say we know by faith that we are justified then to say we know by God that we are justified the former expressing the effect from its relation to its particular cause the latter to the universal I cannot see unlesse God give me an eye and concurre with it in the act of seeing yet is it more proper to say I see then that God sees so neither can I know that I am justified unlesse God give me faith and concurre with the act of it to discover it to me yet am I more properly said to justifie my self then God to justifie me if by my Justification be meant my knowledge that I am justified And whereas Mr. Eyre granteth faith to be the instrumental cause §. 35. of our knowing our selves to be justified I see not how it can consist with his Divinity It is a principle with him as we shall see anon that no act of Gods can be an act of free grace which hath any cause in the creature But to manifest to me that I am justified is an act of free grace Ergo my faith cannot be the cause of it no not instrumentally The Assumption is proved from all the places mentioned in Chap. 3. to prove that we are justified by faith All which speak of Justification by free grace and Mr. Eyre interprets every one of them of the manifestation of Justification And now we should dispute the great Question Whether faith be the condition of Justification But because there is one and but one Argument more proving that Justification by faith cannot be understood of the manifestation or knowledge thereof I shall first make good my ground there and then try out the other by it self SECT IX MY last Argument therefore was this If Justification by faith §. 36. must be understood of Justification in our consciences then is not the word Justification taken properly for Justification before God in all the Scriptures for the Scriptures speak of no Justification but by faith or works the latter of which is Justification before men and the former in our consciences according to Mr. Eyre To this Mr. Eyre answers chap. 9. § 10 11 12. and his answer is 1. That Justification in conscience is Justification before God Yet himself told us Page 61. before that the sight of God in this Question may not be understood of Gods making it as it were evident to our sight that we are justified for then the distinction of Justification in foro Dei in foro conscientiae would be a meer tautologie Secondly saith he If faith be taken metonymically then Justification by faith is Justification before God for it is a Justification by the merits of Christ to whom alone without works or conditions performed by us the Holy Ghost ascribes our Justification in the sight of God Rom. 3. 24. Eph. 1. 7. Rep. I deny that faith is any where in Scripture put for Christ in the Argument of Justification though it include him as its object whether his name be mentioned or no. In universalibus latet dolus Give us some particular place or places where the word must be necessarily so understood and we will beleeve it 2. Rom. 3. 24. speaks not of any Justification by Christ without faith but most expressely and syllabically of Justification by Christ through faith ver 25. whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood And that faith here cannot be taken objectively is already proved Yet if it had not been mentioned it will by no means follow that it must be excluded seeing there are multitudes of places besides where it is mentioned The same I say to Eph. 1. 7. That the remission of sins there spoken of is by faith for the Apostle having said that we have remission of sins through the blood of Christ according to the riches of the grace of God he shewes the way in which grace communicates this blessing both to Jew and Gentile namely by the efficacy of the blessed Gospel calling them both to one and the same faith and thereby to a common interest in the same blessings ver 8 9 10. though these blessings be given to the Jew first and afterward to the Gentile ver 12 13. and therefore Paul Bayne observes from ver 8. That God giveth pardon of sins to none to whom he hath not first given wisdome and understanding that is whom he hath not taught to know and beleeve on his Christ Howbeit if faith had not been here mentioned it must yet needs have been supposed because the Apostle writes to those Ephesians as unto Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ver 1. To whom as such do all spiritual blessings belong ver 3. according to the purpose of Gods Election ver 4. So that hitherto we have no intelligence of any Justification before God mentioned in Scripture but by faith His third answer is by way of retortion upon that expression of §. 37. mine That the Antinomians may reade their eyes out before they produce us one text for it namely where there is any mention of Justification before God but by faith He retorts That I acknowledge a threefold Justification and yet neither of them by faith in my Sermon page 23. Rep. But I do not acknowledge that either of them is properly and formally the Justification of a sinner before God Nor yet that either of them is called by the name of Justification in Scripture but only that our Justification may be considered as purposed of God merited by the death of Christ and exemplified in his Resurrection 2. He tells us That we have no plain text for many of our dictates As 1. That justification doth in no sense precede the act of faith Answ Mr. Eyre knows well enough that this is a dictate of his own and that it is no part of the quarrel between him and me as I observed page 1. and in his very last words mentions three senses in which I yield Justification may be before faith But we seek a text of Scripture wherein the true proper formal Justification of a sinner is made antecedent to faith If there be any such text why is it not produced if there be none why is it not yielded Our second dictate is That Christ purchased only a conditional not an absolute Justification for his Elect. But where is this said or by whom it is by vertue of the Purchase of Christ that we are justified when we have performed the condition of believing The third that our Evangelical Righteousnesse by which we are iustified is in our selves Answ This refers to Mr. Baxter whose judgement Mr. Eyre represents as odiously as he can But he knowes Mr. Baxter hath produced many Scriptures and reasons for proof of it which Mr. Eyre should have answered before he had complained for want of a text The fourth that the tenour of the New Covenant is If thou
notion includes shame and sorrow and self-abhorrency c. which faith precisely doth not As to the Conclusion of this paragraph which concernes my subscription to the testimony to the truth of Jesus Christ a book so called I do not remember that ever I subscribed it in this or any other County The second Argument is this To interpret Justification by faith §. 9. that faith is a necessary antecedent condition of Justification gives no more to faith then to works of nature as to sight of sin legal sorrow c. for if these be conditions disposing us to faith and faith a condition disposing us to Justification then are they also conditions disposing us to Justification for causa causae est causa causati Answ This Argument at the long run overthrows all humane contracts at least it fights as strongly against them as against us Titius gives a hundred pounds per annum to Sempronius upon conditon he give two pence a week to Maevius This two pence cannot be paid unlesse the silver be digged out of the mines and melted and stamp't and delivered out of the Coyners hand c. Ergo Sâ—mpronius his giving two pence a week to Maevius is not the condition of his holding his 100. li. per annum at least no more then the mine or bank is Is not this gallant Logick 2. I deny that legal sorrows and the sight of sin c. are necessary conditions disposing to faith because God hath not promised to give faith if we be convicted or legally sorry These Preparations are necessary physically not morally because the soule cannot seek out for life and salvation in another while it hath confidence of sufficiency in its selfe If any man beleeve without these he shall be saved notwithstanding 3. The answer therefore is that the things which are necessary naturally are not the conditions of gift but those only which are made necessary by the will of the Donour h L. conditiones eztrinsec F. de cond demonstr and so doth the Civil Law determine Caius gives Seius all the fruits that grow upon his farme the next year it is necessary that fruits grow upon the farme or else Seius cannot have them yet Caius his gift is not conditional but absolute 4. As to that logical axiome Causa causae est causa causati Mr. Eyre knows it must have more limitations then one or else 't is dangerously false But in the present case 't is altogether impertinent for neither are legal preparations the cause of faith nor faith the cause of Justification but the condition only and so the causa causatum may go whistle The third Argument is this that by which we are justified is the §. 10. proper efficient meritorious cause of our Justification Faith as a condition is not so Ergo. Answ I deny the major Mr. Eyre proves it by a threefold Argument 1. By the use of these Propositions particles he would have said by and through in ordinary speech which note a meritorious or instrumental cause As when we say A souldier was raised by his valour a tradesman lives by his trade 2. From the contrary phrase as when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works and by the Law he excludes works from any causal influxe into our Justification Now that which he denies to works he ascribes to faith 3. From other parallel phrases in Scripture where we are said to be redeemed justified and saved Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera Answ These are i De Justif l. 1. c. 17. Bellarmines wise Arguments to prove that faith doth justifie per modum causae dignitatis aut meriti by way of causality worth or merit which it seems Mr. Eyre accounts unanswerable otherwise he would not have brought them again upon the stage in an English dresse when our Protestants have beat them off so often in Latine 1. To the first I deny that the particles By or Through are alwayes the notes of a cause meritorious or instrumental How many times do we finde them in one Chapter where they are not capable of any such signification Heb. 11. 5. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death and ver 11. Through faith Sarah received strength to conceive seed ver 30. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down ver 33. By faith they stopped the mouthes of Lions ver 35. Women by faith received their dead raised to life again with many other passages in that Chapter That it is the grace of faith which is here spoken of appears from the description of it ver 1. will Mr. Eyre grant the Papists that faith was the meritorious cause of these effects I hope then he will no more reproach me as popishly affected It may be he will say it was the instrumental cause But let him shew how What instrumental efficacy did faith put forth in Enochs Translation did it either subtilize or immortallize his body or how was faith an instrument in throwing down the walls of Jericho It is naturally impossible agere in distans to act upon an object which the Agent toucheth not formally or virtually or what efficiency did faith put forth upon dead bodies to raise them to life again These effects are no otherwise ascribed to faith then as the condition upon which they were wrought and without which they could not have been wrought according to Gods ordination As it is said concerning the Lord Jesus That he could not do many mighty works in his own countrey because of their unbelief Mark 6. 5 6. with Matth. 13. 58. Not that their faith had contributed any thing to his ability but that their unbelief by vertue of Gods ordination made them uncapable of being the subjects for and amongst whom those works were to be wrought To the second I deny that Justification is ascribed to faith in the §. 11. same sense in which it is denied to works though it be the same Justification as to its common nature which is ascribed to that and denied to these and therefore cannot be meant of a Justification manifested to conscience as Mr. Eyre interprets it when he comes to particular places 'T is confessed that when the Apostle denies that a man is justified by works he excludes works from any causal influx into our Justification But it will by no means follow that when he ascribes it to faith he doth therefore acknowledge faith to be a cause No more then the like opposition in Scripture doth denote the same kinde of cause on both sides Râ—m 9. 8. Nâ—t the children of the flesh but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed and ver 11. Not of works but of him that calleth and ver 16. Not of hâ—m that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy and Rom. 11. 6. Not of works but of grace Estne inter Pontisicios quisquam tam excors â—t audeat affirmare in istis oppâ—sitioniâ—us
genere causae with the blood of Christ Answ 1. The merits of Christ do not concur in our Justification as any part of that formal act by which we are justified It is God as Supreme Lawgiver and Judge and Christ as King under him who is our Justifier The merits of Christ are a cause of themselves moving God to put forth that act 2. I would ask Mr. Eyre whether the death of Christ be no more then a condition without which we are not justified if it be he doth ill to talke of my putting faith in the same kinde of cause with Christs death for I ascribe no more to faith then that it is a condition without which not If it be not Mr. Eyre I doubt will be found guilty of degrading the blood of Christ more then I of advancing faith beyond its due place 3. By faith we concur to our own Justification not causally but objectively terminativè as the earth concurs to my going as the thing I walk upon a visible object to my sight as the thing seen and other objects to the acts that are conversant about them 4. And the Argument at last begs the question for it supposeth that we ascribe to faith a causal influxe into our Justification which is the thing I dispute against SECT IV. THe fifth Argument succeeds That interpretation of this §. 21. phrase which makes works going before Justification not only not sinsul but acceptable to God and preparatory 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 qualifying us for Justification doth so Ergo. The tree must be good or else the fruit cannot be good Luke 6. 43 44. Mat. 12. 33. John 15. 5. So Augustine Parisiensis the Articles of the Church of England c. Answ The substance of this is answered already chapt 5. works are taken largely or strictly in the former sense faith is a work in the latter it is opposed to works The Authours whom Mr. Eyre mentioneth as e Aug. Serm. 96. de Temp. Nemo bono operatur nisi fides praecesserit de Spirit lit c. 8. opus non fit nisi à Justificato Justificatio autem ex fide impetratur Augustine c. Take works as they are opposed to faith whereof the words quoted are an uncontrollable evidence If Mr. Eyre had shewed us that his legion of Orthodox Writers did as much oppose the antecedency of faith as of works to Justification he had spoken to purpose The tree indeed must be good before the fruit can be good But the tree is made good by faith and the Spirit of Sanctification which is the good treasure of the heart which bringeth forth good works Luke 6. 45. John 15. 5. I never heard before that Justification which is a grace without us was the roote and inward principle of good actions The sixth and last Argument is this To say that faith is a passive §. 22. condition that doth morally qualifie us for Justification implies a contradiction Answ I deny it Mr. Eyre proves it thus To be both active and passive in reference to the same effect is a flat contradiction and yet this also should be delivered with a little more caution a Christian is both active and passive in all the good works he doth but I stand not on it A condition is a moral efficient cause of that which is promised upon condition in the use of the Jurists though in the logical notion of it it hath not the least efficiency Answ And why may not we be permitted to use it in its logical notion the most logical sense is the most rational And seeing Mr. Eyre confesseth that in its logical notion a condition hath not the least efficiency he must give me leave to account his Argument illogical that is irrational that proceeds upon supposition of the contrary 2. It is also notoriously false that a condition is a cause in the use of the Jurists for they do perpetually distinguish a cause from a condition as appears by the very title of the thirty fâ—fth book of the Digests De Conditionibus Demonstrationibus Causis Modis eorum quae in Testamento scribuntur Which the f Dyon Gotho â—red Not. in hunc tit Wâ—semb paratit in eund Cujac l. 2. observ c 39. G. Tholos Syâ—t juris l. 42. c. 32. Jurists thus distinguish Causa exprimit rationem quae nos movet ut alteri legemus Demonstratio rem ipsam legatam notat designat §. 51 52 53. Azor. Instit mor. par 3. l 4. c. 24. ao dâ—pingit Conditio suspendit transmissionem legati c. Which differences they fetch out of the Law it selfe 3. If all conditions be causes then such as the Law calls g C. de caduc tollend §. Sin autem contingent and casual are causes also as having as much of the nature and use of a condition as that which they call arbitrary or potestative But that a condition meerly casual should be the cause of a giâ—t is that which the h Vide P. Nic. Moz de contract c. 2. de do nat p. 141. Ratio est quia cum conâ—itio dependet à caâ—u fortuito non censetur donaâ—s moveri ad donandum contemplatione illius casus sed ex suâ liberalitate non tamen donare vult nisi casus eveniat De quo etiam Riminal Instit de donat in princip n. 59. Jurists will never endure As if Titius promise Seius five hundred if the ship called Castor and Pollùx come into the river of Thames by July next Or if he give him the same summe with a Proviso that if he die before the age of twenty one then it shall come to Caius his younger brother That an accidental effect should be a meritorious cause is not imaginable 4. The case is the same again in all arbitrary or voluntary conditions If they be meerly such and have nothing beyond the nature of a condition added or concurring for the distribution of conditions in casuales potestativas is not generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta for a condition is one and the same in its nature and use whether the act or event which is made the condition be meerly casual or voluntary And therefore when Mr. Eyre sayes that if a man do any thing for obtaining a benefit he is active in procuring it if he mean physically I grant it if morally I deny it because a voluntary act when it is a condition contributes no more to the obtaining of a benefit then a contingent act being also a condition and yet by such a casual condition doth a man obtain a benefit and yet acts nothing toward it Let us for clearing and concluding this dispute again resume the §. 23. instance given before Philemon promiseth Onesimus that if he will confesse his fault he will pardon him and
decies cocta that it will inferre justification by works for answer to which I referre the reader to chap. 4. and 5. having proved in the former that it is the Act or grace of faith which the Apostle perpetually opposeth to works and in the latter that benefits may be given of grace which yet are given upon condition His second Argument therefore is this If justification be by that signall promise he that beleeves shall be saved then none were justified before that gracious sentence was published But the Fathers of the old Testament were justified before the publishing of that gracious sentence or any like it Ergo. Rep. A particular explicite faith in Christ was not absolutely necessary §. 9. to salvation till the times of the Gospel and the doctrine of faith and remission was in former times very sparingly and darkly revealed especially in the time between Adam and Moses Yet was the faith of the ancients the same for substance with the faith of Christians and of a like necessity to justification and salvation For Abel was justified by faith Heb. 11. 4. and Enocâ— v. 5. and Nâ—ah v. 7. and Abraham Rom. 4. sic de caeteris and surely they could not believe without a Preacher by whom they might heare of him on whom they beleeved But supposing the promise of remission to be suitable to those times of darker dispensation and the condition of that faith which was then required as sufficient to salvation I passe the proposition 2. I deny the assumption which hath here no other proofe then the old Argument so t is namely that there was not a promise of forgivenesse preached unto the world upon condition of repentance and returning unto God which is the substance of faith before the incarnation of our Lord. There were many Preachers of righteousnesse in the old world Noah d See Dr Golls Sermon before the Astrologers p. 28 29. Manasse Ben. Israel Concil in Gen. 4. 26. 3. is reckoned the eighth 2 Pet. 2. 5. beginning at Enos Gen. 4. 26. And he no question preached faith and repentance to the world that they might escape the destruction of soul and body at once who notwithstanding his preaching perished by their disobedience or unbelief the Greek word signifieth either 1 Pet. 3. 20. and he by his faith is said in a comparative sense to have condemned them Heb. 11. 7. And in the book of Job who lived before the law we finde the world had notice of such a conditionall promise though not from any written word but by tradition or by Preachers immediatly raised up Job 8. 4 5 6. If thy children have sinned against him If thou wouldest seek unto God betime and make thy supplication to the Almighty if thou be pure and upright surely now he would awake for thee c. and this he tells us was the faith of the Fathers many generations before v. 8 9. compare v. 20 21. So chap 33. 27 28. he looketh upon men and if any say I have sinned he will deliver his soul from going down into the pit So chap. 22. 21 22 23. Acquaint thy self with God lay up his words in thy heart If thou returne to the Almighty thou shalt be built up c. see also chap. 11. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. And what lesse doth the Lord say to Cain Gen. 4. 7. If thou dost well shalt thou not be accepted namely if thou dost well as Abel did shalt thou not be accepted as well as he And wherein Abel's well doing consisted the Apostle tells us Heb. 11. 4. By saith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice then Cain So that from Adam to Noah and from Noah to Moses the world was not altogether without notice of the promise of salvation upon condition of faith and repentance c Vide Mos â—myrâ—â— Spec. anima lâ—er special pâ—r 3 anima i. General par 3. 4. In Moses's time the matter is clearer then to need proofe Heb. 4. 1 2. Let us therefore feare least a promise being left us of entring into his rest any of you should seem to come short of it for unto us was the Gospel preached as well as unto them but the word preached did not profit them being not mixed with faith in them that heard it Hence 1. it is manifest that salvation was promised Israel under the type of rest in Canaan 2. That it was not promised them absolutely but upon condition whether the condition were expressed or understood otherwise their non-entrance into Rest must have been imputed wholly to Gods unfaithfulnesse and not to their unbelief whereas the text sayes expresly it was their unbelief which made the promise of no effect to them and they could not enter in because of unbelief chap. 3 19. 3. That the Gospel is preached to us as it was to them and therefore the same condition is required of us as was required of them namely faith otherwise we also shall fall short of the promised rest as they did v. 1. The third Argument is this If justification be only by a declared §. 10. discharge then elect infants that die in their infancy have no justification Rep. I deny the consequence where 's the proofe I can find no other but this that infants are insensible of this declaration and unable to plead their discharge from any such promise which is nothing in the world to the purpose Cannot infants have right to a benefit by law or the declared act of a Rector or Lawgiver because they are unsensible of it and cannot plead it They are condemned by law whiles infants Rom. 5. 14. They may be servants or free by law Do not our laws provide for the rights of Minors Pupils and Orphans even in their infancy 2. It doth also ruine the maine pillars of Mr. Eyres discourse All the places which I before alledged to prove justification by faith according to him are to be understood of the manifestation of justification to the conscience Give me leave then to retort his owne Argument The justification spoken of in the places aforesaid Gal. 2. 16. Rom. 8. 30. and 4. 24. Act. 10. 43. and 13. 39. c. is that without which no man can be saved But some may be saved without justification manifested and declared to the conscience as infants Ergo the justification mentioned in those places is not justification in conscience or manifested unto conscience The fourth Argument succeeds The making justification a §. 11. declared discharge detracts from the majesty and soveraignty of God for it ascribes to him but the office of a notary or subordinate Minister whose work it is to declare and publish the sentence of the Court rather then of a Judge or supream Magistrate Rep. If this Argument be cast into forme it runs thus He that forgives sin by a declared Act is but a notary or subordinate Minister for their work it is to declare and publish the sentence
ministration of righteousnesse is the ministration of that Law or Word that justifies the effect being put for the cause in like manner Ergo Justification is by Law 6. To this purpose speaks the same Apostle Rom. 1. 16 17. I §. 23. am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth â—o the Jew first and also to the Greek for therein is the righteousnesse of God revealed from faith to faith That which I observe is 1. That the Gospel is here called the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument of salvation as Expositors agree 2. That the power for which the Apostle here extolls it is in that it saves them that beleeve 3. That Justification is here included yea and primarily intended in salvation in which large sense the word salvation is often taken elsewhere Rom. 10. 9 10. Eph. 2. 8. Tit. 3. 5. Luke 7. 48 50. for the reason why he calls it the Power of God to salvation is because it reveales the righteousnesse of God upon all that beleeve Hence 4. The Gospel is the Power of God unto Justification as it is the revealed declared Will of God concerning the Justification of them that beleeve m Vid Calv. Com. in loc Quia nos per Evâ—ng lium justificat Deus because God justifies us by the Gospel I cannot better expresse my minde then in the words of Beza Hoc ita intelligo c. This saith he I so understand not as if Paul did therefore only commend the Gospel because therein is revealed and proposed to view that which the Gentiles before were ignorant of namely that by faith in Christ we are to seek that righteousnesse by vertue of which we obtain salvation of God and the Jewes beheld afar off and under shadows but also because it doth so propose this way of Justification as that it doth also really exhibit it that in this way it may appear that the Gospel is truly the Power of God to salvation that is a mighty and effectual instrument which God useth for the saving of men by faith Thus he simply and historically to declare that some men are justified is not enough to denominate the Gospel the Power of God to salvation but it is required withal that it have authority to give right to salvation to them that beleeve it Therefore the Gospel wherein is manifested the righteousnâ—sse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ is called the Law of faith Rom. 3. ver 21. 22 27. compared 7. Justification by works should have been by that Law Do this §. 24. and thou shalt live and if those words cannot be denied to have authority to give a right to life to them that fulfilled the Law upon what pretence of reason is the same authority denied to the word of faith Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Rom. 10. 5 8 9. To conclude Therefore is the Gospel called n Heb. â— 8. a Scepter of Righteousnesse o 2 Cor 5. 19. a Word of reconciliation p Eph. 1. â—3 a Gospel of salvation q Rom. 8. 2 3. Dav Par. ibid. a Law of the Spirit of life that makes free from the Law of sin and death r Isa 61. 1 2 3. an opening of Prisons s See the Reverend and most incomparable Dr Reynolds in Ps 110. p. 140. and a proclaiming of liberty to Captives because God doth thereby justifie sinners I had also drawn up foure Reasons from the nature of Justification proving that it must be by Law but because I since finde the substance of them in Mr. Baxter Red. Digr page 141. 142 143. I shall therefore desire the Reader to have recourse to him for his farther satisfaction herein and shall excuse my selfe from the paines of transcribing my own Argâ—ments CHAP. VII A Reply to Mr. Eyres eleventh Chapter John 3 18. and Eph. 2 3. vindicated All unbelievers under condemnation Ergo none justified in unbelief SECT I. MY second Argument by which I proved that men are not justified before faith was this They that are under condemnation cannot at the § 1. same time be justified But all the world are under condemnation before faith Ergo none of the world are justified before faith Mr. Eyre first enters a caution against the major which I had briefly and as I thought and yet think sufficiently proved in my Sermon in these words Justification and Condemnation are contraries and contraries cannot be verified of the same subject at the same time Justification is a moral life and condemnation a moral death a man can be no more in a justified state and a state of condemnation both at once then he can be alive and dead both at once or a blessed man and a cursed man both at once What that the Apostle describes Justification by non-condemnation Rom. 8. 1. and opposeth it to condemnation as inconsistent with it on the same person at the same time ver 33 34. and are at as moral enmity one with another as good and evil light and darknesse Upon these grounds I said that the Proposition must needs be true This as if I had not so much as pretended any reason for it Mr. Eyre tells his Reader is my confident assertion but in the mean time never goes about to remove the grounds upon which it stands This is a sad case but who can help it Yet he will grant the Proposition with this Proviso That these seeming contraries do refer ad idem i. e. to the same Court and Judicatory not otherwise for he that is condemned and hath a judgement on record against him in one Court may be justified and absolved in another He that is cast at common Law may be quitted in a Court of equity He that is condemned in the Court of the Law may be justified in the Court of the Gospel Rep. Which is very true otherwise our Justification were no pardon But I would ask Are these two Courts coordinate and of equal power or is the one in power subordinate to the other If the former how shall a man know whether he be cast or absolved as in our own case If the Law be of as much power to condemne as the Gospel is to justifie how shall a man know whether he be condemned or justified or what sentence shall a poor soul expect when he is going to appear before Gods Tribunal if of absolution why the Law condemnes him if of condemnation the Gospel justifies him and which of these two shall take place But if the one be subordinate to the other then the sentence of the superiour Court rescindes the judgement of the inferiour and makes it of no force and so the man is not absolved and condemned both at once This is the very ground of u L. 1 ss de Appellâ—â— L. Si qâ—is 〈◊〉 appeales from any inferiour Judicatory to a higher
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
is a Tanner but it is given the Tanner Quatenus he is the man whom Peter meant in his will In like manner when it is said if thou beleeve thou shalt be saved if the meaning be this if thou be one of them that do or shall believe thou shalt be saved then salvation pertaines not to men as believers but to believers as men under some other notion and capacity And that must be either 1. As they are men simply or 2. As they are sinful men or finally which I suppose Mr. Eyre will say for to affirme either of the former were intolerably absurd as they are elect And so the issue will be this believers Quatenus they are elect Specificativè are the objects of salvation Now see Reader what this will come to at the long runne 1. Hereby is faith devested of all necessity and usefulnesse in order to salvation farther then it is a mark or sâ—gne as all other saving graces are of a man that shall be saved Even as the profession and place of the Tanner forementioned contributed nothing to his obtaining of Peters legacy it served only to describe the person to whom it was given And is this that precious faith 2 Pet. 1. 1. more precious then gold 1 Pet. 1. 7. the Christians riches Jam. 2. 5. by which he obtaines and inherits promises Heb. 11. 33. 6. 12. righteousnesse Heb. 11. 7. salvation Eph. 2. 8. and all good things whatsoever 2 Pet. 1. 3. so highly every where commended in Scripture and urged upon such tearms of necessity How can we be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse and salvation by faith if faith serve only to describe the person It may be this new divinity will shortly produce a new Rhetorick and that is no more then needs 2. If the elect had been described by their names parents time and place of their birth and habitation they might be said to obtaine promises righteousnesse salvation by these as well as by saith if there be no other necessity of faith to righteousnesse and salvation then as it is a description of the persons that shall be saved 3. And according to this glosse there can be no ground of exhorting beseeching and commanding sinners to believe on and accept of a Saviour no more then of exhorting or commanding them to be elected as we have demonstrated in the place before mentioned 4. Nor have the words according to the same glosse the forme and nature of a promise but of a meer conneâ—e Axi me affirming the consequent upon supposition of the Antecedent For if thou beleeve that is if thou be such a one as art or shalt be a believer is but a periphrasis of election unto faith for the down right meaning without circumlocutions is this If thou be one of those whom God from eternity purposed to make a believer thou shalt be saved And why not because of the Promise by which God hath obliged himself to give salvation upon their believing who before had no right to it that will infer a conditional Promise which Mr. Eyre abhors but because he that purposed the one purposed the other also and this he commanded to be declared and published to the world And I say in like manner If the Sun rise we shall have light upon the earth and if God make stones the children of Abraham they shall be able to speak But we know from the Scriptures that the inheritance of life and salvation is given by Promise Gal. 3. 18. Rom. 4. 13 16 20. Heb. 6. 13 15. 5. And we know from the same Scriptures that righteousnesse and salvation is not given to believers quatenus they are elect but rather to the elect quatenus they are believers that is they are not only given to the men that are believers but given to them as they are believers It was Abrahams faith that was imputed to him unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. and the Promise was to him and to his seed through faith ver 16. Rom. 3. 22. The righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that beleeve where we have distinctly set down the righteousnesse which justifies us The persons justified They that believe The means or condition of their Justification By faith of Jesus Christ The same distinction is accurately observed Gal. 3. 22. That the Promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that beleeve The Promise is that of salvation and blessednesse Compare ver 6. 9 18. Here then we have again the persons to whom the Promise is given namely believers the condition or meanes by faith To teach us that the Promise of life and salvation is not only given to men that are believers but given to them as believers Righteousnesse not only upon them that are faithful but righteousnesse by faith a Promise not only to them that do beleeve but a Promise by believing 6. If thou beleeve thâ—â— shâ—lt be saved or Beleeve and thou shalt be saved Life and salvation is here promised as the reward of faith a reward I mean not properly but metaphorically as the word is used in Scripture often not for a reward of debt but for a reward of grace Now I would ask why it is called a reward Mr. Eyre will tell me because it follows faith Be it so though I think there is much more in it But faith may be conâ—dered either as an act required of us or as the work of God in â—s Now I would know whether life and salvation be the reward of faith as it is our act or as it is Gods work If the former as most certain then Mr. Eyre must quit his beloved glosse for if salvation by the Promise be made consequent to faith as an act required of us and performed by us then faith is the condition upon which we are entitled to salvation by the same Promise and so salvation pertaines to us as believers formaliter and not only as to the men whose property and priviledge it is to be believers sooner or later If the second be said namely that salvation follows faith and so is the reward thereof as it is the work of God in us then God rewards himself he doth not reward us Even as if I should call Gods preserving the world the reward of his creating it or the destruction of the world the reward of his preserving it or his glorisying our bodies the reward of his raising them out of their graves or his calling us unto faith the reward of his predestinating us for each of these actions is consequent to the foregoing And yet I doubt not but if a man should talk after this rate he would be accounted to utter strange kinde of tropes 7. Mr. Eyre may do well to remember that he hath yet given me no similitude of Answer to the main Argument When the Law sayes Do this and live or If thou do this thou shalt live or He that doth these
things shall live all the world â—cknowledgeth and Mr. Eyre dares not deny it that the words do not only describe the person but propound the condition of life When then the Gospel sayes Beleeve and thou shalt bâ—â—saved or If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved or He that believes shall be saved wherein doth this forme of words oppose the other that these must be interpreted as a description of the person rather then the other 8. To conclude Mr. Eyre by this glosse hath discovered the nakednesse of those two Reasons he gave why the Apostle here did not describe the tenour of the New Covenant viz. Because he requires confession as well as faith and when the New Covenant is described Jâ—r 31. and Heb. 8. it runs quite in another straine whereas if when the Apostle sayes If thou beleeve thou shalt be saved his meaning be this If thou be a person that doest or shalt beleeve thou art also a person that shalt be saved or in short if his meaning be only to describe the person that shall be saved what manner of man he is I suppose Mr. Eyre himself will grant that there is no straine in the New Covenant wheresoever described that will exclude the necessity of faith and confession if this be the whole use of them And therefore this may be the tenour of the New Covenant notwithstanding any thing that is in either or both those Reasons to the contrary My next Argument to prove that faith hath the same order to §. 15. Justification in the Covenant of grace which works had to Justification in the Covenant of works was this else Justification by works and Justification by faith are not opposed Mr. Eyre answers That faith is put objectively for the righteousnesse of Christ Rep. o Chap. â— sect 3. Which we have shewed before doth involve the Apostle in the guilt of such intolerable non-sense and self-contradiction that I shall need adde no more now If the Arguments there advanced do not firmly prove that faith is to be taken properly not objectively for Christ or his righteousnesse I am content to come to the penance of a publike recantation of all I have written SECT V. MY fifth and last Argument for the antecedency of faith to Justification §. 16. was aken from 1 Cor. 6. 11. Such were some of you but you are washed but you are sanctified but you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus c. where there is an evident opposition between the time past and present in respect of their Justification Mr. Eyre answers That the Apostle sayes In times past they were unsanctified He doth not say they were unjustified before Conversion Rep. The Apostle says neither the one nor the other in so many words but if that which he doth say will not infer that they were unjustified as well as unsanctified before the time he speaks of what can be thought of the Scriptures but that they are a sealed book which no man can open Compare the ninth verse with this Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God And such were some of you but ye are justified The Apostle in the same verse having mentioned fornicatours idolaters c. addes And such were sâ—me of you but you are sanctified I appeal to common sense whether the former word will not as forcibly infer that they were unjustiâ—â—ed in times past as these latter that they were unsanctiâ—ied in times past But the matter is too clear to be disputed that in their unconverted estate there was a barre against their entrance into the Kingdom of God which was now removed in their Justification Ergo They were before unjustified Hence 2. I argue thus He that in the condition he is in cannot enter into the Kingdome of God he in that condition is not justified These Corinthians in the condition they were in before their Conversion could not enter into the Kingdome of God Ergo These Corinthians in their unconverted condition were not justified The Assumption is the words of the text No unrighteous can inherit the Kingdome of God And such were some of you The Proposition stands upon this ground That he that is justified is an heire of the Kingdome and therefore it is so far from being impossible that being justified he should inherit the Kingdome as that he cannot be excluded from it without being disinherited Tit. 3. 7. That being justified by his grace we should be made heires according to the hope of eternal life Compare Gal. 3. 26 29. Rom. 8. 30. and 5. 17 18 21. Therefore Mr. Eyre tells us 2. That if any man will strain §. 17. this consequence from the words strain it then he will owne his former answer That they were not justified before conversion in foro conscientiae or in foro Ecclesiastico Rep. 1. Which he doth well to professe not to maintain but upon supposition of the foresaid inference for if Justification here be meant that which is in conscience or before the Church which last member of the distinction we heard not of till now surely Mr. Eyre's principles will not permit him to account it a straining if a man shall infer that these Corinthians were not justified in conscience before because the Apostle sayes Now you are justified 2. Mr. Eyre remembers me when he hath no reason in the earth for it as the Reader shall see when we come to the place that Analâ—gâ—m perse positum stat pro famosiori significate That which may be spoken analogically of many things is yet to be understood in its most native simple proper sense when it is put by its selfe Ergo when it is here said You are justified it is to be understood of Justification simply so called and not of Justification in conscience or before the Church 3. The Argument but now mentioned here returnes The Justification here spoken of is that which gives right to the Kingdome of God But Justification in consâ—ience or before the Church is not the Justification which gives right to the Kingdome of God Ergo neither of these is the Justiâ—â—cation here meant The Assumption is out of question the Propoâ—tion manifest Two things the Apostle affirmes of these 〈◊〉 in the time of their â—entilâ—sme and unbelief 1. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. â—â—at therefore they could not then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now that they were believers their condition is altered in both respects and in opposition to the former he tells them they were sanctified and in opposition to the latter they were justified 4. If when it is said You are justified it must be meant of Justification §. 18. manifested in conscience or in the Church when it is said You are sanctified why should not sanctification be understood of that which is declared or manifested In answer to this Mr. Eyre dilates upon the differences between Justification and Sanctification and concludes that when I say Nothing can be
alledged for Justification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly for sanctification before beleeving it hath nothing but my confidence to support it If I had said Nothing could be said against sanctification before beleeving which will not hold as strongly against Justification before believing there had been the more appearance of reason for this censure but as my words lay I appeal to himself for judgement for Justification before believing he layes these two foundations namely the eternal Will and Purpose of God to justifie and our Justification in the death of Christ And it cannot be denied but that the Scriptures speak every whit as much concerning the Will of God to sanctifie Eph. 1. 4. 2 Thes 2. 13. and of our Sanctification in the death of Christ Rom. 6. 6. Col. 3. 3. Wherefore seeing this is all that Mr. Eyre hath to say for Justification before faith I was no more confident then true in affirming that as much might be said for sanctification before faith As to the differences which here he puts between Justification and §. 19 Sanctification I own them as readily as any man except what shall be below excepted As 1. That the former is a work or act of God without us the other is the operation of God within us c. But he should have remembred that we are not now comparing the nature of the things but the likenesse of expressions Now suppose we should say as some whom p Epist dediâ— fol. 3. Mr. Eyre counts worthy of the honour of his patronage q Deâ—râ— and Eâ—ton c. quo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 Christ dyinâ— 99. That our mâ—rtification is nothing else but the apprehension of sin slain by the body of Christ or we mâ—rtifie our selves only declaratively in the sight of men If Mr. Eyre should urge the text under debate 1 Cor 6. 11. against this notion and should say the Apostle tells the Corinthians Such and suâ—h they were in times past but now they were sanctified Ergo They were not sanctified before Doth not the aâ—swerâ—ly as faire for the foresaid Authours That they were now sanctified in their own apprehension or declaratively in the sight of men as for Mr. Eyre himselfe who interprets Justification in such a sense And if it be law ful for him to fancy a distinction between the act and effects of Justification and obtrude it upon us without one syllable of Scripture to countenance it let others be allowed on their own heads to fancie some such like distinction of sanctification and it will be a thing not worthy the name of a work or labour to prove that men are sanctified as well as justified before they beleeve The second difference that Mr. Eyre puts between Justification and §. 20. Sanctification is this That the sentence of Justification is terminated in conscience but Sanctification is diffused throughout the whole man 1 Thes 5. 23. Rep. The intent and sense of this I own also But 1. I reject the terme of Justification terminated upon conscience Passio as well as actio est suppositi It is the man not his conscience which is justified Again the meaning of it is that a mans Justification is manifested or declared to him But this manifestation is either by immediate revelation and that is not to the conscience properly but to the understanding or by the assistance of the Spirit enabling the conscience to conclude a mans Justification and then it is the conscience that terminates not upon which Justification is terminated 2. Assurance by our Divines is wont to be made a part of sanctification and may very well be included in the sanctification of the Spirit 1 Thes 5. 23. as distinct from soule and body If then the Justification spoken of here and in other places of Scripture be our assurance that we are justified then the distinction here proposed between Justification and Sanctiâ—cation falls to the ground A second Argument which I mentioned to prove that Justification §. 21. here could not be meant of that which is in conscience is this The Justification which they now had was that which gave them right and title to the Kingdome of God which right and title they had not before for if they had this right before then whether they believed or no all was one as to the certainty of their salvation they might have gone to heaven though they had lived and died without faith Mr. Eyre answers 1. The elect Corinthians had no more right to salvation after their beleeving then they had before for their right to salvation was grounded only upon the Purpose of God and the Purchase of Christ 2. Yet it will not follow that they might have gone to heaven without faith seeing Christ hath purchased faith for his people no lesse then glory and God hath certainly appointed that all that live to yeares of discretion whom in his secret Justification he hath adjudged to life shall have this evidence of faith Rep. The former answer is such as I never read before in any writings of God or man viz. That some men that live in adulteries idolatries blasphemies murders and all manner of ungodlinesse yet have as much right to the Kingdome of Heaven as the most faithful humble mortified laborious Christian or Apostle that lives upon the earth the height of whose blessednesse it is that they have right to enter into the Kingdome of God Rev. 22. 14. If this blessednesse may be had in the service of sin and Satan in the fulfilling of the lusts of the flesh and of the minde in the unfruitful works of darknesse Let us eat and drink for to morrow shall be as to day and much better 2. None have right to heaven but under the notion of a reward wicked and â—ngodly men that live in contempt of God and all good have no right to heaven as a reward Ergo whiles such they have no right to it at all Shall I need to prove the Assumption If ungodly Atheistical wretches have right to heaven as their reward as the reward of what of the good service they do to the devil for grace they have none The Proposition is undoubted for heaven or the inheritance and the reward are Synonyma's in Scripture-language words of the same import and reciprocal Col. 2. 18. and 3. 24. Heb. 11. 26. 2 John 8. And therefore it is well observed by Dr. Twiss r De â—raedest Digr 3. c. 5. p. 34. f. Deum intendisse manifestationem c. God intended the manifestation of his mercy upon mankinde ex congruo juxta obsequium ejus qui salvandus est suum The sense of which he delivers s Against Mr. Cotton p. 41. elsewhere God will bestow salvation upon all his elect of ripe years by way of reward and crown of righteousnesse c. for which he quotes at large 2 Thes 1. 6 7 8 10. and then addes It is pity this is not considered as usually it is not
must come to passe or in reference to us and so that is necessary which is enjoyned us by precept as a means appointed and ordained of God for such or such an end The necessity of faith in the former sense will by no means inferre that it is a condition but in the latter sense it will and if God give a right to life and yet our believing remaine necessary as a means appointed for the obtaining of life then the right we had before was but conditional The necessity of faith compared with election is only a necessity of existence upon supposition of a powerful and immutable cause Obj. But I my self grant will it be said that faith is necessary as a means of obtaining life yet are we elected unto life so that hitherto the case is still the same Ans Therefore we distinguish farther Gods giving life may be considered either simply as it is Gods act and the execution of his eternal purpose or as withal it is our blessednesse reward In the former respect faith hath no other order to life then purely of an antecedent because he that purposed to give life purposed also to give faith before it but it is neither means nor condition nor cause of life no more then Tenderton steeple was the condition or cause or means of Godwin sands or an earthquake over night of the suns rising the next morning It is in reference to life only as by the promise it is made our reward that faith hath the nature and order of a means to it Now if faith according to the constant language of Scripture be necessary as a means to the obtaining of life as a reward then whatsoever justification adjudgeth us to life before faith must be conditional But upon supposition of election both unto faith and unto life if there were no other act of God which made faith necessary to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would be only necessary in regard of its presence or existence but not at all necessary as a means to be used by us in order to our receiving of righteousnesse and salvation and so election will neverthelesse be absolute And therefore the third answer which Mr. Eyre gives as most direct §. 27. to the Argument namely that justification is absolute though faith be necessary because faith is necessary only as a consequent is without strength For 1. If by consequent he mean that which is purely and only so sin and death will put in for as necessary an interest in justification as faith it self 2. If by consequence he mean an effect then is it againe supposed that faith is an effect of justification which should be proved and not unworthily begged I read in Scripture of beleeving unto righteousnesse of being justified unto beleeving I read not a word 3. Mr. Eyre himself when he would distinguish justification from election determined the former precisely to a non-punition If now it lay claime to faith too as it 's genuine proper effect his distinction evaporates into a nullity 4. Nor doth he ascribe any thing more to faith in the matter of justification then all our Divines with one consent ascribe to works namely a necessity of presence for the necessity of faith as a consequent is no more Which they indeed ascribe to works from certaine and plentiful evidence of Scripture he to faith without any evidence at all And so much for the defence of the Arguments which I advanced to prove that we are not justified till we beleeve CHAP. IX A Reply to Mr. Eyres thirteenth Chapter Containing a vindication of my answers given to those Scriptures which seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ without the intervention of faith SECT I. AGainst what we have hitherto been proving I know §. 1. nothing that with any appearance of truth can be objected from the Scriptures more then a Text or two that seeme to hold forth an immediate actual reconciliation of sinners unto God upon the death of Christ which if it be so then their justification is not suspended upon believing and some other way must be found out of reconciling the Scriptures to themselves But the Arguments drawne from those places which seeme to favour it most are so inconsequent and contrary testimonies so many and irrefragable that I am very little solicitous about the issue Both these things we shall shew in order and first we examine those places which Mr. Eyre produceth for the affirmative Matth. 3. 17. marcheth in the front This is my beloved sonne §. 2. in whom I am well pleased that is saith Mr. Eyre with sinners The inference should be Ergo God was well pleased with sinners that is reconciled to them immediately in the death of Christ To this in my sermon I gave a double answer 1. That the well-pleasednesse of God need not be extended beyond the person of Christ who gave himself unto the death an offering and a sacrifice unto God of a sweet smelling savour Eph. 5. 2. Mr. Eyre in his reply to this produceth many testimonies of Musculus Calvin Beza Paraeus Ward Ferus and some reasons to prove that which never came into my minde to deny namely that God is in Christ well pleased with sinners To all which I shall need return no other answer then an explication of that which is given already The words therefore may be understood either 1. As a testimony of God concerning his acceptance of and well-pleasednesse in Christ as a sacrifice most perfect and sufficient for obtaining of those ends and producing those effects for which it was offered Eph. 5. 2. And thus is God well pleased with Christ only and above all other men or Angels or 2. As they do also note the effect as then existing namely Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners for Christs sake Now was it such a prodigious crime in me to say the words may be taken only in the former sense and so confined to the person of Christ that I must be printed as a man that thinks my self worth a thousand such as Colvin Beza Paraeus c Whose judgements I had not then consulted nor do now finde any thing which I consent not to except one passage in Beza When 1. Mr. Eyres exposition cannot consist without an addition to the Text. And whereas the Text is This is my beloved Sonne in whom I am well pleased he must adde in whom I am well pleased with sinners 2. And that such an addition as neither the Greeke of the LXX interpreters nor of the New Testament is acquainted with namely that the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should governe two dative cases one of the cause and the other of the object Adde the word sinners and the Greek runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let Mr. Eyre match this construction if he can 3. And if he give the right sense of the words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom is
in Psal 19 4. Poni 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Grammar Indefinita sunt tempora incertae significationis sumuntur enim pro praeteritis interdum pro praes Futur The same doth Eustathius observe on that of b Iliad a. ciâ—ca princip Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as some latter copies read it Examples are frequent in Scripture Joh. 15. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 23. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 6. 5 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and many other places Examples of the present tense put in the signification of the future I alledged these Joh. 4 25. The Messiah cometh that is will shortly come Mr. Eyre will have this sense of it The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled Rep. But we are not now enquiring into the theological truth but grammatical construction of the words If Schoole-boyes should construe the words as Mr. Eyre doth english them I beleeve their Master would con them thanks Another place was Joh. 5. 25. The houre is coming and now is M. Eyre answers The dead then did heare the voice of the Sonne of God Answ Whatsoever be the meaning of the words the same houre could not be that is now exist and yet be coming too Another place was Joh. 14. 3. If I go I come againe This I think Mr. Eyre grants to be for my turne for he excepts nothing against it and one place is as good as a hundred and if it were worth while I would also vindicate the next place which is 2 Cor. 3. 16. In the mean time the judgement of our translatours is sufficient to oppose to Mr. Eyres Who if they had not thought verbes of the present tense might have the signification of the future would not so have rendred them Examples of verbes of the present tense as notes of affirmation §. 7. without reference to any determinate time were these Rom. 8. 24. By hope we are saved that is it is in the way of hope and patient expectation that men are saved whensoever it be that they are saved Mr. Eyre answers They are saved by hope that is they have now the joy and comfort of their salvation through faith and hope They are now saved by hope or they shall never be saved by hope in the world to come they are saved by sight not by faith or hope Rep. 1. But the Apostle supposeth the salvation he speaks of to be absent not present because we hope for it 2. We have observed before that joy and comfort are sometimes expressed by the name of life never by the name of salvation in the New-Testament 3. To be saved by sight â— little better then non-sense what Divine can be found that ever penned such uncouth language sight is it self our positive salvation And we are saved in the world to come by that hope which we exercise in this present life forasmuch as salvation is the end of our hope and faith 1 Pet. 1. 9. I must confesse I am so well acquainted with the abilities of the Author whom I oppose that I know not almost what interpretation to put upon these his strange kinde of disputings Another Text is 1 Cor. 15. 57. Thankes be unto God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ The meaning is it is through God that we have the victory over death be it when it will be that we have it Mr. Eyre will have it read thâ—nks be unto God who giveth us or hath given us the victory for saith he the Saints have already obtained victory over death and the grave in Christ their head Rep. But the Apostle speaketh manifestly of the victory which God giveth them in their own Persons the time of which he doth also describe in general a little before v. 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality then shall be brought to passe the saying that is written death is swallowed up in victory This therefore is the victory which God giveth So Heb. 10. 35. Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward That is saith Mr Eyre in the present effects which it did produce as inward peace joy c. Rep. And yet in the very verse foregoing v. 34. it is called that better and enduring substance in heaven and in the following verse v. 36. The promise which is obtained after that with patience we have done the will of God and v. 39. The saving of the soul The last place I mentioned was Jam. 1. 17. Every good gift cometh down from above Not as if it must needs be coming down when the Apostle spake those words but that whensoever any one receives a good gift it is from God Against this Mr. Eyre excepts nothing If then in these and many other places and that by Mr. Eyres own confession for he acknowledgeth an heterosis of tenses to be a trope very frequent in Scripture verbes of the present tense have sometimes the signification of verbes future sometimes are only notes of affirmation without respect to any definite time Why doth Mr. Eyre make such outcries against me to so little purpose for interpreting the present words In whom I am well-pleased according to the Analogy of other places Why saith he I should have shewn that it must be so expounded here §. 8. Rep. Nay but by his leave I have performed my undertaking in shewing that they yeeld him no proofe of what he sought in them Besides my judgement of the words is that they ought to be confined to the person of Christ and that I thought and yet think sufficiently proved because they mention no other persons and they are a compleat sentence without the addition What I speak of this second answer is upon allowance to Mr. Eyre of the selvidge he would sow upon them to shew that notwithstanding that addition yet the words do not come up to his purpose SECT III. NEverthelesse I did also farther shew that his interpretation §. 9. could not be right because the Text would then contradict plaine testimony of Scripture particularly that in Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God or to be pleasing unto God Mr. Eyre answers The Apostle speaks there of mens works and actions not of their persons Rep. 1. But the Greek b See 2 Cor. 5. 9. Rom 12 1. 14. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it denotes Gods well-pleasednesse with a person is never used but to signifie Gods complacency in or approbation of a person because of his qualities or actions or both So doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also when it notes not the decree or purpose of the will as sometimes it doth but the affection as when it is said in chapter 10. 38. If any man draw back namely by unbelief Heb. 3. 12. my soule shall have no pleasure in him Where Gods displeasure is with the person but
grounded in his displeasing quality viz. Of unbelief and on the contrary Enoch is here said by faith to please or to be pleasing unto God v. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Seeing then the word imports such a delight in or approbation of a person as supposeth him endued with lovely and amiable qualities and nothing in man is lovely in Gods eyes without faith for God delights not in his physical substance or natural perfections of any sort Psal 147. 10. it follows that when we are said by faith to please God or to be pleasing to him or that it is impossible to please him without faith it must be understood of the pleasingnesse of the person as well as of the action Indeed there is in God a love of benevolence towards the elect even while they are most displeasing to him but a love of complacency or approbation he hath not towards them till they beleeve They that are in the flesh cannot please God Rom. 8. 8. 2. Nor can I imagin how God can be perfectly well-pleased with men and yet perpetually displeased with every thing they do which yet he must be supposed to be if faith do only commend our actions not our persons unto God Amongst men it is unconceivable how a total displeasure with another mans actions can consist with well-pleasednesse with the person That which commends the work doth also commend the worker and if the work be unacceptable the worker also is so far unacceptable if all his works be unacceptable himself also is wholly unacceptable 3. I aske whether faith it self be pleasing unto God principally out of doubt Joh 6. 29. Then when we are said by faith to please God it is a great deal too slender to interpret it of pleasing him in obedience onely 4. And though it be most true that our obedience is not acceptable to God without faith yet cannot Mr. Eyre owne it if he will be true to his doctrine that sins are pardoned before the sinner hath a being for that obedience wherein God seeth no sin is acceptable to him The obedience of the elect is such wherein God seeth no sin I speak of those works which they may performe before they beleeve as prayer hearing of the word c. Ergo it is acceptable to God The assumption is manifest for not to see sin and to pardon it are all one and God hath from eternity pardoned the sins of the elect as saith Mr. Eyre In the following part of this answer he gives us a reason why our §. 10. works without faith cannot please God for saith he bonum est ex causá integrá Now what is not done in faith is not done in love Gal. 5. 6. and consequently is not fruit unto God Rep. Against which I have no great matter to except onely 1 I wonder he should not account the Apostles reason worth taking notice of who when he had said without faith it is impossible to please God presently gives this reason for he that cometh unto God must beleeve that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him 2. Whatsoever effect there be in the obedience of the elect unregenerate yet are their works never a whit the more unacceptable for it upon any other account then because that defect is sinful and the sinfulnesse being supposed to be pardoned and that from eternity it cannot make the work unacceptable pardoned sin and no sin are much of the same strength as to any harme it can do us 3. If works cannot please God while there is something wanting which should make them entirely good how comes it to passe that the person should be so hugely well-pleasing while there is nothing in him but evil mens persons are under Law as well as their actions Ars est in fabrica rei c See John Yates Mod. of Divin pag. 8. Ex viro verè magno Aâ—exand Richardsono Divinity was at first impressed in the very frame and constitution of mans nature If an action materially good be yet displeasing because of its deformity to rule in respect of manner surely the person cannot be well-pleasing while he is every whit as much out of frame and fallen all in pieces as I may so speak and not so much as begun to be repaired againe by a spirit of renovation In the next place Mr. Eyre offers us two Arguments to prove §. 11. that Gods well-pleasednesse with the elect is the immediate effect of the death of Christ If he mean immediate in respect of time and exclusively of every qualification in us without which God will not be well-pleased with us let us see his Arguments The former is from reason the latter from testimony of Scripture First saith he That which raised a partition-wall between God and the elect was the breach of the Law Now when the Law was satisfied for their sins this partition was broken down his favour had as free a current as if they had not sinned Answ The Argument supposeth that the satisfaction of Christ was no more and needed to be no more then a removens prohibens of our good which Mr. Eyre chargeth upon Mr. Baxter though most unjustly as a very heinous errour and exagitates it with aâ—rimony sufficient Therefore I shall not need to confute it yet one thing I shall offer to the Readers consideration If the reason of Gods well-pleasednesse with sinners be this onely that Christ hath removed that which separated between God and them then the elect are upon the same terms with God as Adam was and all mankind in him before the fall and Christ by his death hath not made a new Covenant but established the old But this is most notoriously false Ergo. The reason of the consequence is plaine for what follows immediately upon the removal of a hindrance had all its causes in being before as if my house be lightsome immediately upon letting down of â—he shuts of the windows it supposeth the sun to be up Now the only means and instrument of the communication of life before the death of Christ was the Covenant of works made with Adam and all mankind in him Ergo if Gods well-pleasednesse follow immediately upon the death of Christ as that which hath removed the hindrance it follows by virtue of that Covenant or by none at all 2. But if the well-pleasednesse of God do not follow necessarily and immediately upon the death of Christ Mr. Eyre himself will acknowledge his Argument to be null My answer therefore is That the death of Christ did indeed immediately undermine and weaken the wall of partition so as that it could not long stand but it did not totally demolish and throw it down presently because it was not so agreed upon between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking for our redemption which because I am purposely to prove by and by I shall desire the reader to have a little patience till he come to
to our Justification before God the contrary to which he had spoke but just before upon v. 5. Obj. Nulláne igitur utilitas erit circumcisionis Respondet in Christo nihil valere ideoque justitiam in fide sitam esse c. Perkins his words are these in answer to the objection of the Papists from those words Faith worketh by love Paul saith he doth not shew in this verse what justifieth but what are the exercises of godlinesse in which Christians must be occupied And he doth not shew how faith justifieth but how it may be discerned to be true faith namely by love But neither doth this intend any thing more then to shew the reason why Paul describes justifying faith as working by love viz. not that it justifieth as working by love though it be the property of that faith by which we are justified to work by love But he was far from thinking that faith was no whit available to our Justification before God It is his own observation upon this very verse not far before The second Conclusion Faith is of great use and acceptation in the Kingdome of Christ By it first our persons and then our actions please God and without it nothing pleaseth God And immediately after these words which Mr. Eyre refers to disputes for Justification by faith without works against the Papists The last place I mentioned was 1 John 5. 11. He that hath §. 40. the Sonne hath life he that hath not the Sonne hath not life Mr. Eyre answers He doth not say that all who have not faith except final vnbelievers have not the Sonne or any beneâ—t by him Rep. This upon the matter is to deny that the testimony is true 1. Life doth here signifie all that blessednesse which God hath given us in Jesus Christ ver 11. Ergo he that hath not the Son hath no benefit by him But he that believeth not hath not the Sonne for to have the Sonne is to believe on him Ergo he that believeth not hath not the Sonne nor any benefit by him That we have the Sonne by believing on him is manifest 1. From the Apostles own interpretation for having spoke in general He that hath the Son hath life he applies it particularly to those to whom he writes v. 13. And these things have I written unto you that believe on the Name of the Sonne of God that you may know that you have eternal life 2. From the perpetual sense of the phrase throughout all these Epistles as chap. 2. 23. Whosoever denieth the Sonne the same hath not the Father but he that acknowledgeth the Sonne hath the Father also suitable to what this John records in his Gospel chap. 12. 44 45. He that beleeveth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me And more expressely in his Epistle 2 ep v. 9. Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HATH NOT GOD But he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ HE HATH both the Father and the Sonne Compare 1 ep 2. 24. 2. If we are said in Scripture any where to have the Son in any other sense then by believing or as excluding believing why have we no intelligence of it Mr. Eyre might very well think we should interpret his silence partly in that he declares not how we may be said to have Christ any otherwise then by faith partly in not attempting to justifie it from the phrase of Scripture as an argument that himself is conscious that the doctrine which he here suggests hath no footing in the Scriptures Briefly the Apostle speaks without distinction or limitation He that hath the Sonne hath life even that eternal life whereof he spake in the verse immediately foregoing If the Son may be had without believing then eternal life may be had without believing also wherefore we winde up the Argument If it were the Will of God that none should have the life which is in his Sonne till by believing he had the Sonne then was it his Will that none should be justified by the death of Christ till they did beleeve The reason is because the life of pardon or Justification is an eminent part of that life which God hath given us in his Sonne and virtually includes all that life we have by Christ But the antecedent is proved true from the text Ergo the consequent is true To these texts mentioned in my Sermon and now vindicated let §. 41. me adde one or two more If God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood then was it not the Will of God that any man should have actual remission or Justification by the blood of Christ till he did beleeve But God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood Ergo. The Assumption is the Apostles own words Rom. 3. 25. The reason of the Proposition is plain because if any man be pardoned and justified immediately in the death of Christ then is not Christ a propitiation z Inseriâ— fidem ut doceat fidem esse conditionem sub quà Christus nobis datus est propitiatorium Dav. Paraeus in loc through faith but without it Not that our faith contributes any degree of worth or sufficiency to the blood of Christ by which it may be made in its kinde a more perfect cause of our remission but because God hath so constituted that our remission shall not follow and so our sins not be propitiated quoad â—ffectum in the blood of Christ till we beleeve Again the Compact and Agreement between the Father and the Sonne in his undertaking the work of Redemption is set down at large Isa 53. throughout particularly ver 10. 11 12. where also the Justification of those for whom he died is mentioned as the fruit and effect of Christs offering himselfe for them and bearing their iniquities but not before their faith but through it ver 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many that is by the knowledge of him where knowledge as elsewhere in Scripture often signifies faith And what shall I say more we have proved from multitudes of Scriptures that God requires commands and exhorts all men to beleeve that they may be justified by the blood of Christ And what stronger evidence can we need then this that it was not the Will of God that men should be justified by that blood before they did beleeve even as under the Law there was no propitiation by sacrifice typical but supposed on the offendors part the concurrence of some act as a Lev. 5. 5. câ—nfession b Chap. 23. â—9 30. humiliation c â—b 1. 4 3 2 â—assim laying his hand on the head of the sacrifice d Lâ—v. â— 16. â—ide Joma Peâ—râ—k 8 8 â— or the like signifying that faith by which sinners should be justified when Christ the true sacrifice should
his dealing with other Infants who are the children of his servants and of such as believe on him after the example of Abraham Their father Abrahams faith was the condition of their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt Deut. 10. 15. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them and he chose their seed after them And because he would keep the oath which he had sworne unto your fathers hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen chap. 7 8. Neverthelesse after they had been farther instructed in and known the Will of God he required of them that they should feare him and walk in all his wayes and love him and serve him with all their heart and soule Deut 10. 12 16. Otherwise they were liable to a returne to the same or a worse bondage then that out of which they had been redeemed chap. 28. 65 68. And it is also observable that the Infants in Israel continued their right to the promised land while their Parents were cut off for rebellion Numb 14 30 31. As to the second exception That we may as well assert works §. 19. of supererogation as that one is justified by anothers faith I had thought Mr. Eyre had better understood what works of supererogation are then to trouble us with such an impertinency But to the two texts of Scripture in the margine to which he refers us Ezek. 18. 20. and Hab. 2. 4. to prove that a mans faith or righteousnesse is available only to his own salvation they are both to be understood pro subject â materiâ He that is furnished with meanes and abilities for the exercise of a faith of his owne or for performing works of righteousnesse cannot expect salvation by the faith or righteousnesse of his Parents while himself lives in unbelief and unrighteousnesse The eighth Argument is the old postulatum that faith cannot be §. 20. the condition of our reconciliation but it will then needs share with Christ in the glory of this effect which we have shewed already at large to be contrary to the judgment of Scriptures Reason Lawyers Divines I may adde of all sorts of persons All men will acknowledge that the freest Promise imaginable becomes not obligatory but upon supposition of acceptance by him to whom the Promise is made e Vide D Marta Neapol Digest Noviss Tom 3. Tit. Donatarius and the freest donation becomes invalid if he to whom it is given will have none of it And faith being no more then an acceptance of Christ John 1. 12. Rev. 22. 17. one would think it might be made the condition of the gift of righteousnesse and life without danger of sharing in the glory of Christ More of the unreasonablenesse of Mr. Eyres crude assertion though it be more then needs and more then once I intended the Reader shall finde below in answer to Mr. Eyres nineteenth chapter Enter the ninth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 21. his people should have strong consolation and that their joy should be full then it was his Will that their peace and reconciliation should not depend upon conditions performed by themselves for it is impossible that any soul should enjoy a firme and setled peace whose confidence towards God is grounded upon conditional Promises and says the Apostle our salvation is by grace to the end that the Promise may be sure to all the seed Rom. 4. 16. Answ We expect other manner of proof of the consequence then what is here presented us It is most true that Gods Will is that his people should have strong consolation not without faith but through faith as is most expresse in that very place which Mr. Eyre quotes Heb. 6. 18. That we might have a strong consâ—lation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us Also the Apostle John 1 Ep. 1. 4. gives the reason of his writing the doctrine of the Gospel namely that through the faith thereof our joy may be full But it is the wildest reasoning that ever I met with to inferre that if the gift of peace and reconciliation be suspended upon believing then he that believes cannot have strong consolation just as if I should inferre because the Lord sayes John 16. 24. Ask and ye shall receive that your joy may be full Ergo He that asketh can never attain to fulnesse of joy The strength of our joy and consolation depends upon the immutability and faithfulnesse of the Promise which we beleeve and by how much the more stedfastly we beleeve by so much the more do we partake in the comfort of the Promise But that is above all that Mr. Eyre should quote Rom. 4. 16. to prove that if our salvation depended never so little upon our works we could not be sure thereof Amongst which works he includes faith absurdly enough but suitable to his dealing with the Authours whom he quotes here and elsewhere applying to faith what they speak against works when the very words of the text are expresly and purposely against the inference which he makes from them Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the Promise might be sure to all the seed Since man was borne upon the earth was it ever thought possible that these words should yield this inference Ergo if salvation depend on faith we can never be sure of it Though neither doth the text speak of the certainty of the subject or of our being sure of salvation but of the certainty of the object or of salvation's being sure to us Let us hear the tenth Argument If it were the Will of God that §. 22. the death of Christ should be available for the reconciliation of the elect whiles they live in this world then it was his Will that it should procure for them immediate and actual reconciliation without the intervention of those conditions supposed to be required of them The reason is because they cannot perform all the conditions required of them till their last breath this being one that they must persevere to the end Answ This Argument with many of the rest if it prove that sinners are reconciled without any condition performed on their part yet it doth not prove what it should do that they are reconciled immediately in the death of Christ or before they beleeve If we contended for no more then that faith were antecedent to Justification not the condition thereof this Argument would not hurt us and therefore is not like to be very serviceable to Mr. Eyre 2. Nor doth it so much as pretend to disprove Justification upon any condition as suppose upon the first act of faith and therefore is yet farther impertinent 3. But that which it would disprove if it had strength enough is the conditionality of final perseverance unto Justification But neither do we make final perseverance the condition
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
Covenant I mean any saving benefit before faith Therefore Mr. Eyre answers secondly That though the Spirit be not given us one atome of time before faith yet it is enough §. 3. that it hath a precedency in order of nature though not of time and that faith is not before the Spirit Rep. Neither for if the Spirit be not said to be given to us but in reference to his working of faith in us then faith is wrought in nature before the Spirit can be said to be given to us as if the Sunne be said to dwell or be in my house because it enlightens my house then in order of nature my house is first enlightened before the Sun can be said to be or dwell in it There is but one thing more in this Chapter that needs answer and that is this I had said the Spirit is not given us but in reference to some peculiar operation of his working faith in us and added for illustration that as a man doth first build himself an house and then dwell in it so Christ by his Spirit doth build organize and prepare the soul to be a house unto himself and then dwells in it Mr. Eyre answers But is not that organizing preparing act of the Spirit one benefit of the Covenant and is not the Spirit in that act the cause of faith Rep. If these interrogations have the force of an affirmation Mr. Eyre should have proved them and not barely asserted them I have answered sufficiently already There is no peculiar work of grace before faith it self which may not be wrought in a hypocrite who hath not the Spirit as well as in a childe of God Ergo there can be no work of the Spirit before faith it self in reference unto which the Spirit can be said to be given to us Preparative works do not difference a beleever from an hypocrite and therefore in themselves are no fruit or benefit of the Covenant So much â—o thâ— sixteenth Chapter CHAP. XIII A Reply to Mr. Eyres Seventeenth Chapter Concerning the Covenant wherein faith is promised and by vertue whereof it is given to us SECT I. HAving thus shewed that we receive not the Spirit before we beleeve §. 1. it remains that we enquire whether faith it self be not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us for if we are in Covenant with God before faith be given us it is every whit as much to Mr. Eyres purpose to shew that we are in Covenant before we beleeve as if he had proved that the Spirit is given us before we beleeve For answer therefore to the question understand Reader that it may have a double sense 1. Whether the Covenant of grace that is the Gospel have any efficiency in converting the * â—id Dr. Ed. Reynold Sinful of siâ— page 337 Mr. bâ—lk 〈…〉 oâ— the Covenâ—â—â— pâ—â—t 4. page 318. soul and working it to beleeve and in this sense I readily grant that faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant Or 2. Whether God have engaged himself by Covenant to any sinner in the world to give him faith so that if God should not give him faith he were unfaithful and a breaker of his own Covenant In this sense is the question to be understood and my answer to it was a Faith is not given to us by vertue of the Covenant made with us but by vertue of the Covenant made with Christ God hath promised Christ that sinners shall beleeve on him Isa 53. 10. and 55. 4 5. Psal 2. 8. and 110. 3. Matth. 12. 21. Psal 89. 25 26. c. Hereupon Mr. Eyre disputes largely that faith is given to the Elect by vertue of the Covenant made with them the sense of which we have already explained that the Elect are supposed to be in Covenant with God before they beleeve and so God obliged to them by Covenant to give them faith I deny it See we what Mr. Eyre brings for proof of it First a similitude at the end of his first section If one promise §. 2. another that in case he shall bear so many stripes or perform any other condition he will then take care of and provide for his children doth not this promise made with the father most properly belong to his children The case is the same between Christ and us He performed the condition and we receive the benefits of the New Covenant Answ Whether the case be the same between Christ and us is the proper debate of the next Argument in the mean time this comparison is not to our case because the Promâ—se made to Christ that Jews and Gentiles shal come into him by faith is a promise that he shall have children spiritual that he shall have a numerous seed even like the stars of heaven for multitude But as the promise made to Abraham concerning the multitudes of children which he should have was no promise to them that they should becom children which were promise to nothing that it should become something so the promise to Christ that many Nations shall come unto him and becom children to him in a spiritual sense is no promise to them nor have they thereby any right given them to be made believers but unto him and in gratiam sui for his own honour and glory Much lesse doth such a promise hinder that that faith by which they become children unto Christ may not be enjoyned them as the condition upon which they are to partake in Christ and blessednesse by him The serond and great Argument is this If there be but one Covenant §. 3. of grace which is made both with Christ and us then faith is given us by vertue of the Covenant made with us But there is but one Covenant of grace made both with Christ and us Ergo Hence a little before I am bid to shew that there are two distinct Covenants of grace one made with Christ and the other with us or that there is any other Covenant made with the Elect then that which is made with Christ c. Answ Before we can give a distinct answer to this we must first enquire how we may conceive of the forme and tenour of the Covenant of grace The tenour of the Covenant of works is plain and intelligible Do this and live But it seems there is no Covenant of grace made with men at all though some men are the intended objects of the blessings therein contained but only with Christ with whom we are to conceive the father striking a Covenant to this sense If thou wilt make or do thou make satisfaction for the sins of the Elect and I will give them grace and glory where the condition is Christs death or rather his satisfaction for his death if it had not been satisfactory had availed nothing and the promise is that the Elect shall have grace and glory This being explained I do utterly deny that there is but one Covenant of
grace made both with Christ and us which is Mr. Eyres Assumption And 1. I desire Mr. Eyre to reflect a little upon his own principles §. 4. and tell me whether pardon of sin be a blessing which God promiseth in his Covenant to give or the condition which Christ was to perform The former out of question if Scripture may be Judge Heb. 10. 16 17. But whether Mr. Eyre will allow it or how he can allow it I cannot tell We have seen him before very peremptory in these two assertions 1. That the imputation of our sins to Christ is formally the non-imputation of them unto us 2. That Christs satisfaction was formally the payment of our debt and so must needs discharge us ipso facto because the discharge of the debt is formally the discharge of the debtour How these principles clash one with another we have shewed already for Gods act in punishing of Christ is in nature before his bearing it or satisfying by bearing it as action is in nature before passion If then Gods act in imputing our sins to Christ that is punishing them in him be formally the non-imputing that is the pardoning them to us then the death of Christ as it was the payment of our debt is not the thing that dischargeth us and if this then not that But my business now is to infer if Christs death be the payment of our debt and so our formal discharge then our discharge from sin is the condition of the Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath modelled it not a promise upon the performance of the condition The reason is plain because Christs satisfaction which is the payment of our debt and formally the discharge of the debtour is the condition of the Covenant of grace according to Mr. Eyre But that cannot be the forme or tenour of the Covenant of grace which excludes the pardon of sin from being promised therein Ergo that is not the forme which Mr. Eyre presents us with 2. If the words aforesaid contain the substance and tenour of the Covenant of grace then the said Covenant doth not only not require and command faith and repentance as necessary meanes which we are bound to for obtaining the promise of life and salvation But whosoever shall preach such a necessity of faith and repentance doth in so doing contradict the tenour of the Covenant of grace The reason of the consequence is plain because to the obtaining of a Promise made upon condition nothing more is required then the performance of the condition If then Christ hath fulfilled the condition of the Covenant of grace nothing more can be enjoyned and required of us to the obtaining of any blessing of the Covenant and whosoever shall yet preach a necessity of faith and repentance as acts which we are bound to put forth that we may be saved destroys the Covenant of grace But both these are desperate consequences which we shew thus The Gospel and the Covenant of grace are both one Gal. 3. 8. compared with v. 15 16. 2 Cor. 3. 6. with chap. 4. 3 4. and Eph. 3. 6 7. and Col. 1. 23 But the Gospel obligeth all men to believe and repent the elect as well as others that they may be saved and thus did the Apostles the special Ministers of the New Covenant preach wheresoever they came Mark 16. 15 16. Luke 24. 47. Mark 1. 14 15. Acts 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 20. 21. and 26. 20. Rom. 10. 6 8 9. Col. 1. 23 28. c. Ergo the Covenant of grace requires faith and repentance as necessary in point of duty that we may be saved or else the Apostle's Ministry had destroyed the Covenant Hence thirdly it will be impossible for any man to sin against the §. 5. Gospel or Covenant of grace as Mr. Eyre hath framed it for none can sin against the Covenant but he that is a Covenanter either de jure or de facto I mean either such a one as actually is in Covenant or else is bound to enter into Covenant Now upon supposition that none are Covenanters but God and Christ there can be no breach of the Covenant but on one of their parts And consequently neither will it be any grace in God to preserve the Elect from a final breaking of Covenant such being the constitution thereof that it is impossible ex natura rei that it should be broken but by God or Christ nor can any by unbelief or Apostasie violate the covenant seeing it hath no preceptive part which is surely contrary to Scripture Heb. 10. 29. He hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing Hence 4ly No man becomes worthy of punishment for breaking the covenant of grace through unbelief or Apostasy as the Apostle in the same place saith they do and that most justly and I shall farther shew when I come to it Nor 5ly Is salvation and eternal life given as a reward to them that keep the covenant of their God which is contrary to innumerable Scriptures the reason is because the covenant promiseth a reward to none but unto them that fulfill the conditions of it If Christ onely fulfill the condition then our grace and glory may be his reward but glory is not the reward of our faith or obedience Mr. Eyre will say yes because glory follows our faith and obedience But though I readily acknowledge that glory is called our reward onely metaphorically and one reason of the similitude is that which Mr. Eyre mentions because glory follows our faith and obedience as wages follows the work yet is not that the onely or of it self a sufficient reason as we have shewed before nor are the Scriptures or our Divines wont to rest in it The Scriptures tell us that God will reward every man according to his works See Rom. 2. 6 7 8. 2 Cor. 5. 10. Gal. 6. 7. Rev. 22. 12. c. I acknowledge the sense in which our Divines understand the words viz. that the phrase according to his works doth not signifie the proportion of desert but the suitablenesse and agreeablenesse between works and the reward which God gives if the works be good the reward shall be good if evill the reward shall be evill also But this is as much as I need to shew that eternall life is not called a reward meerely because it follows faith and obedience For if so then a beleever quatenus a beleever or a godly man quatenus a godly man is no nearer the reward then if he had neither faith nor godlinesse upon any other score but this that these by Gods appointment are to go before the reward And if God had appointed that all that shall be saved should live to 20 or 30 years of age their arrivall at such an age had been every whit as conducible to their reward as now their faith and godlinesse is supposed to be Againe Our Divines account it no ascribing to the desert of
See Downâ— oâ— Justâ—â— l. 8. cap. 5. sect 1â— works that God should reward them that have the greatest degrees of grace with the greater degrees of glory If this be so then glory is not called a reward meerly because it follows faith and Godlinesse for that it would do whether those graces were more or lesse But wherein then will it be said stands the difference between a reward of debt and of grace between a reward properly so called and a reward so called metaphorically Surely amongst other differences this is one that God dignatione suâ of his own grace and vouchsafeing is pleased to accept of our faith and imperfect obedience so as to reward them with eternall life not onely above but without all dignity and desert in them Whereas a reward properly so called hath always respect to some work as its meritorious cause from which also it hath its measure and proportion And whereas Mr. Eyre expects that I should have shewed that §. 6. there was one covenant of grace made with Christ and another with us it were strange if it should pertaine to me to prove any such thing I thought it had layn upon Mr. Eyre not onely to say but to prove that the covenant of grace was made with Christ It was alwayes very farre from my thoughts that the covenant made with Christ was the same with that which is made with sinners my reason is this Those covenants which agree not neither in the persons covenanting nor in their preceptive part nor in their promissory part are not the same The covenants with Christ and us disagree in all these Ergo they are not the same The assumption we prove by part 1. They agree not in the persons covenanting In the former the covenanters are God and Christ in the latter God and men One of these two things I guesse Mr. Eyre will say either 1. That though the whole covenant be not made with us because it is Christ and not we which performed the condition of it yet the promissary part of it pertaines wholly to us because it is our blessednesse which is promised therein Answ That is men are not the subjects or persons that joyne themselves in covenant with the Lord as the Scriptures speak Jer. 50. 5. but onely the objects concerning whom God hath spoken that he will do them good even as brute or inanimate creatures may metaphorically be said to be in covenant with God when he promiseth any blessing upon them for his servants sake as Hos 2. v. 18. God promiseth to make a Covenant for his people with the beasts of the field that they shall do them no hurt and with the heavens and the earth that they shall concurre to yeild them blessings v. 21 22. Or rather when God promiseth that the heavens and earth shall receive some farther persection then they now have for his childrens sake Rom 8. 21. In this case these creatures may but improperly be said to be in covenant with God and but more improperly that God hath made a covenant with them and the Scripture somewhere speaketh in a language very neere it But God governs men in a way suitable to their natures drawing them with the cords of men blessing them not as he blesseth the earth and other inanimate or bruite creatures but bestowing blessednesse on them as the reward of some former act or actions of theirs and so they are not onely the objects for whom God covenanteth but the subjects with whom Now if the constitution of the Covenant of grace be such that men are taken into it mediante actione voluntarià not without some voluntary act of their own intervening then Gods declaring concerning them that he will blesse them is not a sufficient ground upon which he can be said to have made the covenant of grace with them But such is the constitution of the covenant of grace that men are taken into it not without some voluntary act of their own intervening Ergo the assumption is plaine from the words of Moses Deut. 29. 12 13. That thou shouldest enter or passe into covenant with the Lord thy God that he may be unto thee a God as he hath sworne unto thy fathers to Abraham to Isaack and to Jacob which to be the substance of the covenant of grace excepting the additions and explications peculiar to the times of the gospel appeares 1. In that it is for substance the same which was made with their fathers Abraham Isaack and Jacob which not onely the Scriptures witnesse but Mr. Eyre grants to be for substance the covenant of grace The promise to the fathers that they should have a seed was peculiar to themselves but the other blessings promised pertained to the seed as well as to the fathers onely the Lord requires of them to enter into and keep his covenant as their fathers did that they might inherit the blessing of their fathers 2. Because the covenant here mentioned is expressely distinguished from the covenant of the law made with them in Horeb v. 1. The words of the covenant made with Israel in the land of Moab beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. 3. Because the Apostle calls this very covenant excepting as above excepted the additions of grace and explications of promises proper to the times of the Messiah the righteousnesse which is of faith and the word of faith which he and other Apostles preached compare chap. 30. v. 11 12 13 14. with Rom. 10. 6 7 8 9 Or else he may say that we also performed the condition in Christ But this I think he will not say because he so distributes the covenant of grace into parts as to ascribe to Christ the performance of the condition to us the receiving of the benefit Secondly the covenant made with Christ and that with us agree §. 7. not in their preceptive part Of him it was required that he should make his soul an offering for sin and give his life a ransome for many Isa 53. 10. Heb. 10. 5. 7. Of us there is no such thing required but onely that we beleeve as Abraham did so shall we pertake in the blessings of his covenant Rom. 4. 23 24. Gal. 3. 6 7 9 16 22. Heb. 6. 12 13 14 15. 3. The promises made to Christ in the covenant of redemption are of a higher nature then those made to us in the covenant of reconciliation to wit a name above every name whether in heaven or earth the inheritance of all nations dominion from sea to sea See Philip. 2. 9. Heb. 1. 4. and 2. 9. and the other places mentioned § 1. The most which is promised to us is a conformity in our measure unto him in glory SECT 2. Mr. Eyres second Argument proceeds thus If Christ merited §. 8. nothing for himself but onely for the elect then all the promises made to him do belong to them But the first is true Ergo. Answ I deny
the consequence because though Christ merited nothing for himself it being unworthy to rank him amongst such mercinary servants to whom nothing is due but for their labour in which sense are our Divines to be understood when they deny him to have merited for himself yet what he did and suffered was necessary for himself at least as a condition without which he had not obtained that advancement which now he hath viz. power of sending the Spirit Act. 2. 33. dominion over Angels in short all power both in heaven and earth as our Divines do liberally grant Which promises are not made to us but to Christ though instrictnesse of propriety he did not merit them And therefore though I do not find that he is called his own mediatour yet he was his own way unto the father Joh. 14. 4 6. forasmuch as not without the rending of his flesh and the shedding of his own blood he entred into the holy place Heb. 9. 11 12. Mr. Eyre proves his consequence in these words Christ is the mediatour of the new covenant Heb. 12. 24. Faith is bestowed upon us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Now Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not of a covenant made singly and particularly with himself for a man is not properly a Mediatour for himself Answ Which words if they had stood by themselves as an argument directly proving the maine question viz. that faith is given us by virtue of the covenant made with us they had been of more strength then all that Mr. Eyre hath said for it besides But as they now stand for a proof of the foresaid consequence I cannot imagine into what forme to cast them though I have toyled my self about it more then enough Therefore leaving it to Mr. Eyre to shew how they prove his consequence let us consider them as an argument by themselves the forme whereof is this What is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour is given us by that covenant which is made with us the reason is because Christ is the Mediatour of the covenant made with us not with himself But faith is given us by virtue of that covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour Ergâ— I cannot guesse what strength the argument looseth in this forme if it loose any Mr. Eyre must thank himself for speaking no plainer my answer to it is this faith may be said to be given by virtue of the covenant in a double respect 1. Operatione â—fficacia foederis by the operation and efficiency of the covenant working faith in the soul by the power of the Spirit accompanying it In this sense I deny the proposition because what is given us by the efficiency of the covenant doth not suppose us to be in covenant before our receiving it forasmuch as the working of faith it self by which we are brought into covenant is the effect of the covenant or 2. Ex obligatione faederis and so that is given by virtue of the covenant which we by the covenant have a right to receive and God by the same covenant hath obliged himself to us to bestow upon us In this sense which onely is proper to our Argument I deny the assumption because there is no covenant whereof Christ is Mediatour which gives any man a right to the receiving of faith or makes it due to him that faith be given him as I shall farther shew by and by when I come to examine Mr. Eyres answer to my explication of Heb. 8. 10. And that faith is given us by the righteousnesse and merits of Christ will never prove that therefore it is given us as unto a people in covenant with God What may not Christ merit faith that thereby we might be estated in the covenant though I will also tell Mr. Eyre that the three places he mentions viz. 2 Pet. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 3. Rom. 8. 32. to prove that we obtaine faith by the merits of Christ would never convince me if I were contrary minded The third argument proceeds thus If faith be given us by virtue §. 9 of that covenant whereby justification sanctification perseverance and glory are bestowed upon us then faith is given us by virtue of that covenant which is made with us But the first is true Ergo so is the last In the same covenant wherein God promiseth to cleanse us from our filthinesse to cause to walk in his ways c. he promiseth to circumcise our hearts to make us beleeve c. Ezek. 36. 25. c. Jer. 31. 34. Answ I deny the assumption if understood according to the foregoing distinction of what is given by a covenant obligation Till I see better proofe then any I meet with in Mr. Eyres book which I beleeve I never shall it will never enter into my heart that God is as much bound to give faith to sinners and rebells as he is to give righteousnesse and salvation to beleevers As for the proofe out of Ezek. 36. and Jer. 31. I deny that God doth give righteousnesse or glory by virtue that is by the obligation of the covenant there mentioned The reason which shall be farther explained by and by is because those texts do not expresse the forme and tenor of the covenant of grace but onely the matter and particulars wherein God would make the said covenant as administred in the days of Christ to excell it self in its administration before his coming As for example that it shall have greater efficacy in giving ability to fulfill it and to conferre more excellent spirituall and eternal blessings to them that do fulfill it But he that declares that his purpose is to establish and enact such a covenant by and according to which such excellent blessings shall be given doth not by such a declaration oblige himself to give them it is the covenant it self enacted and established which enduceth the obligation Wherefore the texts mentioned do indeed declare that the effects of the new Covenant that is of the Covenant in its new administration shall be farre more excellent then of the old but they do by no means declare that the said Covenant shall produce these effects in one and the same way or manner It produceth faith by its reall efficacy as I may so call it for it is the new Covenant which administreth that Spirit by which faith is wrought and having thus brought souls within the bond and made them to take hold of it self it produceth justification perseverance and salvation by its legall efficacy inasmuch as it makes these and all other blessings due to them that beleeve The fourth argument succeeds Faith is given by virtue §. 10. of that Covenant which was made with Abraham and his seed Ergo it is given by virtue of the Covenant made with us Answ I deny the antecedent The reason is because the seed of Abraham according to Scripture are they that do beleeve Rom. 4. 11 16.
That I may as well say that the bond and condition of the covenant on our part is expressed in that clause I will be their God which one would have the condition of the covenant on our part who that one is I do not know but I know one who may stand in steed of many hundreds d Thes 4. pag. 109. ex Gen. 17. 1. Hos 2. 16. 23. Dr. John Reynâ—lds who was accounted the ornament and wonder of his age for piety and learning that doth so expound those words and that from one who is above all even God himself who doth plainly so sense the words in some places Dâ—â—t 26. 17 18. Zech. 13. 9. Neverthelesse I did wave this interpretation in this place and interpret both clauses I will be their God and they shall be my people as expressing one and the same thing in reference to two tearmes as when it is said I wiâ—l be their father and they shall be my children because whatsoever is essentiall to the taking of the Lord for our God I conceive to be included in the words foregoing I will write my Laws in their hearts c. Whereas I said that faith is not promised as an effect of the Covenant §. 20. already made but as the means by which we are brought into Covenant this Mr. Eyre invades by many arguments â— saith he the same words cannot be formally both a precept and a promise This is answered already The words are a promise but they suppose a precept what Is it such a strangâ— thing in Scripture that that should be promised which is our duty to do Ezek. 26 27. God promiseth to cause us to walk in his statutes Is it therefore no duty of ours to walk in his statutes In the same chapter v. 26. he promiseth to give a new heart and a new Spirit yet are we elsewhere commanded to make as a new heart and a new Spirit Ezek. 18. 31 God hath promised to circumcise our hearts to love him Deut. 30. 6. Yet is it our duty to circumcise our hearts Jer. 4. 4. And may not then faith be promised and that as the condition or meanes by which we are brought into Covenant Mr. Eyre 2. If the promise of faith be a part of the new Covenant then faith it self is an effect of the Covenant or a benefit given by virtue of it But the promise of faith is part of the new Covenant Ergo. Rep. I deny the Assumption The new Covenant worketh or begetteth faith but it doth not promise it Note therefore Reader that there is a great difference between what is promised concerning the new Covenant and what the new Covenant promiseth Concerning the new Covenant it was promised that it should be effectual to quicken the soul and cause it to beleeve but it self doth not promise to make us beleeve If it did forasmuch as that can be no other then an absolute promise then God doth promise in the Old-Testament namely Jer. 31. 31. that he will promise faith in the New But a promise to promise and that to the very same persons concerning the same benefit is so contrary to reason and runs such an infinite course of promising without beginning or ending that it may not be admitted But how doth Mr. Eyre prove his Assumption Thus. All the promises of God do belong either to the Covenaut of works or to the Covenant of grace The promise of faith is no part of the Covenant of works Ergo of the Covenant of grace Rep. I deny the proposition The promise of the Covenant of grace it self Of which Covenant is it a part of the Covenant of works or of the Covenant of grace not of the former for that promiseth no good to sinners Not of the latter for the Covenant it self is the thing promised If then the Covenant it self may be promised and yet that promise be no part of the Covenant may it not also be promised to be in such a manner or degree more or lesse efficacious and perfect and yet that promise in like manner be no part of the said Covenant Hence we answer the third argument If the promise of faith be an effect of Christs death then it is an effect of the Covenant already made for all the effects of his death are effects of the Covenant which was confirmed by his death Rep. I deny the consequence with the proof of it Not to question againe whether Christ merited the Covenant M. Eyre here acknowledgeth that he confirmed it in his death But that which confirmes the Covenant is no part of the Covenant for the whole Covenant is the thing confirmed Ergo all the effects of Christs death are not the effects of the Covenant which God hath made with us Yea and the preaching of the Gospell to all nations Gentiles as well as Jews that they thereby might be brought into Covenant is an effect of the death of Christ Eph. 2. 16 17. Colos 1. 20. But affording the means by which men may be brought into covenant is not an effect of the covenant In like manner the promise of a better covenant which God would make in the dayes of Christ a covenant more able and successefull in all respects may be very well yeelded to â—â— the effect of the death of Christ but it will by no means follâ—â— that therefore that promise is also an effect of the Covenant promised 4ly Thus he speaks The Scripture no where affirmes that faith is promised as a means to bring us into covenant or to invest us with a right and title thereunto Rep. Nor doth it any where say that it is promised as a part of the Covenant already made with us But it sayes that in sense which Mr. Eyre denyes and that in this very place supposing which Mr. Eyre hath not hitherto denyed that faith is included in those words I will put my laws into their minds c. For in these words as we are forced often to note is declared the successe of the new covenant above the old that it should enable men to beleeve that God may be their God and they his people But if it were not promised in this place yet the constant voyce of the Gospel is beleeve and thou shalt be saved Which words shew that faith is the means by which we obtaine the blessings of the Covenant What saith Mr. Eyre against it Nothing but this we may as well make Baptisme Sanctification Perseverance c. to which the promise of salvation is sometimes annexed means to bring us into Covenant Rep. Alas how frigidly where is the Scripture that saith Be baptized and thou shalt be saved or where doth it say to men that are strangers from the covenant persevere and you shall be saved Indeed they that have already received Christ are wont to be exhorted to holinesse and perseverance in the faith that they may not lose or forfeit their right Rev. 22. 14. and 21. 7. 2 John 8.
Which way doth this prove that Gods eternall Election is the thing in respect of which he is our God and we his people 4. That the said Covenant was a type of the Covenant made with Christ Yet againe The Prophet inferres this their relation unto God from his everlasting love Jeremiah 31. 1 3. Answ Negatur The Apostle likewise Romans 8. 31. Answer Negatur So 2 Tim. 2. 19. The foundation of God standeth sure The Lord knoweth who are his Implying that the Election and foreknowledge of God doth make men his Ans Mr. Eyre knows how Mr. Mede and others expound this place Prove 1. That by Gods foundation and knowledge is meant his Election and foreknowledg 2. That his are meant of his by Election It may be meant of such as are his by sincerity of faith 3. That if men were called his in reference to his Election of them it must therefore needs be understood in the same sense as when he is said to be our God and we his people The second Argument is this God is a God not only to his §. 3. people who are called and do believe but to their seed who are not called and do not yet beleeve As the God of Abraham and his seed So Act. 2. 39. The promise is to you and your children This is the ground of Infant Baptisme Answ It is not then in reference to Election that God is said to be our God and we his people for certainly all the children of faithful Parents are not elected 2. The children of the faithful are altogether in the same Covenant with their Parents whiles by reason of their infant age they are in morall consideration raâ—â—er parts of their parents then divided from them by a personal subsistence of their own as not being then able either to owne or reject their Fathers Covenant Neverthelesse when they come of age they must themselves answer and fulfill the conditions of the Covenant as their Fathers did else will God call them as he did Israel Hos 1. 6 9. Lo Ammi Lo Ruhama ye are not my people nor will I be your God And thus I think are all those Covenants to be understood wherein God promiseth mercy to the faithful and to their seed God promised mercy to David and his house yet so that thy children take heed to their way to walk in my Law as thou hast walked before me 2 Chron. 6. 16. and chap. 7. 17 18 19. God promised mercy to Abraham and his seed by vertue of which promise he was gracious to the children that had not rebelled against him though the same promise profited not their Parents because of their unbelief Deut. 1. 39 40. With Heb. 4. 1 2. and often doth the Lord require of them to return to him and obey his voice that he might give them the blessings of their Fathers Covenant See Lev. 26. 40 41 42. Deut. 29. 12 13. and other places innumerable In like manner the promise is to you and your children saith Peter Act. 2. 39. therefore are they exhorted to repent and be baptized that they and their children might continue the people of God and partake in the full blessednesse promised long before and now exhibited in Christ Jesus The same promise is left to all in the Church under the Gospel Heb. 4. 1 2 c. But it concerns them to see that they do not fall short of it through unbelief as the Apostle there speaks The sum is God is the God of the infants of faithful Parents in signe whereof they are baptized But they when they are grown up must see that they personally fulfill the conditions of the Covenant otherwise God remaines no longer their God unlesse it be externall and in regard of outward Administrations which doth not concerne our question Thirdly thus he argues They whom the Lord hath purchased §. 4. to be a peculiar people to himself have the Lord to be their God Answ I deny this proposition Christ purchased his wife before he made her his wife and he purchased a people out of the hands of those Lords that ruled over them Sin Satan the Law and God himselfe as the Judge and Executioner of his Law before he made them his people Indeed Mr. Eyre tells us a little below that by the purchase of the blood of Christ we were made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a peculiar people Tit. 2. 14. when the text saies no such thing but the just contrary He gave himself for us that he might purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works He might as well say that by the death of Christ immediately we are made zealous of good works or redeemed from all iniquity that is made to deny all ungodlinesse and worldly lusts for that 's the meaning of those words here as appears by their opposition to verse 12. That which makes us a pâ—culiar or a choise and excellent people is Christs purifying us which purifying being the effect and end of his death is some other act then his dying for us Compare Eph. 5. 25 26. 2. This Argument contradicts the first There Mr. Eyre argued that God was our God and we his people by the act of eternal election if that be true then the purchase of Christ is not that which immediately makes God our God and us his people 3. The promise that God will be our God and we his people is no effect of Christs death if his purchase immediately made that God was our God and we his people for what was already done could not be promised to be done But saith Mr. Eyre What a man purchaseth he obtains a Legal right and propriety in therefore the Apostle concludes from hence that we are not our own but Gods because we are bought with a price 1 Cor. 6. 19 20. Answ A right Why I doubt not but God and Christ have a right not onely by creation but by redemption to the obedience and subjection of all the world at least wheresoever he comes by the Gospel to challenge it that they should not live to themselves but should wholly addict themselves to glorifie God in their souls and bodies Otherwise let Mr. Eyre tell me how men can be said to deny the Lord that bought them 2 Pet. 2. 1. 2. But if this were not so and that it were no sin in men to deny the Redeemer to be their rightfull Lord as the Apostle sayes he is Rom. 14. 9. What hath Mr. Eyre gained If I buy a piece of Land to make it a Garden an Orchard or a Vineyard 't is neither of these till I have made it so Or if I purchase a servants freedome that I may make him my heire some other act besides the meer purchase is necessary that he may be my heir In like manner if Christ purchase sinners that he may purifie them and make them his peculiar people they are not his people nor is he their God meerly because of his
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